Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Approaching a Metapolitical Discourse

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 10:01 p.m. EST by metapolitik (1110)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[Originally written: June 2010. This is a 'living document' and as such, is periodically updated, revised and expanded. This is a short excerpt. For the entire article, please visit: http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse]

Introduction

Metapolitics [mɛtə pɒlɪtɪks] (sometimes written meta-politics) is metalinguistic talk about the analytic, synthetic, and normative language of political inquiry and politics itself. In simple words, it is talk about the way we talk about politics.

Example: If one studies, analyzes, and describes a language, the language used for studying, analyzing, and describing the object language is a metalanguage.

In current usage and praxis, the term metapolitics is often used in relation to postmodern theories of the Subject and their relation to political theory. In its broadest definition, metapolitics is a discipline that studies the relationship between the State and the Individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapolitics

Metapolitik.org grew out of my strong desire to start a 'Deep Green Social Democratic Revolution'. As others have noted, Capitalism as we know it is no longer sustainable and as such, cannot continue it's current trajectory of greed, cronyism and environmental destruction. To quote Alex Knight:

"Capitalism requires growth. A system that requires growth cannot last forever on a planet that is defined by ecological and social limits. Capitalism is therefore fundamentally unsustainable – sooner or later it will run up against those limits and the system will stop functioning. At this moment we are in the midst of a crisis which is calling into question the future of this system. Now is a perfect opportunity to envision a new way of living in the world that can meet human needs while also respecting the needs of the planet. It is time to build this new world."

Thus, Metapolitik is based on the understanding that modern 'Capitalism' (Corporate Socialism or Corporatocratic Fascism) is what author Douglas Rushkoff would call "legacy software" -- that is to say, an outdated, societal 'operating system' that no longer continues to serve it's intended purpose. While 'Capitalism' did great things for us back in the 20th Century (helped defeat the Nazis and rebuild Europe, etc...) ...It's pretty much out of steam. It cannot continue on it's current trajectory without dire consequences -- both ecological and economic. In many ways, it seems insulting to even call it 'capitalism' any more. More like: Corporate Socialism a quasi-fuedal, quasi-fascist corporatocracy in which the lobbyists who spend the most get the legislation that they want passed and in which dramatic condensation of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority of people have rendered our economy completely dysfunctional and utterly incapable of serving the needs of the body-politic. Not only is this a thoroughly un-democratic situation, it is not in the spirit of true capitalism. If it were pure capitalism - free market capitalism - we would all be independent contractors.

Political Spectrum

The Body Politic, in any developed country - tends to be a vibrant and diverse mix of people, cultures, colors, creeds and ideas. While this diversity makes the twenty-first century among the most interesting times in history to be alive, it also makes open discussion and analysis of our differing socio-political views incredibly challenging.

Metapolitik.org seeks to address this by formulating, exploring and codifying new methods of charting, mapping and analyzing aggregated data sources and displaying this political data at a glance in an easy to read format. As well as to create a collaborative platform for interaction that allows us to share, disseminate and decipher this data in as holistic, non-authoritarian and thoroughly decentralized a manner as possible.

'Deep': is a reference to the term 'deep-democracy', coined by psychiatrist Arny Mindell to describe a political system that enables a deeper, more democratic level of socio-political interaction. In a deep democracy, citizens will have direct influence over public policy, without the need for the parasitic political class that we have grown so accustomed to. It is now possible to achieve this with the aid of the Internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_democracy

'Green': of course, refers to the concept of 'green politics' - which is to say - a political ideology which places high importance on environmental goals, while achieving these goals through broad-based, grassroots, participatory democracy (thus, 'green politics' are inherently 'deep democracy' politics by virtue of their grass-roots approach). Green politics are advocated by supporters of the Green movement, which has been active through Green parties in many nations since the early 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics

Social: simply describes the inherently social aspects of society. Though the term 'socialism' has been demonized and vilified by the right, we already live in a socialist economy in many ways. All societies socialize some resources and capitalize others depending on an essentially arbitrary set of values that are ascribed to each respectively. In the US, examples of socialized resources include bailouts for banking cartels, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Workers Compensation and Unemployment Insurance. Just as communism is - at it's core - about community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Open Source Democracy

The term 'open source' comes to us from the world of software development and refers to a set of production and documentation standards that promote access to the end product's source materials or 'code'. Some consider open source a philosophy, others consider it a pragmatic methodology. Before the term open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept.

'Open source' eventually gained hold with the rise of the Internet, and the corresponding need for a massive retooling of computing source code. This in-turn enabled a self-enhancing diversity of production models, communication paths, and interactive communities. A new, three-word phrase: "open source software " was born to describe the environment that the new copyright, licensing, domain, and consumer issues created.

