A  Wishipedia Entry from the Fog Island Tavern 

Published March 6, 2024 'Next System' , Argument patterns , Discourse contribution rewards , Governance , Public policy discourse , Refugees on abandoned il rigs Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

– Hey Vodçek — is that Abbé Boulah sitting out there on the Tavern deck — is he hiding?

– Bog-Hubert, good morning! Yes it’s him — he must be tired from the trip to the rig, hasn’t said much at all this morning, just sitting there, scribbling in his notebook. Well, I guess he did see you, or his coffee is getting cold.  Coming in for a refill, AbbeBoulah? 

– Yes, I could use that. Hey, Bog-Hubert. Good morning Sophie: joining us for coffee? 

– Hi. I wasn’t sure it was you hiding out there behind the stack of chairs, deep in thought. What’s on your mind?  Good news or bad? 

– That’s the problem: I’m not sure. 

– Huh. Well, can we help you sort it out? As long as it isn’t election politics…

– In a way it is, out on the rigs. But nothing like … 

– Wait — are you saying there may be good news even in part of that? That calls for some explanation.

– Good point, But things are really different out on the rigs, you know. I am surprised every time I go out there. 

– So what’s the good news then, that surprised you?

– Well, Sophie,  it’s actually a whole bundle of things — long story. 

– Okay, the fog is thick, customers have lost their way:  is the day long enough for the story?

– I’ll try to keep it preprocrustified. 

– Stuff the weird references, even though I admit it sounds better than ‘short’.

– Okay, I’ll try to behave. So, remember, I told you about  the weird kinds of societies all those refugees are hobbling together out there on the abandoned oil rigs. They were put out there — temporarily but voluntarily — because there wasn’t enough housing available on the mainland. Allegedlly. To learn enough of the language and rules and habits of the places where they hoped to end up to get a job and so on.  

– So what big issues are there to decide — if they are all getting off the rigs?

– Well, it turned out that some of them decided to stay out there. I guess they had become friends, felt safer out there than in any foreign country, or got intrigued by the opportunity of figuring out a better way of organizing society, They were actually using some of the ideas of our crazy friend over at the university. 

– Yes, I remember. The notion of making collective decisions based on the merit of the discourse they had to organize to reach agreements. The problems of figuring out that merit, and of making sure the agreements were kept, and so on, wasn’t it? 

– Good, Renfroe! I see not everything we talked about here is already down the river of oblivion. 

– What are the bigger issues they have to decide upon out there, then? 

– Well, besides the simple task of basic rules for living together in a kind of cramped environment, for one, there was the question of what they’d do for living if they stay. Some people like the notion of fust turning the rigs into tourist entertainent destinations for cruise ships, like they tried at first, besides the everyday education activities. Then they realized that there is a lot of ocean and weather-related research that could be done out there, and thought they should  focus on that. The idea of the rigs as venues of research conferences grew out of that. Others were intent on sticking with the issues of making the rigs self-supporting, even for food and some stuff they could export, actually the start of large floating settlements. 

– Ah: getting ahead of the rise of ocean levels when all the polar ice has melted? 

– Not sure if they are that ambitious. But each of those development ideas would call for different changes to the original design of the rigs, 

– Okay. I get it.

– So now, while they were they were discussing and working on these issues,  the kids —remember, there are entire families out there — were asking what the grownups were doing, and wanted to start games at doing that. They didn’’t even know what to call that, like the traditional oppupations like baker, fireman, fisherman, police officers.  

– I can see that — I  guess there aren’t many children’s books with stories about such places when they were actually working oil rigs.

– Of course, Bog-hubert, But they all wanted to be astronauts, star war fighters. Oil rig work just wasn’t that glamorous…

– Well there’s that. If the kids had actually gotten used to TV, movies, internet; many of of them didn’t. So out there, they just tried to imitate whatever they saw their parents were doing.  And one of them, an old refugee from a small village in Turkey that got destroyed in the earthquake, he made a kind of game out of the argumentative planning discourse idea, with basic paper markers and wall display tools. ‘Templates’ of good discourse play elements — problems, plan proposals, the different kinds of questions and answers and arguments, even ’systems’ and ‘decision rules’ — the works. To have fun as well as actuallty teaching them this new way of working on issues that need collective decisions.  

– Sonds interesting. Have mainland toy companies gotten wind of that yet?

– I don’t know. maybe just because the kids got so excited about this that they started to expand and mess with the basic concepts and patterns, there’s no clear picture yet. The kids are inventing new names  for these patterns, some of which hadn’t even been recognized before, like the planning argument pattern and its variations, that weren’t in the old logic textbooks yet. And fallacies. They started inventing funny trolls and demons, gnomes that obstruct discussions, drew pictures of them and gave them names: Wonderful names like ‘happendash’ or ’noheadreason’ (for arguments with the main premise missing or ‘taken for granted’), ‘wishiwashi’, ‘wikinokeniker’ (for fancy definitions from the wikipedia or dictionary; I don’t remember them all. 

–    Sounds like they’re having fun. 

– They do: you should see them at play. But one really clever thing that one of the old refugee built into the game was this: The ‘cards’ with those patterns, that kids could call out (and win points for) would have the fungly — get it — ugly but funny — face of the gnome on one side, and the kid calling it out if they recognized it in somebody’s comment would win points for ‘rescuing the discussion from that troll. But on the other side of the card would be a drawing showing how that fungly face could turn into a happyface — if the kid could suggest a way to help its author to turn it into a valid, valuable or even just ‘better’ contributions. In which case both of then would ‘earn’ a much higher number of merit points. And those transformation actions would be accompanied by much noise, applause, songs and instant rewards (a hug, a cookie or dried fruit, and fireworks — like lightning effects)…

– I get the sneaky ruse! Inserting adrenaline-rush triggers into cooperative activities? Instead of getting their highs of ‘beating’ others, like all our competitive games that makes everybody losers except the one winner…

– You got the idea, Sophie. But that’s not all.

– There was more?  I can’t wait to hear it!

– Well, it turned out that the grownups began to use some of the things they’s learned from the kid’s game in their ‘serious’ discussions. And that started a whole flurry of new adaptations and experiments. 

– But that’s really interesting and encouraging, isn’t it?  

– Sure. Needs a lot of work though. 

– So that’s the bad news? It sounds like an exciting project!

– No, the bad news is: they asked me to find some programmer or outfit to develop the code to program those things into their online protocols…

— ooo —

The  missing piece — finally?

Published January 14, 2024 Uncategorized 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

(In the Fog Island Tavern)

—  Good morning, Bog-Hubert, thinking deep thoughts already? 

–    Hey Abbe Boulah. ‘Deep’ — Is that what it looks like?  Nah. I just couldn’t get much sleep last night. 

—  So what kept you up? 

–   Well, I was talking to our friend yesterday — the one of the two separate theory obsessions he is trying to stitch together somehow.

— Yes? The Planning Discourse Platform and the Occasion-Image themes? Wasn’t there a third one? 

–   You mean the one of making those weird pictures? It’s not an obsession — he hasn’t been doing much of that recently. He’s been working on the first one for some time now and wants to get back to the second one — as some friends are urging him to, as well. But he feels there’s something missing in the planning discourse story that should be settled first, before he can let go of that. He seems to be getting close, but I didn’t understand what is missing: you know, the connecting piece? Or I just still didn’t understand what the connection would be. 

— Doesn’t it depend on which side we’re looking from?

–   What do you mean?

