Re: [WDDM] Some comments on GM's SHADOW PARLIAMENT

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

Hi friends

well, on Jan. 2000 I've got the English "Presentation" to a (Italian)
book of mine, by Kerry Miller, a friend.  There, Kerry stressed the
difference between the linguage of the Academe and that of common
citizens (whom I called "People In The Streets", PITS.)

Wanting to explain why Georges Metanomski's language -- see at
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomski.index.htm --
is unfit to convey popular, i.e. democratic, necessities I am going to
expose here the analogy between  and the academic language (called
"speciesist" in the Presentation).

Actually, Georges Metanomski seems like managing to substitute
PITS' language with a new, scientifically structured, "Second
Enlightenment" language: his own, with a special morphology and
syntax and -- most of all -- references: that is, his own *structured*
language.   Therefore, all what the others say, without or outside his
scientific structure, becomes automatically "meaningless prattle" --
he says.

So it goes, hoping it helps.
Regards,  antonio

=============== Presentation ===============
Presentation

(by Kerry Miller - 13 Jan. 2,000
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/miller02.htm )

In an online discussion on the topic, "Linguistics as speciesist?"  Dan
Alford wrote:
"I remember knowing about racism but not yet knowing about
institutionalized
racism -- wherein an institution is so permeated with racism that people
are not
even aware that what they say or do is racist.

"But let's change the word 'racist' to 'species-ist', since  1)  racist
doesn't exactly fit cross-species issues except in the older meaning of
"human race", 2)  species-ist points more clearly to our
anthropocentrism, and  3)  I no longer like to use the current concept
of race because the history of its use over only the past 100 years with
this particular meaning (check the OED) has not proven useful to me for
inclusion into any explanations.

"... Let's next consider whether linguistics may be guilty of not overt
but covert and institutionalized species-ism, embedded so pervasively as
to be invisible to some.  Moonhawk's Institutionalized Species-ism
Hypothesis predicts that unwitting species-ism will be reflected:
* in textbooks through the positing of such processes as syntax and
morphology (which we claim animals don't have) as "universals of language"
* in the use of metonymy (part for whole) to define *language*  in terms
of these putative universals, syntax & morphology, processes we claim
only humans have, and then in calling everything else without such
machinery *communication* (which 'true linguists' don't study or publish
on.  N.B., it's not like you can go to a School or Department of
*Communication* to study how animals communicate -- so this is
terminological limbo: few linguists really care what animals do; it's
seen as irrelevant).

<<Here the analogy is clear.  "Syntax and morphology as universals of
language" parallel Metanomski's "structured language". What other people
say is seen as irrelevant>>

* such truisms as "there are no primitive languages" in our intro
classes -- where primitive is tacitly understood to mean å"with reduced
or without the machinery of morphology & syntax".  (This automatically
disallows what apes, cetaceans and others do from being called language,
given our other claims above.)
* the omission of "Chimpanzee" in the inventory of world's languages
* such constructs as LAD (Language Acquisition Device) and "innate
predisposition to language" applied uniquely to humans. (Have you ever
seen anyone positing either construct for the great apes or cetaceans?)
<<

"... Look around with sensitive eyes and you'll see the subtle signs of
this species-ism everywhere. No one has to plot or say anything overtly
species-ist because, given the totality of our system, animals can never
break through our self-imposed cultural DEFINITIONAL language barrier
(as Sue Savage-Rumbaugh so aptly notes). If a chimp and a child perform
exactly the same behavior, the child's is adjudged *linguistic* and the
chimp's is not, because children, unlike chimps, are said to be "on
their way to language" (i.e., syntax)."  (1)

... (snipped by antonio)

" The effect is to disallow what PITS *do from being meaningfully
"called" communicating -- everybody does it, from cetaceans and
chimpanzees to the "high-definition" rasters of one's video terminal --
while the only purposes  for human interaction that are "identifiable"
will be those of the communicating "subject," i.e. the individual
organism.  Collective, cultural,  social reasons ("values") are
"bracketed out."

Writing, as Socrates foresaw, separates content from container (conduit,
context), information from insight, and experience from behaviour
(conduct, no?).  *Writism -- the idea that people are no longer aware
that their  mediated actions are only an 'alterity,' makes the
separation 'inevitable' or 'paradigmatic.'  Literacy becomes the *frame
of reference within which any discussion is foregrounded, and thus
"discussion" cannot question the mechanism of literacy itself without
being 'prima facie' absurd.

