Science > Physics > Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 10:08:17 AM |
| Object: |
Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
The ideas here lead to an interesting application of physics like tools
to the design of political power equilibrium architectures. Probably by
now my posts are already leading to this kind of models while I
languish in a drop in center unable to phone nor almost to move around,
essentially depriving me of the fun. For instance, there can be
invariants built in the system to approximate concepts such as equity
and stability conditions and balances of forces and avoidance of
deadlocks in the system, dynamic (revolvent) fluxes, geometrical
architectures with particular properties, etc. I have in mind something
akin to fluid mechanics, though I imagine it embedded (flowing) through
structures like toothpicks joined by beans.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: The World Federation & The Fourth Wave (was: ...World Democracy, World Parliament) |
11 Feb 2005 01:46:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The ideas here lead to an interesting application of physics like
tools
to the design of political power equilibrium architectures.
Take a look in comp.theory "The Future of the World", from August 5,
2003.
Search under Google groups under "The Future of the World" and
comp.theory.
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22The+Future+Of+The+World%22+comp.theory
The Freedom House has compiled ratings for the nations and dependencies
of the world since the early 1970's. These are, essentially, a
standard measure in political science. With this amount of data it is,
consequently, possible to tabulate a transition matrix for a Markov
process.
The results outlined there indicate the steady state and the relaxation
time.
Toffler (of Third Wave and Future Shock fame) has decisively repudiated
the notion of a United States of the World, at large. The
nation-state, as clearly pointed out there, is a Second Wave (i.e.
Industrial Era) concept and is largely outmoded in this day and age.
It has been cut out from above and from below and is really no longer a
cohesive structure in this world -- as is becoming more and more clear
with time.
A world body has to be a LOT MORE than merely an agglomeration of
nation-states (particularly given their obsolescence), and a lot more
than merely a United States writ large.
An outline of the structure of the future World Federation, its key
components or organs, the major issues at large, was posted by Lydia
Marie a while back under the article titled
"The UN is the Outmoded WWII Alliance. The World Federation and Future
Civilization"
September 24, 2004
talk.politics.mideast
Search under Lydia, Outmoded, WWII, Alliance
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=Lydia+Outmoded+WWII+Alliance
Also, note the commentary in the letter to the editor posted to the
Chinese People's Daily by Lydia Marie
"The Future of China, Taiwan and the Communist Party"
October 16, 2004
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/reader/letter/letter_925.html
A more deailed elaboration of Toffler's views, mine, and the structure
of a World Federation that meets them all is in
"The Fourth Wave To Be Presented At Transvision 2004"
July 30, 2004
alt.politics.world.federalism
Search under whopkins Transvision world.federalism Fourth
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=whopkins+Transvision+world.federalism+Fourth
which is further elaborated (along with a detailed critique of
Toffler's Third Wave premise and the reasons for the Fourth Wave) in
articles of the same name in the following places (also accessible by
suitable Google searches):
July 30, 2004
alt.books.toffler
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=whopkins+Transvision+alt.books+Fourth
July 30, 2004
uk.telecom
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=whopkins+Transvision+uk.telecom+Fourth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
05 Feb 2005 08:20:56 PM |
|
|
The ideas here lead to an interesting application of physics like tools
to the design of political power equilibrium architectures. Probably by
now my posts are already leading to this kind of models while I
languish in a drop in center unable to phone nor almost to move around,
essentially depriving me of the fun. For instance, there can be
invariants built in the system to approximate concepts such as equity
and stability conditions and balances of forces and avoidance of
deadlocks in the system, dynamic (revolvent) fluxes, geometrical
architectures with particular properties, etc. I have in mind something
akin to fluid mechanics, though I imagine it embedded (flowing) through
structures like toothpicks joined by beans.
[Democratic power can be modelled as parabolic, reaching a maximum
during the middle of the term. A catastrophic schedule can be used for
personal de facto power acquired by politicians independently of the
office and their terms. Maybe a superimposition would lead to
meaningful results. Dictatorships would follow the same type of
schedule. This forms may be useful to model transference of forces.
Economics techniques such as the use of indexes and ordinals may be
needed, though political power can be approached through proxies like
size of budgets, number of phone calls, spreading of documents...].