— Well. Look at it from the platform side: that one is so complex that it could involve anyone of so many different aspects. I’d say it is pretty much worked out as a plan; everything that still needs to be done is just implementation work, with tools and techniques that are already available. But the important missing piece is getting lost in the fog. Now, from the other side, isn’t it  almost obvious? I think he even was onto the answer in the fat book* some time ago, but somehow didn’t follow up on it. 

–   You’ve lost me.That book was perhaps too fat and complex too?

— Well, don’t you remember, the idea of the Design or Planning Tavern?  The insight that if the planning discourse is done only online, on computers or smartphones, any activity involving it is just not a very appealing  o c c a s i o n  –  yet?  That what it it needs is, precisely, an actual, physical  p l a c e  — one that can provide and support not only the functional features for a meaningful experience, but also the features that convey and evoke meaningful  i m a g e  concepts? Involvement with actual people? 

– Oh. Yes, I do remember now. Meaningful occasions, yes.  At the time I thought it was just a sneaky way to promote Vodçek’s tavern ideas. You say that is the critical, missing item?

— Think about it. Lessons from history. If you look at the world’s big ‘cultures’  — the governance systems but especially the religions: They made very clever use of all the tools of that combination: Not only the  messages, the spiritual ‘stories’ but significant ‘places’ — buildings — which support the stories with special built environment features and imagery.  Rituals, special places for the important, basic ‘occasions’ of human life, to start with: Birth and death, marriage, then adding special intermitting events, celebrations connected to the seasons and astrological phenomena, birthdays of key figures like the founderrs of the faith and significant prophets, saints, leaders. Calling the faithful to prayers: church bells, muezzin calls, delivery of sermons intermixed with music in resonance-enhanced and decorated buildings. Confessions, absolution, rituals carried over into everyday activities but aligned to special places for the exhibit of pictures and items, even in the smallest humble residences. 

– Ah. I get it now. Structuring of social ife into overall coherent systems of beliefs and maintenance of society organization?

— Yes. Buildings and rituals and images and stories meaning, all mutually reinforcing connections — the word ‘re-ligio’ — meaning ‘tying together’. 

–   But wasn’t a main purpose of all of that the establishment and maintenance of power? Power, illegitimately intruding in mundane daily governance and self-governance issues, and thus generating feelings of ‘oppression’?

—  You are right, in part. The ‘sin’ of religions was to allow their power to become self-serving, serving its own maintenance and growth. Their hierarchies can be seen as clever acknowledgement and use of people seeking power: each level ‘empowered’ to some actions dominating over others — actions regulating, reducing and limiting the actions of folks  on the levels below, but leaving each empowered to actions on the respectively lower level.

– Clever — except for the problems about the top and bottom of the hierarchical ladders. 

—  Yes, of course. Those open questions leading to the attacks on such hierarchies by folks feeling ‘oppressed’. Arguably, often quite legitimate efforts. But consider this: Many or most such efforts — protests, revolutions, wars — ignored the valuable lessons of the successful but flawed systems they destroyed. To the extent revolutions were achieved with coercion and violence, not persuasion, the new regimes often failed to provide enough convincing stories and opportunities for ‘constructive’ e m p o w e r m e n t, better controls of power (limiting opportunities for power abuse). Because they have to maintain their new power with coercive and ‘destructive’, limiting means. And failing to construct more meaningful and appealing systems and places of occasion opportunities and corresponding imagery. Just providing a workable platform for functional discussion of necessary decisions does not offer enough of that.  It needs to include actual interaction with the human members of society. 

– So what you are saying, then, is:  any efforts to introduce improvements in how society works, must offer more comprehensive, convincing, appealing, inspiring stories?  And the discussion of needed decisions must take place — literally, also, in  p l a c e s, not only in the strange and often not very comfortable ‘space’ of an online platform. Real places that invite, and support constructive empowerment of participants, by their design of  o c c a s i o n  opportunities and of meaningful, beautiful built environment features evoking  inspiring  i m a g e r y?  

— That’s one way of putting it. Besides developing the platform, the question —  the next design task — is: how can the platform be complemented with actual built environment  places for live occasions?  And what should such places look like? The missing connecting piece? 

Notes

*   “RIGATOPIA — The Fog Island Tavern Discussions”

Unwinnable arguments

Published December 1, 2023 Uncategorized Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

