Bruce, have you seen The National Initiative for Democracy being
promoted by Mike Gravel at http://ni4d.us/ ,with Mike Gravels
talk about people empowerment must have raised the profile of our
causes.
With the Swish system could the
people call a referendum that what force their troops home from a conflict
?
With the Swish referendums it
is only voluntary vote is this
correct?
Is
there a minimum number that has to vote to be declared a success
?
Cheers Martin Jackson
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to
Antonio Pity you only want control. With no procedure to do it
and your refusal to discuss processes knowledgeable community members have
developed, you will fail. Bruce
On 7/19/07, Antonio
Rossin
wrote:
Bruce
Eggum ha scritto: > The issue is government. Let us discuss the
processes which have been > presented on government. If you disagree
or agree please explain why. > Perhaps if we analyze government
instead of each other we can be on > to much better
things.
(ant) I disagree. The issue is
control. Which in its turn requires knowledge. Which in its
turn requires open dialectical discussion on everything.
As for
myself, I don't care very much for what the government could be, provided only the utmost amount of acknowledged people can, and
want to, control it directly - eg., via I&R - in what is called
Democracy.
antonio
> > I snip and
comment on Georges Shadow Government. Mu opinion. (no i > ain't
humble, and i ain't seen many 'round here who were.) > > Georges
Shadow Government, a different name but same
process. > > > Snapshot
I&R What is snapshot I&R? > >
Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be > > in
reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver > > of Particracy
against the true DD. > > > > Bruce shakes his head
???????????????????? huh? > > > > Einstein's
assertion: > > > > "A new manner of thinking is
essential if humankind is to survive." > > > > A
clear call for Enlightenment understood as people's > >
emergence from obscurantism imposed dogmatically by > >
established governance, media, education and
religions. > > > > But than Georges
says: > > That's why we endeavor to explicate Relativistic > > Dialectic in ontological and epistemological
terms > > as a modest contribution to the Second
Enlightenment > > and to its socio-political outcome, the
Direct > > Democracy. > > > > Bruce
states: So, you add all the dogmatic academic crap and we are > back
to zero! > > > > Initiative and BINDING Referendum
preceded by discussion, evaluation, > is certainly not a "snapshot".
Certainly many things go into the > choices people make, much of which
is uncontrollable. Media will > always have an impact. People must
trust less and examine closer. > Lessons, some are hard. But lessons
do come. The I&Br Process = Idea, > discussion, initiative
presented, more discussion, perhaps amended, > initiative accepted (or
rejected), presented for referendum (more > discussion) Binding
Referendum pass or fail. > > > > I&BR could be
the tool for people to install a government they could > control.
Control is where the power is. > > > > A
massive infrastructure is needed to administrate a large country. > If
these people running government were given only administrative >
power, they would have to do what the people commanded. Elected >
administrators, recallable at any time. > > > >
Shadow government could than be brought in totally. It would be the >
process of the people deciding what commands to give the administrators. > > > > Now, we have many good software programs
which could help the people > in their deliberations. This of course
must be done totally outside of > the government
infrastructure. > > This is what WDDM began to do, than was
stopped by to many wanting to > do it their way rather than coming to
a WDDM Community decision. That > is why WDDM has been trying to
develop it's own infrastructure, so it > could proceed on it's goal
to provide information on Initiative and > Referendum which the people
could use to take over control of their > own community
government. > > Until people see they really can have control
and what steps they must > take to gain control, they will do
nothing. That is the clinker, > nobody can do it for the people, the
people must do it themselves. But > they must understand what must be
done and have some belief the > process will work. Thus a massive
sales /education process is > necessary using video,
recordings, phone messages, websites, email, > all of it. Not telling
anyone what to do, but that they CAN! > > This email list
gossiping gets nowhere. Let us take this to WDDM Forum > and proceed.
