Iron Maiden and Talk:Technocracy movement: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
→Splitting article: Unbelievable |
||
Line 1:
{{notice|This page was recently '''archived'''. Please refer to [[Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 4|Archive 4]] for a history, but continue those discussions here.
--[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)}}
{{todo}}
{{archive box|
[[Talk:Technocratic movement/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Technocratic movement/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Technocratic movement/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 4|Archive 4]]}}
== Splitting article ==
:Ok if I understand correctly, you want to make this article into a short one describing what the '''Technocratic movement''' is, then have a large article about '''Technocracy Incorporated''' (but which doesn't talk about it's proposals), and then have an article called '''Technocracy (the design)''' (or something of that nature) which will deal with the proposals and designs like, Continental Hydrology and Urbanates, etc. Well I can already see some problems with this arrangement, firstly which proposals will be contained in this design article? Will it only be Tech Inc.'s stuff, or will NET's stuff be there as well?
:The point I'm making is, that different groups in the Technocracy movement have different designs. So what is the point of creating an article called '''''the''''' design, when there may be no common design? I think it is better to simply have Tech Inc.'s designs in that article, and perhaps have mention of the different approaches in the movement article. Though both of those objectives are already fulfilled in this article (i.e. it talks about Tech inc. and the other groups and it talks about the designs of the different groups in different sections). So I think that if there is to be a split (which I'm not convinced of) it should be in-2 rather than in-3. --[[User:Hibernian|Hibernian]] 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, Hibernian, that is essentially what I am proposing. I can put up samples of the two new articles any time it is decided for opinions and editing. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As you say there is no one design so I think the design article should have design from both Tech Inc and NET as well as other technocratic organisations. [[User:Isenhand|Isenhand]] 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:As much as I'd like to see NET get attention, speaking objectively I think that newer groups should not get the same "weight" as the design put out by Technocracy Inc., do to its history and level of research that has gone into it. Otherwise, the problem becomes that any person or group can take whatever they like of Technocracy's ideas, change what they don't like, and suddenly we have dozens of "technocracies" to cover. A good example of this is Skip's claim of his organization "Technocracy Incorporated CHQ 44.94 -93.29". 77siddhartha has already given his vote of "no weight" on this organization for reasons given further below, and I agree with him. A mention of NET on the design page would be fine, in my opinion, with a link to the main NET article, which could cover some basics of the differences. This would in essence be giving some weight to NET, but not as much to Technocracy Inc. This is especially true since NET's design is derivative. If NET were to suddenly gain in popularity with gaining many members and mentioned in regular mainstream periodicals in Europe, then obviously that would change things and more weight could be applied.
:An important issue arises however when one considers that the position of Technocracy Inc. is that certain portions of the technocratic design are not negotiable because otherwise it would not work. Obviously differences in how that design is applied would arise when applied to continents other than North America, but here is were it must be clearly marked out what is an essential tenet of technocratic design methodology, and what in Technocracy Inc.'s (or anyone else's) proposals are the result of the application of that design methodology. In case that is confusing, let me give a quick example. The Continental Hydrology proposal is specific to North America and the result of the attempt to make overall transportation as efficient as possible. This would not necessarily work in other areas of the Earth, and thus could be dispensed with if something similar was found unsuitable. However, the basic tenet of efficiency (as Technocracy describes it) is intrinsic to the design methodology, and cannot be done away with; it must be included in order to be considered "Technocratic". Since Technocracy Inc. has never had any interest in other areas, preferring to concentrate their few resources on getting the North American Technate started first, and then worry about other areas later, they have not easily made this distinction themselves. Any other area (or derivation of the design) must do this first before anything else. In theory, there should be scientific consensus on this point as to what is central, but that is going to be difficult I suspect. I the meantime I think that the quickest and most fair way to deal with the issue of what gets included in the "Design" article is as I have stated. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::OK, so we would have something like; general principles of design (efficiency, application of science), Tech Inc’s plans and then a section at the end mentioning other plans such as NETs? [[User:Isenhand|Isenhand]] 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::If we want to go to that much work, that would be nice I think. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::::So, “ideas and goals” would go in the new “Technocracy (design)” along with “criticism of the movement” (renamed to “criticism of Tech inc design” or something similar). We could then shorten the history down and move parts referring to Tech Inc itself to the Tech inc page. The Tech Inc publications can also go there as well. I can add a bit more about the Technical Alliance and how it folded after about a year, the reformed in the 1930s to the history section as well.
