I'm not sure I understand what you've been saying, Thomas, but one
sentence stands out --
> I'm sorry that you seem to have given up on the best idea I've seen.
That's not the kind of thing I do. I collect good ideas and also what
other people think are good ideas, and I try to find the kernel of truth
in them. The reason for my regretably sarcastic comments is that I didn't
actually detect any idea at all in Mr. Atlee's prose.
What exactly is this "best idea" you think so highly of? Can you state
it in plain English?
I'm reminded of an episode in Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy in which
the people living on some planet as the heirs of Hari Seldon and his
foundation receive a visit from some very high official from the rest of
the former empire. This august personage gives a lengthy speech which
impresses everyone. Their current leader is somewhat impressed but
suspicious, so he asks an expert in semantics to analyze the speech
and report back on what was actually said. After a while the expert
returns and gives his report which consists of the single word "nothing".
It is indeed quite possible to use a lot of words but say absolutely
nothing. It is a skill politicians (or their speechwriters) cultivate,
because quite often a special occasion will necessitate a speech but
the politician either has nothing to say or is afraid of committing
himself to anything.
It seems to me that Mr. Atlee, (and perhaps Mr. Lunde as well) are
just saying that we need some new ideas, and I don't think that is
itself a new idea -- I'm not sure it even counts as an idea at all,
a meta-idea, perhaps, at best.
It might help if I use (and abuse) a metaphor from the days of logical
positivism. Let us imagine our society (and system) as a boat
floating in the middle of the ocean. It is not in very good shape
and really needs to be rebuilt. Labour and materials are available
but there is no dry land in sight. So the task is to somehow rebuild
the boat while it floats in the middle of the ocean. The problem is
how to do that without causing it to sink.
Conservatives are basically people who don't want to rebuild the boat,
perhaps in fear of sinking, or perhaps because they currently have
the best staterooms and fear ending up in much less luxurious surroundings.
Liberals don't want to rebuild it either, but they keep everybody working
hard to make what they call "improvements".
One rarely hears of nihilists any more, but they proposed to sink the
boat so they could rebuild it from scratch. Anarchists would begin
their rebuilding program by tossing the captain and officers overboard
so that the passengers could work on their own without interference.
The communist rebuilding plan begins with a mutiny, reducing the captain
and officers to the status of stowaways, followed by ripping out (almost)
all the interior walls, to leave one big open hold in which everyone could
live and work together (except the actual mutineers, who would keep the
captain's and officer's quarters intact for themselves).
Well now, the most charitable spin I can put on Mr. Atlee's proposal
is that he plans to begin his rebuilding by planning to begin his
rebuilding -- that's not as absurd as I make it sound; it is a resolve
to begin by making thorough plans, something we should all agree with.
Actually requirements analysis should precede designing or planning,
(viz. http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/requirements.html) but that's
another issue.
But what Mr. Atlee has is (apparently) a resolve, or resolution, or
firm intention to plan things very well -- it is not itself a plan for
anything. That's why I said I couldn't actually detect any idea in
Mr. Atlee's prose -- all I saw were good intentions.
I could well be wrong about that -- I'm wrong about lots of things,
though I never admit it. Perhaps there is some idea there that I've
missed.
As for the comments of Thomas Lunde, I am sure I have missed something
in what he wrote, because I just didn't understand much of it.
> Try the formula "Structure determines the form of the processes" in which
> structure is a defined state. ...
Have you ever read Process and Reality, by Alfred North Whitehead?
Ah, I didn't think so -- I don't think anybody has. To the best of
my knowledge he is saying "Process determines the form of the structures",
but I've never figured out what that means, either.
> Representative Democracy is in my opinion a structure for political
> goverance selection. ...
I'd be happy calling it either a system or a process, not a structure.
But the words don't really matter. What matter is that Representative
Democracy isn't a very good (whatever it is). I think of it as
technology, a tool or technique for making government work. Something
we invented. A long time ago. Before we really knew what we were
doing.
I often compare it to the ox-cart or waterwheel -- not hi-tech at all,
something that just barely works.
But Representative Democracy is much, much, better than the political
or social technology of Absolute Monarchy, tyranny, dictatorship,
aristocracy and all the other undemocratic forms of government that
came before it.
> Now, at one time, we had as a structure, heriditary monarchy. Over time, it
> became apparent that we got a lot of stupid monarch's who created a stupid
> nobility which did really stupid things with the resources of a country.
Yes, of course, but hereditary monarchy was also a social invention,
and a very civilizing one. Prior to the invention of hereditary
monarchy the ruler was the person who killed his predecessor -- and as
many of his precessors conscripted soldiers as possible.
> ... We need a new structure and from that will flow new processes
> which will produce different results.
I think that sentence is something I can agree with, but I'm not sure.
A few lines above it Mr. Lunde wrote
> So we invented a new structure for the times - representative democracy.
Structure? Oh, well. Terminology aside, I can agree that we invented
representative democracy and now need to invent something new. That's
true. I am myself busily engaged in inventing something new. That's what
SocialTechnology.Org is for. See http://www.SocialTechnology.Org/index.html
for a few more words about that.
Now that I think of it, I have used the term 'structure' myself in
places, e.g. http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/structures.html -- is that
at all like your use of the term, Thomas?
> Now, I agree, that this does not solve the problem of the "who" or "whom",
> but I think that they is we - yep, you and me and millions of others over
> the next 10 years who are going to be creating all this noise on the
> Internet - the new forum for change. Out of that discontent and collage of
> ideas will arise political leaders who can articulate the consensus of all
> this discontent. ...
Sorry to quote such a long paragraph, thus making this already
over-long message even longer. But there is something important here!
I agree: they is we. But I don't think of discontent as our role and I don't
see the arrival (arousal?) of new political leaders as a part of any solution.
There is indeed a great deal of discontent on the Internet, and quite
a lot of it here on the futurework mailing list. Too much. I'm not
very fond of discontent(edness) which I think tends to drive people apart.
People will go on being discontented, which is entirely natural,
regardless of my views on the matter. I have to admit there is some
merit in that; by being discontented people are more inclined to seek
change -- if necessity is the mother of invention and laziness often called
the father, discontent is probably the mailman or milkman who did what
laziness was too lazy to do.
But do we have to be so damn public about it? Sociologist are divided
into those who focus on the structures and functions that unite us
and those who focus on the conflicts which divide us. My sympathies
are with the former -- I wouldn't be so busy trying to invent new
social technology if I didn't feel such structures and functions can
unite us.
>From my point of view the conflict sociologists give conflict too
important a role -- as did the communists, anarchists, and nihilists
of the 19th centure. Many of them said "It has to get worse before
it can get better" and so did everything they could to make things
worse. Poking large holes in the hull so people would demand
a complete overhaul without benefit of drydock.
We see the legacy of this today in the labour movement, who use
demonstrations, strikes and picket lines to cause conflict -- even
to the point of alienating what might otherwise be a sympathic
public. I don't think this accomplishes much. To me these people
are just rocking the boat, and if the boat is in such terribly
poor shape it's probably wise not to rock it too much.
Anyway, as soon as Mr. Atlee or Mr. Lunde have an actual plan to
rebuild our society I'd like to hear about it. Not a plan to have
a plan, though -- I want to see the actual plan itself, the real
blueprint for change. I have a plan of my own all ready to go, now,
but I encourage them to work one out for themselves. If I can help
in any way, please let me know.
dpw
Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html
http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html
