Carl Friedrich Gauss

Kaal:

You, sir, are the greatest! But do not stretch it very far ..... sometimes they snap back :)

GT, Khurram

You seem to conceptualize `justice` quite differently than Masadi does. But first, another key issue needs clarification.

``Binary thinking,`` one can argue, is deliberately maligned by vested interests, by defenders of unfair and iniquitous status quo.

Why exactly should it not be adopted if it helps create a powerful transformative movement as envisaged by Masadi?

I am trying to see if your opposition to binary thinking just a personal quirk (yours and of some people).

In #114 read <<< Not true at all. Your example is an old example given by hadithists when they say that the Quran is vague >>>

as

Not true at all. Your example is an old example given by hadithists when they say that the Quran is vague in order to justify inclusion of extra quranic material

Khurram writes <<< So, what does a non-heirarchical social movement organization look like? >>>

Read the Quran and witness the Hajj and I don`t mean the theology of it

Re: # 117 by khurram:

You say:

``Its hard to say that something went wrong when there is no right answer in the first place.``

I am impressed ... the crux of the problem isn`t it? The point is, many times we say and understand things beyond the realm of {Yes, no}, {Right, wrong} or what some of us call binary logic.

Re: masadi,

So, what does a non-heirarchical social movement organization look like?
Does it have leaders? A charter? Committees?
Any real life example?

GT writes to Khurram <<< Even if everyone in the group agree on what ``equity based on justice`` is, with or without any interpretation, then without some hierarchy that very ``equity based on justice`` can get defeated in a democracy >>>

Not so, GT is quite confused about what he wrote. He said that an issue ``c`` arises about which the ``law`` (i.e. equity based on justice) says nothing, so some prefer it over things ``a`` and ``b`` about which the ``law`` says that a>b. So if two out of the three members choose c over a and b then without excluding some you cannot get the ``equity based on justice`` option, so exclusion would be non democratic organization so you will have to add hierarchy to the equation- in other words he thinks, in his limited understanding of my article that I mixed up and contradicted myself.

NOT SO!

First the exclusion part is talking not about excluding those that formed the social movement from being a democratic organization (step three of the process). It is talking about the original purpose behind the movement being ``Exclusive`` that does not incorporate things from the outside in order to appeal to a broader audience thereby diluting its original purpose or grievance over which it was formed.

Next, ``c`` the assumption of GT over which he constructs his entire house of cards is non-existant, the movement is quite clear about why it is formed and what issues it will address, there is no vagueness, operationalization means excatly how it will be measured, so if GT says that people that formed the movement (not society at large) can agree on the meaning of equity based on justice, they will surely agree on the strongest indicators of it, once that is done a,b,c,d,....l,m,n,o,p can easy be evaluated without any preference or hierarchy involved.

Finally, when this concept ``equity based on justice`` is internalized and becomes part of your individual identity frame- this concept itself negates any and every hierarchy, it becomes an automatic response, you dont need questionnaires and forms to evaluate a,b,c,....l,m,n,o,p

We have tons of examples of preliterate societies where convergence between individual and collective identity exists to such an extent that removing them from their group can cause physical symptoms including death.

Now GTs comparison of the concept of equity based on justice in a movement to advertisers pushing products is quite unfair and quite ignorant. Social movements are not pushed on people, they get formed because people have grievances, neither is the seeking of equality based on justice for all, similar to companies pushing products for profitability. His contention that feelings of ``superiority`` make people ``push`` such a concept is also quite ignorant, if its superiority then why get together and say and feel (through your conscience) that if I claim to be better than you its my individual moral failure....like I said, he didn`t understand the subtlties of the article, yet he thinks the article needs a ``lot of work``- yes it does, it needs expanded upon, and pragmaticaly applied but the concepts are quite sound, well referenced and logically argued....

Re: GT,
In your a/b/c example in your ilog, no matter who gets selected by whatever process the majority prefers someone else. Its hard to say that something went wrong when there is no right answer in the first place.

#111 by Khurram,

The final structure emerges in 4 stages, please read the article. Yes there are ways around it, that is where the entire concept of what should form the ``collective identity frame`` comes about, but not after a hierarchy based organization has developed- then as you say there is no way out, the movement will be coopted sooner or later

Re: # 114 by masadi:

Thanks.