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
20 Feb 2005 10:50:19 AM |
|
|
A pyramidal model of power, even if containing power equilibria at
levels, has the defect of being possibly strangulated by a minority
group simply by exercising the threat of violence or the lure of money
to an adequately small level, stopping the flux of information for the
higher levels to make informed decisions with respect to the base of
the pyramid or individuals. If this danger is not recognized, the top`s
power can be modulated, redirected by the external minority group
without changing the basic institutions or decision making mechanisms
or the usual mechanism to recycle power.
A vertically (cylindrical) flowing exchange of information and power
would avert this danger without losing the advantages of equilibria of
powers.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
05 Mar 2005 05:07:07 PM |
|
|
A pyramidal model of power, even if containing power equilibria at
levels, has the defect of being possibly strangulated by a minority
group simply by exercising the threat of violence or the lure of money
to an adequately small level, stopping the flux of information for the
higher levels to make informed decisions with respect to the base of
the pyramid or individuals. If this danger is not recognized, the top`s
power can be modulated, redirected by the external minority group
without changing the basic institutions or decision making mechanisms
or the usual mechanism to recycle power.
A vertically (cylindrical) flowing exchange of information and power
would avert this danger without losing the advantages of equilibria of
powers.
Another disadvantage of the pyramidal architecture of power is that it
will tend to frame *all* individuals into the scheme. Since individuals
are diverse there is no guarantee that we will conform to his structure
reminiscent of the socila structure of baboons. In a globalized and
overpopulated, structured world, it means that we cannot leave the
group to form a new colony, which in turn will adopt the same pyramidal
structure. At most, we can form castles, irregular structures with
diverse peaks with the bulk of the population in the base and few
individuals in the top. This model allows for several dominant
individuals but then this structure is not always *natural*. Modern
democracies allow for this structure by dividing powers and
specializing sectors, yet a problem remains, since even though some of
the available structured peaks are filled by individuals for long spans
of time, the conventional structure of a single individual becoming the
uppermost leader places an upper constraint over the rest of the
population, the rest of the peaks. This atavic need for a simple
structure of power assumes that there is a highest peak and it is
occupied by a single individual, the reast of the peaks being subpeaks.
This can not always be met according to the law of biological
diversity, since there is no guarantee either that there won`t be
individuals who would by their mere person-ality occupy a high peak,
therefore implicitly competing with the individual currently occupying
the high place, even if that competition is not directly nor willing.
And even this `currently` is problematic since places are exchanged
with regularity in a conventional form...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
13 Mar 2005 08:22:20 AM |
|
|
An important difference beween the pyramidal (block) model of power and
the castle metaphor (fractal), is that in the former though a
strangling is possible, it requires a lot of effort to advance to the
proper place. It is steep and smooth as to say; that`s one reason why
this kind of structure, the egyptian model, tends to be sutained by
caste systems, to ensure that there is little upward mobilityand help
stabilize the model.
But in the castle model, though difficult, strangling is easy, sinc it
is easier to climb some of the lesser pinacles and then use them to
climb other pinacles. Following the metaphor, it is easier to find a
path in an irregular mountain to the top than to climb a smooth
surface. So once one pek is onquered, (through strangling), it can be
used as a platform to climb other peaks, turrets, and form a web that
separates the highest peaks from the the base...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
13 Mar 2005 08:46:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
An important difference beween the pyramidal (block) model of power
and
the castle metaphor (fractal), is that in the former though a
strangling is possible, it requires a lot of effort to advance to the
proper place. It is steep and smooth as to say; that`s one reason why
this kind of structure, the egyptian model, tends to be sutained by
caste systems, to ensure that there is little upward mobilityand help
stabilize the model.
But in the castle model, though difficult, strangling is easy, sinc
it
is easier to climb some of the lesser pinacles and then use them to
climb other pinacles. Following the metaphor, it is easier to find a
path in an irregular mountain to the top than to climb a smooth
surface. So once one pek is onquered, (through strangling), it can be
used as a platform to climb other peaks, turrets, and form a web that
separates the highest peaks from the the base...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
A diagram for the pyramidal model would be the following:
-->|
|<--
------>|
|<------
|<----------
----------->|
Note how in each level power is maintained by keeping things `in the
family`. This subcounscious understamding of a stable, simple model is
exemplified in Reality by the construction of pyramids. Societies
following this model will choose thepyramid as a constrution principle,
a spilling into Reality of a subconscious (trscendent, collective
unconscious) model, a simple depiction of society, a symbol for all to
understand. And note how also this is the basis for the incestuous
practices of old societies. Both the pharoahs and the Incas followed
the same archetype, a a level of minimum energy that keeps all
variables and constraints in stable values. It is a basic configuration
for powe, that simple societies would ofllow almost instinctively once
certain critical mass is achieved.