::::Sound ok? [[User:Isenhand|Isenhand]] 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's the basic idea yes. We can discuss the details of the exact contents of the articles in their own talk pages when I put them up. Does this weekend sound ok? --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
: It is now suggested that the NET section be dropped from this article. Net is not connected to Technocracy. Net is an autonomous group that is a proponent of sociological concepts regarding culture. That does not fit into the Technocracy mode. Technocracy is based on science. Please chime in as to this proposal. Net does not belong in the Technocracy movement category for obvious reasons. They are not connected to the concept. The Technate design is only meant for North America. It is not applicable to Europe. ([[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
::Skip, as I pointed out above, what exactly can be called a "true" technocratic organization and what can not is not an easy question right now, and certainly not something to be arbitrarily decided by a single person. I have proposed above a method of dealing with this until a method can be devised (although that may involve something other than Wikipedia to resolve). That is what is up for discussion and determination at this point, not NET's appropriateness in whichever article. Given this, and the rule clearly posted on this talk page that no edits are to be made without first discussing it here, your removal of that portion of the article was inappropriate and should be reverted. We're at a stage here Skip where we need consensus on issues or non-trivial changes before they can be made. You unsderstand that, right? Please stick to it. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:Unbelievable! Skip comes back from being blocked and what is the first thing he does? Commits vandalism, but deleting entire sections of the article, as well as continuing to put up the same idiotic edits which have been roundly condemned here. Needless to say I've reverted it, though I doubt that will be the last of it, unfortunately. --[[User:Hibernian|Hibernian]] 06:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
== Akin book ==
I notice that there is a review of this book in ''Technology and Culture'', Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1977), pp. 714-715. This is available from [[JSTOR]] [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0040-165X(197710)18%3A4%3C714%3ATATADT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y here]. Since I graduated a while ago, I no longer have access through my university. Perhaps someone else does and they can post the gist of the review here? --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 08:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Unfortunately my University appears not to have access. :( [[User:Isenhand|Isenhand]] 10:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
== Weight of 'other' forms of Technocracy ==
(Original thread archived [[Talk:Technocracy_movement/Archive_4#TTS.28C.29D_-_very_confused|here]])
Given that skip seems to be a minority, unless he can present figures and facts about the membership of 'his' form of Technocracy, what weight should his view be given in accordance with [[WP:UNDUE]]? My vote is '''no weight'''. --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 00:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:We regret that the By-Laws and General Regulations of Technocracy Inc., and the policies in general prevent us from giving you any figures on membership of any period of Technocracy's history. This has always been the policy of Technocracy. ([[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
:I have to agree with Hibernian here. I know of a couple of people that agree with Skip on some of his points, but I have no idea if they are involved in this organization that Skip mentions, since neither have they claimed membership that I have seen, nor has Skip claimed them as members. Skip is the only person I have seen complain about the TTCD in this fashion. I've had complaints about the book before myself, submitted changes to Technocracy Inc., and some were accepted, some where not. Most of these recommendations came in the form of format and presentation rather than content, however. Add to this that Skip's assaults on the TTS/CD are strawmen anyway, drawn from misunderstanding my (and other people's as well) attempts last year to explain some things to him regarding his issues. I could go into detail on this, but I don't think that this is the place to bring this "debate" if you will, plus it has been had before in other arenas to no positive effect, I'm afraid.
:I'll also agree with 77siddhartha's original points, as well as vote '''no weight'''. Also, concerning the one point: "There is considerable overlap between the TSC and TTSD", I think that some people here may not be aware of this, but the TTSD was designed as a shorter replacement of the TSC. It's contents are essentially the first 20 lessons (on science and technology) greatly condensed into about the first third of the new book, while the majority of the remainder consists of basically the last two lessons (concerning Technocracy analysis and design) in the TSC in their entirety, with some minor updating given advances in science and technology between the publishing of the two books. The bits at the end have been added to clear up some common concerns of people noticed since the publication of the TSC, and were largely taken from previous sources of Technocracy literature (mostly the various magazines). I'd also like to point out that the orginal TSC was never intended as a "bible" as some seem to regard it, but rather as an interim book to satisfy the great numbers of people interested in Technocracy during the 1930's until a more definative work could be composed (see Technocracy Study Course, Fifth Edition, page ix, "Preface", first paragraph). It is a great misfortune I think that Technocracy Inc. did not complete that project. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
== 'Unofficial' Technocracy websites ==
Net does not deserve a section on this page. They are a group of four bloggers.([[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
From [http://www.technocracy.org/authenticity.htm Technocracy Inc.'s Statement on Authenticity]
<center>{{quotation|Technocracy’s two official web sites are: technocracyinc.org and technocracyvan.ca}}</center>
Okay, so what should be done about other material that is from websites claiming to be about Technocracy and not listed here? I am talking about [http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ technocracynow.blogspot.com] and [http://www.technocracy.ca/ technocracy.ca]. Both of these sites say that the other is not legitimate. Neither are official according to the organization's 'real' site.
'''I can't believe that such an obscure movement can bring about so much confusion.''' I think this article is in need of a moderator to determine what constitutes a reference. This is absolutely ridiculous and is almost turning into a waste of my time. --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 06:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:You forgot to list NET. They are not connected to either group. Net does not deserve a place on this page. They are four bloggers that are based in sociological concepts. That is not connected to Technocracy which is based on science. Net is not a part of Technocracy. ([[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] 05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
:Hang in their Sid, The big boss Wafulz, who is named that for a reason I think, has already said that TechCa should not be linked here after he got a look at it. Check out this link http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~educator/faq.htm Webmasters choice. FAQ file for another perspective. Check out David Ravlin. Ask him a few of your questions. He is a smart and interesting guy and a hardcore Technocrat. He has some interesting things to say in this more 'real' Q and A. Please read through that, and do not give up just yet. It is starting to get a little interesting. TechCa is not an official site by either Technocracy group. Kolzene though partially edited the TTCD faq`s material, so he and Hibernian are 'betting the farm' on his 'funny' ideas. The Net site is not even connected to Technocracy ideas except that each and every member there was 'brainwashed' by Kolzene who claims to be a 'witch', and I believe him Ha ha. Kolzene is not a member of TechInc or our group, and Ross/Hibernian, his gopher on that site is not eligible in either. Kolzene here has 'trained' the NET people to believe in the TTCD, except for Isenhand/Dr.Wallace Phd. ha ha, who does not 'believe' in church building in a Technate. Enrique Lescure does and others on the NET site, http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399
:Network of European Technocrats - Re:&quot;War&quot; on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum which is here soldiering for NET, and recently reverting my edits despite no involvement here or creative imput (Technocrate). Also Kolzene the editor here is a practicing Wiccan, and is a psychologist as is Mansel Ismay the Net director. This fits the pattern of recent years of our material being taken over by 'believers' in sociological concepts. All this is sad but true. Most real technocrats are alienated because of bad management. The group headquarters was captured by a bunch of Canadians, that also captured the money involved. By the way, that is several several millions of dollars. My group is not interested in the money. We do not care. We are interested in the ideas. Technocracy, the real thing is very cool. Well, that may be more info than you want to know, but those are the facts. ([[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] 07:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
::I take a bit of offense to that. Being that you said Kolzene is a Wiccan, I think I met him about ten years ago at a Technocracy conference in Aldergrove. He was very genuine and I remember him especially because he said that he was a Wiccan. He changed my previous beliefs about the religion in the time I spoke with him (really, who cares what religion people are?). I am a Canadian too and to say that CHQ was taken over by Canadians is simply false as the headquarters are still in the States. Oh, and I think the average age for the Canadian technocrats in Vancouver is about 75. I doubt that they would be so concerned with money at this point in their lives. I really could care less right now about the NET stuff, I just want to focus on the North American issue. --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, and that FAQ you wanted me to read links to his page on [http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~educator/ec.htm Energy Accounting], which uses the terms 'debits' and 'credits'. --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 07:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::AND, if you read what Walfuz said, it was that, "What I'm trying to say is that blindly removing all citations to technocracy.ca or blindly defending the addition of the website to 'External links' are both bad ideas- some content is good; some is not." A link to the site's main page brings up the forum that bashes you, but, there is good content on the site that can be linked to directly. Walfuz also thinks that it is unnecessary to reform those articles as independent PDFs. Anyway, I have to go to bed, and I would really appreciate if people who advocate science as the answer to our problems become a bit more rational. --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I did not say that David Ravlin was perfect. Also when a user put the link to TechCa up yesterday Wafulz immediately took it DOWN and yelled a bit. He said he does not want that as a external link ~!~ Today he said it, and yelled ~!~
:::Take offense ? Well that is your privilege. If the article were renamed Technocracy movement then there would be no Net section, and that would be fine with me. If you look in the files of the beginners page you will see that Kolzene spawned Net on TechCa. I think he created a silly monster.
:::Ahh you said that the headquarters is still in the United States ? That is true, sort of. The Canadian branch though have taken it over. Did you know that it is illegal for an American corporation to be run out of Canada or incorporated in Canada ? Did you know that all the people running Techinc Cordsmeyer, and George Wright are Canadians, and did you know that it has been a steady down hill slide for the group since the TTCD faqs material was published in 1975 and reedited by Kolzene a few years ago and endorsed by Cordsmeyer, both of whom in my opinion are second or third rate thinkers , and what about wiccans ? You disagree that they in general try to put spells on people? Manipulate people ? Trick people ? He claims to be one, so I am only stating that. This is a far cry from the brilliant minds of the original group. Sociologists were never a part of the Technocracy movement. That is the vein of thinking of those mentioned individuals, and the source of the disputed material.
:::I would also say that David does not mention in a very excessive way what you are talking about. This is the thrust of what he is saying,
:::Energy Certificates.
:::Some citizens may choose to use paper energy certificates.
