I need to figure out a better structure for Choice and Constraint. I am in the middle of that. It will take a while.
In Emacs and VI, I wrote that I
Now I am beginning to put together a larger pattern for — and I hope you think it is better! At the moment, I figure I have two major goals:
In order to describe the conditions which underlie governance, I need to describe
Moreover, I need to talk about how people influence others fundamentally — others who may be enemies. The contemporary method uses mathematics and science:
In a tribute to my `out-of-place' notes, I note that the belief generated by doing this is an undeniable as a numinous religious experience. However, I have not yet integrated that remark nor my `out-of-place' notes into the main line. I must think more on the topic.
Then comes a warning, that a
You can fool yourself by making judgements as if a species, such as humans, were an organism like the human body.
This warning does two things: it reflect back to the notion of metaphor, which in the current draft takes place in the `reasoning similarly' part, and it brings attention forward to the next section on certainty factors
The point of the section is to illustrate what we do in a different manner than people usually think: how could a computer make judgements based on insecure knowledge?
Moreover, in another warning, judgements should be different under different circumstances:
Then I return to more a general way of thinking about governance, which is to think of
However, to do this, I need to develop the idea from a segment on `the Nature of Self-Replicating Systems'. I have not got the structure of all this worked out. Clearly, a major point resulting from this way of thinking is that a society must be sustainable. This has huge implications.
Moreover, when we talk about self-replicating systems, we enter into the concept of systems built with componets that are `identical, always and everywhere', such as laws. (At the moment, I call these `non-breakable components' but the adjective is poorly chosen since laws are breakable.
I do not know whether a segment on Darwin's Five Laws of Evolution is relevant, although it does have implications for the rise of structure from chaos, which happens in every economic system.
Also, I have not figured out how to incorporate insights from Rappaport's "Ecology, Meaning and Religion" into all this.
The second part is to suggest certain political policies, in particular:
Over the past years, many people have dropped the notion that hereditary distinctions such sex, race, or wealth should determine how well a person does in the world. Hence this three part policy.
Too much goes on between countries for nation states to continue at their current sizes. Already, we are seeing numerous forms of transnational government, such as the regulations governing trade. But these new governments are hidden and lack legitimacy; hence the call for a wider, more legitimate transnational government, and a suggestion, a three chamber legislature, that might be acceptable to the various powers.
The nature of warfare has changed over the past few centuries; hence a new category of combatant is needed. Otherwise, we shall see widening injustice.
As far as I can see, this is an intrinsic danger in modern technology; and few are concerned. A warning.
Another warning: there are some powerful people who argue that those who study the subject are wrong and that the global warming we see is primarily natural. If so, this means we need to do more. This is a case of where expensive judgements must be made.
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page