Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP, i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for “participatory?”
In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to its members, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.
The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimate transformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully open and transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately, as they see fit.
Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it will become much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public, and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far more efficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutually beneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and the public as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once they are doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending on the rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewards innovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., it issues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, I think that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!
I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, but rather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking, the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:
I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
ATB;
Gale
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond the individual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged or asleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?
Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannot be by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may set filters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximum intelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense could represent the entire output of an individual.
FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual - any individual
- will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing the
system. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can be
forced to be a proxy.
Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that there will be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. In a communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, in particular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too many clients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. The abstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there is not a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, you will have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not direct power, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuade your clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e., the proxies of people who are not going to actually contribute anything, is simply collecting dead weight.
This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runs quite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics. Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?
It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes, instead of establishing intelligent process. Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence must come first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.
To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open, public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private and secret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities are with TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operate privately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?
Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes the other one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom of selecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An example of such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.
However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximumintelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense couldrepresent the entire output of an individual.
OK.
FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual- any individual- will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing thesystem. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can beforced to be a proxy.Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that therewill be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. Ina communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, inparticular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too manyclients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. Theabstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there isnot a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, youwill have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not directpower, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuadeyour clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e.,the proxies of people who are not going to actually contributeanything, is simply collecting dead weight.This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?
Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.
It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes,instead of establishing intelligent process.
Going our way does not exlude adoptation process. Especially not in the open systems.
Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence mustcome first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open,public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private andsecret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities arewith TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operateprivately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.
Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? What we see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existing political paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controling information. So, if that can make the World the better place, if that is what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed its efficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatible to politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves, what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternative network based on internet?. One more thing. About networks. This is the project pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if one sentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, he turns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers to work together or to support those with greater chance.
Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeed in agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join my network. And that is not so easy task. Especially in the moment people under pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So, what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he can delegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment? I understand that you have larger picture in your head, but that picture is simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedure withouth feeling a pulse of others. And as long as others did not feel that pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofs is actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass. At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something important.
ATB,
Gale
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Some important points….
At 07:19 PM 10/3/2006, illegale wrote:
In more than one place, Gale disagrees without saying why, at all, not even to specify what specifically is being disagreed with. That an intelligence higher than that of the individual exists? That it is drugged or asleep (i.e., not functioning with full capacity)? That it is (as if) having a bad dream (i.e., wars, seeming powerlessness, etc.)? That sometimes it is a nice dream? (all the beauty of collective action that we experience)?Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)
Freedom of speech is oppression if there is no freedom not to listen, not to be able to function without wading through what happens when millions of people have free speech rights in a forum. Example: many usenet newsgroups, which gradually became, if unmoderated, extremely difficult to use.TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes theother one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom ofselecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An exampleof such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
In another post I explain why a filtered transcript is important. If, to understand a decision made by those active at a certain level, I must wade through myriads of irrelevant posts, understanding becomes quite difficult. Yes, some kind of rating system might accomplish this, but if it is done automatically, under the hood, so to speak, it becomes vulnerable to corruption or systemic error. I prefer to make specific, known people — and chosen by proxy delegation — responsible for filtering. Because such a system is built from the bottom up, individuals do have access with whatever wacky or sound ideas they might generate. Low-level proxies might operate completely open forums for their clients, among other things. The DP system means that members of the organization, all of them who have chosen proxies and been accepted, have access to someone who is, presumably, better connected than they are. Acceptance of a proxy does signify willingness to consider input from the person, to at least read it. If I’m a low-level proxy and there is some person who writes compulsively, and it is too much for me, I can attempt to find a client or other member who is willing to at least look it over; that person becomes the direct proxy of the loquacious client. None of this need be a formal requirement. All that is needed at the formal level is a proxy list which includes three fields: member handle, designated proxy handle, acceptance. The rest is what can be expected to happen in an organization that actually starts using DP.
Note that it is not necessary that DP be formally accepted for decision-making. It would merely be more convenient; instead of recommending that clients vote in a certain way, or otherwise exercise their personal power (which in, for example, standard corporate shareholder rights, would mean naming a formal proxy according to the rules of the corporation, perhaps a top proxy from the DP network), the delegated proxies could vote directly. It’s a small difference.
Any organization which allows members to vote by proxy can thus effectively use Delegable Proxy.
[on why I’m proposing a clean separation between communication and the exercise of power:]
I think the point was missed. The question is rhetorical; politics is, at best, not about how to “make things go our way,” but about finding courses of action which benefit the whole society. There is a subtle but important difference. It becomes obvious in societies which are badly polarized, where “winning” an election can be a total disaster if the minority is thus motivated to rebel. The voters (the majority, or the plurality in systems which allow a plurality winner, such as the U.S., which is even more dangerous) “got their way,” that is, they chose their favorite, someone who perhaps has a platform that appeals to them, or pretends to, which is too often the case, but they lost the ultimate goal, which is a functional society.This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.
Politics is about “making things go our way,” not my way. “Our way” means “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and FAs learn to respect the views of even a single member, continuing debate long beyond the point where a majority can be obtained. Without a means of concentrating debate into a small forum, this would be completely impractical in large organizations. Thus the importance of DP, which theoretically makes it possible to concentrate debate into a small group. not open to all, that is, not directly open. Indirectly, FA/DP is maximally open, it collectively attempts to listen to everyone.