Douglas Rushkoff defines an open source democracy as 'what happens when the open source development model is applied to the economy'. In 'Applying the Theory' he observes:

"...It would mean coming to appreciate the rules of the economic game for what they are: [arbitrary] rules. Operating in a closed source fashion, the right to actually produce currency is held exclusively by the Federal Reserve. Quietly removed from any relationship to real money such as gold or silver by Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, US currency now finds its value in pure social construction.

"Whether or not we know it, we all participate in the creation of its value by competing for dollars against one another. For example, when a people or businesses borrows money from the bank (an agent, in a sense, of the Federal Reserve) in the form of a mortgage they must eventually pay the bank back two or three times the original borrowed amount. These additional funds are not printed into existence, but must be won from others in the closed source system. Likewise, every time a student wants to buy one of my books, he must go out into the economy and earn or win some of these arbitrarily concocted tokens, US currency, in order to do it. Our transaction is brokered by the Federal Reserve, who has a monopoly on this closed source currency.

"Meanwhile, the actual value of this currency, and the effort required to obtain it, is decided much more by market speculators than its actual users. Speculation accounts for over 90 percent of US currency transactions in any given day. By this measure, real spending and the real economy are a tiny and secondary function of money: the dog is being wagged by its tail.

"What if currency were to become open source? In some communities it already is. They are not printing counterfeit bills but catalyzing regional economies through the use of local currencies, locally created 'scrip' that can be exchanged throughout a particular region in lieu of Federal Reserve notes or real cash. The use of these currencies, as promoted by organizations such as the E.F. Schumacher Society, has been shown to accelerate the exchange of goods and services in a region by increasing the purchasing power of its members. There is no Federal Reserve surcharge on the creation and maintenance of cash, and no danger of government currency depreciation due to matters that have nothing to do with actual production and consumption. Introduction

Read More:

http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse

88 Comments

88 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I would love to add my work to this... as it closely incorporates many ideas and similarities here....

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yourtopia-your-official-final-beggining/121659664613545?sk=wall

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Interesting.

I look forward to reading this.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

i liked the write up. i've always had my reservations about currency and commodity speculation especially computer guided speculation. those profits seemed to be ill gotten when no intelligence was used to detect market patterns. if you have a brain and you use it to guess the trend of the market then maybe you deserve a better standard of living. but if you allow an algorithm to do your thinking for you, then i believe that is cheating. also, open source democracy seems like a complimentary idea for the information age. this i believe will allow the so called useful idiots to see exactly where their interests lie. i grew up in a working class neighborhood and we were not stupid. some get a little overwhelmed when a politician, wearing a three piece suit using big words, comes to their 'hood and starts telling them where their interests should lie, but when a counter claim is made on the heels of a claim, they are pretty quick to see the error of their first thought. computerized consensus building would alleviate the snake oil seller's hold. the language aspect of your claim is valid, but to truly get the ears of all, in my opinion, you should speak urban onix. my ability to use slang, edumacated words and shit talking have yet to steer me wrong. it allows me to see through euphemisms. your ideas are interesting and i'll be taking a greater look at your links. and glad to see the shit talking on the site has not deterred you. keep on thinking on. cheers!

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Sweet.

I'm really glad that you didn't let the language scare you away. I think pretty much everybody can wrap their heads around this shit if they really want to. It ain't rocket science, just some basic math, color theory and psychology.

Just because someone's not formally educated, doesn't mean they aren't smart. I've had high-school dropouts from inner city schools kick my but in chess and I've seen kids that everyone thought weren't very smart tackle and solve big problems. If we all put our heads together and respect each others' ideas, the world can become the kind of place we envision in our hearts.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

very well said.

[-] 2 points by zorbaka2 (61) 2 years ago

A no compromise mentality such as now exists in washington between republicans and democrats leads to cemented factions and can end in outright war. I think it better to seek compromise at first and meantime make more people aware of what has happened to them over the past 25 years. this can lead to real political change and without violence.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

"The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart."

~Mohandas Gandhi

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost."

~Aristotle

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

~ Winston Churchill

“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”

~Sydney J. Harris

"The sides are being divided now. It’s very obvious. So if you’re on the other side of the fence, you’re suddenly anti-American. Its breeding fear of being on the wrong side. Democracy’s a very fragile thing. You have to take care of democracy. As soon as you stop being responsible to it and allow it to turn into scare tactics, it’s no longer democracy, is it? It’s something else. It may be an inch away from totalitarianism."

~Sam Shepard

"Although our interests as citizens vary, each one is an artery to the heart that pumps life through the body politic, and each is important to the health of democracy."

"Democracy works when people claim it as their own."

~Bill Moyers

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

~Ronald Reagan
[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Metagovernment

Metagovernment.org is an existing project as well as a global network of people supporting internet tools to enable collaborative online governance.

They are a global community of people working on numerous projects which further this goal.