Terrorists and Power and Slivowitz

  • Heading down to the Tavern, Bog-Hubert?
  • Well yes — though I’m not sure it’s going to be very relaxingthere today, even with a decent glass of something. Why? 
  • Why? I heard there were going to be demonstrations there, both pro and con, about the war in the Mediterranian. Because Vodçek has a bottle of Slivowitz on his shelf…
  • Huh?  What’s that got to do with anything? 
  • Good question. Some people think it’s a Jewish thing, — even if it’s really a Balkan name for the plum brandy of that name — but it’s also produced in Israel with that name. Smart people. But being an alcoholic thing, Muslims object to it — even though ‘alcohol’, as far as I know, is an arab word, though Allah only knows why Muslims today object to consuming such. I remember once I was sitting in a cafe in Paris — how long ago, why am I just remembering that incident?  I was having an espresso, and this friend of mine, a Muslim from Africa, was drinking a beer. All of a sudden, he saw a compatriot Muslim come into the place, and asked me to quickly change the drinks — moved my espresso in front of him, the beer across the little table, so I was looking like I was drinking the infidel beer. It must have been Ramadan or some holy season. — Well, now I hear there are Palestinian supporters who want to shut down Vodçek’s Tavern for that reason, serving Slivowitz. 
  • You’re putting me on!
  • Okay, sorry. Busted. I just want to go there to help Vodcek get rid of that stuff before worse things happen to it.  To keep the peace.
  • Bog-Hubert, my friend, I applaud and praise your peace-keeping intentions. But stop giving me such scares. Would it be OK if I join you in raising a glass or two, with a prayer for your success? 
  • Of course, Abbe Boulah. I was actually counting on it…I’m kind of short of funds…
  • Thank you for your confidence. But hey, let’s get serious here. There are people dying over there — aren’t you ashamed for this facetious way of responding to that catastrophe? Children women, innocent people, entire cities flattened…
  • You are right, of course. But what should a reasonable fellow do about it, over here? Taking sides, getting the government to act accordingly? Which side?
  • You are right, sadly. The argument is unwinnable for both sides: any justification for any actions for either side can be countered by equally valid arguments for the other side. Arguments based on facts, but then just jumping to ought-premises and conclusions that sorely lack logical validity.
  • Now, doesn’t it It all depend on where you but the blinders on your historical fact-perspective, to determine ‘who started it’? Sure: useless. Even worse: Any of the remedies they are arguing about, as far as I can see, are suffering from the same fatal flaw..
  • Oh: What’s that?  One specific flaw, only? 
  • Yes — at least a key one. In my uninspired (so far, by the adequate spirits) opinion…
  • Well, we’re almost there, patience. Meanwhile, enlighten me, please? 
  • The problem is that all the responses people are arguing and protesting about, are involving the use of force, coercion. Or the the threat of violence, again. All equally unacceptable, in principle, to both sides, because they don’t see how the conflict can go away in any version of peace. Quite the contrary: they both end up with the  same inference, that the problem will only go away if one or the other party will disappear. Killed, or at least expelled, in other words. 
  • Well, are they really saying that? At least on the pro-Israel side, there are many who just say that the leaders, the Hamas, have to go. If you know what I mean.’
  • Yes. There have been slips of the tongue though, when people have sloppily or not so sloppily, said that ‘they all… ’ — meaning all the folks in Gaza? — ‘… have to ‘disappear’. Unacceptable and stupid as it is to say that, it is the plausible inference of the escalating logic of the violence-based power needed for all those remedies. 
  • Let me try to understand what you are saying: as a valid pattern applicable to all such conflicts between two ‘communities’ that pursue their respective aims. If those aims are pursued using  physical force (or threats of such) each application act of such force will be countered by efforts to apply equal or stronger force to ‘deter’ or make it impossible for the other side from doing that?
  • Yes. And if one side gets the idea that it commands the greater force, the more power, then it will be tempted, if not compelled, to actually use that force? 
  • Or just threatening that, anyway.  So what’s wrong with that? 
  • Well the other side may not be willing to acknowledge that. Denial. Or thinking there may be a big brother out there… 
  • Who are you talking about: a bigger, stronger entity, to keep the balance and the peace?  The UN?
  • Well the UN doesn’t seem willing to do anything, for reasons that bear looking into: haven’t there been hundreds of UN resolutions to tell Israel to behave differently? Let’s not get into all the details. All ignored, nothing done.  But there are other Arab, other Muslim states; bigger brothers all, that the Palestinians may count on… 
  • Youn mean all the Palestinians, or just the terrorists?
  • Terrorists? what’s a terrorist, really?
  • Well. I guess you could say: a terrorist anybody, any entity that uses violence or threats of violence to get its ways, Creating fear, terror, in the public.
  • Careful, now, my friend. That’s an easy label to put on either side — based just on what they are bragging about, both sides in that particular conflict, anyway. So using that label as justification for any acts to counter terrorism with violent force will brand both sides with the sticker, won’t it? 
  • Well, would you say that a terrorist is any person, (or group)  that isn’t part of an acknowledged regular government ‘military’ force, that uses violent, military-like means to pursue its aims…?
  • Sorry: stuck in the quicksand again. If you are denying a whole group of people you don’t like or are stepping on your toes, or who don’t like what you are doing to them, the formation of a regular, globally acknowledged government state status, any members of that group that are attempting to safeguard its interests, are now ‘terrorists’? Especially, if that other entity is not a real ‘state’ and therefore illegitimate, by some plausible definition, its fighters are inevitably terrorists? 
  • Huh. Well, I guess you are right. I never saw a good reason for opposing the two-state ‘solution’, as if that would even begin to solve the  problem.  So again: looks like those arguments are unwinnable, and therefore unacceptable, to both sides. But are they equally unacceptable for any third party, asked to take sides? 
  • Yes and the problem is made even worse by the role of power in the process. 
  • I was waiting for that: you’ve been harping on that already. But can you remind me of your reasoning again?
  • Ok: I actually owe it to something you taught me earlier: There are several motivations for using violent power: the need for pursuing the empowerment for realization of ‘basic needs’ and rights; that we might call somewhat ‘legitimate’ and therefore acceptable reasons. So when threatened, these aims are used to justify the use of violent, ‘destructive’ means.  Now there also are people who get ‘empowerment’ experiences  from those kinds of acts: ‘adrenaline rushes’;  even for encouraging other in the own realm to  such acts — a kind of vicarious enjoyment of destructive power. 
  • I know. There are people who actually like killing and hurting others. 
  • Right. And that kind of power motivation is, to make matters worse, addictive: the more you have, the more you need. To keep getting the kicks, and to protect you from losing it to other power-hungry patriots. Makes people crazy. 
  • So:  When two ‘powers’ get into that kind of mutually escalating cycle, is there there is a ’final solution’  other that the total victory of one over the other; annihilation or demoralization? And is that  the best any tribe calling itself human, even ‘sapiens’ can come up with? 
  • Well, you are right, it doesn’t look good for this so-called humanity. Even though there were third ways, even in antiquity,  to get around it, though they weren’t taken seriously enough…
  • Well, chrunch my purple chakra: What in three twisters name are you talking about?  
  • Think about it, Bog-Hubert:  It was called ‘divine judgment’.  If you believe in such a divine power and its benevolent judgment, the prayers for victory that opposing armies used to invoke  to grant them sucdess in the bloody business they were getting ready for would be useless for one army if the deity —all-knowing and allmighty — already knew to which side it would grant victory. So wouldn’t there be a simpler, less painful and destructive (for the innocent populations that would suffer from the mayhem as well as pay for it) to find that out? If accompanied by adequate rituals and prayers and sacrifices; simply tossing a coin wouldn’t be sufficiently dignified — innocent lambs were the preferred proverbial victims? The famous examples of antiquity — can you spell Achilles and Hector? — provided more spectacle for vicarious enjoyment of pain and bloodshed.  But did the people learn the lesson? No: more mayhem and killing and burning of glorious cities was needed. 
  • Never thought of it that way. Well; if all the generals and systems thinkers can’t come up with anything… do you have a better idea? 
  • Let’s see if there’s any Slivowitz left at the Fog Island Tavern… Maybe something will occur to us? 

Thoughts On Agreements and Sanctions 

Published March 8, 2023 Uncategorized Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

To ensure adherence to agreements for the public planning discourse platform

This is an exploration of a ‘platform management issue’: the question of needed participation agreements on a public planning discourse support platform. The idea of preventive sanctions automatically triggered by the very attempt of non-adherence via a merit point ‘currency’. Authority vs community control,  

Concern

Like all social internet platforms, a ‘global’ public planning discourse support platform, as well as its experimental ‘pilot’ version, will encounter management issues regarding inappropriate, or distasteful or disruptive participant actions: ‘trolling’, ’hacking’, or just filling the threads with useless, meaningless and annoying blather. Most of the available forms of control or containment of such behavior for platform ‘administrators’ or ‘moderators’ can also become the reason for criticism: perceived ‘partisan’, biased’, or oppressive abuse of their ‘power’. 

This issue is a miniature version of general governance problems in any community: of ensuring that agreements, laws, and rules aimed at guaranteeing a peaceful functioning  of that society are actually adhered to. The terms describing the manner in which this is usually done — ‘enforcement’ — indicate the sources of conflicts and problems: governance  entities endowed empowered to use coercion and force to prevent and punish violations of the rules.

This element of power is problematic within ‘community’ or governance domains, because there will always be parties feeling that rules are ‘unfair’ or arbitrary and will try to resist them: at the extreme with violent force against enforcement agents. The battle against crime inevitably leads to escalation of the enforcement and opposition tools. 

The same syndrome becomes even more critical when played out in ‘global’, international relations and conflicts. If conflicts arising from perceived unjust and unfair violations of agreed-upon treaties or assumed rules of proper interactions have to be ‘resolved’ by the threat or application of violent force, the call for some ‘global’ enforcement entity will arise — a ’world govenment’ — an entity with unquestionably superior force. We see several nations now competing for becoming this superior ruler or ‘world policeman’. The specter of such an  entity is as abhorrent to many as the prospect of the battle for dominance  even between current contenders: with the ‘enforcement’ and opposition weaponry, a war to resolve that contest is predicted to be too destructive for humanity as a whole to survive. 

History also teaches that the supreme power of such an entity will become an irresistible temptation to abuse that power — to itself violate the rules and agreements it is supposed to ensure. Power is addictive and tends to destroy the mental sanity of rulers. This means that the search for different means of guaranteeing that rules and agreements will be adhered to should be an urgent priority for humanity. 

