--- Log opened Tue Aug 06 00:00:33 2013
09:31 < mcallan> possible alternative to climate change, something like this journal: http://peerproduction.net/about/
09:31 < mcallan> (just throwing the idea out, not looking into it myself; too early for me)
11:07 < conseo> this is a very theoretical medium (and relating to marx then is not necessarily a good thing, i would say there lies the biggest danger). the problem is to get involved in the actual social practice and understand from there what extensions and processes are really needed (but you have to take the different sides for that). i guess i have to learn building machines, hands-on production and participate in economic
11:07 < conseo>  processes. the problem with your practices is that they do not solve the actual problems of the discourse at hand. for climate change e.g. you first have to understand how a successful consensus for different parties would look like and what a discussion can help facilitate, before you draft any practice or techniques. atm. i can't find a single problem where lack of discussion is the major problem. this is what
11:07 < conseo>  the risk assessment has shown, that the issue brings the risk or value to the discussion, not the practice.
11:16 < conseo> the important thing with marx is that he was deeply involved in the political struggle to find out about the problems of society and has developped his theory with empirical and historical examples and made predictions and assumptions about social order, so you can judge him whether he was right or not. this theory, although relating to marx, is already very vague and typical for academic discourse in that it is
11:16 < conseo>  not involved in the humble struggle itself.
11:17 < mcallan> (i meant the journal itself as a practice, but it doesn't really interest me.  if it doesn't interest you either, no problem)
11:19 < conseo> this is my whole problem, that the issue never interests you, although it is the core of what i am trying to fix. somehow you came to the analytical conclusion that you can deal with it just formally
11:19 < mcallan> i can help you, even if your issue doesn't interest me directly
11:19 < conseo> i don't think so honestly
11:20 < mcallan> the issue i'm working on now is of concrete importance to me.  atm, it's life and death struggle for recognition, for my work, for survival even
11:21 < mcallan> (it's also fun)
11:22 < mcallan> conseo: if you don't want me to help *you*, do you want to help *me*?
11:27 < conseo> well, almost everyone is in that "individual" struggle for "recognition", but this does not explain why, it is only a way to frame the problem in individualistic terms (recognition theory). but you cannot reach consensus about recognition
11:27 < conseo> i can't help you, this is why i am arguing, because it cannot work that way imo
11:28 < mcallan> ok, we continue to work separately for now.  still friends :-)
11:29 < conseo> we have to take the pov of a real problem and then try to find out if and what we could do about it. but the more i thought about it the clearer it was that nothing can be gained from discussion, esp. not consensus
11:30 < conseo> it could be if all parts could gain something through consensus though, something more than recognition
11:31 < conseo> sure, i don't turn frustration upon individual people, although i am disappointed quite often.
11:33 < conseo> but you are as well and i am not particularly important, so i have to try to understand our common problems and cooperate with people
11:35 < mcallan> yes, the trick is to work together *despite* the differences, disagreements, etc
11:35 < mcallan> (anyone who thinks votorola is based on consensus, as opposed to dissensus, does not understand)
11:36 < mcallan> (or even to work together *because* of, or for *sake* of differences)
11:36 < conseo> right, this is what has appealed to me, that everybody can dissent. but then you never discuss unless you see value in putting your life-time in a discussion. discussion is not the base practice of society.