Here are some of these active projects, among many similar projects, that are being developed by members of Metagovernment:

Adhocracy — A drafting and (delegated) voting tool for small and medium-sized groups

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Adhocracy_project

Candiwi — Wiki software based on consensus, synthesis, and a distributed framework ("candid distributed wiki").

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Candiwi

CrowdVote — A bridge between direct and representative democracy, with delegated representation through social media.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/CrowdVote

Cyber Democracy - A concept which seeks to combine direct democracy with mainstream portable information technology such as smartphones and tablets.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Cyber_Democracy

DemocracyLab — Software using participants' posts and votes to build a dynamic map of political thought designed to facilitate consensus and solve problems.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/DemocracyLab

Determining Evaluation Voting — A quite advanced mathematical method to select a winner by letting voters evaluate(/score) alternatives. The method minimizes tactics and applies desired amount of consensus assign by a number.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Determining_Evaluation_Voting

Dynamic Democracy — An experiment that lets its users suggest and vote on bills that they wish the government was considering.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Dynamic_Democracy

Eudemocracia — Activist Latin American NGO based in Buenos Aires city. It promotes the open democracy philosophy.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Eudemocracia

GenerallyAssembled.com — An online general assembly platform.

http://generallyassembled.com/

Indaba Application Network — The platform running WeVote (on Facebook) and ChoiceRanker.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Indaba_Application_Network

Leading Boards— portal is for Board members and their meetings where they can view documents and archives online plus e-votes, collaborative and networking tools.

http://www.leadingboards.com/

Liquid Feedback –– The legislation platform used by the Piratenpartei in various parliaments of Germany.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Liquid_Feedback

NationBuilder — The platform running The White House 2, and a growing number of other systems.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/NationBuilder

Openpolitics — Canadian wiki based project for deliberation on political issues.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Openpolitics

StratML — An American national standard (ANSI/AIIM 21:2009) for strategic plans, with XForms and PDF Fillable forms authoring/editing interfaces and various service prototypes.

http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm

Telematics Freedom Foundation — Promotes democracy, including media and global democracy, through the promotion of telematic solutions (see linked page for list).

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Telematics_Freedom_Foundation

Vilfredo goes to Athens — Software which uses mathematical formulae to help participants build a consensus on an open question.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Vilfredo

Virtual Parliament — UK site allowing anyone to suggest and vote on policies.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Virtual_Parliament

Votorola — Software for building consensus and reaching decisions on local, national and global levels.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Votorola

Votetocracy — US site allowing citizens to vote on bills in Congress and send those votes to representatives.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Votetocracy

Wisdom Of Crowds — Open Source collaborative platform for making decisions build on top of Yii framework.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Wisdom_Of_Crowds

opendemocracy.fi — A community-based hybrid between direct and representative democracy

http://opendemocracy.wikidot.com/

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

— Thomas Jefferson, 1816

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

A People's Social Network:

http://metapolitik.org/welcome

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Very interesting. I'm going to pass this along.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

I like the idea. I have always thought that open source software is the best method. I used to use LINUX because it was the language of the nerds on a global scale. If someone writes new code that improves the OS then it just gets adopted and everyone benefits.

I think we need to assure a quality education to everyone who can maintain a grade level and who wants to learn, and we need to provide it for free. In the end it makes our whole society more informed and better overall.

I also like the idea of local scrip in regions. This would foster the community growth and prosperity without having threats imposed from without. Many skills that have been outsourced would begin to return to communities if the people there had a need for some product. The sense of community and social responsibility would grow in a much more healthy way.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Ochlocracy vs. Epimorphic Personal Ontologies

http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse#20

The hyperbolic attacks by those on the right of direct democracy being akin to "mob rule" is wholly inaccurate in that it presupposes a level of disorganization that is not typically present in a "General Assembly".

The idea of "mob rule" is more accurately described as "Ochlocracy" than "Democracy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

What I have attempted to do here, is to lay out a basic framework for discussing, visualizing and communicating political ideas. This is not to say that it constitutes 'the best' framework or the 'preferable' framework, simply a framework - which I believe is largely lacking in our national political discourse.

Some people have observed that the use of 'colors' might be problematic for the color-blind or that it would unjustly or inappropriately 'pigeonhole' the populace. While I agree that trying to lump people into 'groups' as it were can be problematic, this system addresses this via it's ability to handle gradients. By aligning people upon not two, but three sociopolitical axes, we get a deeper understanding of the individual orientation than we would get with a traditional 2-axes map such as the Nolan Chart. As for 'pigeonholing' people, I find that people pretty reliably tend to pigeonhole themselves to a certain extent and that in every group, there is room and willingness to find consensus, which is what this article is really all about.

The national news media already tries to frame the issues and candidates along a single red/blue axis and as such, this red/blue framework is already an integral part of the US political consciousness. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this, but that's the way it is.

