From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jun 18 2001 - 09:30:28 MDT
Waldemar Inghdahl wrote:
>
> Instead of fighting over if there should be a government or not, at this stage, it is better to put the energies into winning ground for a broader and more visionary political discussion, instead of the narrow and ideologically void political discussion held today. A discussion where it is necessary to think big, in order to think small. In other words the contrary to the technical, administrative (with cynical notes) inside the boundaries of the 20th century nation- state corporativism that is prevalent today. A discussion where this 20th century project became so prevalent that all discussion of principles became erased. The goals became completely paramount, the only thing left to discuss was the best way to administer the system- reducing politics to administration.
>
>
But the above answer simply assumes there should be government
and that it is should be the that which "thinks big", does it
not? Why should the central discussion be political per se
rather than something else like technological, visionary,
generally memetic and so on?
>The 20th century project has failed, but nothing has risen to take it' s place, so it keeps on going (but now with a high degree of cynicism).
>
The "20th century project" actually succeeded hugely as it
brought us to the place where we have this many options and
pssibilities. I agree though that the same game is not
appropriate now.
> That's why I call myself a dynamist primarily. We' ll have the >discussion about minarchy or anarchy after we have gained a lot of >pull in the debate, and change many things in today's society. But >not now- today we have to fight techno naivism and cybergnosticism >in our own ranks, and concentrate on raising the level of the debate.
>
What do you mean by these terms precisely (or as much so as
possible)?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:10 MST