<<This process is typical of Metanomski's structured language;
"discussion" cannot question the mechanism of his structured literacy
itself without being 'prima facie' absurd>>

Why, then does Dr R suppose that Yet Another Book (YAB) is appropriate?
What has changed in two thousand-odd years?  For one thing, the Internet
-- and I would leave it at that, except that I'm a writer, too, and must
obey syntactical and morphological demands:

For one thing, the Internet put 6 or 60 million people in one place:
idiots and savants, tinkers and thinkers, are tossed together like
flotsam on the tide -- and since no writist conceived of the
possibility, the defences were down.  PITS began to *talk with one
another, entirely ignoring the protocols and decorums and the rest of
the (metonymic) machinery of being a writer, of being *literate.  The
evidence (and it's out there, in the lists and archives and IRC
transcripts, for anyone who cares to read) reveals, however, that PITS
no longer remember (in Socrates' sense) how to talk; instead, they have
writist ideas of talking.  The best they can do is to write "as if" they
are talking, but with none of the collective values that used to inform
talking.  (This view is supported by the fact that too many people
offline speak - not as if they are writers, for that would be
presumptuous - but as if their listeners are *readers; that is,
"disembodied," disaffected, remote observers rather than involved,
immediate actors.)

The same dedication to cultural integrity and societal functionality
that took Dr R into family medicine brought him to see the opportunity,
really the  necessity, for "reinventing" a socially coherent ethos.
Regardless of their numbers, those who are online are not an *abnormal
percentage of the population at large.  The absence of an Internet
culture is merely a symptom  of a general malaise, and (by poking and
prodding the communicative corpus in a number of ways), he has isolated
a *syndrome; that is, a collection of related phenomena which suggest a
common etiology or vector of propagation.  If, he reasons, the syndrome
presents as writism, perhaps  the prime causative agent is *educationism
-- the idea that fashioning  children into human beings can safely be
left to institutions. Certainly, nowhere within the social system does
he find natural resistance [antibodies?] to this meme.

I am afraid it is a true pandemic, and Dr R's warning may be too late to
be heard correctly.  That parents are educators, that education should
inform parenting from ones earliest days on the receiving end right
through to propagation, parturition and beyond, that academia has social
responsibilities, that drug addiction in youth and stress-induced
disease in adults are not isolated malfunctions or idiopathies but
systemic patterns -- most likely, none of these indicators will be seen
by those who can take action on them.  You have in your hands a poor
imitation of, but as ironic a record as, Plato's writing down Socrates'
wisdom, doomed to be preserved  for posterity.

As a writer, of course, I am familiar with that outcome.  As writists,
of course, you doubtless appreciate how effectively "publication"
channels  large amounts of human motivation and energy into harmless,
ersatz, bookish "containers."  Who could predict (that is, control) what
would happen if
PITS *realised their potential?

 ===========
1. Found at http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/6/6-61.html , 13 Jan
2000.

2. Socrates ascribes his concerns to Tut-ankh-amun, when
   Thoth reported his discovery of writing:
   'Theuth, my paragon of inventors,'- replied the king, -'the
   discoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm
   which will accrue to those who practise it.  So it is in this case;
   you, who are the father of writing, have out of fondness for
   your offspring attributed to it quite the opposite of its real
   function.  Those who acquire it will cease to exercise their
   memory and become forgetful; they will rely on writing to
   bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of
   on their own internal resources.  What you have discovered is
   a receipt for recollection, not for memory.  And as for wisdom,
   your pupils will have the reputation for it without the reality:
   they will receive a quantity of information without proper
   instruction, and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable
   when they are for the most part quite ignorant.  And because
   they are filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real
   wisdom they will be a burden to society.'
(From Walter Hamilton, (trans.), _Plato: Phaedrus & Letters Vii And
Viii_. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.)
____________


