Building Arguments: From Hot Cross Buns to Bolero

Hot Cross Buns! Hot Cross Buns!

Previously I blogged about the stages in attempting to learn a lot of information in a given subject  The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge; in this case on the EU, Brexit and hence Referendum. Part of the problem is a systemic defect in our National Lack of Conversation Competencies (or "Scaled Communication Dehabilitation" to be correct or give it a name) or what substitutes for it: Dêmos + Kratos = A Community That Communicates Productively. The stages if I remember correctly, and this seems to apply to learning a lot of different subjects, are:-

1. Logistical (input)
2. Semantic (processing)
3. Ordering (output)
4. Memory (information)
5. Application (knowledge)

Ravel's Bolero

Above, I've included one of my favourite classical music pieces, Ravel's Bolero. It helps remind me of those above 1-5 stages when I become bogged down in any of 1-4 and feel lost! I don't know enough about music to comment technically but I do know that from the smallest units put together according to an intended design and applied you create this growing pattern of music that is enjoyable to listen to: A growing pattern in the Bolero above which reinforces the idea for me. The same can be said in comparison with other areas, possibly?:-

• Music: Notes are the units
• Writing: Words are the units
• Programming: Code are the units
• Film-making: Frames are the units 
• Art: Colours are the units??

Hot-Cross Buns: "2 a penny, 3 a penny... hot - cross - buns!"

If you look at the above, it has to have the right notes to go with the words to make the right sound or music. It feels right when we get it right. Likewise, when we perhaps don't then it feels harsh or dischordant. I think this a bit like when we hear or know a lie has been spoken according to our own pattern of meaning that we are sure is true?

EU Referendum: them laws 

 Oh JHC: Not ANOTHER angels dancing on pins law percentages to the nearest decimal place debacle? FFS - !!! Pills, gun, rope - check, check, CHECK!

Surely the laws might be the fundamental "units" that describe our political Sovereignty? So these arcane discussions are actually very applicable?

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 3.2 Public Information, p.36

"The reality, of course, is that regulation is a mechanism by which integration is achieved, employing what is known as the Monnet method. This, Jean  Monnet  devised  after  the  near  failure  of  the  project on  30  August  1954, when the French Parliament rejected the European Political Community and the first European Constitution.

It  was  then that  Monnet  realised  that  his  United  States  of  Europe could  not  be created   openly,   whence   he   came   up   with   the   idea   of   using   progressive economic integration as a Trojan horse. The resultant drip-drip process became known as engrenage – loosely translated as "salami slicing", using harmonising regulations  to  bring   the  economic  activities  of  the  member  states  closer together." 

This was covered in Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination Unknown? and even visualized in comparison to Antikythera Mechanism. We don't need to get bogged down in competing camps out-bidding each other in their attempts to tell the biggest lies: Große Lüge - The Big Lie of Magic Money.

Nick Clegg the five big fat lies being perpetuated by brexit's Project Fib

 "The Pied Politiciars": Liars lied lies, lying about liars, calling liars liars.

I've been wondering about the current campaign. There's too much senseless data. Not only that but the input of the data becomes the argument: It becomes questionable and questioned endlessly: Because often it's Bullshit behaviour by the people pushing it. To me this seems a bit like people talking about the musical note somewhere in Ravel's Bolero and saying how there's more notes in some other music, "Gungs And Roses" (?) and not the total experience they derive from listening to it's repeating pattern actually played and hence referred to as a complete and full work. What is the point of holding an exam if the students are allowed to cheat while taking it? What is the point of allowing people to sit on TV or write their newspaper pieces or go on the radio or internet and communicate garbage data and become embroiled in it? What use is that to people listening and watching?

My opinion is this:-

"There's enormous complexity in creating something like the Bolero. But to enjoy and listen to it is a very very simple thing."

I tend to think this whole subject is a bit like this. People will vote according to "gut-feeling" despite the "Babel-17" that's emitted endlessly and so stupidly in such prodigious volume. If you compare Bolero to "Babel-17" as I am nicknaming it from the sci-fi book, the former allows an ordering of thoughts, the latter an unravelling (no pun intended!) of thoughts.

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

 Most of what is said, is "bits of data" that may often be erroneous too. In this communication system: The "bigger" the bit of data the "bigger the argument" supposedly = Genesis of Große Lüge which in turn leads to a new language: "Babel-17" spoken by politicians and journalists

This idea of taking this data, and processing it into structured information to then apply to different knowledge sets to complete knowledge domains (legislation in this blog's own subject today) with which to THEN argue productively for people to listen to the patterns thus ordered and made:-

Building Arguments: Arranging according to higher patterns of Knowledge:-

 Too much unproductive attention at the faulty "data" production stage leads to lying politicians. "Information #1" is an illustration of information becoming useful when contextualized correctly. Then itself merely being "x1 byte" of information in our full higher arguments which are accessible to people to follow the sense and meaning of = Real Democracy In Action.