FabrizioJ Bonsignore, now Danilo Jose Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
13 Mar 2005 09:01:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
wrote:
An important difference beween the pyramidal (block) model of power
and
the castle metaphor (fractal), is that in the former though a
strangling is possible, it requires a lot of effort to advance to
the
proper place. It is steep and smooth as to say; that`s one reason
why
this kind of structure, the egyptian model, tends to be sutained by
caste systems, to ensure that there is little upward mobilityand
help
stabilize the model.
But in the castle model, though difficult, strangling is easy, sinc
it
is easier to climb some of the lesser pinacles and then use them to
climb other pinacles. Following the metaphor, it is easier to find
a
path in an irregular mountain to the top than to climb a smooth
surface. So once one pek is onquered, (through strangling), it can
be
used as a platform to climb other peaks, turrets, and form a web
that
separates the highest peaks from the the base...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
A diagram for the pyramidal model would be the following:
-->|
|<--
------>|
|<------
|<----------
----------->|
Note how in each level power is maintained by keeping things `in the
family`. This subcounscious understamding of a stable, simple model
is
exemplified in Reality by the construction of pyramids. Societies
following this model will choose thepyramid as a constrution
principle,
a spilling into Reality of a subconscious (trscendent, collective
unconscious) model, a simple depiction of society, a symbol for all
to
understand. And note how also this is the basis for the incestuous
practices of old societies. Both the pharoahs and the Incas followed
the same archetype, a a level of minimum energy that keeps all
variables and constraints in stable values. It is a basic
configuration
for powe, that simple societies would ofllow almost instinctively
once
certain critical mass is achieved.
FabrizioJ Bonsignore, now Danilo Jose Bonsignore
By followinf this ideas we can envision a mathematical model for the
historic development of power and political structure that is dependent
on population size, similar to the growth of a fractal structure, from
tribal societies organized around families, to clans with one chief to
dictatorships to the adding of more powers... from hte simplest family
pyramid to the complex fractal castles of current societies.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
25 Mar 2005 08:31:31 AM |
|
|
Defining democracy as the rule of the people, or the government of many
as opposed to the government of few (oligarchy) or the government of
one (dictatorshop) iimmediately brings to mind the need of mass
information, mass channels of communication. In small perfect
democracies as that of the first icelanders it is unnecessary to have
this mass channels, as all individuals can gather together to decide
and receive the news. With population growth democracy finds obstacles
as information has to travel wide and is subject to entropy,
corruption, so that far individuals (metaphorically far, more a social
concept than a geographic concept, or in mathematical terms a distance
in the space of a country's population), receive corrupted information
that disables them to make effective decisions. Information entropy is
a limit to the growth of nations and empires, the reason why empires
ultimately fail. So even though the Romans were able to have a
democracy of sorts, their empire was authoritarian and failed the
moment they overreached, since they lacked mass communication channels.
With the advent of the printshop modern democracies found their first
chance to extend tehmselves and take the place of authoritarian
Feudalism, which by the way is such that information doesn't need to
travel far nor fast to make decisions since the worldview is very
simple for all concerned. NO wonder it was France during the
Encyclopedic revolution (Voltaire) that defines the basis of modern
democracies, given the widespread use of printed methods to inform the
public of what was happening. That the change of paradigm was violent
is a historical disgrace, though, that could be voided if reading
skills had been more widespread, surely...
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
An important difference beween the pyramidal (block) model of
power
and
the castle metaphor (fractal), is that in the former though a
strangling is possible, it requires a lot of effort to advance to
the
proper place. It is steep and smooth as to say; that`s one reason
why
this kind of structure, the egyptian model, tends to be sutained
by
caste systems, to ensure that there is little upward mobilityand
help
stabilize the model.