The very nature and aim of a ‘discourse’ about conflicts and plans is antithetical to the use of coercion and force. It is the very manifestation of hope and conviction that resolution of differences of opinion and interest, as well as development of plans to deal with natural disasters, can be achieved with tools of mutual explanation, argument, negotiation: discourse. To the extent agreements on rules will be needed for peaceful and constructive planning discourse, the discussion agenda for design of its platform and process must address the issue of alternatives to ‘enforcement’ of adherence to its own agreements.

Examples of non-coercive tools for this purpose already exist, even current technologies potentially facilitating different approaches. Also, elements of the proposed platform — such as the idea of measurements of discourse contribution merit — could be adapted to becoming tools for dealing with this problem of violations of agreements. They aim less at finding penalizing ‘sanctions’ than at provisions to prevent them, triggered by the very attempt (intentional or inadvertent) to commit a violation. 

These considerations suggest some more thorough examination both of the kinds of agreements a constructive planning discourse platform would need, and an attempt to provide innovative tools for ensuring their adherence, for discussion and encouragement for developing more and better ideas. 

Needed agreements :

‘Rules’ for a constructive planning discourse.

The planning discourse platform will need tools to contain the same kinds of disruptive behavior that plagues current social  media, such as: 

 – ‘Off-topic’ contributions;

–  Insulting, disrespectful comments and  language;

–  ‘Ad hominem’ attacks as means of evading the topic;

–  Intentionally untrue or incomplete, selective information;

–  Reckless repetition of unsupported ‘rumors’ . 

Added suggestions imight nclude the habit of posting links to other sources without explaining the point the cited work is supported to support, or mere advertising items, 

To the extent the platform aims at developing decisions or recommendations, the community may decide to use some standardized formats or templates of comments  aiming at facilitating overview and aggregation of judgments into measures of overall merit of plan proposals, it may become necessary to find means of ensuring adherence to those agreements.  

Potential ‘platform management’ tools: 

Withdrawal of contribution or judgment rights.

It is a common practice on social media to attempt to prevent abuse by restricting ‘membership’, e.g.: Prospective participants selectively invited by people who are  already members, or have to ‘apply’ for admittance to a group. The  application is reviewed and decided upon by ‘administrators’ or group ‘owners’, perhaps with other members’ input or veto  power. This requires agreement about the criteria  to be used, which can become controversial. 

The approach is incompatible with the requirement of wide public participation.  Obviously, criteria used for public platforms should not be ‘discriminating’ against community members on the basis of gender, race, religion etc., but age, citizenship or residence in a governance domain are often considered. This becomes difficult precisely for the kinds of projects for which this new platform is needed: problems that affect people in different countries or regions. ‘Affectedness’  by a problem or plan can be difficult to judge, as can be the question of whether a participant is sufficiently well informed to weigh in on a complicated matter (expressed clumsily  e.g. in age limits). The common practice of defining ‘affected’ or ‘entitled groups with the tool of ‘licenses’ issue upon proof of knowledge of s discipline and its rules may have to be discussed, for specific types of projects.   

The criteria applied to accepted members relate more easily to the member’s explicit or implied agreement to comply with the current group ‘rules’. Consequences for violation of those rules can then be specified, and in the extreme, result in revoking the perpetrator’s membership and  participation rights.

Penalties in the form of ‘fines’ — in monetary or other ‘currencies’: Possible tools 

A tentative list of considerations include the following: 

A plausible form of responding to disruptive behavior would be  withdrawal or reduction of earned ‘merit’ points. Imposition of renewal or re-affirmation ‘voting rights’ evidence used for gaining the right of participation or entering decision judgments. Loss of ‘weight’ of decision-determining judgments;  Prevention of acceptance of entries that don’t match agreed-upon specifications (templates) or added evidence support.

This discussion can merely point out the necessity of reaching agreements  on these issues, and will focus only on the potential use of two of these options, as examples: the use of merit points, and the use of templates for selected entry items.

Merit points

One possibility is the use of merit points in contribuors’ accounts  as a currency for levying ‘penalties’ for any violation of the agreed-upon rules. In the eventual ‘real’  platform, this could probably be done by AI programs checking ‘verbatim’ entries and charging a ‘fee’ for any entry that needs to be ‘cleaned up’. In any ‘pilot’ version, it wold have to be done by administrators  or other participants, which would probably be too cumbersome. 

Templates

Another potential tool is that of the use of ‘templates’ in the phases of systematic analysis and evaluation of discourse contributions — such as the pro and con arguments about proposed plans. To be inserted into a spreadsheet for entry of merit judgments — plausibility and relative weight of importance,—  and calculation of overall results, they must be restated from any conversational version in the initial  ‘unstructured’ discussion into one of the provided argument templates. 

This would  become the condition for assigning merit points to those contributions. The templates will ‘automatically’ eliminate any ‘unacceptable’ additions — characterizations, ad hominem attacks etc. — from the arguments, and focus on their substantial content.  Also, the evaluation of premises (by other participants) on,  say, a +1 to -1 scale,  will result in positive merit point earned by the respecive author — but negative points for flawed, false and unsubstantiated claims.

Outlook 

The admittedly optimistic and arguable expectation is that these provisions can act to discourage flawed and disruptive information in the first place. The disadvantage is that these ‘corrections’ would be delayed until a ’special technique’ is used; by then, disruptive contributions could already have caused significant damage to a smooth process. 

These possibilities are offered as evidence that new ideas of means for dealing with the administrative challenges are possible, for discussion of details, and as  encouragement for developing other, more effective tools of non-coercive, nonviolent means for ensuring adherence to agreements— both at this diminutive level and at the level of important ‘global’ issues. 

Comments?  Wrong question?  

Unstructured versus Structured Discussion?

Published March 5, 2023 Uncategorized 2 Comments
Tags: , ,

On the question of formalization and structure in the Planning Discourse

Concern   

The proposals for a ‘global’ Public Planning Discourse Support Platform contain suggestions for using standardized ’templates’ for parts of the discourse: a more ‘structured’ or formalized form of discussion than the familiar ‘unstructured’, unconstrained format  we see in the usual forms of public debate.This raises several issues calling for discussion: First, the reasons leading to such suggestions should be clarified. Secondly, likely objections must be considered, such as the possibility that such templates might discourage participation in the discourse or might distort it in some way. The third question is of course:  if such templates are to be used, what should they look like? what format should be considered? And finally: How should they be introduced, included and used in the process? 

Reasons for formalization

The reasons for suggesting such structuring or ‘editing’ of the free expressions of discussion contributions are based on concerns about displaying the core of contribution content in a concise, condensed form for overview and evaluation: overview, elimination of repetitive and redundant items, (focusing on the issue to be decided upon), clarity in separating primary arguments from lenghty  and circuitous elaboration of ’supporting’ evidence and spurious anecdotal material, unnecessary and ‘unacceptable’ rhetorical rendering and bombast etc. 

Special concerns related to systematic evaluation are: explicit ‘filling in’ assumptions and argument premises that are left out as ’taken for granted’ in rhetorical passages, but that must be stated for comprehensive evaluation of the merit of arguments:  the assessment of contributions being a main aspect of the project aim of reaching decisions better and transparently based on the merit of the discourse contribution content, as opposed to traditions forms of decision-making that can disregard that content, such as voting.  

Objections

The objections to such formalization must be taken seriously: wide public participation needed for critical policy-making is needed, and provisions constraining  the form of discussion entries (other than obvious rules such as using the common language of the community having the discussion) can be perceived as obstacles (intentional or unintentional) to participation.

Other objections relate to the choice of forms or templates. There is disagreement even in the academic disciplines about how to state’ and diagram’ arguments — there are parties insisting on rendering arguments containing deontic premises in the deductive ‘modus ponens’ form rather than in the format of the ‘planning arguments’ ackowledged as ‘informal’ and non-deductive. 