11:37 < mcallan> discussion is need to validate norms, primarily that is all
11:38 < conseo> i paraphrase brecht: first comes eating, then norms. it is incredibly difficult to even imagine a consensus beyond class divisions in any normative issue
11:39 < conseo> if people could fix everyday problems with the process and discuss that afterwards and gain a higher normative ground, this would be plausible imo
11:41 < mcallan> trouble is, the dissenters are too often killed off in that process
11:43 < mcallan> better to discuss first, fix later
11:44 < mcallan> even better to fix never
11:45 < mcallan> than to fix wrong
11:47 < conseo> but you have to fix as you have to eat (destroy and digest, production is a metabolism). you cannot stay a neutral spectator that way and you cannot "fork" the world (yet) either
11:48 < conseo> i agree that you should not try to fix stuff that is not broken, but you have to try out and that means risking destruction and possibly hurting other people, even if you haven't seen it coming and didn't intend it
11:51 < mcallan> without discussion, no norm can possibly be correct.  we can proceed by trial and error until the last human is left alive, and not once discover a norm that is even remotely adequate
11:53 < mcallan> you think the fixes are already known by someone (e.g. the oppressed) and just need to implemented
11:53 < mcallan> fixes are *not* known, at least not valid fixes
11:53 < mcallan> this is the only problem
11:54 < conseo> no, i am saying that the fixes cannot even be found without practice, you cannot find truth through discussion (alone)
11:55 < mcallan> we never disagreed about that
11:55 < conseo> i am not thinking that the "good" people are betrayed, that was chomsky or anarchist
11:55 < mcallan> ^^^ again, we never disagreed about that
11:55 < mcallan> i've wanted to tell you...
11:56 < mcallan> but somehow i haven't ,,,
11:56 < mcallan> that i *am* advocating concrete practices
11:57 < mcallan> the norms that i am discussing now (related to mirroring) are being discussed...
11:58 < mcallan> by people who are embedded in situations where they are *affected* by those norms
11:59 < mcallan> you see, there is great *wrong* here...
11:59 < mcallan> a wrong that we must correct...
11:59 < mcallan> it is wrong that *nowhere* are people discussing the norms that affect them
12:00 < mcallan> it hurts me, it hurts you, and it hurts everyone
12:00 < conseo> but you cannot fix norms without fixing the economy first, i am sorry, but this is not my opinion, it is a historical tragedy that people have been deluted in all kinds of discussions and institutions to compromise and fix normative (or legal) issues
12:01 < conseo> i don't want to start normative debates again, we have them all over the place
12:01 < mcallan> but wait ...
12:01 < mcallan> the norms being discussed *are* economic
12:02 < mcallan> you see ...
12:02 < mcallan> this is another thing i wanted to tell you ...
12:02 < mcallan> that you were right after all: ...
12:02 < mcallan> the economy does take precedence here
12:02 < conseo> do you have a link?
12:03 < mcallan> perhaps... moment...
12:06 < mcallan> i'm having trouble pointing to a point, because the whole thing is *saturated* with economics...
12:07 < mcallan> do i point to the self-organized labour required for production of this thing? ...
12:08 < mcallan> or the self consciousness of it? ...
12:09 < mcallan> or of both in regard not to production, but the knowledge of it; i.e. the development of the necessary technology?
12:09 < mcallan> if i point to it, you will laugh and say, ...
12:10 < mcallan> "it's just a small thing"
12:10 < conseo> don't know, i guess it depends what is the output and which problems arise from it
12:10 < conseo> well, if people gain more than discussion from the consensus, it can be a first step
12:10 < mcallan> the output is to fix the wrong ^^^^ mentioned above
12:11 < mcallan> but it takes *work* by those who are wronged
12:11 < conseo> hmm, i can't eat "fixing the wrong" :-)
12:12 < conseo> difficult to judge that way
12:12 < mcallan> the wrong is that *nowhere* are people discussing the norms that affect them
12:12 < mcallan> should we talk about why it is wrong, why it needs to fixed?
12:12 < conseo> hmm, but they do. liberal norms are under permanent discussion imo
12:13 < mcallan> no norms are under public discussion
12:13 < mcallan> none
12:13 < conseo> hmm, i would start with generating value, helping directly as in producing something to eat
12:13 < mcallan> that's easy
12:13 < mcallan> lots are doing it
12:14 < conseo> maybe, but it is not economically viable, it cannot compete with capitalism usually
12:14 < conseo> nobody has created an alternative production system that can outrun capitalism structurally
12:14 < mcallan> capitalism is a norm
12:16 < mcallan> alternatives to that norm are not being discussed anywhere in public...
12:16 < mcallan> why? ...
