<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Jef Allbright wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Thomas wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This sounds very encouraging to me. Now if, as
PJ Manney said, "Hierarchical power is out,"
then what is the unmuddled concept of the
organizational scheme for this complex ecosystem?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It's an ecosystem, so the organizational scheme is dynamic, where
conflict at one level leads to reorganization and cooperation at a
higher level of complexity and effectiveness.</pre>
</blockquote>
Still hierarchical? What mitigates forceful conflict -- a balance of Class
I and Class II residues? [1]<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap=""> This is not Social Darwinism [...]
"enlightened self-interest".
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Does it supercede democracy or is it a new form?</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The closest (possibly) workable variant of democracy I've seen is
sometimes referred to as "deliberative democracy" [3] but I think that
in practice the process could be greatly enhanced in two ways:
(1) Increasing awareness of our fine-grained values
A database for collection and visualization of fine grained values,
probably most effectively extracted in the form of short
scenarios--stories expressing preferences within context--then processed
using feature extraction and vector analysis to identify principle
components, clusters, similarity rankings, interdependencies, etc. I
suspect this would best be done in the form of games (collaborative
story-telling?) to get enough people to participate (to provide
sufficient independent samples.</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">(2) Rational modeling of actions and probable outcomes
Given an increasingly effective fine-grained awareness of our shared
values (#1 above), an increasingly accurate model of our environment
(accumulating factual data), and increasing knowledge of how things work
(scientific understanding of principles extracted from regularities in
our environment), we can expect increasingly accurate modeling of
actions and probable outcomes and apply them to social decision-making
in the Rawlsian mode [4] such that there are no artificial pockets of
narrow self-interest.</pre>
</blockquote>
I'll try a name: Non coercive high resolution discursive open source techno
meritocracy. Sheesh! That needs condensing and isn't it still hierarchical?
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regarding Rawls' principle: "Economic inequalities are only permitted insofar
as they are to the greatest benefit of the least well off members of society."[2]
-- It sounds too much like "From each according to his ability to each according
to his need." [3] Rawlsian mode looks coercive. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Do any of us think we would not tend to make better decisions if we
applied increasing awareness of our values and of what works over
increasing scope? If so, then by induction can we agree that this is
generally true of others as well? If so, shouldn't we cooperate to
create such a framework?</pre>
</blockquote>
Your "If so," seems not to refer to your "would <i>not</i> tend." Anyway,
sure, lets cooperate without the coercion.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">But given the facts of human narrow self-interest and discounting the
future [5], cognitive dissonance [6] and self-deception [7], again I
suspect that this process would have to be in the form of a game or
other form of entertainment in order to entice people into intentionally
using it for decision-making operating at a higher level of morality
than their own. Perhaps trends in collaborative music selection, book
and movie recommendations, etc., will point to the way forward.</pre>
</blockquote>
We play the language-game. [4] Moral choices that supplant one's own represent
only the supplanter. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">On the other hand there's already a strong and dangerous innate human
tendency to subordinate one's moral agency to a higher authority [8, 9,
10] along with a strong popular belief that morality must necessarily
descend from an ultimate god [11] or godlike power rather than ascend
from a natural process of increasingly effective selection of what
works. These powerful innate tendencies exist because they worked well
within a long process of biological and cultural evolutionary selection.
But as we on this list well know, there's much more rapid change in our
environment than in our instincts.</pre>
</blockquote>
Authority implies heirarchy. "Hierarchical power is out" may mean self
importance is in. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Therein lies the rub; how to sell people on the importance of
broader-context decision-making (that deflates one's self-importance),
broader-scope consideration of consequences (when human lifespan is so
brief one can't expect direct personal benefit), and acting to benefit
the group (when it's obvious that one's own individual efforts can't
really make much difference [12].)</pre>
</blockquote>
I'd say enhance the self by expanding it, identifying with being larger than
what's under the skin. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3025E44A2@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Over our evolutionary past, the individual always focused on its
individual needs, and cooperation emerged unintentionally and
sporadically, but persisted due to synergetic advantage. It's about time
for us to step up to the next level and *intentionally* exploit this
principle of positive-sum interactions to our maximum benefit. To do
less would be immoral.</pre>
</blockquote>
I'd question your "always," but even so, marching over free will defeats
rationality. That "next level" step puts its foot down on the the beast
in human nature and bans the initiation of coercion. If hierachical power
is out I think that may indicate a will to non coercion and that the positive
sum game supplants mean territoriality. -- Thomas<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">1.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto</a> 29th paragraph under "More Biography, etc."
2.<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness%3A_A_Restatement">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness%3A_A_Restatement</a>
3.<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need</a>
4.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations</a>
</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>