Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 30/11 21:14 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 30/11 11:57 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 22:49 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 11:43 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 28/11 22:50 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:46 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:28 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 25/11 00:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 23:47 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 14:04 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Latest posts
- 30/11 21:14 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 30/11 11:57 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 22:49 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 11:43 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 28/11 22:50 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:46 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:28 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 25/11 00:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 23:47 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 14:04 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP - some questions & comments
-
Dear Mark
On Friday 08 September 2006 23:09, Mark wrote:
> Markus Schatten wrote: > >mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2 > > and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchy > > without focusing on special requirements of special problems. > > -M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlap > between the two umbrellas. > SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form of > DP where people are encouraged to select specialists.
Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;-)
> > >mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity > > (e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionals > > for this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall the > > best” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”. > > SD-2 […] have the same problem,… > > -M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t have > specialists.
OK ;-) > > >mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formed > > autopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement using > > an SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations forming > > multiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain part > > of interest). > > -M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part?
No they don’t.
> Can’t someone: > 1. be a multiple specialist? > 2. be a generalist? > 3. be both a generalist and specialist? > 4. be neither?
Yes (to all four).
> > SD2-S allows for this flexibility.
Yes it does.
> > >mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on > > large scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information > > system to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all this > > different delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000 > > members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…] > > -M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for the > sake of scaleability. > > Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracy > defaults? >
It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)? A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in which you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a nice place to publish it :-P
For now I have the spreadsheet program (which I can use for a possible TOP system), but have to change some stuff to get it to work with SD2 and SD2-S.Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1
-
> > >mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2 > > > and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchy > > > without focusing on special requirements of special problems. > > > > -M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlap > > between the two umbrellas. > > SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form of > > DP where people are encouraged to select specialists.
>mS: Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;-)
-M: OK, I just wanted to be sure that you remembered. Also others benefit by this clarification.
> > >mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity > > > (e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionals > > > for this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall the > > > best” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.SD-2 […] have the same problem,…
> > -M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t have > > specialists.
>mS: OK ;-)
-M: Even then it wouldn’t nessicarily be a problem because the directors could choose to use a specialist system.
> > >mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formed > > > autopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement using > > > an SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations forming > > > multiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain part > > > of interest).
> > -M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part? >mS: No they don’t. > > Can’t someone: > > 1. be a multiple specialist? > > 2. be a generalist? > > 3. be both a generalist and specialist? > > 4. be neither? >mS: Yes (to all four).
-M: OK. :-)
> > SD2-S allows for this flexibility. >mS: Yes it does. > > >mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on > > > large scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information > > > system to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all this > > > different delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000 > > > members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…] > > -M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for the > > sake of scaleability. > > Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracy > > defaults?
>mS: It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)?
-M: Yes, I have formalized most of the Dance-Monkey algorithm on a piece of paper but haven’t posted it yet. SD2-S would have further input constraints on this algorithm.
>mS: A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in which > you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a nice > place to publish it :-P
-M: I’ll do that!
>mS: For now I have the spreadsheet program (which I can use for a possible TOP > system), but have to change some stuff to get it to work with SD2 and SD2-S.
-M: OK. I was thinking of a wiki with SD2-S constraints. Pimki is similar to a wiki,
http://pimki.rubyforge.org/
and has network graphing capability
http://www.graphviz.org/
This could create collaborative writing projects with hierarchal control.Is this a good idea?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
11/09/06 04:36
FA/DP and TOP
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?
+1
-
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:
> 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?
So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
ATB;
Gale
+1
-
At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote: >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la: > > 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? > >So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?
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!)
>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.
+1
-
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote: > >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la: > > > 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? > > > >So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? > > 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!)
Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)
> >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.
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 maximum > intelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense could > represent 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 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?
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 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.
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
+1
-
Some important points….
At 07:19 PM 10/3/2006, illegale wrote:
> > >So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? > > > > 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!) > >Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)
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)?
> > >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. > >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.
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.
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:] > > 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? > >Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.
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.
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? What >we see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existing >political paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controling >information.
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 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?.
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 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.
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 succeed >in agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join my >network. 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 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?
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.
> 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.
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 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.
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….
+1
-
Part 1:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Some important points…. > > At 07:19 PM 10/3/2006, illegale wrote: > > > >So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? > > > > > > 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!) > > > >Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-) > > 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)?
I look at it as at brain. Bilions of cell mean nothing if they are not networked and enabled to function synergically. Cells (people) do exist, but there is no brain yet. It is in process of establishing.
> >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. > > 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. > > 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.Agreed.
> > 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.
Hmh. We need to establish trust network before DPs on a level of decision making. Idea of filtering that is functional is good way towards trust network and decision making process based on DPs. What do you think?
> [on why I’m proposing a clean separation between communication and > the exercise of power:] > >Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics. > > 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.