Choice of template form

The suggestions to use some standardized templates of discussion entires started with the examination of the typical arguments of the ‘pro and con’ kind, about proposed design or planning discussions. The recognition of typical conversational pattern of arguments about a proposed plan or solution «Plan A» and its expected benefits or consequences ,led to the choice of the ’standard planning argument’ template  

    «Plan A ought to be adopted ‘(Conclusion’)

    because

    Pan A will result in outcome B, (given conditions C) ‘Factual-instrumental                        

    and Premise’)

   Outcome B ought to be pursued (Deontic premise)

   and 

   Conditions C will be given (Factual Premise)

Or:   A  << ((A > B | C) & B  & C

(The signs <<, >,  & , | stand for ‘because’, ‘result in’, ‘and’, ‘given’, respectively.)

The pattern will have  a number of variations, depending which of the statements happen to be negated: for example: 

A  << ((A > ~B | C) &~B  & C

~A << ( ~(A > B | C) & B  & C

~A  << ((A > ~B | C) & B  & C

~A  << ((A > B | C) &~ B  & C

~A  << ((A > B | C) & B  & ~C     etc.

(Just making these statements explicit helps identifying the reason for a person’s acceptance or rejection of the argument —it could be because the person does not believe A wil produce B, or whether they consider B to be desirable, or whether they are not sure whether the conditions for the plan to work will actually be given.  — the simple  yes or no vote does not make this clear).

 This pattern, with the ‘conclusion’ stated first, in distinction from the standard  sequence in the logic textbooks also signals its lack of claim of ‘deductive’ conclusiveness and logical rigor, that some lay people might find uncomfortably compelling, attempting to override any doubts they may have about its premises. 

Of course, pro and con arguments are only one form of typical contributions in the planning discourse. They are ‘answers’ to a number of typical questions. In this case: «Should plan A be adopted?»   Other questions are thsoe providing answers that will be premises in the arguments:  «Should effect (goal, requiremnt, aim) B be pursued?» Will A produce effect / conseuence B?»  or «What are the conditions for Plan A to work? And «Are those conditions C present n this situation?» 

There are similar families of standard questions and answer claims related to the ‘problem’ statement and the understanding of its causes,necessary conditions and contributing factors. 

The procedural treatment of ‘structured’ versus unstructured discourse.

This is not the place to provide a comprehensive catalogue of all such discourse contribution patterns. Even the question whether  to use such tools in a specific project, of for a specific issue within a project, must remain the decision of the participants in that project discussion. So the role of structured versus unstructured discourse  in the overall process remains to be further explored:  for now, some first suggestions can be sketched.  

As a general principle, the initial entries and exchanges in a planning discussion must be ‘unstructured’. While many problem-solving and planning approaches recommend some specific sequences to be followed: For example:  Starting with a ‘clear problem statement’, gathering information and ‘data’, developing goals and priorities, developing solutions, evaluating those, and ending up with a decision. 

In reality, such discussions are triggered  by any of those ‘steps’. That first ‘entry’ item will rarely be a fully worked out solution, (though the current ‘political practice’ is often that some governance agency will produce such a plan before it is put up for discussion  in a parliamentary body). If the possibility or expectation is that the discussion might change such a plan, its introduction wll be in an unstructured format, and the first discussion therefore will have to be unstructured. It is possible that even such an unstructured discussion will give the participants sufficient confidence to make a decision, and that possibility must be provided for.  This can be done by means of a ‘motion’ for a «NEXT STEP?» to be decided on, for example by a ‘vote’ with a sufficiently close to consensus outcome. Agreed upon as part of  general  procedural agreements).

The concern here, however, is about important decisions that should be based on the merit of the contributions to a more thorough and systematic discourse, and how this can be orchestrated and made transparent. The recommendation for a project to do this is the following pattern of increasingly specific treatment of ‘issues’ (or topics).

The initial unstructured discussion will be the basis for participants to raise specific ‘candidates’ for more in-depth treatment. These will be posted on a bulletin board for participants to express judgments as to whether they should be put on the ‘Agenda’ for such detailed treatment. The assumption here being that large projects will be asynchronous, ‘online’. They can therefore be worked on ‘in parallel’ but on separate ‘threads’ for each topic. 

The discussion of each topic will again begin with an ‘unstructured’ discussion, resulting in the identification of more specific issues, that can be discussed ‘in parrallel’. For each topic, when participants feel that they can make a decision, (e.g. after some discussion) by making a ‘NEXT STEP’ motion: 

– to proceed to a decision;

– to drop the issue without decision; 

– to request or pursue more information;

– to ’table the discussion until another issue has been settled;

– to engage one of the ’special techniques’ (available in a ‘tool kit’).

   The results of the special technique — e.g. evaluation process that can’t be done on the  ordinary discussion format — will be reported back for a ‘Next Step’ decision in light of its results. 

In theory, this process can be repeated for smaller and smaller details, each small recommendation added to the Plan proposal until the entire community feels ready to make an overall decision. 

Tentative Recommendation

The recommendation given these ‘best current considerations’,  pending more comments, is to adopt the ‘fractal’ and ‘parallel processing’ pattern of alternating unstructured and structured discourse that will alleviate concerns about participation but facilitate more formal process as needed in each particular project, as decided by the community of participants. In the meantime, continue work on the structure patterns and potential ‘templates’ of other segments of the planning process. 

Comments?

Wrong question? 

About the Role of AI  in the Planning Discourse?

Published February 26, 2023 Uncategorized 4 Comments

Thorbjørn Mann

Concern 

The rapidly increasing use of ‘AI’  — ‘Artificial’ or  ‘Augmented’ Intelligence — tools for many different kinds of tasks that require what resembles resembles human reasoning —  raise the question of how such programs should be dealt with in the Planning Discourse.  There is little argument that there are many information-gathering and data analysis functions at which AI programs are impressively faster and more efficient than humans.  There is also justifiable uneasiness about how the results produced should influence the decision process. ‘

At the extreme ends of sentiment, potentially flawed and dangerous reactions emerge: Blind faith and and acceptance of AI-based solutions at one end: The tendency to invoke ‘data’, ‘facts’ and science, that preceded AI, as the sole justifiable basis of public policy is strengthened by it. On the other end, the very effectiveness of these tools raise concerns that significant planning decisions determined solely by algorithms will excluding legitimate considerations by humans, and can lead to blind and violent rejection;  the very concept of an organized large scale discourse support platform can be seen as a ‘Big Brother’ power instrument that must be resisted. 

So the question of how these concerns should influence policy in general and the design of the platform in particular deserves attention and discussion. 

Discussion:

The question can be approached from several plausible directions, not all of which can be explored here.  One significant perspective is that of making the basis of ‘judgment’  of AI algorithms sufficienlty transparent to the public  to alleviate the ‘Big Brother’ concern. This will require work both on the AI development side and, significantly, on the side of education of the public, to be able to understand and critically evaluate and judge the explanations. The importance of this task cannot be overstated: mere ‘trust me’  assurances on the part of officials, purveyors of the AI programs, even of ‘independent’  review committees installed to produce the assurances will not be enough: How ‘independent’ can review committees be if installed by the authorities, AI providers and their lobbyists?  

Another approach to explore this question, is the following: to look for provisions in the platform that separate  ‘reasoning’, data analysis, performance calulations, simlulations,  etc. that best can be done by AI tools, from ‘reasoning’ involving evaluation judgments that should be contributed by humans, as clearly as possible. (Of course the transparency reviews of the AI tools should be part of these provisions as well.)