GT writes <<< I built up the example based on your article ... it is not that I picked up a ready made example ... >>>

Not true at all. Your example is an old example given by hadithists when they say that the Quran is vague, there is nothing original and based on my article in your example, further you have the ``voting`` part of democracy leading to fragmentation part in view and have not even thought about the collective identity frame that I am talking about.

Introducing ``c`` into the movement that got formed based on specific grievances makes it ``inclusive`` and hense would also lead to fragmentation. Yes Kaal I have tons of examples in fact I have your example, the first time you went against the ``norms`` of your society you felt something didn`t you? Preliterate societies where collective and individual identity frames converge to the utmost- based on whatever norms they have don`t fragment, heterogeniety in a city, as the article discusses, makes the need for enforcement of the collective identity frame that is based on the original birth purpose of a social movement or there will be fragmentation.

Regarding me being ungrateful to GT, you my friend are the ungrateful one, like many in our parts of the world you overlook my effort in the article and off hand say that it needs ``a lot of work``. IT does not, you need to reexamine the reasons you put forward to criticize it, just putting word notations a>b does not add any complexity or credibility to your answer. Regarding the assertion that the elite will control the definition of ``equity based on justice``, they will in the wider society but not in a social movement set up against the antagonizer`s system only if the movement is exclusive and does not incorporate their legitimations to fulfill narrow goals.......read the article again, try to understand what I am writing. Hierarchy inevitably leads to seperation, conflict and oligarchy. It is all or none where hierarchy goes, because some leads to all, and NONE is the only way a social movement set to promote equity based on justice can ever achieve anything...

GT: #112
You are welcome as long as I am not abused for ``na-kardah gunaaho`n.``
Mohammad Gill

Re: # 111 by kurram:

Kurram,

You say:

``Concepts like ``equity based on justice`` need interpretation. The priviliged group will control the interpretion.``

While I agree with you I go further than this. Even if everyone in the group agree on what ``equity based on justice`` is, with or without any interpretation, then without some hierarchy that very ``equity based on justice`` can get defeated in a democracy, or any conflict where numbers matter, (even if a majority of the people are for ``equity based on justice``). I show how in my ilogs.

Again, sorry Dr. Gill. Like all humans, I too am an opportunist.

masadi,

Please consider this.
Any organization will necessarily involve some degree of centralization and heirarchy. This will create a priviliged group within the organization. Concepts like ``equity based on justice`` need interpretation. The priviliged group will control the interpretion.
Any way around this?

GT, Masadi

Please don`t abandon this dialogue so quickly. There`s some possibility of real progress here.

Both sets of arguments are clearly made. To bridge theoretical disagreements, may be we can abstract and induct from any real empirical cases/data you may have used to ground your approaches.

GT, can you provide some real-world examples/historical instances of the difficulties you see in aligning identity frames?

``This is quite simple to understand and practical to implement and empirical evidence exists of it being successful, I gave examples. Now you are pursuing another path, a path to disaster.``

Masadi, in which of your posts did you provide empirical evidence of practical and successful aligning of identity frames?

GT <<< Now, in my example given below, is person no. 1 a soldier of the status quo? >>>

It doesn’t matter who he is based on solution preference. What matters, if you had read the article carefully is whether his ``individual identity frame`` is in sync with the ``collective identity frame`` of the movement, the collective identity is determined using the criteria of ``equity based on justice``, which when institutionalized will produce a psychological response of individual moral failure when one goes against it.

Now is this ``equity based on justice`` just a pie in the sky concept or can it be operationalized to where its indicators are plain as daylight to see. The answer is of course it can be operationalized. Now, within that exclusivity, decisions can be made without any ``preference`` based on hierarchy.

This is quite simple to understand and practical to implement and empirical evidence exists of it being successful, I gave examples. Now you are pursuing another path, a path to disaster where choices are amorphous, based on preference where there is no concept of ``collective identity frame``, and it is free for all. Little wonder though that you think this way that is why modern economics with its hedonistic, rationalistic, ``full of unrealisitc assumptions``- model building is so inadequate. I think enough has been said on the issue, since you refuse to address any of my points.