--- Log opened Mon Jul 08 00:00:05 2013
01:57 < mcallan> yesterday i thought it was going to be a failure from the start, but today it looks unstoppable: (discussion links) http://zelea.com/w/User:Pipe-1141-ZeleaCom#dLinks
01:58 < mcallan> i'm sure now that it's possible to create long-lived discussions.  i haven't even *begun* to draft the content of the text
02:04 < mcallan> the practices and tools help already, even though (and maybe because) nobody knows about them except me.  it's the behind-scenes formalization of the discussion that keeps it alive
02:09 < mcallan> another think i'm working on is a fix for that vote track.  i'm tired of it hanging in front of my nose.  i'll try sticking a *2nd* track on the bottom of the viewport where it's less in the way
11:16 < conseo> bottom is interesting, because it then is visually more distinct on embedded pages and less dominant. also i appreciate fixing this alignment "bug"
11:17 < conseo> i don't understand why you think it is unstoppable or rules for a constitution can be found which are coup-proof, meaning which dominate social relations from the legal outside. this at least historically has never happened and has been pointed out on reddit as well
11:19 < conseo> generally it is no good sign if your opinion depends only on your action and turns from one day to another radically, this can only happen if it is not rooted in practice. i wish that you find a proper discussion and i am not sure whether the coop will have enough interest in us, but i think you have to go to a political process and side on an issue or people just won't care enough (and can't because the
11:19 < conseo>  constitution is a legal abstraction over sociological facts)
11:21 < conseo> to say it differently, the constitution cannot, in no possible universe, be neutral towards social relations. it is a form for living society and has to match the social structure. you cannot jump away from that. if you think you can, show me an example were it has worked for somebody historically
11:38 < conseo> "Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them,
11:38 < conseo>  everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
11:38 < conseo> http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
11:38 < conseo> this is not my personal insight
11:38 < conseo> although it is very well logical from a critical theory pov
18:03 < conseo> it can also be elaborated more, if you had interest, but i doubt that :-D
18:28 < mcallan> conseo: it's a red flag for you, so we can't discuss it reasonably.  you forget that the technology is neutral to the issues.  it's not a marxist technology.  practitioners are free to work on any issue they like, even a capitalist plan for world domination.  the technology must work equally well for them regardless
18:32 < mcallan> i'm developing the technology, and that's my only goal.  the discussion is unstoppable if a single practitioner (me in this case) can keep it running indefinitely.  and it's looking like maybe i can
18:32 < mcallan> anyway i'm learned how to do it, hands on
19:00 < conseo> there exists no such thing as neutral technology (from which pov?). it is always socially-educated people who express themselves by applying technology. its material part lies in how it transforms natural limitations in social ones (creates a pov, free time to pursue, means of production (and experiment) and division of labour). this ofc. also applies to natural sciences theoretically, e.g. how experiments are
19:00 < conseo>  conducted and what is funded
19:02 < conseo> but we, as we face technology on the labour side can construct such equalities and open it up to a different sociological practice and introduce universalist perspective. non the less it is constructed and does not fit current reality
19:12 < conseo> it is inspired by recent history ofc. looking at the great moments of humanity when the french revolution abondened slavery universally and framed a new universal legal framework which has developped until today (e.g. habermas), but we are positioned in history also theoretically
19:16 < conseo> aren't you confused that e-dem people are so at odds with each other about certain details and about where the problem is? if it was neutral, we should have some common vision, but that seems to be only true in abstract terms of theory or agreeing that the status quo is broken (see also pirate party discussions and fractures)
19:19 < conseo> i value your practice ideas, don't misunderstand me, but i think i should make that point very clear. we have to be more practical in real-world terms, especially if we add universalist perspective to these problems (and it has value...)
19:20 < mcallan> i discovered how the techology works.  you want me to forget all about that, and start reading marxist theory?  makes no sense
19:23 < conseo> i would like you to think about the meaning of the application of the tools for the users. are model norms really important to them or even their freedom?
19:25 < mcallan> discovery does not concern norms, or freedom.  discovery concerns support for discussions, and nothing else
19:26 < mcallan> our technological work is to support discussions
19:26 < conseo> right
19:27 < conseo> but not all discussions are equal and not all solvable by the participants themselves
19:27 < mcallan> irrelevant point
19:27 < conseo> for you maybe, not for the users
19:27 < conseo> people avoid taking part in discussions they see pointless, even if they care about the issue
19:28 < mcallan> theoretical bullshit
19:28 < mcallan> please listen
19:28 < mcallan> there is a discussion going on...
19:28 < conseo> no its not :-)
19:28 < mcallan> :-)  the discussion exists because of our technology...
19:29 < mcallan> our technology is supporting this discussion...
19:29 < mcallan> it's *working*
19:29 < conseo> but pick the discussion wisely, most discussion fail not because of the tools, but because of the issue
19:30 < mcallan> bullshit
19:30 < mcallan> there is no discussion anywhere in the world that i can find
19:30 < mcallan> *except* this one
19:31 < mcallan> but there are lots of issues in the world, and there have been for many centuries
19:31 < mcallan> what's changed, that allows a long-lived, purposeful discussion for the first time?
19:31 < mcallan> the *technology*
19:32 < conseo> brb
19:41 < conseo> yet there are constant ones, like between capital and labour. the technology can be more than for discussion in the hands of the users. yet new technological development can improve discussion alone enormously and link it with all other activities
19:43 < conseo> i should frame it this way: discussion always relates to issues of the users, even if only vaguely to a life style
19:44 < conseo> model norms interest political scientists and maybe e-dem activists. they don't connect to everyday life for other people
19:47 < mcallan> strange fellow you are.  for the first time the technology works, and all you say is i'm doing it wrong.  well ok, see if you can do it better.  maybe then you will get interested
19:50 < conseo> i am trying to help you. i just find it strange that we always land at more indirection and more sophisticated practice when we are supposed to have users. i thought with practice you also meant applying to practical issues, but i guess i have overlooked our differences there
19:52 < conseo> well, as long as you don't turn bitter if you stay alone, go ahead. i had to make the point though (to bring my pov into discussion :-) )
19:53 < mcallan> you cannot see that the issue is practical, because you think it contradicts a theory you believe in.  you needn't be afraid, there is no contradiction.  more important, the success has nothing to do with the chosen issue
19:54 < mcallan> all our talk is about nothing.  the success owes to the practice as *i* apply, which has nothing to with constitutions or model norms.  and it is not a complicated and indirect practice, it is extremely simple
19:56 < mcallan> nobody's tried it before, this is the first time.  and it appears to work
20:09 < conseo> ok
20:16 < mcallan> truce
--- Log closed Tue Jul 09 00:00:22 2013