And because it desires to do this, it cannot have an institutional bias, aside from that implied in the membership definition (and registration procedure). An FA/DP organization which is attempting to function as a communications network and consensus-generating mechanism for the whole society, thus, cannot take institutional positions. Once it does, it effectively excludes the minority.
This does not stop it from reporting poll results; and people may do what they wish with a result that is “196,495,782 members, voting directly or by proxy, support Measure A, and 37 members, similarly voting, were opposed.”
FA/DP organizations do make decisions, presumably by majority vote, regarding their own process. The protection against bias that can be introduced by this is the DP system, which makes it quite easy for a proxy to form a new organization that effectively becomes an opposing caucus, with an implied meta-organization which exists if any member from either caucus continues to participate in the other organizations. Only exclusion from self-defined membership blocks this, and thus an organization which is so exclusive cannot be more than a caucus within an open FA.
Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? Whatwe see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existingpolitical paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controlinginformation.
Good politics is. Power politics often is not….
FA/DP is not about the overthrow of the status quo, except to the degree that the status quo depends upon the lack of independent organization of the people. It does not attack existing institutions, period.
Now, this would be, in truth, a revolution. But, unless it is actively opposed with violence, a very gentle one. By definition, it solicits participation by all parties, including the “special interests,” including the oligarchs, and they lose nothing by participating, they only gain the opportunity to establish that their interest is actually the interest of society. If it is.
And most groups believe this, that their way is the best way…..
So, if that can make the World the better place, if thatis what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed itsefficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatibleto politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves,what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternativenetwork based on internet?.
I’d say new political paradigm! Internet is a tool, a device. The true problem is that people believe that they are powerless, so why bother organizing? Besides, every organization that they have known has ultimately failed them, has been corrupted. The entire intellectual class in Ethiopia supported the Mengistu Haile Maryam revolution. Which quickly became one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern history, murdering all opposition. And charging the families of the murdered for the bullets before allowing them to pick up the bodies….
No, we don’t start with the exercise of power. We start with communication, with methods for seeking and finding consensus. This is, in my view, the only way to securely avoid those disasters.
One more thing. About networks. This is theproject pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if onesentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, heturns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers towork together or to support those with greater chance.
Yes. But this is generally based upon a particular platform. FA/DP is metaplatform.
Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeedin agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join mynetwork. And that is not so easy task.
Indeed, it is quite difficult. However, what is the standard of success? I consider my work successful over the last few years, but it started from nothing. Given that what I’m promoting is a wider understanding of certain concepts, this being the first step, I can see great progress. Delegable Proxy, for example, is now widely recognized among election methods experts as being an “ideal” system. They still think, mostly, that there is no way to get from here to there, because they still think in terms of official, legal systems, power structures. The FA concepts are much harder, they go quite against expectations.
Especially in the moment peopleunder pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So,what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he candelegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment?
He needs it, but he does not know that he needs it. He is, in Mark’s delicate language, a lemming. He is responsive to the opinions and views of those around him. Get enough people moving in this direction, he will join. Until then, he won’t give it the time of day.
Rationally, everyone should register at
http://beyondpolitics.org/wiki. What does it cost? The slogan is:
“Lift a finger, save the world.”
But most people won’t lift a finger. Why not?
I know why, and I also know how to move around this. But it’s a huge topic. It will take time, is the bottom line.
What is needed now is not for everyone to join. What is needed is for one more person to join, and to attempt to understand the concepts. We are at a point where each individual participant is worth a great deal.
As there are more people participating, more again will come. The goal at this point is for enough people to understand the FA/DP concepts that the probability of them being implemented in a “real” organization reaches significance. This could happen at any time. We are working on this, all of us, I’d say, but the inertia is tremendous.
Iunderstand that you have larger picture in your head, but that pictureis simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedurewithouth feeling a pulse of others.
I’m quite aware of the pulse. I’m not trying, at this time, to create a mass movement. I’m trying to create a small organization which can seed larger ones. It would be lovely to see any examples of DP in actual use. Demoex never really tried it sufficiently.
And as long as others did not feelthat pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofsis actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass.At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong orif I missed something important.
The problem at this point is not in convincing everyone. Indeed, I don’t want to convince anyone of anything, except that all this is worth examining. If it is wrong, how? Telling us would be a great public service!
What the problem is now is getting one more active member, someone interested in understanding the concepts and in doing what I’ve been doing: encouraging broader discussion and understanding. There is one, Jan Kok, you saw him here. With three, putting in even a few hours a week, we would have, I believe, the core, and growth would accelerate.
The solution in general is becoming supersaturated. The necessary understandings are beginning to appear everywhere. All it will take, I suspect, is a seed crystal and the whole picture will appear, quite rapidly.
But getting that crystal together is astonishingly difficult. If this were a standard political cause, it would be relatively easy. People get fired up about causes. And then they burn out….
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Lomax
On Monday 11 September 2006 04:36, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP,i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for"participatory?"TOP stands for Transparent Open Public.
In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to itsmembers, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.
OK
The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimatetransformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully openand transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately,as they see fit.
What do you mean by still function privately?
Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it willbecome much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public,and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far moreefficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutuallybeneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and thepublic as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once theyare doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending onthe rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewardsinnovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., itissues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, Ithink that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
OK, this is a start. Do you think FA/DP could be further optimized through additional concepts (e.g. TOP, integral decision making process, fishnet organization etc.)?
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer