Comments on: understanding the rules of hospitality http://www.lokman.org/2008/12/29/understanding-the-rules-of-hospitality/ new media, global communication, journalism Wed, 18 May 2011 14:33:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: global voices, one world » why a diverse media system is not enough http://www.lokman.org/2008/12/29/understanding-the-rules-of-hospitality/comment-page-1/#comment-4282 global voices, one world » why a diverse media system is not enough Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:13:29 +0000 http://www.lokman.org/?p=148#comment-4282 [...] one I see essentially underpinning the difference between hospitality and diversity. I understand hospitality as a responsibility that has at its heart hierarchies in communication power. Some are more [...] [...] one I see essentially underpinning the difference between hospitality and diversity. I understand hospitality as a responsibility that has at its heart hierarchies in communication power. Some are more [...]

]]> By: Mark Julian Smith http://www.lokman.org/2008/12/29/understanding-the-rules-of-hospitality/comment-page-1/#comment-1265 Mark Julian Smith Sun, 31 May 2009 12:39:43 +0000 http://www.lokman.org/?p=148#comment-1265 I suppose the conundrum we face is why Democracy as it is interpreted in any form equal say, hospitality, host, Republic, Westminster system, Communist system all claim to be Democratic yet continue to fail to live up to expectations. With Democracies we have seen millions of dead and maimed from wars, extremes of poverty and wealth - you know the story. The important question is not how can we make Democracies more relevant to the masses but understand what is it actually for and why it continues to fail us in whatever form we reimage it in. What is the underlying philosophy which drives our policy processes from conception to initiation to completion? As has been pointed out on this site equal input into a decision making process is an unattainable goal as each person has a different view on what equality means on every possible issue confronting humanity. We try to address this by creating access to policy processes via interest groups only to find out they are at times, given the nature of humanity, stacked with the like minded and not representative of the general population. Even then it is argued some individuals or groups should be more equal than others. Nothing appears to work no matter how hard we try to include others of a different persuasion. They just end up white anting the process wasting resources and time. Democracies in their currant form will continue to throw up the Hitler’s and Stalin’s etc. Why? It has nothing to do with the ability to enable more to have access to the decision making process it is for what purpose this decision making process was created and perpetuated. The answer is in the nature of our hierarchical framework business, political and personal. Although diminishing accountability is an aspect mostly referred to the most critical facet is diminishing contradictability. The further away a citizen is from a superimposed hierarchy position, no matter how knowledgeable, expert or capable of averting catastrophe, the less able a citizen is to influence decisions emanating from that position. This form in itself is not the reason for Democracies failure, nor any of the other forms we have tried for policy processes, it is the reason for it’s existence, the underlying philosophy which currently drives each of us in our daily toil, in almost every social context, which is a continuing cause of human beings inability to achieve outcomes which we desperately at times need. Until it is realised what the real issue is and what philosophical change is required so we humans do not continue killing each other in the millions as well as slowly destroy our planet humans are destined to repeat their mistakes. I suppose the conundrum we face is why Democracy as it is interpreted in any form equal say, hospitality, host, Republic, Westminster system, Communist system all claim to be Democratic yet continue to fail to live up to expectations. With Democracies we have seen millions of dead and maimed from wars, extremes of poverty and wealth – you know the story.

The important question is not how can we make Democracies more relevant to the masses but understand what is it actually for and why it continues to fail us in whatever form we reimage it in.

What is the underlying philosophy which drives our policy processes from conception to initiation to completion?

As has been pointed out on this site equal input into a decision making process is an unattainable goal as each person has a different view on what equality means on every possible issue confronting humanity.

We try to address this by creating access to policy processes via interest groups only to find out they are at times, given the nature of humanity, stacked with the like minded and not representative of the general population. Even then it is argued some individuals or groups should be more equal than others.

Nothing appears to work no matter how hard we try to include others of a different persuasion. They just end up white anting the process wasting resources and time.

Democracies in their currant form will continue to throw up the Hitler’s and Stalin’s etc. Why? It has nothing to do with the ability to enable more to have access to the decision making process it is for what purpose this decision making process was created and perpetuated.

The answer is in the nature of our hierarchical framework business, political and personal. Although diminishing accountability is an aspect mostly referred to the most critical facet is diminishing contradictability. The further away a citizen is from a superimposed hierarchy position, no matter how knowledgeable, expert or capable of averting catastrophe, the less able a citizen is to influence decisions emanating from that position.

This form in itself is not the reason for Democracies failure, nor any of the other forms we have tried for policy processes, it is the reason for it’s existence, the underlying philosophy which currently drives each of us in our daily toil, in almost every social context, which is a continuing cause of human beings inability to achieve outcomes which we desperately at times need.

Until it is realised what the real issue is and what philosophical change is required so we humans do not continue killing each other in the millions as well as slowly destroy our planet humans are destined to repeat their mistakes.

]]> By: Ben Peters http://www.lokman.org/2008/12/29/understanding-the-rules-of-hospitality/comment-page-1/#comment-50 Ben Peters Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:35:49 +0000 http://www.lokman.org/?p=148#comment-50 Super smart. I follow the imbalance of conversation point to the end. Communication is constituted more by gaps than content (e.g. "The Gaps of Which Communication is Made," Critical Studies in Mass Communication, v11 n2 p117-40 Jun 1994). Thinking about democratic minimums may be a good place to start: It seems to me that a "minimum" may still constitute a high bar in certain environments--that to entrance to a democratic forum is often via undemocratic means. To initiate deliberation is also to referee, to regulate, to select a script, protocol, or procedure for conversation. At core, I think the promise of hospitality may have many of the same problems and potentials of a supposedly universal liberal and democratic values. That is, who sets the protocol for the conversation for establishing the interoperability/generativity protocols? Kids crying... more later. Super smart. I follow the imbalance of conversation point to the end. Communication is constituted more by gaps than content (e.g. “The Gaps of Which Communication is Made,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication, v11 n2 p117-40 Jun 1994). Thinking about democratic minimums may be a good place to start: It seems to me that a “minimum” may still constitute a high bar in certain environments–that to entrance to a democratic forum is often via undemocratic means. To initiate deliberation is also to referee, to regulate, to select a script, protocol, or procedure for conversation. At core, I think the promise of hospitality may have many of the same problems and potentials of a supposedly universal liberal and democratic values. That is, who sets the protocol for the conversation for establishing the interoperability/generativity protocols? Kids crying… more later.

]]>