Whether such a ‘clear separation’ of reasoning, or even a reasonable approximation for practical purposes is possible, is of course up for discussion. In other words: Are there meaningful distinctions between questions that can or should be ‘answered’ by humans exclusively, and those where AI produced results should be given equal or even exclusive consideration? 

Some optimism about this issue is based on the structure of what I have called the typical ‘planning argument’. Turning the standard logic sequence of ‘premies, premise, therefore conclusion’ around to the more colloquial ‘proposal, because premise, premise, premise’ or: («Proposal A should be adopted because  A will result in B (given conditions C) and B ought to be pursued, and conditions C are/will be given.»)  The pattern contains two premises that can be taken to plausibly rely on AI analysis: the factual-instrumental premise ‘A will preduce B, given C’  and the factual premise ‘Conditions C are/will be given’.  But the premise ‘B ought to be’ as well as the conclusion ’A ought to be adopted’ itself are ‘deontic’ or ought-claims. Is it meaningful to accept a procedural rule of assigning the ‘right’ to judge or calculate the plausibility of premises only to the former (‘factual’) premises and the right to judge (or assign ‘weights of importance’) to the deontic claims only to humans?  Or to accept the rule that AI data and plausibility calculations of fact-premises should be given ‘due consideration’ by humans, but that the aggregation of judgments of both kinds to indications of overall support for the proposal A should include  human judgments only:  the decision should be based on human judgments  only? 

A few kinds of procedural provisions both for the assessment judgment of premises to form plauibility and weight judgents for individual arguments, and the aggregations of the resulting argument weights into plausibiity measures of the proposal have been sketched for discusiion. The provisions could be seen as part of the needed effort to make the reasoning ‘transparent’. It should be noted that all such results will be judgments by individuals, and thus legitimately different, not any abstract universal or even common ‘group’ judgment. Any AI results claiming to have been based on ‘due consideration of all pertinent concerns, pros and cons’  would have to show that it has been given all the judgments of humans affected by the problem a plan aims to solve, and by all proposed ’solutions’. This aspect alone seems to be a strong argument in favor of separating AI-produced judgments about plans from the judgments of humans. And that the way the planning discourse will deal with this issue urgently needs more thorough discussion. 

Comments?

Wrong question?  If so:  what is the better, real question or problem? 

*  AI is ‘Inevitable’: To the extent results to questions produced by AI programs already already are virtually indistinguishable from comments produced by humans, to the same questions, isn’t it futile to even consider the question whether such contributions to the discourse should be admissible or not?  There will be human participants who will insist on using the tools to produce their own entries. And if such entries are indeed difficult or impossible to distinguish from genuinely human entries, any effort to prohibit them may lead to rejection of actual human comments. So better question: AI based entries will be part of the discourse — but shouldn’t the way entries will influence  the decision be based on the merit of entries, regardless of whether they have been constructed by huans or AI algorithms? 

Comments?

PLAN P?  A PUBLIC PLANNING DISCOURSE PLATFORM:

Published February 25, 2023 Public Planning and Policy-making Platform Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

A discussion of the concept of a Public Planning and Policy-making Discourse Support Platform 

The preceding post ‘Counterframing’?  is part of an effort to explore the idea of a public planning discourse support platform — a platform aiming at recommendations and decisions based on the merit of contributions to the discourse, This post introduces the concept for disussion. Further posts will take up specific emerging issues for more detailed examination..

There are many well-intentioned efforts to find better ways of tackling the many local and global crises, conflicts, and emergencies facing humanity. These efforts are fueled by a growing common sense that current governmental and planning entities and their practices are proving ill-prepared and inadequate to find and implement constructive solutions — solutions that do not themselves generate new conflicts and problems. These efforts can be found on many different platforms and in many different media, explicitly or implicitly taking the form of proposals for what could or should be done. However, there is little evidence that the needed agreements for collective action will be reached soon enough to become accepted and effective.

Many suggestions for change are relying on governance organizations and their corresponding decision-making patterns that have been adequate in smaller communities and government structures; and there are good reasons for many local  issues to be resolved by ‘local’ governance entities. However, this ignores the fact that many of the challenges affecting  many communities across governance boundaries, and humanity as a whole, will require ‘cross-governance’ (‘nations’) and eventually ‘global’ decisions. The ‘local’ decision-making tools, even the ‘democratic’ practices such as majority voting, no more than the alternative growing trend towards authoritarian governance, offer adequate assurance that decisions will be based on ‘due consideration’ much less professed ‘careful weighing’ of pros and cons’ by decision-makers will produce effective and equitable solutions. Yet there is no evidence of a commonly accepted process of discussion and coherent evaluation of proposals, that can lead to viable agreements and collective action. 

A key reason for this is the current lack of a well-organized and universally accepted platform for communication among these initiatives and governance entities. While many such efforts ‘advertise’ their work and approach on social media, they do not communicate well for the purpose of achieving common agreements about what should be done: there is no common platform for well-organized discussion, thorough evaluation, adaptation to concerns by other perspectives, and eventually reaching recommendations and decisions that can be adopted by affected constituencies without creating new problems and conflicts. 

While current official and social media platforms are not yet well enough suited to support such a cooperative discourse, they do how that the technology for such a platform, open to wide participation and discussion is now possible.Yet there is little evidence of efforts to forge  a reasonable process of discussion and coherent evaluation of proposals, that can lead to viable and accepted agreements and actions.

This post aims at  starting a discussion of what a platform for a better public planning  and policy-making discourse might look like. It is an urgent invitation to participants from many different disciplines who will have to contribute their expertise and insight, to join the effort. 

The task itself is an example of projects that need such a platform — a platform that currently does not exist. So this ‘pilot’ discussion will have to start on a ‘tentative adaptation of something like this platform, thatvis not designed for this task. The needed adaptation agreements — that will themselves become the subject of discussion and modification — simply aim at a somewhat more structured format that may facilitate concise overview, evaluation and eventual  recommendations  and decisions based on the merit of the assembled content. 

Further posts will explore  details on a possible ‘Approach’, any needed ‘Procedural  Agreements’ and other essential features of the platform. 

UPDATE: Consider joining the discussion of this idea in the Facebook Group: PLAN P?  A PUBLIC PLANNING DISCOURSE PLATFORM

‘Counterframing’?

Published February 25, 2023 Uncategorized Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

Throbjørn Mann

The Framing Problem in the Planning Discourse  

In an ongoing process of designing the outline if a (potentially) global Public Planning Discourse Support Platform, a recurring issue is delaying the very attempt to open up a ‘pilot’ version on social media to discuss the concept and its development: the question of ‘framing’ the discourse.

The concept of ‘framing’ refers to the fact that there are always several different ‘ways of talking’  (also called ‘perspectives’ or ‘paradigms’)  about a problem or emergency or vision that some feel should become a community planning project. Further, is was seen that the first such ‘way of talking’  introduced into the discussion — even the way the project is ‘raised’ for discussion, often tends to dominate the ensuing discourse. And to the extent the concern for the project is ‘controversial’ or involves a conflict of interests, it thereby can become part of a ‘power’ tool in the search for solutions: it will favor a particular, — partisan — set of potential solutions. And this may result in solutions that are inequtable, unjust, oppressive to other parts of the affected constituencies.  

