[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[ian glendinning]

Platt, inserted [IG] below ...

On 10/11/06, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:
>
> > Platt,
> > You said
> > It's been my experience that those who "emerge" from a group are not necessarily
> > the best leaders, nor are the best works produced by a committee.
> >
> > Wholeheartedly agreed.
> > OK so where from there ?
> > We know what you don't like.
> >
> > What is the alternative to letting leaders "emerge".
> > No clues needed ? Shall we spread a little of that precious democratic
> > freedom, maybe ?
>
> The alternative is what happens in everyday life. Potential leaders are
> subjected to a series of tests over time. Those who do well move up. Those
> who don't flunk out.

[IG] "A series of tests" ... is a bit "weasly" to use your chosen
word. Care to elaborate on any practical specifics that might fit our
current situation ? Do well ? Move up ? How will we (practically, here
and now) recognise "doing well" ? What does moving up mean ... gaining
what exactly, power, authority, rights, responsibilties, freedoms,
wealth, groupies, and entry in "who's who" ... what specifically
(practically, here and now)

>
> > What kinds of "committee" are the lesser of that particular evil ?
> > (Maybe transparent ones we can replace at the drop of a hat, maybe
> > ones that don't "produce" anything, merely resolve editorial chores on
> > our behalf. What are your ideas ?)
>
> One author working with one editor. That's my idea.

[IG] Hmm. All our eggs in one basket ... the "being run-over by a bus"
question arises, but OK, so without naming names could you identify /
choose one of each such individual. Would you name names ... etc.?
What would you see as the role / scope / expectations of that one
author. I had in mind dozens of authors, 3 (or 5) elected editors BTW,
just in case that wasn't obvious. (PS I still recommend reading what
Arlo actually suggested / reasoned.)

>
> > Ian
> > aka The Prick (of Conscience, what else ?)
> > BTW I didn't know you believed in the existence of emergence :-)
>
> I don't. That's why I put it in quotes. "Emerge" like "chance" is weasle way
> of saying, "I don't know."  But, I could be wrong. :-)

[IG] Stop press, Platt admits he could be wrong ;-)
Seriously though, if "I don't know" is the true case, then Emerge and
Chance are simply statements of that truth, they're just words. I
would say what they really say is "I don't know as precisely /
certainly as you'd like" ... they hide a lot of interconnected detail
you can't always squeeze into one sentence, one assertion. Just
pragmatically useful metaphors for here and now.

>
> By the way, it's nice to be back in your good graces on some issues.

[IG] You old softie .... but on the same score, I can choose when I
consider you are taking any lines of argument seriously. Anyway ... I
don't hold grudges, or hopes of "winning" anything, arguments or
otherwise. Life's too short.

>
> Platt

Regards
Ian