All that I've really done here, is to point out the entire mass of 'green' people out there, that aren't having their voices heard and illustrating what our political spectrum might look like if their voices were included in the national, mainstream debate. In some respects, the colors themselves are largely arbitrary and therefore, (to a certain extent) meaningless in and of themselves. What is truly important rather, is the iteration and interaction between the naturally unfolding synergetic / tripartite components of our collective psycho-social interaction via the 'additive' process for consensus. Which - in this case - happen to be labeled Red, Green and Blue respectively.

You could just as easily make a version for the color-blind that used 3 shades of grey. So long as they were made to visually and mathematically 'add-up' to clear (consensus), the names and appearances of the colors are largely unimportant. What is crucial here is the mechanism for obtaining consensus.

The RGB attribution and the subsequent CMYK labels for types of consensus/contention are based on the existing political labels or 'colors', where they already stand. Don't shoot the messenger - I'm not making this stuff up, it's just where we find ourselves in the collective dialogue. Again, it is important to remember that this is less about prescriptive measures, than it is about asking questions and attempting to formulate a dialectic framework for 'metapolitics' (how we discuss politics) in this country.

New Left

This is greatly lacking, as is a collective understanding of poloitical discourse in-general. What we seem to have instead are a large number of professional pundits who's job it is to frame the issues for us along the lines that the powerful want them framed. What is lacking - and what I have attempted to provide - is an otological framework for discourse. What is needed are 'meta-ontologies' which can be used by people to create their personal ontologies, which can then be translated into other ontologies. This system constitutes a starting-point, a frame of reference, and in many ways a seed for just such ontologies to grow forth from. Also, this is an attempt to apply a homomorphic approach to political dialogue., that is precisely what I have done here.

An Epimorphism is a specific type of Homomorphism. The definition of Homomorphism depends on the type of algebraic structure under consideration. Particular definitions of homomorphism include the following:

  • A group homomorphism is a homomorphism between two groups.
  • A ring homomorphism is a homomorphism between two rings.
  • A linear map is a homomorphism between two vector spaces.
  • An algebra homomorphism is a homomorphism between two algebras.
  • A functor is a homomorphism between two categories.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphism

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

this is really awesome stuff, i think that needs to be worked on by the public on a wiki.

==============

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA

I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again. 1. Merely protesting in the streets will not bring change. In fact merely protesting in the streets is in fact a means to the end of avoiding the real work of a revolution, which consists of the evolutionary solutions, answers, problem solving process, and new political alignment we create. 2. This forum is absolutely disorganized. It won't be read by most people and it won't and can't function as a core organizational system. 3. Back at the very start of this, I petitioned the admin to add multiple sub forums and a wiki. Multiple sub forums were promised but have never arrived. I think that this tells us that the intention actually of this forum is message control and containment. The entire purpose really of this forum has always been to keep us spinning in disorganization. We are hanging out on a forum that expressly exists to actually keep us confused and disorganized. 4. The real work of a revolution isn't going to happen on forums, it needs to happen in a much more organized fashion using collaborative software. 5. The assorted other details about how to collaborate, how to work open source direct democracy, how to focus in on science instead of isms, how to become hyper rational about this, are details which are essential and crucial, without which we can predict the movement to fail. 6. Technically speaking we are not 99 percent, we are one tenth of one percent attempting to represent the 99 percent. Our core mission must be to communicate to and with the 99 percent, and get them to join us. This forum will not accomplish that and neither will any of the other main websites. 7. You can follow other people out to other wikis and other websites, where they will try to get you to get involved with what they want and their program, but frankly speaking, there is no other website and no other operation out there which understands the complexities involved with meaningful organization. In short, everyones being led to get involved here there and everywhere else, scattering the movement in directions which ultimately do not gain us critical mass, criticial momentum, or critical systemic lucidity. 8. I have managed to get a wiki put up and have already put on that wiki evolutionary details which make it more organized than anything else. I can't do this alone. There are 10 or so wikis now out there, most of which were created in response to my pleas for a wiki, and several of which are in domains owned and operated by some corporation, (wikia, etc) And which we can thus assume will simply be closed, shut down, or deleted if they become useful to the movement. 9. Probably at least half of the invites you have to go participate at some other site are people who are scamming everyone to waste time and energy, distort the movement, co opt it, and etc. When you walk off into a closet ask yourself how you know that the closet isn't created by some fed, or by some republican, or by some democrat, in order to sway things in their direction. 10. The only meaningful strategic option we have for real change in this country is to create a new third party, and take every political office in this country. 11. Once that is done, we can have an article 5 convention. If we have an article 5 convention before getting rid of the oligachs, that just opens the genie from the bottle for them to abuse that process with their corruption and evil.