----------------- original msg --------------
> Dear Antonio,
> It is not me who argues with you, but the paradox of you claiming
> democracy is good, however refusing to be democratic.
> I pointed out Georges "shadow government" could in fact be an
> assembly of citizens choosing how to "run their government".
> However I also disagreed with his single method which did not
> include all people. I also personally do not like the pure academic
> model.
> You said it better.
> So  we agree Antonio.
> Cheers, Bruce
>
>     Dear Bruce
>
>     if you've found that my comments to George's are "excellent
>     evaluation",
>     the, either you have got them misunderstood, or I shall have got
>     something wrong in my writing...
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     antonio
>
>     Bruce Eggum wrote:
>     > Excellent evaluation Antonio. The concept shadow parliament is
>     > perhaps good but the tools to implement fail the all people test.
>     > Bruce
>     >
>     > On 8/3/07, Antonio Rossin  <mailto: rossin(at)tin.it>>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     >     I read and comment some points of George's "SHADOW PARLIAMENT"
>     >
>     >     QUOTE
>     >     > 2.2.1.1.2. LOGISTIC.
>     >     >
>     >     > Consensus of a Group of that size may only be achieved
>     with help of
>     >     > anadequate "3F" E-Platform.
>     >     > Short experience with my CN shows that while such Platform is
>     >     > feasible, adequate and efficient, its refining and, above
>     all, the
>     >     > apprenticeship of its use will require at least a generation.
>     >     > The main difficulty seems to reside not so much in Platform's
>     >     > complexity, but in mental rigidity engendered by our
>     educational
>     >     > system making people unable to understand, let alone to apply
>     >     > concepts sorting of beaten paths.
>     >     > Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather self
>     educated
>     >     > people were able to make worth while contributions to CN.
>     >     ENDQUOTE
>     >
>     >     (ant)
>     >     To expose the problem, this paragraph should be divided in
>     two parts:
>     >     2.2.1.1.2.1.  Against
>     >     Mental rigidity engendered by our educational system
>     >     (indeed, some analysis of "our educational system" could help,
>     >     here, in
>     >     order to check out whether there are positive and/or negative
>     >     features of
>     >     this system, aiming at improving it.)
>     >
>     >     2.2.1.1.2.2 .  For (Pre-requisites)
>     >     only very young and uneducated, or rather self educated people
>     >     were able
>     >     to make worth while contributions to CN.
>     >
>     >     (this statement looks rather relevant, to be underlined,
>     because it
>     >     addresses the target straight.
>     >     BTW, there it appears a new acronym, CN, without any previous
>     >     reference in the document.  I shall interpret it as "DD".
>     >     ==============================================
>     >     QUOTE
>     >     > 2.2.1.1.3. SINCERITY.
>     >     >
>     >     > It is the critical condition: members must be capable to
>     >     conceive and
>     >     > accept local, i.e. personal sacrifices involved by the global
>     >     > improvement. This short phrase implies a fundamental change of
>     >     > mentality, replacement of present egoism with something
>     similar
>     >     to the
>     >     > attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim.
>     >     > BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist of DD
>     should start
>     >     > by a stage in a Kibbutz, as it's the only truly DD social
>     group
>     >     in the
>     >     > history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was in reality an
>     >     > Oligarchy eliminating from power the majority: metecs and
>     slaves.)
>     >     > If Logistics requires at least a generation, Sincerity
>     will come
>     >     still
>     >     > later, if ever, its necessary condition is the New Manner of
>     >     Thinking
>     >     > discussed below.
>     >     ENDQUOTE
>     >     (ant)
>     >     This implies that there will be no sincere protagonist of DD
>     even,
>     >     except the Israeli people, since it sounds quite unlikely
>     >     that  people  from other countries -- especially those addressed
>     >     in point 2.2.1.1.2.2. Pre-requisites -- may enter voluntarily  a
>     >     Kibbutzim.  The other way seems to be more feasible, at least
>     >     theoretically, that is exporting the Kibbutzim collectivity
>     model
>     >     from Israeli into foreign countries.
>     >     That is, this point requires more deepening, not to fall into
>     >     absurdity.
>     >
>     >     Also, some hints about the development of DD (if any --
>     reasonably
>     >     caused thanks to the Kibbutzim model) in the Israeli country
>     >     could  help.
>     >     ======================================================
>     >     QUOTE
>     >     > 2.2.1.1.4. SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
>     >     >
>     >     (cut by ant)
>     >     > 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.
>     >     >
>     >     > Ontological foundations of RD may be seen in Relativistic
>     >     > Phenomenology
>     >     ENDQUOTE
>     >
>     >     (ant)
>     >     This implies that the ontological foundations of Direct
>     Democracy
>     >     stem from a so-called "Relativistic Dialectic" and
>     especially from
>     >     Georges
>     >     Metanomski's Relativistic Phenomenology.
>     >
>     >     I guess, this assumption seems far more compatible with the
>     >     (un-quoted)
>     >     2.1. LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION  item in GM's document,
>     >     since it is the Ontological foundations, namely RD, the
>     >     "legislation" that
>     >     might determine the DD action.
>     >
>     >     Th After all, it has been the "action" of Descartes, Galileo
>     and
>     >     Newton that determined the first Enlightenment, which has been
>     >     later "legislated" by Kant end the Encyclopedists.
>     >
>     >     All of which contradicts GM's preferences (and mine) that
>     are in favor
>     >     of  .2.2. ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION, which way "
>     >     As consequence of all above it seems the only way left.
>     Which form
>     >     may
>     >     it take? I can see only one, the 2.2.1. Shadow Parliament
>     >     presented below."
>     >     ====================================
>     >     QUOTE
>     >     > 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.
>     >     >
>     >     > Ontological foundations of RD may be seen in Relativistic
>     >     > Phenomenology
>     >     ENDQUOTE
>     >
>     >     (ant)
>     >     Trying to draw a conclusion, GM's contribution appears to be in
>     >     favour
>     >     of the foundations of a "Second Enlightenment and to its
>     >     socio-political
>     >     outcome, the Direct Democracy", i.e. "legislation".  Whic
>     seems to be
>     >     contradictory to the document aims as exposed in 2.2. paragraph.
>     >
>     >     Therefore, the "Shadow Parliament" document doesn't meet the DD
>     >     target requirements, since the basic DD people appear to
>     live inside
>     >     another world and speak another, far simpler
>     language.  Unless the
>     >     "sincere" target of the document was another: not exactly
>     the world
>     >     of Direct Democracy, but the world of the Academe and the
>     "Second
>     >     Enlightenment" Encyclopedists.   Does the History repeat itself?
>     >
>     >
>     >     Regards,
>     >
>     >     antonio