:::There are a large number of different bookkeeping devices whereby the distribution to, and records of rate of consumption of the entire population can be kept. Under a technological administration of abundance, there is only one efficient method that of employing a system of Energy Certificates.
:::By this system all books and records pertaining to consumption are kept by the Distribution Sequence of the social mechanism. The income is granted to the public in the form of energy certificates These certificates are merely pieces of paper containing certain printed matter. They are issued individually to every adult of the entire population. The certificates issued to an individual may be thought of as possessing some of the properties both of bank cheque and of a traveller's cheque. They would resemble a bank cheque in that they carry no face denomination. They receive their denomination only when being spent. They resemble a traveller's cheque in that they possess some means of ready identification, such as counter-signature, photograph, or some similar device, so as to establish easy identification by the person to whom issued, and at the same time remain absolutely useless in the hands of anyone else. The record of one's income and its rate of expenditure is kept by the Distribution Sequence, so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of an unknown customer's balance. This is somewhat analogous to a combination bank and department store, wherein all the customers of the store also keep bank accounts at the store bank. In such a case the customer's credit at the department store is as good as his bank account, and the state of this account is available to the store at all times. ([[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] 08:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
:Wow, how is this allowed to continue? Isn't Skip's comments here a violation of the [[WP:NPA|No Personal Attacks]] policy? I know that I am not the best person to be pointing this out, but am I wrong? I shouldn't have to defend myself here. I can however set the record staight here regarding these claims if it would help. I can point out at least 12 inaccuracies in his statements, but I am not sure if that would be appropriate here. I've been pretty quiet about this type of thing for a while now, not wanting to be seen as getting into a "war" with Skip, but really, how must longer is this going to be allowed to go on? Just to make it official: Skip, please stop with the personal attacks. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 05:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
'''Response about sources'''. (sorry for the bold, I needed to separate this somehow. In general, http://www.technocracy.ca/ , http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/ and http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ are not good sources. The only material that should be used from those websites is material that has been previously published, and only if the material is hosted in its entirety (ie, no condensed versions of articles). The stuff from the NET website should only be used to describe the NET itself, since we're trying not to give [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to a relatively new organization. The best sources for this article would be printed sources published by a third-party (no self-published stuff). The full nitty gritty on sources is at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]].--[[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:I would agree with all of this. I'd also propose that addition of the idea that it would be inappropriate for links to one of these sites to be posted by their respective administrators, and should be instead left to other editors. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 06:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
== Technical Alliance sources ==
I know that this has been asked in other avenues, but I have not yet come across a clear answer. Put simply: '''where is the original scientific data that the Technical Alliance collected?''' Technocracy is built upon those findings, and I would think that sourcing this article to that body of research would add mountains of credibility. I realize that this was research done almost a century ago, but has anyone ''tried'' to look? What about contacting Columbia University? Are there any relevant scientific journals from the period? --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 05:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know about Columbia University, but several Technocrats and I travelled to CHQ in 2005 to look for this research. It is in theory somewhere in this big warehouse of documents, books and other artifacts located on CHQ's premises. There was a lot to look through, and other work that needed doing as well. We did come across many slides of the original charts that were drawn up as a result of the research, but we had technical troubles digitizing them. In short, it's buried in there somewhere, but CHQ has too little manpower to look for it on its own. I completely agree that its availability would add a great deal of credibility to the movement, which is why we went down there in the first place. But, our resources were limited and it would take a lot more time and effort to go through all the stuff, so we had to give up and go home. Technocracy has members but few are willing to go all the way to Ferndale to work for weeks on end. Part of the problem also is that a lot of very prominant members died around 2001-2002 (up to 18 in one year, including two of the three "head" people at CHQ), and they had not propoerly documented their knowledge of the organization and its material, including things like the ___location of this research.
:So in answer to your question, yes, some of us have tried. But I don't think that the research is going to be found until the movement gets a lot more members. Almost a catch-22 it would seem. --[[User:Kolzene|Kolzene]] 06:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::That's encouraging, actually, it's like a treasure hunt. :) I wonder how much a temp agency would charge to sift through and digitize the relevant documents. Members have related to me that the organization has quite a bit of money in reserve. --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
: This is not a treasure hunt nor a mystery. The information is located in the back of the Technocracy Study Course. http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Technocracy%2520study%2520guide.pdf
Technocracy%20study%20guide.pdf (application/pdf Object) That information was boiled down and presented there. It is that simple. Why turn this into a mysterious adventure when it is not ?
The pertinent information is there. That is the energy survey. It is the relevant facts regarding the resource base of North America. North America contains about 52 % of the worlds resource base. That was the figure when the Study Course was published. That figure is now higher due to the use of the rest of the world of using their limited resource base. ([[User:Skipsievert|skip sievert]] 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
::The whole idea is to get the information ''before'' it was boiled down. --[[User:77siddhartha|77siddhartha]] 06:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||