Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 17:22 06/01/03, DPF said:
> On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 12:13:44 +0100, "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin"
> "Let be pragmatic: you call for global action and for leadership. This
> has a name: Fascism. This has never worked"
>
> I consider my response extremely mild when you bandy such provocative 
> accusations about.  Especially when some of us have relatives who were 
> executed by actual fascist regimes.
It happens that my family is among those who have been victim of Nazism.
It also happens that my family is also one of the very few non-Italian 
which has been victiom from Fscisti (BTW quite harassing but less lethal). 
So, please do not start playing that kind of woding with me. Also, that I 
am quite resentng that kind of appraoch, even at their roots, as there are 
often very complex to sepearte from illusions and good faith.

I though as a supposed politician person you would have minimum knowledge 
of polictal theories. The "dictartorship" (cf. ancien Rome, French 
Constituibn Art. 16) in the understanding you advise makes everything 
dependent from a common vsion of the community through a (charismatic) 
leader supported by a structured society, is named fascism. Similar 
concepts but for money is named ploutocracie (I do not know the English 
wording) or for stability through inheritance is named aristrocracie, or 
the respect of the people is named revolutionary democracy (standard 
democracy does not call for people structuration).

This comes from Mussolini's vision of the Intalian society from his 
socialist (love of the community and service of the others but structured 
as per the French Baboeuf), from his ancient Rome culture (the legal 
emergency dictatorship), from his love of new Italy inherited from Cavour.

The reason why the fascism is a new concept in constituationalism is that 
it uses a sublimation of the common interest (state, religion, network) 
which is only permitted with a cybernetics vision (science of the feed 
back: to understand that there is something in common you must experiment 
it in common, and understand that the community could not/did not exist - a 
modern notion).

This explains why new countries of the XIXths century (Italy, Germany, to 
some extentd Belgium and today new arabic States, suffer from them: people 
have recentrly shared into the exaltation of creating a common concept 
which works).

On the Internet this concept is very common in community building. You can 
name it the way you want, but here it is. I never bandied you as a Nazi, I 
said that the concepts you support have never really worked (we know the 
madness of the German and to some extent Italian regimes, but many other 
occurences exist. I may recall you that Musolini was first an ally. In 
general language one name them "modern states")..

> So don't start playing the innocent wounded - you can't call effectively 
> call people fascists
please class your true ideas in the way you want. Today general technical 
definition is that. If you find a better and clearer technical name, 
understood by everyone, I will use it.

There is certainly a tendency by ignorants to confuse issues, and people 
considering being insulted if they are called republican, monarchist, 
aristocrats etc... there is even a current thread at the IETF where a woman 
explains that "woman" can be an insult.

I am afraid you confuse fascist - which describes a type of political 
organization - with Nazism. Like some other may confuse Communism with 
Bolchevism. Or Democacy with French Terror. You can achieve nothing is you 
prevent yourself to call things by their name, so you can analyse them.

But there are people burnings books..... Would you be some of them?

> (for the crime of disagreeing with your ideas)
absurd.

You do not disagree with my ideas. You have some vision I partly share but 
you block by lack of openess to the real world. And even if you were 
disagreeing, I do not see where there would be a crime.

> and not expect a severe response.  Your credibility with me anyway has 
> plunged from sceptical to permanently zero.  I see little point in trying 
> to continue to hold a civil discussion while you resort to such tactics as 
> labeling ideas you disagree with as "Fascism".
If I did not respect you for the long time spent together on other lisst 
and your sometimes very valuable inputs, I would believe that you accuse me 
of what you exactly try to do.

If you are an honnest person, and I think you are, I would suggest that you 
remove the word "Fascist" from my mail and call it "tyrannic democracy" 
(this is a near-by way JP II uses to generalise the concept, whoever it 
does not necessarly includes the roman fascio idea of uniting all the 
forces of the community, or the spanish "jug"). Or use the workd "wrong 
theories according Jefsey", and reread it.

You will see that what I say is that the kind of solution you propose in 
good faith and with a genuine desire to help the community are seeds of 
that type conception. The only diffrence being - in cyberspace - that 
people are here by trust and that this type of proposition will not attract 
them.

I am sorry, but at the end of the day you can say what ever you want, your 
position have lead, are leading and will lead to no where. You may be 
skeptical about mine: they are just to to try to respect the models from 
observation that permitted the world to live, survive and time to time 
develop for billions of years.

It happens that this kind of thinking has a name. It is called 
cybernetuics. It was initiated by Californian Mr. Wiener before the war, it 
was developped by French Louis Coufignal (who was the guy who proposed to 
use binary to accelerate the feed-back computation in sea anti-aicraft 
firing and permitted to kill Zeroes, opening the way to robotics and EDP, 
hence the use of the word "Cyberspace" for the network life). It happens 
that it has introduced the modelization concept and the work on 
communiction, information, motivation, cognition etc.

So, actually, the whole world we live in and with - where axiomatic and 
analysis have be coupled with analogy and synthesis.

Hence the reason why ICANN, icannatlarge.org may want to build theor own 
world on their own axiomatic ... this will never work. Feed backs have said 
no. You may want to impose your ideas, to force the things your way 
:reality will be stronger. Intelligence is to be in good intelligence with 
your own real world and to use it. Not to reinvent it.

Have a good day.
jfc





















---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de