For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

I thought gawd's wiki was wonderful too but i'd need to learn some skills first. You make it look so easy in this reply. Anyway I also liked the looks of Sparky's DD so maybe the three of you can brainiac together. Oh look at that, I was going to send you the link to the forum topic where i met (and talked with) Sparky but now I see you're ahead of me. Damn you're good ; ) I'm gonna paste it anyway cause I try to be helpful http://occupywallst.org/forum/direct-democracy-can-we-agree-on-this/#comment-437462

Peter Joseph would have RGates for breakfast too

"here we come out of the cradle, endlessly rocking..."

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Don't be discouraged.

I actually posted this in Gawd's Wiki awhile back and I too struggled with using it at first. Spend about 15 minutes reading the Wikimedia How-TO (Google it) and you'll be up and running.

I will soon be posting way more stuff on the Occupy Wiki and mirroring / linking-to lots of the content there.

But for now I've been busy working to get http://Metapolitik.org into "Alpha".

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

Thanks. What I lack in knowledge and skills here, I try to make up for with some integrity and willingness. One of my very first posts here:

I'm a farmer. I know a good machine from a crappy one (read Egypt). But a good machine in the hands of a lousy operator leads to damaged equipment and loss of crop leading to debts and hunger. We're coming out with better machines all the time but keeping the machine I have running productively means I can acquire a state-of-the-art machine sooner. So let's fix the machine we have (the ballot box is your tool box) while we discuss the new machine.

.org bookmarked

Soon AFTK

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

ah, right. now we just need folks to come work with us in it.

:)

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

I will soon be posting way more stuff on your site.

And mirroring / linking-to lots of your content.

Just been busy working to get http://Metapolitik.org into "Alpha".

Keep up the good work compadre!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by zorbaka2 (61) 2 years ago

one image makes it clear what happened over the past 25 years. http://zorbaka2.cwahi.net/1588/17905.jpg

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Stop making it about taxes.

Try: NAFTA

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Stop blaming it on Taxes.

Try: NAFTA

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by zorbaka2 (61) 2 years ago

my link went bad. here is the corrected one. http://zorbaka2.cwahi.net/1588/29189.jpg

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

First of all, I'm not crazy about people who copy wiki links, even if they themselves are the author of that wiki. Secondly, most of the links in this forum are viral. Third, I definitely do not like your use of the word, "praxis."

Nor do I like the word "metapolitcs" or the use of "metalinguistics" as means of explanation. What are you speaking of? Hermeneutics?

The very fact, that we use the English language with which to view the world effects the our view. Language actually effects the way we think. But even as "meta-linguistic" this does not address hermeneutics.

And overall, I think your philosophy is rather shallow.

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

First of all, I did not "copy [a] wiki link" (whatever that means) - rather - I posted an excerpt from an article that I wrote on a political philosophy that I have developed (Metapolitik) out the intellectual framework of "metapolitics"... And it's not a 'Wiki', it's a blogging platform and social network that I am developing. Any quotes form Wikis or links included are only there to support the statements made in the article. And why should I give a rat's ass whether or not you "like" it?

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "most of the links in this forum are viral". If you are insinuating that I am trying to infect someone's computer by sending them to Wikipedia, that is absurd.

Third, I definitely do not care whether you "like" my use of the word, "praxis". It's ironic, because the is one of the few (small) portions of the entire article that does quote from a Wiki (supporting material) - meaning that it wasn't my use of the word. Same goes for "metalinguistic". If you had bothered to read any of this, you would know that. Why do you feel that your opinion about anyone else's vocabulary is remotely important?

With the exception of a few supporting quotations, the rest of the article is entirely original and quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that you actually read the entire thing, seeing as how it is over 4000 words long and was posted in this forum less than 5 minutes ago. I had a college level reading aptitude in the fifth grade and even I cannot read that fast.

Thus, your observation that the article or the philosophy contained therein is somehow "shallow", is utterly without merit since you clearly did not even read the entire article.

Also:

Since you asked me: "What are you speaking of? Hermeneutics?"

...It is clear that you have absolutely no clue what the article is even about. Thus (again) your observation that the article or the philosophy contained therein is somehow "shallow", is utterly without merit, since you clearly did not even read the entire article.

In answer to your question... Only insofar as the field of "Hermeneutics" attempts to address the analytic interpretation of political data.

Again, why should anyone give a rat's ass whether or not you "like" it? (especially since you did not bother to read it)

Unless you have some actual, constructive criticism based on reflection and thoughtful deliberation, you can shove your attacks on my lexicon where the sun don't shine.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Your use of the word praxis comes from Aristotle. And it is essentially of a legislative nature.

"Metapoltical"; "metalinguistics"? Well, I have a new word for you, too: "meta- bullshit."