12:17 < mcallan> for same reason that no *other* norms are being discussed
12:18 < conseo> because capitalism generates the most output, in its terms "value", which represents historical physical power and capability. it is only optimized on that aspect and hence its economic essence outstrips all other social relations
12:18 < mcallan> no, that is not the reason
12:18 < conseo> norms have been invented to counteract the contradictions in society, but ideally they should be chosen deliberately, not proclaimed against physical reality
12:19 < mcallan> no norms are being *deliberated* anywhere
12:19 < mcallan> (at least not in public...
12:19 < mcallan> only behind closed doors)
12:20 < conseo> i don't think it makes you more credible if you claim something you cannot even know, because you don't know all the different social relations that exist (beyond capitalism), e.g. in the indian reservations, indigenous people etc.
12:20 < mcallan> i know one thing...
12:20 < mcallan> and you do too, because votorola is currently stalled for this reason ...
12:21 < conseo> also if it is that absolute it is already detached from the practical situations the problem of "norms" arises from
12:21 < mcallan> the thing we both know is that *no* norms are being discussed, deliberated, etc. in public *anywhere*
12:21 < mcallan> no, it is not detached...
12:21 < conseo> i don all the time discuss what society ought to be, but it is most often pointless, only to vent some frustration and push wishes
12:22 < conseo> have you ever been in a political party? most leftist parties have normative (not practical) discourses
12:23 < mcallan> show me...
12:23 < mcallan> point to a *single* discussion of norms in public
12:23 < conseo> ok, take martin luther king
12:24 < conseo> and the civil rights movement
12:24 < mcallan> (public means i can *join* the discussion immediately)
12:24 < conseo> they could, it was grass-roots
12:25 < conseo> (although king has alienated it, because he has not touched the actual economic order of society, only what ought to be)
12:25 < conseo> or at least he has not put it center-stage
12:25 < mcallan> you *imagine* there was a discussion somewhere in that movement...
12:26 < mcallan> point me to an *actual* public discussion
12:26 < conseo> i have no idea what "normative" means to you, if you claim that all these people where to dumb to get it
12:26 < mcallan> norm is like a plan, policy or law
12:26 < mcallan> or a rule
12:27 < conseo> desegragation does not qualify for it?
12:28 < conseo> sorry, but i have been in so many "normative" discussions with people, i have difficulties to even understand your problem
12:28 < mcallan> well, that's because we're talking about something you've never seen
12:28 < mcallan> i'm an engineer...
12:29 < mcallan> i build new things
12:29 < mcallan> you, and i, have never seen...
12:29 < mcallan> a public
12:30 < mcallan> we haven't even seen a proto-public ...
12:30 < mcallan> that discusses some norm (plan, law) whatever, *without* effect
12:31 < mcallan> (but with a public, there is *always* real effect)
12:31 < mcallan> i want to create the proto-public...
12:31 < mcallan> and then hopefully the public will create itself (with a little stuctural help)
12:32 < mcallan> ... anyway ...
12:32 < mcallan> _______________
12:32 < mcallan> bottom line is...
12:32 < mcallan> it's essentially economic
12:32 < conseo> for me this is in all ways idealist delusion. a) you and me are not smarter than society, we cannot even reflect one day or one chunk of it (because it is millions of minds). b) public is a vague term not derived from any struggle or historical problem and c) you are not even worried when you say something like "never has there been a normative discussion"
12:33 < conseo> this is literally all criteria of an idealistic approach
12:33 < mcallan> (did i say *never*?  that is not true)
12:33 < mcallan> (once there was, today there is not)
12:34 < mcallan> ah well...
12:34 < conseo> puuh
12:34 < mcallan> you like to argue, for some reason
12:34 < conseo> no, you don't like to read history for some reason :-)
12:34 < mcallan> today i argued with you, for a little while...
12:34 < mcallan> (history is what i enjoy reading most) ...