Just go to WDDM.org and sign in. If you need help with > passwords the
help is there or email Mirek. > > Georges you will love it. It
is a FORUM! > > Regards, Bruce > > > >
On 7/19/07, Antonio Rossin > wrote: > > > Giorgio Menon ha
scritto: > > Antonio Rossin
wrote: >
>> > >> Well, I remember very well
your insulting violence > >> in
rejecting any antithesis to your theses as "prattle, > >> meaningless asininity, bullshit"
and alike pleasantries. >
> > >
Antonio, > > you are a neurologist and no
one better than you can let me > >
understand what's happening in Georges' mind. I repeatedly > > read his insults and contempt toward
anyone who disagree > > with his ideas.
Then i read this: >
> > > "1.I don't write TO PEOPLE, but
ABOUT their massages. > > I'm probably the
only person on this list who does not write >
> ad personam. If it happened once or twice, show me
where > > and I appologize in
advance." > > > http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it& >
<
http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it&> >
> > > What do you
think? > > >
> Regards >
> > >
Giorgio > > >
> >
Giorgio, > > In my humble opinion -- but
also in my past experience > as a psychiatry
practitioner -- it is a matter of one's
brain > hemispheres working together to
process some thinking > line. The
question is, re to a given
input-idea-argument, > do the two brain
hemispheres co-operate together in good >
balance, or there is a strong, possibly absolute
dominance > of one hemisphere over the other? > > This question is
intriguing. > > In the past, we have
been told about a "mono-cameral > mind" which,
along with the evolution
of humankind, > is being slowly
substituted by some "bi-cameral mind". > > Let's suppose, humankind is still
evolving from the > "one hemisphere only!"
individual's manner to process > his-her
believing-behaving procedures, towards some >
"both hemispheres working together in good
balance" > manner of thinking and
behaving. > > More recently we have been
told by some "Shumacher > Society" that there
are two different attitudes of human > mind: the "*either/or*" one (which I would
call "*either* one > *or* the other brain
hemisphere!") and the "*and - and*" one >
(which corresponds to what I would call "*and* one *and* the > other brain hemisphere tied together in a
good balance"). > > Now, let me recall,
it is not that us humans are so rigidly >
divided into two strictly defined categories, the *either/or* > and the *and-and*. There can be
tendencies, nuances and > different
inputs-ideas-arguments that can be processed
as > well within one's thinking machine (AKA
Logics) in this > or that ways -- likely
enough, with the only exception of > the
religious fundamentalist, whose mind is able to
perform > the either/or manner of
thinking-behaving exclusively, for > any
input-idea-argument. > > Practically,
the "either-or" mind is far more precise than the > "and-and" one. The "either-or"
minded people don't bear > uncertainty, but
absolute ( i.e. unquestionable) truth only. >
Equally, the "either-or" minded one does not bear dialectics > (which implies antitheses to one's theses
as a methodology) > nor being
questioned-criticized. > > A question
arises: is the scientific fundamentalist
similar > to the religious
fundamentalist? I think it is, depending on > how the scientist behaves, i.e. performs
science : whether > for the sake of the
(absolute) scientific truth -- or for the >
sake of those of us who will follow, to wit, our
children. > > Clearly, the religious
fundamentalist behaves for the sake >
of God, regardlessly for their children 's
life. > > Also, fundamentalism
(religious or scientific, it does not >
matter) seems incompatible with Democracy, even if
the > fundamentalist claims it
is. > > > However, I must remark,
these different characters of > human mind do
not present in a "pure" form", even. > The
"either/or" and the "and-and" traits of the
human > mind represent the opposite poles of a
continuum with > countless intermediate
positions, although each one of > us (our
esteemed George Metanomski included) cannot >
but tend towards either one or the other of these
opposite >
polarities... > > > Hoping this
helps, > > antonio > > > > > -- > Bruce Eggum >
Gresham Wisconsin, USA > http://www.doinggovernment.com/
<
http://www.doinggovernment.com/> > Check out my Blog
too > http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/ > > >
-- Bruce Eggum Gresham Wisconsin, USA, www.doinggovernment.com; Check out my Blog too: bruceeggum.blogster.com
|