RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] News from Johannesburg (2)
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, John Maloney wrote: (01)
> I was quite surprised to your reaction to dissent. Is dissent un-unrev?
> I know dissent is not un-American. (02)
Dissent is essential. You know that as well as I do. (03)
> BTW, are you a statist? An apparatchik? (04)
Hi, my name is Chris Dent. I'm currently a student. I've been a few
other things as well. I reside in the United States of America but I'm
not a citizen there. I have opinions about things. Lots of them. Thus
far I've not been able to categorize myself. I'm pleased with that. I
take the good stuff and use it and save the not so good stuff for
making comparisons later. I'm a human, I live in the entire world,
just like everyone else. I pledge no permanent allegience to any
authority embodied or not. (05)
> Look, meta-govt, bureaucracies and empire squashes innovation,
> collaboration, community, computing and communications. It is not worth
> the keystrokes to explain... (06)
Thank you for answering my first question. I couldn't tell whether you
were saying that collabortion squashes innovation as meta-govt does,
or that meta-govt squashes collaboration. You've cleared things up. (07)
I would reinterpret what you are saying to be that poorly performed
collaboration squashes collaboration, community, etc. Thus the need
for reform that others have mentioned. Thus, as well, the need for
standards of exchange. If you want exchange to be multi-lateral, then
people have to get together and chat and make some agreements. (08)
You seem to be arguing against multi-lateralism and that's the part of
this discussion that I don't really understand and thus the reason I
asked you my second question, which you did not answer. I said: (09)
2) In my view the uni- or bi-lateralism that you appear to support in
international policy is antithetical to the philosophical underpinnings
of collaboration. How do you reconcile that with your own apparently
very strong interest in Engelbart's style of collaboration or at least
collaboration in general? (010)
> According to Marshall McLuhan, for yet another example, decentralism is
> essential to electronic technology just as centralism was critical for
> mechanical technology specialization and military industrialization. (011)
I agree that decentralizing control is necessary for effective use of
electronic technology as well as being an effective member of society.
However that only reinforces the need for shared understanding and
agreement in the global domain because the local domains are part of
the bigger picture and benefit from exchange. (012)
> It can't be made any simpler. The electric world could be "open, dynamic
> and interdependent" unless you close it down with rigid, mechanistic,
> self-serving economic bureaucracies like the EU, NAFTA, WTO and the
> rest. Their bogus charter and mission will not serve the 21st century. (013)
Instead you suggest that individual states create their own rigid,
self-serving bureaucracies against which the other states can beat
their heads? (014)
This I don't get. (015)
> Quiet frankly, the electronic 'unrev' society is more akin to an
> agrarian society and has little requirement to be served by phony,
> corrupt and unelected supra-govt. (016)
Actually, I tend to disagree. It seems this group needs mutually
agreed upon targets for development and improvement and some thing to
"manage" those targets. Much like what the Johannesburg summit wanted
but didn't really get. People can get together to shake hands for a
few days, but eventually it'd be nice to make the world a better
place, yeah? Or perhaps we should leave that to industrys so somebody
can make money from it? (017)
Also, you didn't respond to my request. If you could take care of that
I'd appreciate it. Thanks. (018)
--
Chris Dent <cdent@burningchrome.com> http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/
"If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are
opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be
justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice." N.Chomsky (019)