Fwd: Re: Structural Deep Democracy(SD2) Q@A/ Bushmonkey algorithm

Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:35:33 -0000

--HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote:
--"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:
>R: Wouldn't the fate of a system that brings subjectivity into an 
objective degree of observance--such as by determining through 
categorical page ranking that one individual is an indesputed victor--
reduce the innovation of individuals as a whole;...

-M: Your description is mostly correct, except with SD2, three or 
five are victors.

>R:...setting up some terminable philosophy of 'all is better' when 
constructive criticism of philosophy is shunned upon? 

-M: The selected leaders would be dependent on each other and their 
underlings for their status - they would HAVE to be responsive to 
innovation and constructive criticism or they would be replaced 
during the next rank recalculation cycle, which can occur as 
frequently as weekly. (I didn't understand your last part - hopefully 
I adressed your issues.)
>R: It has been noted that in order to determine social vectors as 
some relentless topic of debate, society has already to a large part 
assumed responsibility in categorizing the influencial members of 

-M: Yes, but I am not interested in those who are influential, I want 
those that are legitimate.

>R:..and we would be hard pressed to create a myopic view of 
leadership. It is similar to fascist Russia, when Stalin was in power 
and all other possibilties for leadership were distilled 
through 'dissapearances.' If we were to assume that such singularity 
would work, we would have to consider the reasons for variances and 
differing views as the mainstream ideology. Where one voice speaks 
out as the epitomy of truth, that voice will reign. 

-M: This is why SD2 selects three or five directors with the lowest 
ranked of them usually being the executive. People would compare the 
directors with each other.

>R: Though, who would judge whether that truth is accurate in 
assessing quality of realism? 

-M: In an intersubjective context, we can only arrive at the best 
approximation of truth and realism. SD2 creates a rigorous and 
competitive environment for this approximation to be approached.

>R: Even the 'founding fathers' of America where concerned whether 
true democracy would work, and whether the people were capable of 
deciding on a proper leader valued in ethics and intellect. If no one 
knows the wiser, what is right from wrong? 

-M: Some people DO KNOW the wiser. If not, what would be the point of 
trying to take a WISER position than me?

>R: True egalitarianism shines through equal premise of voice, and 
not one singular assumption of truth as multiple may see to the 
greater good of mankind. Ryan M. Parr

-M: From my SD2 Q@A:
 "...In an egalitarian community, those that are determined as being 
the best at practicing egalitarian values would be selected as 
the "elite". This would make the community less "elitist" in the 
negative sense than if the majority ruled."

-M: The point being is that some people are better at egalitarianism 
that others. SD2 can find these people.

-M: You seem to be trying to defend the *in-degree*(vote counting)
algorithm. This is what gave us the Bushmonkey. So, are you still 
advocating the Bushmonkey algorithm?

-Mark, Internatioal Social Organizer, SD2
-Seattle WA USA  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
--- End forwarded message ---