The implication for the design of a ‘democratic’ planning platform therefore becomes a  requirement to keep the platform design itself as ‘perspective-neutral’ as possible, lest it be perceived as a power tool of the part of the community that will benefit from solutions gained from the particular perspective, and therefore not trusted by other segments  of the community. 

Though the pursuit of perspecitve neutrality must be taken seriously, It is probably impossible to design a totally ‘perspectve-neutral’ platform.  But even if this could be done: would not then the very first effort by any party to start a discussion about a planning problem or project be the ‘framing’ entry the principle says we should avoid? 

So it looks like framing will be inevitable. The progress of designing an outline for even a pilot version of a planning platform has become stuck in this dilemma, to the point of not even being able to reach agreement on the basic articulation of purpose, focus, and aim of the project, for fear of committing the sin of framing.  

Now, would it not be more useful to look for platform provisions that would neutralize the effects of such first framing incidents, rather than to insist on avoiding them? Are there ways of acknowledging this, and including provisions in the platform design, for defusing any potentially controversial or destructive effects?

A first option would be to simply always point out the framing essence of discourse contributions — with ubiquitous reminders like Rittel’s suggestion to end each entry in an ‘IBIS’ (Issue Based Information System’) with a «Wrong question?» or «Wrong Problem?» line. It may have to be more specific, like «Wrong Way of Talking?» 

Another, more detailed possibility, following C. West Churchman’s recommendation of ‘testing’ a systems narrative with a ‘counterplanning’ effort, would be to adopt a rule of requiring that any entry of a substantial effort or proposal in the discourse must be accompanied by an equally plausible but substantially different ‘counterframing’ comment to be accepted as a topic for more in-depth and systematic discussion? 

The ‘democratic’ principles of planning and policy-making, that ‘decisions should be based on ‘due consideration of all concerns of all segments of a community; on ‘careful weighing of all pros and cons’ would seem to require that all ‘perspectives’ held by all parties in a community should be expressed, articulated and discussed. What provisions for the planing discourse wold be needed to ensure this? 

Is it a system? 

Published September 28, 2022 Uncategorized Leave a Comment
Tags:

A question posted (on the LI  systems thinking network) asked whether anybody had seen a documented Causal Loop Diagram of ‘virtuous loops’ systems in systems. Did it imply that there arent any? I suggested that the provision of merit point rewards for participation in public planning discourse,and the subsequent use of those points to make public officials ‘pay’ for power decisions that have not been publicly discussed, contained at least one such virtuous loop. Because I hadn’t also provided a CLD in the standard format, this was roundly rejected. It is not clear to me  whether this was because of the lack of a CLD, or whether the entire discourse process envisioned (but not described in complete detail) does not qualify as a system, in the author’s opinion. Other comments seemed to support this interpretation. For me, this raised some questions about the concept of ‘system’, its definition link or restriction to Causal loop phenomena, and their usefulness for the design of such projects as the discourse support platform.

The proposed ‘Public Planning Discourse Support Playtform’  I sometimes called a ‘system’ can be seen and described in several different ways.

To see what physical framework items  for a discourse are involved , it may be useful to first look at a discourse taking place in a real physical space with human participants communicating vocally about a problem or idea calling for a plan to implement it. 

The human participants, assembled in response to a call for discussion of a problem or idea or plan. proposed a plan whose realization wil require approval and resources by the community: This may be spoken or shouted out or displayed as a (deontic) question: 

“Should (‘ought’)  Plan A be adopted for implementation?”  

If the proponent is not an official (leader, designated or usurped ‘dictator’, simply announcing their intent to compel the community to adopt the plan, their aim is to obtain a (set of) acceptance message(s)— a ‘decision’ from the community signaling that “Yes, Plan A ought to be adopted.”  One or more reasons may suggest that this should first be discussed; that ‘pros and cons’ should be considered. The set of activities, and rules guiding their sequence to result in a final decision is a process. According to some understanding of ‘system’ — a set of ‘items’ with relationships between them — is it also a system?  

There are several definitions of ‘system’ in the systems domain, such as the ‘stock and flow’ concept, or the view that a system is a set of (preferably measurable) variables related by cause-effect relationships;  described by ‘causal loop diagrams’ — implying a condition I have read that such a thing must have ‘loops’ in order to quality as a system;  or more elaborate views such as that ‘“system paths are characterized with nodes that represent unique centers of inter unitary relationships conveying enabling communication for both internal systems and the whole system of systems”. 

There are aspects of the platform project that can meet several such definitions, by focuisng on different aspects. For example, the physical ‘containers’ and displays needed to proccess the flow of messages, and their connections, that may be primitive to the point of dismissal in town hall meetings, but becoming a distinct design problem as soon as the process is taken ‘online’. The professionals involved in its construction and operation will call this a ‘system’. 

A different view may focus on the content of the messages exchanged. In addition to the different types of claims about the merit of the proposed plan, the participants will harbor and express judgments about its  desirability or plausibility. The judgments can be expressed as characterizations such as ‘nonsense’ or ‘brilliant’ or ‘gee, I don’t know’, (which are not very helpful in assessing a collective ‘judgment’),  or on a better defined scale. For example, one with the values ‘yes, don’t know, no’, or a more detailed one such as numbers ranging from +1 (meaning definitely yes), totally plausible) via 0 (don’t know, can’t decide) to -1 (definitely not, totally implausible) with degrees of plausibility in-between.  The messages exchanged between participants (pros and cons, for example) serve to decrease or increase the individual overall plan plausibility judgments. The pros and cons can be further ‘explained’  (justified or supported) by further arguments in favor of the premises of the pros and cons, and on their  plausibility. From such individual judgments, some form of  statistical aggregation into a ‘community decision judgment’ on the same scale can be formed to guide the decision. 

This, like the physical components ‘system’,  sounds more like a ‘stock and flow’ kind of process, but I’m not sure whether there are loops in those flows to make it a proper system, and whether this is a key concern to worry about. Possibly if the process provides the option of modifications of the originally proposed plan in response to arguments: Certain changes will result in increase in judgments about some aspects while reducing others. The process will then become more complicated (and may often appear to some as too complex and even chaotic, even returning to ‘physical’ in a different sense). 

Curiously, the scant efforts to improve this phenomenon seems to appear too complex for many who prefer to rely on simple ‘yes/no’ majority voting regardless of the problems and ‘chaotification’ associated with this crude method (voting rights, the various forms of ‘rigging the system’ (if it indeed Is one); the complex process of drawing complex shapes of voting districts known as ‘gerrymandering’, and its blatant disregard for the solemnly invoked principle of ‘due consideration of all pros and cons’ about public plans: the wholesale dismissal of the concerns of the voting minority. 

’Reaching across the aisle’ to the miscreants and sinners?:  Treason. 

Whether this represents just the inevitable minor aberrations of the supreme governance model of ‘democracy’ or forboding its demise may be worth a separate discussion.

The upshot of these musings? The issue of whether or not, or on what conditions, the project can be called a ‘system’ is, in my modified judgment, not very helpful, in spite of the initially inspiring notion of guiding its design by providing it with ‘virtual’ loops towards better planning decisions.  It also seems to indicate that single forms of ‘systems’ models — cause-effect, stock and flows, only apply well to selected aspects of the overall project. Is it then composed of several  such systems, or asre the systems models just inadequate tools for the description of the whole thing? Again: is that issue helpful or a distraction to its design? 

It seems that i must regretfully leave the systems community to ponder its own process of evolving into a collection of systems silos with its arrays of admission criteria, and abstain from using the term ‘system’ altogether. So what should I call it? 

