[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Where is Kananaskis?

C. Dent wrote:
>My notion of a well implemented
>world government is one that returns us to a _small_ (very small)
>community orientation.    (01)

Probably very difficult to sustain economically these days, hence the
tendency towards larger political aggregates.    (02)

Peter    (03)

----- Original Message -----
From: <cdent@burningchrome.com>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:21 PM
Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Where is Kananaskis?    (04)

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, John Maloney wrote:
> > It is interesting/fun to examine different POVs in the context of
> > Unfinished "Revolution." IMO, levity and observation are the
> > values...
> Indeed.
> > Humans are a tribal beast. We are hard-wired for proximate control
> > community. 99% of human physiological and evolutionary development
has been
> > in small groups and with close-in, local interaction and concern. It
is the
> > essential nature of the biology of the human brain. This fact will
> > for some time to come....
> You use this argument to say that world government, in any form, is
> bad. I use this argument to say that the nation state is bad and your
> conception of world government is bad. There is little that is
> representative about large nations. My notion of a well implemented
> world government is one that returns us to a _small_ (very small)
> community orientation.
> I don't expect it to ever happen because people with power like to
> amass more power.
> > Why is empire so seductive when its acolytes like you and the G8,
> > etc., all know it will ultimately and painfully fail?
> I'm a fan of neither empires nor G8, EU, UN etc.
> I don't like artifical boundaries, I think that perhaps was the point
> I was trying to make before.
> > Some guys got it right a while back as follow:
> >
> > "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> > prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or
> > to the people."
> It's fine to quote the constitution, but the US states suffer from the
> same lack of representation present in nations. All you are suggesting
> here is that power centralized in the nation be centralized in the
> state. Not much of an improvement if you ask me.
> > Anyway, this is germane to unrev-ohs. The bureaucracies you love
> > rigid, controlling information structures by nature and definition.
> > bad. OHS architectures must focus on the individual, small groups
> > community, since for now, that's the way things work. That's good.
> I don't love bureaucracies or their controlling information structures
> in the slightest. To keep this on topic I'm in the habit of rejecting
> formal knowledge representations as they limit. Formal symbolic
> representations are resistant to the creation of new knowledge. They
> are fine if your goal is proving theories false. That's a negative
> goal and there must be more than that.
> Earlier today I decided that knowledge access structures are far more
> important than knowledge representation formalisms. Access helps to
> generate new theory while avoiding repetition.
> (Formal information representations is another cup of tea entirely.)
> --
> Chris Dent  <cdent@burningchrome.com>
> "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!"
>  -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus
>    (05)