Fortunately there are people who are dependable when it comes down to the Data component. Lawyers tend to look for interpretation in the "units" or legal jargon and tend to therefore get bogged down in the information stage and hence are rarely it seems from my own experience at all helpful! Thanks lawyers but then they would not be lawyers would they?!

So the method of processing is a separate discussion, critical but we can depend I think on Dr. RAE North's method of processing

"As far as I can ascertain, this law is all currently in force (even if some of it no longer applies, which is a different thing). So, with all the usual caveats, it can be set against EU law currently in force. This (as of yesterday) stands at 19,389 entries. That puts EU law as a proportion of UK law at almost exactly 19 percent.

This is very much a "quick and dirty" figure, as it includes EU regulations and decisions which have direct effect, as well as instruments which have been transposed into UK law. The big problem, as we pointed out and which was raised by Booker, is that so much EU law no longer originates in Brussels. Increasingly the law comes from global and regional bodies.

On that basis, the figure (any figure) is of very little importance – even without dealing with the many other variables. But it does put Mr Johnson and the other pundits back in the box. If you want to quote a figure, round it up to "about 20 percent". It don't mean nuffink, but at least it has something of a plausible base."

to provide purely descriptive statistics that we can then fit into the above Legislation Sets per category of the Legislation Domain as it applies to our Referendum Question:-

Summarizing the information allows the context and sense-making to create a meaningful dicussion which voters can follow and appreciate. Linear strings of words in binary biff-bam contexts helps no one besides the shitty over-paid politicians

I started with Dr. RAE North's EU Referendum: them laws and EU law: definitive stupidity most recent (and is it ironic?) figures of information as a very basic baseline: All this information tells us is that we get a good deal of legislation from the EU. It's useful to state that simply.

However, what I've done is contextualize legislation via categories, repeating one "byte" of information in 2 categories for example where it applies to both. Where further context is needed I've used magenta to suggest these "bytes" of information are not equal in weight but highly significant to emphasis. Where the "bytes" are in blue, they're individually not particularly significant, but collectively they all add up to produce significant weight, they all support each other for a Like-Vs-Like comparision between EU/EEA vs EFTA/EEA Legislation Comparison. This is a building block to the bigger arguments of globalization of legislation especially in the UK's areas of interest: The Single Market. Now looking at the area that bothers the UK: The Political Ever Closer Union, this is for me the most signficant result:-

It's the source of breakdown of communication and national-decision making competence. Fundamentally it does not matter where or how the legislation is made if whatever the technical matrix of legislation may or may not be it's effect on our own people who are responsible for the rules is to lead them to wilfully deceptive politics: It is a cancer on our decision-making and knowledge development capabilities as a functional and thriving nation.

This final assertion, I would posit as above "knowledge" and as we explored previously determine it to be "wisdom" (the technical derivation of the word, not the mystical), as per Cicero above. And it's a really simply point to understand: Just as with Ravel's Bolero, I can't read music nor can I play music, but I can listen to Ravel's Bolero and understand it's pattern.

I look at the EU's "pattern" and I don't like it; I don't like the other twin fact to this that is to ostracize and reject counter-arguments of high quality, such as, when I look at the alternative, FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and it is like Ravel's Bolero, intellectually - it's quite addictive if deeply complicated!

Now when we get politicians and journalists on TV, you're not helping people understand this subject blathering about details of bits of data! If you start unpicking that stuff when you're supposed to get it right then argue the informative arguments towards knowledge systems for people to use, you'll never reach that productive elevation; trapped in arcane bs. Yes they need to be done be experts under a sense-making methodology - so - make use of such experts - not charlatans. The rest is comparatively simple if a mug like me can do...

As above, all those "bytes" of information can be used to form arguments. The arguments from my viewing purely of the legislation tell me that the UK is interested in the Single Market to connect to Globalization (see Appendix of FLEXCIT for the dozens and dozens of Global Bodies) and to remove the Political Union. It does not tell me "HOW" alone, but we already know this from FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.

BRITAIN AND EUROPE 1914 and 2014 - A FUTURUS Special by Anthony Scholefield ~ Director, FUTURUS

Futurus: Adding Context, Adding Perspective, Adding Depth of Understanding

CONCLUSIONS:-

 1) Operational Fixes to EU Membership are Deceptive

The key point is the arguments are put to useful service: We do have a problem operationally which The Serial Liar David Cameron  and the whole nations knows but they do not use information beyond superficial and deceptive pretence as resolving such problems.

•  Sod Off Boris
• Boris the Bumbler – a man without a plan
• What Does In Look Like?
• Self-Loathing Politicians
• Give the Brexit bullshit a rest!

 2) Brexit is a Tactical Solution to Change Direction (temporily)

We may need a tactical solution to reorientate.

 3) Our Positive Future Vision is a Strategic Knowledge-driven decision-making

WHY LEAVING THE EU IS NECESSARY AND, IN THE LONG-TERM, INEVITABLE

What then is the outcome of that solution strategically, the destination set? This is where a Referendum is possibly a much more positive and productive process than the flailing politicians stuck at their lower level of priorities and hence continuance of short-termism and hence future failure: Futurus is very helpful here; it helps create a complete pattern from history.

The Leave Alliance: Synthesis of Arguments

The Sierpinski triangle arranged in descending tiers

A very resourceful quote by Cicero on arguments:-

“The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down – such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator.” ~ Cicero: De Oretore

 For People: A True Choice depends on a visible and "Complete Picture"

In the above concept diagram, the top of the triangle represents:-

1. Referendum = Direct Choice

A real (direct) democracy choice on a particular subject that qualifies for such real democracy from the people directly as opposed via representation of people in a Parliament.

The EU clearly meets this criteria and if people need to wonder how to vote, this very act of holding a referendum for the first time since 1975 amid many previous promises to do so covering as many as seven major new treaties without having a direct vote, then the question that derives also derives this guiding context to all voters.

Stage 6: It may be the final stage in FLEXCIT... but it's actually inherent in everything preceding: A Choice for Leave is a choice towards more real democracy (working knowledge applied politically)

What is interesting is that the voter themselves is at the top of the decision-making process, which is not the case in our other voters bar of course the General Elections, which themselves politicians admit are degraded due to "safe seats" even as far back as 1975:-

"The reason why I submit this Motion to your Lordships at this time is that, in the first place, I believe the authority of Parliament, and public respect for it, has been dangerously eroded during the past decade. I believe that the economic health of Britain depends on its political health, and the political health, in turn, depends upon the degree to which the great mass of the people, and the groups into which they organise themselves, are prepared to recognise the authority of free institutions such as Parliament. They will do so only if they are persuaded that these institutions fairly represent their cherished values and profound aspirations. I do not think that this is true of Parliament today. I could give plenty of evidence to support this view. The concentration of power in sectional hands has sometimes been able to unhorse Governments in the past. The real danger today is that power, irresponsibly exercised, may destroy Parliament itself, and with it the basic freedoms of a democratic society and, even, the unity of Great Britain."  ~ Lord Alport, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 23 April 1975

Often in the press the Tory divisions meme has been used as the headline reason for this referendum, but the true reason is rooted in the fundamental failure to represent people on this subject, to deceive upon it or else confidently present it to the people to decide.

2. Choice between 2 Paradigms

 Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech")

Here is presented two sides to the argument: Supranationalism vs Intergovernmentalism which frame the arguments for Remaining or Leaving the membership of the European Union. Without this correct framing, the question is devoid of understanding and context to derivative details.

 History repeats itself when...

One of the biggest biggest problems that so many have failed the British people concerning the volumes of argument that have been aired, is the neglection of The Great Deception history of the European Union to define one side of the argument, it's concept, it's definition and mode of working, it's philosophy, it's purpose, the origin of it's ideas and the people influential in developing those ideas into the institutions of today.

 Globalization and Sovereignty?

If that problem is large, so too is the other problem: The lack of knowledge of the opposite argument for Intergovernmentalism and the drive of globalization to build a picture of a possible position of the UK in such a developing future, so much more challenging to picture than the past!

It may have escaped your notice the specific flow diagram postulated here.

3. Arguments: Structured Data

A complete argument is coherent and consistent. Interesting this point is made very explicitly in the latest of Dr. RAE North's blog posts EU Referendum: countdown to launch:-

"There is no short-term economic benefit from leaving the EU. There are no immediate savings to be made, and any expectations that goods will be cheaper in the shops, or that wages will somehow increase overnight are vastly overblown.

Any financial benefits accruing from leaving the EU will be slow in coming and, in many respects, will be expressed in a negative sense: i.e., "had we not left the EU things would be even worse than they are now". [...]

The big problem is that it is almost impossible to demonstrate a clear case, unequivocally showing that all or any groups would be better off. This is especially so when we are seeking to argue for stability, presenting the case that there would be very little material change to the UK immediately after leaving, or in the short- to medium-term. [...]