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Again, that use of "praxis" is straight out my reference material. If you don't like it, talk to the Cambridge University Press.

And if you haven't even read the article and you can't be bothered to offer thoughtful, reflective, constructive criticisms that address specific observations regarding the article's content...

Your opinion doesn't mean shit.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Agreed. A shallow reading indeed.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

You only gave is a "shallow reading"?

Why am I not surprised?

Old Thrasymaque... Up to his old tricks again.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 2 years ago

Sir, imho, an OWSer should write his own discourse. Referring to Wikipedia in a mega political debate that human civilisation is at stake is dwarf. As if for discussing economy you refer to transactions on eBay and Amazon. Besides, Wikipedia is a source of subtle misinformation and is extremely unreliable. It has a political agenda and is supported by the 1% to gradually change the actual events and knowledge of humans to a distorted version authorised by the 1% who rule the US. It has established by a very crafty approach towards a solid oligarchy that locks the pages and bars even known scholars to correct its misinformation by a system of anonymous moderators and editors whose expertise and scholarship is not known and acting like police rather than editorial staff of an encyclopaedia. It is also pushed by manipulation of main search engines into the potential inquirers. I said this since that might frequently happen to OWS debates: snakes left but treasure's gone.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Wikipedia is a perfectly suitable resource for providing inline citations - which is what I have done. Your statement that that Wikipedia is "a source of subtle misinformation and [therefore] extremely unreliable" is baseless and without merit.

Wikipedia constitutes a huge community of people from all stripes and all ends of the political spectrum who are dedicated to providing only factual data and who collectively check each-others' work, add citations and reference-links and who diligently correct each-others' errors. Every Wikipedia article the I have cited has it's own sub references and has been fact checked by the entire Wikipedia community.

Not 1%ers.

As for your statement that "an OWSer should write his own discourse": This entire document is an original work by myself and no other person, supporting links and inline citations not withstanding.

Your insinuation otherwise is as insulting as it is unfounded.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 2 years ago

I did not mean you copied things from the others. I meant, in such a debate you do not need to give reference to any source to support your point, let alone Wikipedia. As an OWSer, I do not scrutinize your discourse. I assume it correct and helpful. I am not on an scholar position to commit so. Wikipedia community job is to check the intruders not being allowed to inner circles and higher circles of moderation. Wikipedia is something that should be curbed from access of population not only for its crafty-ness but also for being superficial and mostly confusing, disassociated, and disintegrated. Your contribution in your submitted post is appreciable and useful but it bears a very small vestige of establishing an oligarchy similar to Wikipedia. Your vehement defence of "who collectively check each-others' work," is a witness to that. Before reaching to any tangible result for OWS you might decide that "Some are more equal than the others." Sir, you cannot engage in a mass debate by referring your audience to this place and that place. You should explain what you understand of any predicament that you put forward in situ, in a language that is understandable for all of your audience; you have to. You cannot stratify your audience based on their knowledge. You should understand clearly what is OWS about and what you mean by it. If you are on stage to dance for people, please dance! Do not explain how they can dance.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

I'm talking about crowd-sourcing software development.

There is a certain level of intelligence and a certain degree of informedness that needs to be attained before one can participate in such a discussion.

If that "excludes" certain people, then they are welcome to move on to the next conversation.

However, I am of the opinion that what I have written is accessible to anyone who wants to extend the effort to try and understand it.

Therefore, I resent the implication that I am being exclusionary, elitist or undemocratic. My framework allows everyone to have a voice and lets everyone participate in the conversation.

Your suggestion to the contrary is baseless.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 2 years ago

You have the obligation to disseminate your ideas in the most accessible way. You need to correct your participation for the best of all. You have to sacrifice your inclination towards showing scholarship. You need to connect to as much as possible. You should avoid creating tiers of inner circles and outer circles; it is not fair to do that. My suggestion is actually a meta discourse, as you aimed to engage, and is solidly founded on your own proposition.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

There are no "inner" circles.

I hope you did more than just look at the pictures.

If you did not understand the article, or feel that it is over your head, I am happy to discuss it. But your insistence that it should be 'dumbed-down' for the masses is unreasonable.

The article is written in plain English and all of the terminology is hyper-linked in such a way that any diligent reader can find clarification on any of the topics discussed.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 2 years ago

Thanks for your wikipedia-moderator type answer. Well, I am not keen to engage with concepts over and above my head. But if you are an OWSer it is enough for me. It is very early morning here, in contrast to Britain, and I should do things. Bye sir and thanks for your time.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Thanks for your crypto-troll type comments. Apparently, you are not keen to engage with concepts that you seem to think are over and above your head. But you imply that you're an OWSer, so that's enough for me. It is very early morning here, since I am located in the US, so I should do some things too.

Bye troll and thanks for your time.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

PS: Thanks for BUMPing!!!