12:35 < mcallan> but i must get back to work
12:35 < conseo> then you pick very carefully the history that fits your theory, not the one of the people outside of it
12:35 < conseo> otherwise i cannot explain this
12:35 < mcallan> (i am not a marxist, and i don't read marxist history, that is true)
12:37 < conseo> if you create these categories before lecture, then ofc. you cannot find out
12:37 < conseo> the point is that the "public" text has not had one historical or social source or example in it
12:38 < conseo> you cannot measure it, whether it fits the details of empirical reality and predicts the major conflicts right, you just have to apply its terms to everything. what is even a "public"? and what is definitely not one?
12:39 < mcallan> these are questions we must answer separately, now...
12:40 < mcallan> we can still talk as people, but not as colleagues working on same problems...
12:40 < mcallan> in cooperative way...
12:40 < mcallan> so separately
12:41 < mcallan> (i just wanted to leave the door open for you, in case you change your mind later...
12:42 < mcallan> ... so i mention the economic base, just in case you'd find it interesting)
12:42 < conseo> if you create a new terminology then you have to prove it is worth it. this true for all philosophies. maybe i have missed it, that is why i have asked whether there is better theory than this paper you showed me
12:43 < mcallan> i can define 'public' for you, ofc.  but why?
12:44 < mcallan> you are not really interested in cooperating, right?
12:44 < mcallan> you want to work on your own thing, and you don
12:44 < mcallan> 't believe i can help...
12:45 < mcallan> well, you see, there is no point in discussing.  not *this* topic
12:46 < conseo> right, but i am trying to tell you why, but you don't want to risk anything as well, not even this bit of theory
12:46 < mcallan> you want to fix my head?  solve my problems for me?  :-)
12:47 < mcallan> this too, is something we must do separately...
12:47 < mcallan> each for himself
12:48 < conseo> no, you have to fail more, whenever the risk is there that it could be in vain you go away, this is not a good approach imo.
12:48 < conseo> you cannot resolve dissent by going away, which is again the core point of the reality thing i am insisting upon, there is only one reality and we have to live together in it
12:50 < conseo> but well, if you think that you are the saviour of humanity and you are the only person atm. who knows what normative means (except these few academics), then you should be worried, shouldn't you?
12:50 < conseo> at least we want to empower the people, if they can't even get that right, then maybe this is not a good idea at all
12:53 < mcallan> (if we cannot work together, as you say, then we work separately)
12:55 < conseo> sure, but this is our luxury. "normal" people can't do that, so this is not a problem solution we can use in our own tooling for that reason
12:57 < mcallan> (i cannot force you to cooperate with me, and you do not wish to, so there is no alternative.  it is for that reason that we must work separately)
12:57 < mcallan> (that, and your refusal of my offer to help *you*)
13:00 < conseo> i don't know exactly how to do it yet, to be honest. i am a bit at point zero again
13:06 < mcallan> that's the point where the ideas come
13:09 < mcallan> anyway, the offer stands open.  if at some point you wish to help in small ways and learn a little of what i'm working on (you never know, it might turn out to be interesting), i could always use your help...
13:10 < mcallan> because once you understand what i'm doing, you'll be in a postion to offer critique
13:12 < conseo> maybe, but i have followed you a lot and my understanding of practice is inverse to yours in a way. i would never start by sketching for practical experiences i have made myself before, i have misunderstood what you meant with "practice" otherwise i would have told you before
13:14 < conseo> you often have very unique concepts in your mind, but they have failed before and this time resembles the previous attempts only that you make even bolder claims. as i said, i don't think they are dumb, but we cannot invent freedom that way and imo we miss the central point
13:15 < conseo> doesn't matter if you think you address it or not, we have to experience it and develop the practice from there
13:16 < mcallan> say what you will, the door is open...
13:16 < conseo> anyhow, you should really not depend on me if it makes sense
13:16 < conseo> sure
13:17 < mcallan> ok, let's leave it as it stands, for now
13:19 < conseo> ok
16:08 < conseo> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDGE1-S_LE
16:08 < conseo> oops, wrong channel
--- Log closed Wed Aug 07 00:00:50 2013