On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Ian Glendinning
<[email protected]>wrote:
>
> 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.
Ian,
I agree. All information is too noisy. You would have to select. And who
is monitoring the selection? I can see the wheels turning and I can see
what mean about "life's too short."
My thinking is more along the lines of accessible archives of meetings and
decision making rather than forcing every citizen to attend water board
meetings till three in the morning. Instead of representative democracy or
intellectual autocracy I picture government by those that care. If you care
enough to understand the issues and you have a way of expressing your needs
that is meaningful, then that would be good. To get there would be a large
task and take an experimental mindset. I think we are in the early stages
of such a governmental process. But it is going to take time.
But I'm sure tired of that feeling I've had for the last eight years of the
good ole boys cutting back room deals and sneering at the press, the
citizens and the whole country. "We got the water hole rights and the guns
and nuthin' you can do about it." sez the texas rancher with his posse all
around.
(But when is perception deception anyway .... ?)
>
When the self is deceived, all perception is self-deception.
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.
>
Do you remember the SETI project? It was a cool thing for a while to let
your computer do some of the SETI work - distributed processing - using
people for these tasks, just like in the wiki and just like about a hundred
other examples where you set the ground rules and then let a self-policing
system evolve naturally. (more on that later)
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.
>
OK, here is where evolving naturally in an MoQ framework can help. Because
Quality is real and because people know it when they see it. It takes a
while to get there, given the problems you list. But if you believe in DQ,
Ian, you have to give it room to grow. Little by little, bit by bit and
process by process. Just like life.
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/