The power is the way towards legitimation. It can be based on sanction, reward or persuation in rightness. But, it is power that legitimates political intention.
What I can notice in your writing is idea that person puts common good in the first place, meaning to trust to common good be the best way towards its personal political interest. That is nice thing, I could even compare it to a moment when communism (not on ecnomoical, but social level) is being established.
I like this thought and I find it Internet democracy be a way towards it, as long as TOP enables biggest profit excatly through the common good, meaning it supports optimaly this aproach to politics. Yet, it is not esential in this very moment. People can set their position through narrow interests also, yet it is a little bit harder to acomplish, due to small intersection of interests.
> 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.
There is a nice paper from Eric Steven Raymond called The Cathedral and the Bazaar . He notices this democratical leadership patern as superior one in OpenSource which is actually the same paradigm as TOP. Openness and transparency promote cooperation, support and fairness in a process of creating products.
We might get into deeper conversation about this phenomenon, yet I do believe that it is a product of free market and complete transparency. When you have a leader who is pro himslef before the concept of common good, when he wants to win more than to realiste good product, that sort of leader (or any other software development/political worker) has no chance to those who deserve full respect due to their goodness and virtue.
So, in this free market based on informed participants, it is common good that sets profilation and proliferation of political market.
> not open to all, that is, not directly open. Indirectly, FA/DP is > maximally open, it collectively attempts to listen to everyone.
Why do you think it wants to listen to everyone? I can not see direct line betweed this interntion and idea of FA/DP.
> 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.
OK.
> >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. > > Good politics is. Power politics often is not….
Power is rather stigmatised term. Though, I do need power if I want to establish political decision I find good. That is reality. Though, maybe you are talking about motives and profilation principle in politics that is based on persons will for power because of power itself?
> 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.
I like it.
+1
-
15/10/06 18:08
DP-based-collectives instead of FA/DP
Gordan Ponjavic wrote: >Lomax wrote: > > illegale wrote: […] > > Any organization which allows members to vote by proxy can thus > > effectively use Delegable Proxy.
>G: Hmh. We need to establish trust network before DPs on a level of > decision making.
-M: Yes, people should get to know one another. This would happen quickly.
>G: Idea of filtering that is functional is good way towards trust network and decision making process based on DPs. What do you think?
-M: Yes.
> > [on why I’m proposing a clean separation between communication and > > the exercise of power:] > > >Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.
> > 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.
-M: Shouldn’t “benefit(ing) the whole society” be “mak(ing) things go our way”?
I don’t see your differentiation as being meaningful.>G: The power is the way towards legitimation. It can be based on sanction, > reward or persuation in rightness. But, it is power that legitimates > political intention.
-M: Its based on ONE thing ONLY, the measurement of consent. This is why I keep focusing on input fields and centrality algorithms.
Your “sanction reward or persuation in rightness” is meaningless unless it can be correctly MEASURED.>G: What I can notice in your writing is idea that person puts common good > in the first place, meaning to trust to common good be the best way > towards its personal political interest. That is nice thing, I could > even compare it to a moment when communism (not on ecnomoical, but > social level) is being established.
-M: Yes, this is nice, but this doesn’t mean that his approach will actually work.
[…] > Power is rather stigmatised term. Though, I do need power if I want to > establish political decision I find good. That is reality. Though, > maybe you are talking about motives and profilation principle in > politics that is based on persons will for power because of power > itself?
-M: I think that this is what he is trying to do, but I just don’t remember him saying so directly.
The thing is, once a FA/DP has power, then it has actual power. Lomax seems to want power without power, and he also seems to want centrality without centrality.> > 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.
>G: I like it.
-M: You like what? You seem to be assuming that his FA/DP is an actual something. Its a network, but not a collective, meaning that its a loose almalgam of individuals and is not an entity. It is a network of individuals, so its about the same as what we are already. If we polled each other to determine who we want our reps to be, then we would have a FA/DP. However, once a single individual decides how to process this voting data, actually uses a centrality algorithm, then an identifyable collective is formed. And if someone else uses a different centality algorithm, a different flavored collective may be formed. People would then choose their prefered c-algorithm.
The way I see it, a FA/DP is just an inescapable transitional stage between individuals, and having DP-based-collectives. Why be at FA/DP stage for more than a day?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Mark wrote:
> Gordan Ponjavic wrote: > >Lomax wrote: > > > illegale wrote: > […] > > > Any organization which allows members to vote by proxy can thus > > > effectively use Delegable Proxy. > > >G: Hmh. We need to establish trust network before DPs on a level of > > decision making. > > -M: Yes, people should get to know one another. > This would happen quickly.
Trust is not thing that happens quickly. It takes a while. Thought, we can encourage process of gaining trust.
> >G: Idea of filtering that is functional is good way towards trust network and decision making process based on DPs. What do you think? > > -M: Yes.