‘THE GREAT RESET’

Published August 11, 2022 'Next System' , control of power , planning discourse , Public policy discourse Leave a Comment

Thorbjørn Mann

The ‘Great Reseat’? 

Another new, evil bugaboo if not just  one more disguise or reincarnation of ‘socialist’, ‘neoliberalist’, but essentially authoritarian tyrnanny schemes?

I happened  lo listen to a lecture urging resistance against the WEF-driven ‘Great Reset’ that is using humanitarian crises like the Covid-pandemic as levers for unprecedented transitions toward capitalist-state-controlled Big Brother tyranny. Using well-intentionet benevolent mass protection directives (or means that can be presented as necessary mass protection tools, like wearing facemasks, social distancing, vaccination) as opportuntities for getting people used to more freedom-destroying oppression. Getting strong impressions that these warnings and concerns are either perhaps well-intentioned but based on thoroughly misunderstood misrepresented  nature and causes of the attacked evils, or just political ‘propaganda’ messages against the current administration — the very thing they accuse  

Assuming for a moment the interpretation of well-intentioned misunderstanding, but getting the direction of forces wrong:  Some key considerations. (Numbered for conveninece in responding, not to indicate any order of importance) 

1. Must not ANY initiative for improvement — well-intentioned or equally just power-hungry for the sake of power — pursue some degree of POWER  (‘empowerment’) to spread its ideas and get them adopted? Which also applies to any initiatives for resisting such initatives? 

2. Must not ANY adoption of ‘new’, ‘innovative’  or ‘restoring’  (repairing, returning to previous good states) initiatives and provisions at governance level (requiring adherence by all members of a community) run up against some degree of RESISTANCE by ‘opposition’ groups perceiving loss of status, power, well-being, profit from the change?  

3. Must not such opposition be expected, the more DECISIONS for adoption have been reached by decision methods  that inadvertently or deliberately ignore or override the concerns of such  segments of society, now feeling disadvantaged? Decision modes such as ‘leadership’  dictates or even majority voting, no matter how well justified as the very essence of democracy? 

4.  Are not most if not all current governance tools aiming at common ADHERENCE  to agreements (‘laws’) even by disavantaged parties, based on the notion of ‘ENFORCEMENT’ —that is, punishing violations by force (implied in the very term ‘enforcement’) or threat of force? 

5.  Will such opposition resistance not have to seek and adopt reciprocal force against ‘law enforcement’ means  — the more so, the more the very decision modes for law adoption  prevent or distort or ignore other means  of expressions of concerns by the disadvantaged parties? (Does this not include the ‘propaganda’ means of reckless mutual disputing / misrepresenting the intelligence, honesty, civil-mindedness, ethics, patriotism etc.?) 

6.  Will this reliance on force and counter-force not lead to a continuing escalation of the tools (weaponry) of ‘enforcement’ and ‘resistance’?  Escalation that can lead to internal civil war and revolution, and, given the increasing destructiveness of modern weaponry,  utterly ‘MAD’  outcomes on the larger, international level? 

7. Do these mechanisms not, potentially, apply to ALL historical and current forms of governance — not just to ‘socialist’ or ‘facist’, ‘chinese communist’ or ‘chinese capitalist’  but also to the ‘democratic’  regimes that are increasingly bought by the big corporations and oligarchs, or taken over by the military? The common denominator being the LACK OF EFFECTIVE CONTROLS  OF POWER? 

     Note that this conclusion does not imply nor justify the wholesale rejection of power: there are many situations in which effective public decisions will have to be made ‘fast’, without the benefit of thorough public discourse: On a ship encounering an iceberg in the ocean, one decision must be made ‘fast’ — pass the iceberg on the port or starboard side, with all necessary intemediate means for adopting the new course being followed by all affecte members of the crew?  

8. Regardless of the answers to these questions, does criticism of current ways of doing things not imply some responsibility of engaging in and encouraging a better PUBLIC DISCOURSE, supporting, even requiring, efforts of developing and discussing alternative, better ways?  Should mere complaints and attacks on ongoing or proposed change,  without concrete suggestions of better ways to  deal with the problems, just be seen as political  ‘propaganda’  in the interest of gaining politicsal power but under the same basic conditions that generated the problems? 

9. It would be presumptuous and preposterous for any single person to claim to have all the  answers. It can be argued, instead, that as a collective species, the global humanity as much as smaller local communities, WE DO NOT HAVE A CONVINCING, UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE MODEL FOR SURVIVAL – YET.  It could even be argued  that humans are a designing, planning species  with every generation wanting to develop its own ‘NEW’ definition, vision, design, plan for what it means to be human, and that it should be ‘empowered’ to do so, and that any ultimate ‘RESET’ model would be the wrong answer. 

     So my own attempts to offer some thoughts should be seen as efforts to respond to that responsibility of #8 above as encouragements to develop, engage in, and offering initial  contributions and proposals to the necessary public discourse, not as any ultimate panacea: Some urgently needed considerations and efforts:

10. There are many efforts, theories, initiatives, experiments and proposed ‘models’ already being developed and implemented all over the world. They are diverse, not all agreeing on the same principles and assumptions, and arguably not communicating well either with similar initiatives or a wider public. However:  should they not be encouraged and supported, by a global community?  Perhaps on some conditions: of 

10.1  Remaining ‘local’ (in the sense of respecting, tolerating neighboring and existing systems — until common larger, even global agreemenrts have been achieved by satisfactory and peaceful means;

10.2  Comprehensibly sharing their ideas and experiences (sucesses, obstacles, and failures) as well as proposals for wider adoption in a global repository for mutual learning, discussion  and evaluation;  

10.3  Refraining from any form of violent, deceitful, or otherwise coercive attempts to impose their provisions on other parties.

11  Encouraging the development of a ‘PUBLIC PLANNING DISCOURSE SUPPORT PLATFORM’  both to house and facilitate access to the respository of innovation / restoration initiatives, and the discussion of necessary ‘global’ agreements (common ‘road rules’ akin to the decision to dirve on the right or left side of the road…) 

12 Development of a PUBLIC (potentially global as well as ‘local’) PLANNING DISCOURSE SUPPORT PLATFORM aiming at common decisions based on the quality and merit of information and contributions to the discourse, containing:

12.1  INCENTIVES for wide and speedy public participation;

12.2   Standard INFORMATION SUPPORT (Similar incentives, reaearch etc.)

12.3   TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES  for structured discourse without excessive repetition, disruptive and flawed contributions but concise, effective overview of the whole spectrum of contributions;

12.4  Optional provisions for SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION  of contribution merit (e.g. the merit or proposals or proposal improvement ideas, or of arguments pro or con proposals);

12.5  Development and provisions for DECISION-MAKING  (Recommendations, agreements) based on contribution merit (rather than on shortcuts such as majority voting which systematically disregards minority concerns, and in itself is inapplicable to projects and problems transgressing traditional the boundaries of governance entities where the numbers of voters can be meaningfully defined…) 

13 Development of NEW tools for ENSURING ADHERENCE of desisions and agreements, as much as possible based on automatic prevention of violations (triggered by the very attempt of violation) rather than violent or coercive ‘enforcement’.

14  Development of better provisions for the CONTROL OF POWER, aiming at preventing the escalation of power and power tools and the corresponding intesity of opposition.

Tentative ideas for innovative techniques and tools related to the above items 10, 11, 12, 13,  and 14 have been proposed for discussion  in my papers on Academia.edu, FB, LI, books, and Abbeboulah.com blog; pfd files can be sent by email to interested people upon request (by LI message). 

Latest

RSS