[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]
00758: Re: Giorgio
From: |
"S'ace orange" <cjdegroot(at)orange.nl> |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:29:04 +0100 |
Subject: |
Re: Giorgio |
thanks giorgio,
i agree most of your arguments
...
let us/me dismiss the
quest.
s'ace
"we inform presence, remember
authentic self, formulate practise, express us"
& struggle on&offwards
breathing d'emos
----- Original Message -----
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:38
PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining
"a bottom-up origin"
> 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 ...*
>> **
>
> Bottom-up or
top-down is a way to declare a society divided into casts,
> where uppers
casts rule, while lower casts work and generate the
> nation's
GDP.
> So no matter how bottom-up a decision is made, sooner or later the
> top-down hierarchy will chage it to make it work for their own
purposes.
> We should talk about their purposes then. I'm not an expert
but i think
> the US constitution is a good enough example to show how
the best
> intentions can become the worst nightmare in a stratified
society. This
> latter lacks the mechanism that guarantees equal
opportunities: elites
> will never leave any room to significant social
shifts.
> Yet this is partly true: people are in charge of the destiny of
the
> society and culture they belong to. So anytime is the right time to
> change, if this is what is sought. History shows that the right moment
> lasts just seconds, alas, swollowed as it is by the self referential
> mechanisms of social stratification. No matter if democrats or
>
republicans, if tories or laburists: top casts MUST be functional to the
> system which is essentially exploitation of the workers and huge
> benefits for the upper casts. Yes, there may be slight differences in
> the treatment of social inequalities but these must remain such, or the
> whole society collapses.
> So either top-down or bottom-up, we're
talking about minimal differences
> in the general footprint.
>
Besides history has shown that top-down decisions have been an excellent
> solution at times: see the successful decisions to protect the Japanese
> environment by top-down command.
>
> Bottom line:
bottom-up guarantees just nothing; there's a plethora of
> other factors
to consider.
>
> Just my 2c, of course
>
>
Giorgio
>
>
>
[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]