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 2 years ago

Ah, sir, please do not engage me. Read again what i wrote. I didn't say you are discussing difficult things. I said just write your point. You do not need to give reference. when you say, "socialism" tell what do you mean. Do not send me to even Britannica encyclopaedia, let alone Wikipedia. Just say what you mean. If you need a way out there is one way out. connect and connect. do not close the doors. I am sure you are cultivated. 99% means many many educated people and less educated people. Please forgive me sir. Do not put name on me to exclude me. I have not created spam or promoted links.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Good thing you've got that second job with the Nova Mob.

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

He correctly reasoned. Just in his head - so far only porridge.

Help the thought!

My Dying Bride - The Scarlet Garden : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFnj7-CabtA

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

I realize that English is a second language for you.

But, I really hope you didn't just say I have porridge in my head.

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

You can read Russian text. There, even in details : http://www.rb.ru/blog/peretyatkov/showentry=1534744

God Bless You!

GODGORY....." CARESSED BY FLAMES" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8zQu9zuXmY

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Anarchist philosophy.

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Same thing. In the end it would kill a lot of people.

[-] 0 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

In the end Capitalism will kill a lot of people. It only prospers on over consumption. You can't possibly think this is sustainable.

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Re: MVSN: "Same thing. In the end it would kill a lot of people."

That's an absolutely absurd and baseless statement.

Nowhere in my article do I advocate killing anyone.

On the contrary, it provides a framework for Direct Digital Democracy (D3GA) and a metapolitical dialogue between people of ALL stripes.

But if you had bothered to actually read the article you would already know that.

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Not remotely.

It provides a framework for dialogue between people of all stripes.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

And that will solve what? Are you really idiot enough that left and right will all of a sudden start actually listening to each other? Why? You fantasy will change nothing.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

A) You saying it, does not make it so,

B) At least I am working toward pluralist, consensus ideals - while you're just being divisive and insulting,

C) Your grammar is appalling,

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Now that is a quality reply. Your stupid idea is a waste of time. And assuming that everyone wants to get on the web to have a consensus with dorks like you proves how stupid you are. Your whole system would be nothing different than this site is. Gonna get a consensus here? How's that for grammar stupid?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

It still needs work.

I am many things, but "stupid" is not one of them.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Yeah. Keep working on it.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

I meant your grammar.

You asked.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Go away boy.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

I'm the original poster of this thread.

If anyone should be leaving, it's you: TROLL

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

You're still working out the theory right?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Hence the word "Approaching" in the title.

If you have input, you are welcome to contribute BTW:

http://metapolitik.org/contact

Also, did you read the full article (?):

http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

BTW - I like the look of your website.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Editing past comments to remove nasty remarks and to make yourself look like less of a dick will not work.

The 'look' of the website is irrelevant and your nasty remarks are un called for.

It's purpose is to develop a framework for Deep Digital Democracy or "Metapolitical Discourse".

My openly Trotskyist political leanings have nothing to do with it.

http://Metapolitik.org will give everyone a voice, from all stripes and from every color in the political spectrum.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

What do you consider digital democracy?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

If you'd read the article you would not need to ask me that.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

Do you have a synopsis?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Yeah I'd say your laziness pretty much summarizes the situation.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Too lazy to actually read the damned article, yet all too ready to chime in on a public debate about it. The nice thing about people like you is that you make yourselves look stupid almost immediately. Thereby disqualifying yourselves from future debate.

You suck.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

What does this mean?

"If one studies, analyzes, and describes a language, the language used for studying, analyzing, and describing the object language is a metalanguage.

Do you have a summary?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Well if you think that particular excerpt is nonsense, then it say a lot more about your level of intellect than it does about the sentence in question.

I did not write that sentence, it's straight out of the Cambridge University Press definition of "metalanguage" and is quoted as a reference.

So apparently you think the CUP is "ridiculous nonsense".

Good luck with that.

You should expand your limited horizons:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/metalanguage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METALARE.html

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

Was that definition from Oxford?

Can you provide a summary? Just a short paragraph?

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

No, that definition is from here:

We are not alone:

Adhocracy — A drafting and (delegated) voting tool for small and medium-sized groups

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Adhocracy_project

Candiwi — Wiki software based on consensus, synthesis, and a distributed framework ("candid distributed wiki").

