Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Dear S'ace, and members

To be very down in the earth, there is one only way to define
the top-down / bottom-up relationship.

This way but requires the acceptation of a forecast concept,
that of a hierarchy between the partners in any communication
relationship patterning.
Many people don't accept this hierarchy concept, and mistake
"communication" for peer-to-peer discussion, or for the thing
being communicated, or in any else way to exclude the concept
of hierarchy from any communication context, or patterning.

To me, "communication" means the action of a "people A" who
gives something -- usually, an information -- to a "people B".
The A / B communication relationship is therefore a hierarchic
relationship structure between the A (giver) and B (receiver)
roles.

This communication structure is a fractal, that is, we can
recognize it in the simplest level of the parent/child and the
teacher/pupil relationship -- or even simpler, in the case of a
person (receiver) who asks another person (giver): "What
time is it?" and receives the info "It is six o'clock " -- up to
the more complex level of political arrangement where laws
and policies are being given by the government (giver) to the
people (receiver).


To stick to the point: the government/people relationship is
hierarchic communication by which policies are being given
top-down to the (bottom) people. Usually, the bottom people
do install the hierarchy by electing top representatives.

At this point the very question arises as for the policies
origin.  Surely, policies shall be implemented top-down;
but, who is s/he who asks for them?

We agree, the people sovereign decide bottom-up for
whom their officials-representatives have to be, by
electing them at the voting polls.  BUT, who is it who
decides for what policies the officials-representatives
shall bring to implementation?

- if it is the bottom people in their democratic sovereignty,
via I&R or likes, policies have a bottom-up origin;

- if it is the top Representatives, policies have a top-down
origin and the bottom people have resigned their democratic
sovereignty.

All of this in theory.  In practice, other elements come into
play, to give the top-down policies a bottom-up appearance:
indoctrination, gullibility, bandwagoonism and such "bugs"...


Hoping this helps our discussion,

antonio









At 9:23 +0100 13-11-2006, S'ace orange wrote:
> dear members,
> a profound comment of our fellow contributor antonio
> calls for a reply or even more a collaborative process with the
> outcome of a definition
> for what "a bottom-up origin" actually is ...
>
> i offer the notion we might accept the context of:
> governance - dialogue - politics - democracy (GDPD)
> not arguing the simultaneousy of those 4 entities with
> i - it - its - we (KenWilbers Quadrant of Perspectives)
> (or if anyone does: feel free to initiate and guide the definition of GDPD)
>
> If we indeed succeed in defining the bottom-up origin ...
> the answer of how weaving this refinements in a 2007-jacket in the
> partakers of democracy minded minds
> maybe more simple than the way to it did psycholize? collaborative
> understandings paving the way of authentic our generations here.
>
> Feel free to refine my call,
> s'ace
>
>  >
>  > Dear S'ace,
>  > you seem like missing the basic condition by which "the anyone
>  > speaking of (direct) democracy looks like a joke ..." . This basic
>  > condition is policies having or having not a bottom-up origin.
>  >
>  > But...  if the "emerging new standards (to be installed)" were really
>  > emerging bottom-up, instead of being top-down indoctrinated as it
>  > happens as by most post-IIWW children, then all of this mess of
>  > words on what democracy is, or it shall be, could finally end into
>  > a museum and we could begin to 'speak' of democracy by facts...
>  >
>  > Ciao,
>  > ant
>  >
>  >