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 ---