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Candiwi

CrowdVote — A bridge between direct and representative democracy, with delegated representation through social media.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/CrowdVote

Cyber Democracy - A concept which seeks to combine direct democracy with mainstream portable information technology such as smartphones and tablets.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Cyber_Democracy

DemocracyLab — Software using participants' posts and votes to build a dynamic map of political thought designed to facilitate consensus and solve problems.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/DemocracyLab

Determining Evaluation Voting — A quite advanced mathematical method to select a winner by letting voters evaluate(/score) alternatives. The method minimizes tactics and applies desired amount of consensus assign by a number.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Determining_Evaluation_Voting

Dynamic Democracy — An experiment that lets its users suggest and vote on bills that they wish the government was considering.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Dynamic_Democracy

Eudemocracia — Activist Latin American NGO based in Buenos Aires city. It promotes the open democracy philosophy.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Eudemocracia

GenerallyAssembled.com — An online general assembly platform.

http://generallyassembled.com/

Indaba Application Network — The platform running WeVote (on Facebook) and ChoiceRanker.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Indaba_Application_Network

Leading Boards— portal is for Board members and their meetings where they can view documents and archives online plus e-votes, collaborative and networking tools.

http://www.leadingboards.com/

Liquid Feedback –– The legislation platform used by the Piratenpartei in various parliaments of Germany.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Liquid_Feedback

NationBuilder — The platform running The White House 2, and a growing number of other systems.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/NationBuilder

Openpolitics — Canadian wiki based project for deliberation on political issues.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Openpolitics

StratML — An American national standard (ANSI/AIIM 21:2009) for strategic plans, with XForms and PDF Fillable forms authoring/editing interfaces and various service prototypes.

http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm

Telematics Freedom Foundation — Promotes democracy, including media and global democracy, through the promotion of telematic solutions (see linked page for list).

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Telematics_Freedom_Foundation

Vilfredo goes to Athens — Software which uses mathematical formulae to help participants build a consensus on an open question.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Vilfredo

Virtual Parliament — UK site allowing anyone to suggest and vote on policies.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Virtual_Parliament

Votorola — Software for building consensus and reaching decisions on local, national and global levels.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Votorola

Votetocracy — US site allowing citizens to vote on bills in Congress and send those votes to representatives.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Votetocracy

Wisdom Of Crowds — Open Source collaborative platform for making decisions build on top of Yii framework.

http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Wisdom_Of_Crowds

opendemocracy.fi — A community-based hybrid between direct and representative democracy

http://opendemocracy.wikidot.com/

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

— Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Direct Digital Democracy will be here sooner or later.

It's only a matter of time:

http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/

http://rebootingdemocracy.org/

http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/files/Rebooting_America.pdf

http://digital-democracy.org/

http://www.digitaldemocracy.org.uk/

http://www.rushkoff.com/open-source-democracy/

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10753/pg10753.html

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

A) One does not summarize an entire philosophical framework in 3 sentences.

B) I did not say Oxford, I said Cambridge

C) I did not say that I posted the "definition". I said that I posted a sentence "straight out of the Cambridge University Press definition of metalanguage". The sentence in question is used to illustrate simply what a "metalanguage" is. It was taken from the metalanguage entry.

D) You have a degree in Trolling.

E) Clever trick removing all of your comments about "nonsense" from previous posts.

You're like an Uber Troll.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

You're wasting time. Why not just post a paragraph summarizing your idea. Is that possible?

[-] 2 points by doctorlove (-10) 2 years ago

Why are you such a fucking asshole Glaucon?

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

Why are you so interested in assholes Dr. Love? Do you ever talk about other subjects? It seems to be an obsession of yours. No? I assume you and Metapolitik are partners in undercover work? There's nothing wrong be being gay, but repressing your feelings and temptations is not the best solution. It will just make things worst for you. Live life, it's short!

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

"The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart."

~Mohandas Gandhi

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost."

~Aristotle

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

~ Winston Churchill

“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”

~Sydney J. Harris

"The sides are being divided now. It’s very obvious. So if you’re on the other side of the fence, you’re suddenly anti-American. Its breeding fear of being on the wrong side. Democracy’s a very fragile thing. You have to take care of democracy. As soon as you stop being responsible to it and allow it to turn into scare tactics, it’s no longer democracy, is it? It’s something else. It may be an inch away from totalitarianism."

~Sam Shepard

"Although our interests as citizens vary, each one is an artery to the heart that pumps life through the body politic, and each is important to the health of democracy."

"Democracy works when people claim it as their own."

~Bill Moyers

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

~Ronald Reagan
[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Wrong.

You're wasting my time.

The work is posted.

If you haven't even read it, then your opinion doesn't mean shit.

Read it or STFU.

Troll

And if you post anything else you are a PROVEN Troll.

(No one wants to see pictures of your unholy Demon spawn)

I'm not laughing so much at it, as I am at you.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

And if you post anything else you are a PROVEN Troll.

(No one wants to see pictures of your unholy Demon spawn)

I'm not laughing so much at it, as I am at you.

...

But hey, thanks for bumping the hell out of my thread (;p

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

Why the insults? I just wanted a summary.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

Calm down. I just wanted a short summary. That's all.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

Oh my! What bad marketing skill! I'm astonished! You can't even be bothered to support your idea with a short summary.