But in the castle model, though difficult, strangling is easy,
sinc
it
is easier to climb some of the lesser pinacles and then use them
to
climb other pinacles. Following the metaphor, it is easier to
find
a
path in an irregular mountain to the top than to climb a smooth
surface. So once one pek is onquered, (through strangling), it
can
be
used as a platform to climb other peaks, turrets, and form a web
that
separates the highest peaks from the the base...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
A diagram for the pyramidal model would be the following:
-->|
|<--
------>|
|<------
|<----------
----------->|
Note how in each level power is maintained by keeping things `in
the
family`. This subcounscious understamding of a stable, simple model
is
exemplified in Reality by the construction of pyramids. Societies
following this model will choose thepyramid as a constrution
principle,
a spilling into Reality of a subconscious (trscendent, collective
unconscious) model, a simple depiction of society, a symbol for all
to
understand. And note how also this is the basis for the incestuous
practices of old societies. Both the pharoahs and the Incas
followed
the same archetype, a a level of minimum energy that keeps all
variables and constraints in stable values. It is a basic
configuration
for powe, that simple societies would ofllow almost instinctively
once
certain critical mass is achieved.
FabrizioJ Bonsignore, now Danilo Jose Bonsignore
By followinf this ideas we can envision a mathematical model for the
historic development of power and political structure that is
dependent
on population size, similar to the growth of a fractal structure,
from
tribal societies organized around families, to clans with one chief
to
dictatorships to the adding of more powers... from hte simplest
family
pyramid to the complex fractal castles of current societies.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
25 Mar 2005 08:48:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Defining democracy as the rule of the people, or the government of
many
as opposed to the government of few (oligarchy) or the government of
one (dictatorshop) iimmediately brings to mind the need of mass
information, mass channels of communication. In small perfect
democracies as that of the first icelanders it is unnecessary to have
this mass channels, as all individuals can gather together to decide
and receive the news. With population growth democracy finds
obstacles
as information has to travel wide and is subject to entropy,
corruption, so that far individuals (metaphorically far, more a
social
concept than a geographic concept, or in mathematical terms a
distance
in the space of a country's population), receive corrupted
information
that disables them to make effective decisions. Information entropy
is
a limit to the growth of nations and empires, the reason why empires
ultimately fail. So even though the Romans were able to have a
democracy of sorts, their empire was authoritarian and failed the
moment they overreached, since they lacked mass communication
channels.
With the advent of the printshop modern democracies found their first
chance to extend tehmselves and take the place of authoritarian
Feudalism, which by the way is such that information doesn't need to
travel far nor fast to make decisions since the worldview is very
simple for all concerned. NO wonder it was France during the
Encyclopedic revolution (Voltaire) that defines the basis of modern
democracies, given the widespread use of printed methods to inform
the
public of what was happening. That the change of paradigm was violent
is a historical disgrace, though, that could be voided if reading
skills had been more widespread, surely...
It should be evident that there has been a quite balanced dynamic,
begun in the seventeeth century, that links democracy, population
growth, the market and scientific/technological advances which led to
modern day Occidental democracies, a model that is spreading to the
whole world, despite resistance from ideologies unable to cope with
this paradigm or that were conceived under different national
circumstances. Yet the spreading of the model, even with occasional
failures, is unavoidable given the existence of the modern mass
communication channels, radio, TV and the internet. Obviously, freedom
of expression and education are indispensible keys for the sustaining
of this model.
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
An important difference beween the pyramidal (block) model of
power
and
the castle metaphor (fractal), is that in the former though a
strangling is possible, it requires a lot of effort to advance
to
the
proper place. It is steep and smooth as to say; that`s one
reason
why
this kind of structure, the egyptian model, tends to be
sutained
by
caste systems, to ensure that there is little upward
mobilityand
help
stabilize the model.
