Dear Lomax
On Monday 11 September 2006 04:36, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP, > i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for > “participatory?”
TOP stands for Transparent Open Public.
> > In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to its > members, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.
OK
> > The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimate > transformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully open > and transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately, > as they see fit.
What do you mean by still function privately?
> > Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it will > become much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public, > and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far more > efficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutually > beneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and the > public as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once they > are doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending on > the rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewards > innovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., it > issues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, I > think that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight! > > I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, but > rather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking, > the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems? >
OK, this is a start. Do you think FA/DP could be further optimized through additional concepts (e.g. TOP, integral decision making process, fishnet organization etc.)?
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1