:)
> >G: The power is the way towards legitimation. It can be based on sanction, > > reward or persuation in rightness. But, it is power that legitimates > > political intention. > > -M: Its based on ONE thing ONLY, the measurement of consent. > This is why I keep focusing on input fields and centrality > algorithms. > Your “sanction reward or persuation in rightness” is meaningless unless > it can be correctly MEASURED.
Organic form has no any quantification method and it works perfectly fine.
> >G: What I can notice in your writing is idea that person puts common good > > in the first place, meaning to trust to common good be the best way > > towards its personal political interest. That is nice thing, I could > > even compare it to a moment when communism (not on ecnomoical, but > > social level) is being established. > > -M: Yes, this is nice, but this doesn’t mean that his approach will > actually work.
We will see :)
> > FA/DP is not about the overthrow of the status quo, except tothe > > > degree that the status quo depends upon the lack of independent > > > organization of the people. It does not attack existing institutions, period. > > >G: I like it. > > -M: You like what? You seem to be assuming that his FA/DP is an actual > something.
I commented vision of a process. See the same thing. We are actually building independent power structure that is based on direct realtions that make clasical birocratic ones obsolete. So, no need for any overthrow.
> The way I see it, a FA/DP is just an inescapable transitional stage > between individuals, and having DP-based-collectives. Why be at FA/DP > stage for more than a day?
I see it as concepts that help people realise the larger picture. How good they are, we will see.
ATB,
Gale> > shanti > Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
> Mark wrote: > > Gordan Ponjavic wrote: > > >Lomax wrote: > > > > illegale wrote: > > […] > > -M: Yes, people should get to know one another. > > This would happen quickly.
>G: Trust is not thing that happens quickly. It takes a while. Thought, we > can encourage process of gaining trust.
-M: What I envision for the future of large scale organizations(which could include governments)is for people to do most of their communication online and in text format(for archival purposes) but to also have periodic meatspace(physical) meetings. This builds trust much faster than words on a screen.
[…] > > >G: The power is the way towards legitimation. It can be based on sanction, > > > reward or persuation in rightness. But, it is power that legitimates > > > political intention. > > > > -M: Its based on ONE thing ONLY, the measurement of consent. > > This is why I keep focusing on input fields and centrality > > algorithms. Your “sanction reward or persuation in rightness” is meaningless unless > > it can be correctly MEASURED.
>G: Organic form has no any quantification method and it works perfectly > fine.
-M: It works fine for organic organizations, which institutions are not, nor will they ever be. My meditation center has quite an effective organic mode of organization,
but its core still is fomallized.
If you want this kind of combination of the formal and the organic, then SD2-S is for you.[…] > > -M: You like what? You seem to be assuming that his FA/DP is an actual > > something.
>G: I commented vision of a process. See the same thing. We are actually > building independent power structure that is based on direct realtions > that make clasical birocratic ones obsolete. So, no need for any > overthrow.
-M: ‘Vision’ – fine. I think that we all want about the same thing. So lets focus on mechanisms.
My idea for the proliferation of SD2-S is as project management software:- If its good, then large organizations will use it.
- Then people will see the advantage of using it for political parties.
- Then those selected by SD2-S will be naturally fond of SD2-S, and will use it for government administration.
- Then brave leaders of emerging republics may even want to use SD2-S for legislative purposes.
Notice, nowhere here is the advocacy of weak-assed communication networks FA/DP-style silliness.
SD2-S is decisive from the start, without advocating the overthrow of anything.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>Notice, nowhere here is the advocacy of weak-assed communication networks FA/DP-style silliness.
SD2-S is decisive from the start, without advocating the overthrow of anything.-Except that you want to overtrow the direct power of the people towards proxy thinking since you don’t trust the voters abilities to make smart decisions.
AD by contrast, can cope with both RD and DD and the balance can evolve over time to the best and most effective mix.
+1
-
> >M: Notice, nowhere here is the advocacy of weak-assed communication networks FA/DP-style silliness. SD2-S is decisive from the start, without advocating the overthrow of anything.
>mG: Except that you want to overtrow the direct power of the people towards proxy thinking since you don’t trust the voters abilities to make smart decisions.
-M: Agreed. I don’t trust the voters to make direct smart decisions. Again, history proves over and over again that the voting masses are LEMMINGS.
Why must I keep repeating myself and keep giving examples? Just CONCEDE, and admit that RD is superior to DD.>mG: AD by contrast, can cope with both RD and DD…
-M: Cope, so? This doesn’t mean that it will make good decisions.
>mG:…and the balance can evolve over time to the best and most effective mix.
-M: Mix? There is either representitives or not. If so, and they are the most decisive, then this is RD. And SD2-S does have DD to hold decisions in deliberation, so even SD2-S has a DD element despite being RD.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Yeah yeah…so also SD-2 can cope with DD…
So we don’t have to discuss anymore which is best, DD or RD.
-
-
-
-
-
15/10/06 18:08
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/09/06 04:36
-