To do so, though, would be to sell the lie. We are making promises we can't keep. Furthermore, it exposes us – as we are seeing – to "he says, she says" exchanges with the "remains", where the arguments are getting bogged down in ever-more arcane detail, and even more strident disputes, as each side seeks to establish their positions. [...]

It was for this that The Harrogate Agenda was devised, the implementation of which is incompatible with continuing membership of the EU. A necessary consequence of adopting THA, therefore, would be Brexit.

Given that the benefits of implementing THA would be tangible – and some of them immediate – returning powers to the people and giving them much greater control over all manner of things, including taxation, this could be the missing element which motivates people to leave the EU."

This point has already been made in 1. But without inheriting it downwards into our argument logic that creates patterns out of the data all we're left with is:-

 FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: The Greatest Trick The Politicians Ever Pulled on the People: With no context "anything COULD happen" and hence no sane solution presents itself.

It's beyond count the volume of words and works that end in the above result and the game turns into who can stack up the biggest and most impressive lies on each side of the confabulists' narrative of the day. We subsequently that because neither side can "win", then the temptation to argue according to the "biggest group" takes precedence resulting in an all too familiar picture:-

Migration Policy: An overloaded argument disproportionate to it's correct contribution to the "full picture"; trying to make it "the picture" itself.

 FLEXCIT: An Iterative method of organized the evidence and data to connect them into the service and form of a Direct Democracy choice for PEOPLE/VOTERS:-

4. Research-Driven Policy: Details & Data

 The macro within the micro encapsulated: John Ashworth's work perfectly demonstrates the entire synthesis of argument from Tier 1 (choice) to Tier 5 (The Complete Market Solution Work)

Possibly one of the biggest arguments against the EU is that it is a Supranational organization, that it's political agenda leads to less than desirable results so much so because it invalidates the evidence base via forms of bias and prejudice corrupting the process of developing knowledge-based solutions.

We met this via John Ashworth's investigations and experience and his campaign group "Restore Britain's Fish":-

Abstraction of Problems:-

1. Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership
2. Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.
3. Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty
4. So-called Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.
5. British Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our political systems.
6. Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union" eg Community Waters.
7. Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the problem identification and historic factual record.
8. Continual misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.

Abstraction of Solutions:-

1. Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.
2. With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".
3. As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.
4. In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.
5. This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.
6. This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".
7. It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.
8. This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".
9. Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.
10. We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".

Abstraction of Outcomes:-

1. Specific Policy requirements for the UK Fisheries are needed at Local level.
2. These cannot be "reformed" inside the EU due to the nature of the working of the Supranational nature of it's rules system in service to Supranational political destination.
3. This is especially adverse for the UK which has extensive Fisheries national resource and has the knowledge via comparing globally to produce the best outcomes for policy superior to the EU.
4. The argument concerning Supranationalism for Sovereignty is a false dilemma. It's exchanging Supranationalism for Intergovernmentalism and Sovereignty is better served by this outcome or paradigm shift!
5. The "emergence" of this results also indicates a by-product advantage: We can cut down on the enormity of deception enacted without checks and balances to their egregious behaviour of our politicians and leadership against the Sovereignty of the British People: Public Enemy Number One: David Cameron can be removed and the source of so much confusion; it's head chopped off.
6. When we break down the EU Legal instruments we see that global bodies are just as influential and increasingly so on Fisheries Management and Conservation as well as Products and Marketing standards of Fish produce eg Codex.
7. Secondly in areas where it makes regional sense the UK can still form positive partnerships with the EU which is complementary to the UK regaining seats at the real "top tables" of global standards and regulations setting and making bodies.
8. We see that removing the EU specific political legal instruments will likely lead to stronger scientific input into our policies in the case of Fisheries used to exemplify here.
9. This trend is quantifiable given 80-90% of EEA acquis has it's origins in such global bodies. Again the EEA acquis split with the Single Market shows that these are predominantly of a "technical nature" as opposed to forming a hidden "political agenda" eg "Community Waters/Fleet" etc.
10. Through Dr. RAE North's research on regulations great challenges are found to realigning here and reforming conditions so that world trade can be boosted.
11. This evidence is already extant with Norway being an exemplar bona fide case study for direct comparison.
12. Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies indicates that Fisheries is far from being alone or exceptional example but rather a very clear example of the general trend.

The argument for Fisheries not only includes the relevant facts and details, data and research and evidence basis but it is in a form that is conducive to organization in eventual service to the final form: The Voter's Choice!

When this is not done we end up with a sea of details such as I tried to convey concerning arguments for Scientists: EU: From Common Market To EU Constitution

5. Complete Argument by The Leave Alliance

The Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) was formed in 1969 as a cross party coalition