Hi John,
Yes, trust and openness are "co-creative" - a cycle of dependency,
agreed. And yes, I am very positive about the shift to "bottom-up"
processes too.
My problem with total transparency is not the transparency itself -
though I still say there are confidences between individuals and
parties, that separate human personal issues from the collective ones,
as well as the usual "security interests" - but there again ... whose
security interests ... ?
But no, my point is what you call "fully reasoned and disclosed".
I use the "life's complicated enough" or "life's too short" argument.
If all information is published and justified in real time, the
"noise" is a huge drag on those who are open and honest -
paradoxically giving the advantage to those who operate by stealth and
deception - the freeloaders who take the benefits but not the
responsibilities. (But when is perception deception anyway .... ?)
The noise is the debate on the "truth" of the information being made
available, and the debate on its meaning / rationale / justification /
motives etc. The accountability has to be governed too ... disclosure
of full records after the event, justification and accountabilty on
the cycles of the governance processes (elections / appointments).
Unless events / decisions are significant / noteworthy / newsworthy in
themselves, setting precedents etc, not all information should be
published and debated ("justified") as part of the decision-making
processs itself.
I realise this is a position that doesn't win me many libertarian
friends, but the reason I stand by it is (a) the paradox above and (b)
the real problem - the subject of this discussion mailing list - is
what is true and good anyway, when "fully reasoned" ? So much public
debate is bogged down in the erroneous SOMist assumptions of logic and
objectivity. Much debate of this kind is destructive, not co-creative.
Regards
Ian
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:05 PM, John Carl<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Ian Glendinning
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
> . All the various "dot.commies" rhetoric misses the
>>
>> fact that this is really bottom-up global-collectivisation rather than
>> "socialism" as it became known -
>
>
> What intrigues me about the bottom-up aspect, Ian, is the opportunity for
> "the bottom". I was born in a really top-down age with the masses absorbing
> centralized programming and little to no opportunity to express whatever DQ
> the individual possessed. Now that has changed and is changing more all the
> time.
>
>
> Firstly however the point about openness - yes, openness with trust
>
>> and accountability, but there is a problem if people see openness as
>> total transparency without any kind of confidences and privacies in
>> management and governance processes.
>
>
> I've heard this before Ian. Boy have I heard it. I don't agree at all. If
> you could give me a concrete example of when secrecy serves the governed
> better than openness (discounting national security issues - I'm talking
> localized governance mainly) then I could consider your argument. As it
> stands now, I just can't imagine ignorance being any sort of bliss.
>
>
>> I know from direct experience of the open-source movement in my day
>> job - that there are real-time / total-openness expectations - and in
>> reality this can provide very rapid and efficent creativity - dynamic
>> quality - but the buck has to stop somewhere - there has to be some
>> "governance".
>
>
>
> I agree governance is needed for buck-stopping and implementation;
> especially during the transition. I just want this governance to be fully
> reasoned and disclosed.
>
>
> I often find mysef pointing out that the world-wide-web
>> consortium founding fathers original "model" of information being
>> shared this way starts with a layer called "trust". Total anarchic
>> openeness is no substitute for trust.
>>
>>
> Ah but here is the important part Ian, total openness LEADS to trust.
> Inevitably.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------
> The self is a point along a dynamic continuum, evolving toward Quality by
> Choice.
> ------------
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
