Designs for primary guidance: a comparison

[David Bovill]

I'll try - how can I help.

Question: are we looking at technical implementations here - and missing
out practice that may be codified explicitly but not implemented? Take as
an example Legislative Theatre, or other formal participation and
deliberation practices used in architecture and world development circles?

Suggestion: a little more effort in describing these concepts in a grounded
way would help broaden the acceptance of the ideas and the range and number
of people participating. My suggestion would be to add user journeys, and
real or imaginary examples of the concepts that are described in shorthand.
As in this example:

the normative regulation of administrative decisions under direction of the
lifeworld - http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Primary_guidance

How would you say this in a way in which an intelligent rational human
being can understand without having to understand a whole set of
philosophical terminology? Hard maybe - but to not do it runs clear
intellectual risks. My go - without having dug into the philosophy would be:

a set of rules or principles that are able to translate the general social
lived experience (taken as a whole), into mechanisms that are able to
direct or effect the administrative decisions taken by that society.

For example - it can be argued that the practice of television documentary
makers, or investigative journalism, as formalised in their respective
professions, has an effect (we can debate how directly) on the running of
local and national elected bodies.

More relevantly, the theory and practice of deliberative polling is a
concrete example of putative "normative regulation" which if implemented in
law would have a direct effect on a range of administrative decisions -
based on a relatively un-mediated access to social experience using the
techniques of statistical sampling to meaningfully and pragmatically
capture to social "lived" experience of
"lifeworld<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeworld>
".

Maybe my suggestions are not accurate - but it is precisely the greater
possibility for critisism (testability to quote a philosopher from the
opposite spectrum), that generates greater confidence in the overall body
of thinking. Please lose the jargon - or at least provide a translation
into plain French?



On 7 October 2013 04:18, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

> I'm tabulating a comparison of designs across the field:
> http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Designs_for_primary_guidance
>
> It's more work than I expected.  I'd welcome collaboration if anyone
> is interested.
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Votorola mailing list
> Votorola at zelea.com
> http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/attachments/20131007/a9a739c3/attachment.html>