But in the castle model, though difficult, strangling is easy,
sinc
it
is easier to climb some of the lesser pinacles and then use
them
to
climb other pinacles. Following the metaphor, it is easier to
find
a
path in an irregular mountain to the top than to climb a smooth
surface. So once one pek is onquered, (through strangling), it
can
be
used as a platform to climb other peaks, turrets, and form a
web
that
separates the highest peaks from the the base...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
A diagram for the pyramidal model would be the following:
-->|
|<--
------>|
|<------
|<----------
----------->|
Note how in each level power is maintained by keeping things `in
the
family`. This subcounscious understamding of a stable, simple
model
is
exemplified in Reality by the construction of pyramids. Societies
following this model will choose thepyramid as a constrution
principle,
a spilling into Reality of a subconscious (trscendent, collective
unconscious) model, a simple depiction of society, a symbol for
all
to
understand. And note how also this is the basis for the
incestuous
practices of old societies. Both the pharoahs and the Incas
followed
the same archetype, a a level of minimum energy that keeps all
variables and constraints in stable values. It is a basic
configuration
for powe, that simple societies would ofllow almost instinctively
once
certain critical mass is achieved.
FabrizioJ Bonsignore, now Danilo Jose Bonsignore
By followinf this ideas we can envision a mathematical model for
the
historic development of power and political structure that is
dependent
on population size, similar to the growth of a fractal structure,
from
tribal societies organized around families, to clans with one chief
to
dictatorships to the adding of more powers... from hte simplest
family
pyramid to the complex fractal castles of current societies.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J BOnsignore
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
25 Mar 2005 01:44:50 PM |
|
|
This model is interesting in the sense that, granted that each
individual assumes a place in the resultung (3D) structure and
extending the allegory/metaphor, thise model converts quantitive change
into qualitative change. Complexity adds the more individuals are added
to the model. Social rules can be embedded into the model as models of
social mobility.
But note also that at some point the complexity is such (particularly
in a model taking into account the existence of borders and different
countries, see "overpopulation, euthanasia/suicide model"), that the
next step is similar to the growth of simple fractal models like
L-systems: the same structure is mirrored but a higher level, in this
case at a global level. But notice also that the adding of complexity
does not necessarily lead to increased (bigger) castles: the whole
strutcture can collapse, particularly if external constraints are taken
into account or if some external influsx of population (points in the
model), keep adding at such rate that they cannot be assimilated into
the structure. IN this last case (just an example), the quantitative
pressure may erode the base of the castle and lead to "slides", loss of
complexity, turning the castle into a new pyramid. A series of
pyramid-castle-bigger_castle-pyramid models can be used to model the
rise and decline of Nations and Empires. This model can be usefully
linked to the properties of information propagation (see theory of
beliefs) to furthe explain such changes and more, to help the castle
from collapsing...
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
fbonsignore@beethoven.com wrote:
An important difference beween the pyramidal (block) model of power
and
the castle metaphor (fractal), is that in the former though a
strangling is possible, it requires a lot of effort to advance to
the
proper place. It is steep and smooth as to say; that`s one reason
why
this kind of structure, the egyptian model, tends to be sutained by
caste systems, to ensure that there is little upward mobilityand
help
stabilize the model.
But in the castle model, though difficult, strangling is easy, sinc
it
is easier to climb some of the lesser pinacles and then use them to
climb other pinacles. Following the metaphor, it is easier to find
a
path in an irregular mountain to the top than to climb a smooth
surface. So once one pek is onquered, (through strangling), it can
be
used as a platform to climb other peaks, turrets, and form a web
that
separates the highest peaks from the the base...
Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
A diagram for the pyramidal model would be the following:
-->|
|<--
------>|
|<------
|<----------
----------->|
Note how in each level power is maintained by keeping things `in the
family`. This subcounscious understamding of a stable, simple model
is
exemplified in Reality by the construction of pyramids. Societies
following this model will choose thepyramid as a constrution
principle,
a spilling into Reality of a subconscious (trscendent, collective
unconscious) model, a simple depiction of society, a symbol for all
to
understand. And note how also this is the basis for the incestuous
practices of old societies. Both the pharoahs and the Incas followed
the same archetype, a a level of minimum energy that keeps all
variables and constraints in stable values. It is a basic
configuration
for powe, that simple societies would ofllow almost instinctively
once
certain critical mass is achieved.
FabrizioJ Bonsignore, now Danilo Jose Bonsignore
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes) |
10 Mar 2005 06:34:02 PM |
|
|
Democracy don`t pay attention to the individual.
Musicians and scientists and wise men have real power. The system will
see them suspicious.
Danilo J Bonsignore, previously Fabrizio J Bonsignore
visit ghamac.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
