Architectural Values

This is a list of architectural values accumulated over a couple of application designs. I use this for considerations of voluntary, democratic structure, but much of it may well apply in the general considerations of organizational design. In my original paper, I would place this in the philosophy section.

Awareness and Participation

We connect to the world via our A&P. I have previously defined the awareness concern as one of open, direct access to important information. A need for awareness may stem from the existence of an awareness gap. The word participation refers to how much of it we have, and may have. An awareness gap causes a calling for added gap-filling structure, until sufficient infrastructure is achieved, at which point I think it becomes safe to say that the architectural task has been completed.

Our A&P levels should be assessed for our area of concern, because they will be fundamental to the viability of our designs. We are venturing into a world of voluntary, i.e. participatory structures. This brings us to asking how much A&P we can draw upon presently, and what levels can we expect to see or achieve on an ongoing basis. As architects, we should not plan on A&P that the people will not do.

Participatory structures operate with eternal vigilance, and in the history of such architecture, the idea of success is a most dreaded thing. It can wipe out motive for those who might participate, but if the design is more organic, then this should mitigate the affair. (When I say that a system seems more organic, I mean to say that participation in it seems more like it is part of living one's regular life.)

As examples... In dealing with a period of success, I might make a point of designing for; a skeleton crew to well-manage in times of relative inactivity, making sure the doors are always open to new members, and for the system to always be upwardly accessible to general members. Participation could also be promoted as patriotic duty, making this work more organic, so long as patriotism is the case. I think infrastructure generally deemed necessary could be very organic.

A given cause may have its own A&P figures, and having a cause that people agree with, or having motive, seems most helpful. I suppose we can call this the importance of the cause. I can also see a place for selecting an area of some interest. I will go into the specific architecture I have proposed in the section on culture, which includes proposing to use "one percenters" to man the system.

The Grass Roots and Democracy

We may begin with the grass roots as being at the level of the common man, and we will build an architecture out of and answering to the individual. At this point in history, individuals will not relinquish their democratic power; they will retain it, and I will resort to democratic method to target the highest class of public trust and political worthiness. I will make it my business to see that this individual power will be upheld, in the midst of any contract with proposed designs.

As a matter of social contract, the individual may also respect ratified rules and results forthcoming, as reflective of the system and the collective.

When using democracy, it is good information which is most helpful to all participants. Democracy can also be used as a weapon of bad information. Democracy can reflect how right or wrong we are, and the use of it makes me want for us to have good information.

Democracy is also the greatest check upon power, in the following form. Where 'n' is the number of voters, the power granted to the individual is 1/n, which can be taken as maximum power distribution. Having checked the individual, there may be potential for amassing this power by way of parties, or factions. We should be watchful over how democratic power in this form may exploit or abuse others.

Logistics and Representation

A logistical load is a quantity of particular needs worthy of its own attention. I think the best example of this is to face off with a million people conducting an ongoing series of decisions, such that everyone gets equal access. With the common man comes a logistical load that any tiny group of people doesn't have. I find that the main thrust of the bureaucratic approach lies in dealing with this.

A primary example of mitigating this load comes with the use of representative democracy, wherein; the land is divided up into equal-population districts, each sends forth its delegates, and the representative body which is formed performs the ongoing series of decision-making. They are primarily checked by public voting records, as feedback to their constituents, but they are also checked in other ways. Now, the original logistical load is reduced to the size of the representative body.

Representative democracy is worth noting for its ability to make delegates that are of a filtered kind, through elections. Those who hold elected offices should have received the support of many others. It should be more difficult than to be a member, for an unwanted party to gain an elected office.

Bureaucracy and Constitution

There needs to be a guarantee or promise to the grass roots that nothing here is privately owned or operated. A promise need to be made to the individual that they may volunteer, and be subjected to an environment of equality and fair play, by way of a transparent, representative system. A written system is needed to facilitate this, in order for private parties to not be in charge, as published for all to confirm.

As a prime example, this is to begin with a document, or set of rules, that has been duly brought into existence by way of a sufficiently trustworthy source of its own consensus. This document is to define all necessary ongoing procedures and records, and it is to be held equally above all parties as commonly enforced. As a perfection standard, there should be no way for an individual to reasonably oppose the method being used.

An architecture will define powers and constraints upon power in a representative system, and it may define people's protections. An example of this pair of things would be the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. While this cannot be expected to change the legal situation, any additional architecture may understand itself well enough to say that it is superseded by its interpretation of US laws, as a promise to all persons.

Bureaucracy adds work to check power. As much of this as would be sufficient is enough to be worthy of public trust. There is having too much bureaucracy, which should be considered an unnecessary tax upon the membership, and it can adversely affect interest and participation.

-- Power and Distribution

The achievement of trust is a central calling, and this includes everyone who includes themself. Truth and democratic method are very powerful allies when vying for public trust.

Overall, the potential power is how many participants there may be, multiplied by how much they may know and do, via how organized they are, or with what solidarity. In this sense, a faction can be most reductive to overall power. Greater awareness may increase an individual's power. Greater awareness, organization, and participation may rally upon, unify, and apply greater power.

As a matter of scale, it will be good to have a sense of how powerful an organization will be, to be well-enough prepared for it to defend itself. I think a respectable design for a national democratic-republic-type of structure would be poised to rank at the highest level of power in its implementation, in its own area. I don't mean to be blunt, but I think this is what kind of power the American system effectively yields, in the public trust of it.

We will be using distribution of power as a primary method. Breaking a power into two distributes it. These checks provide protection against corrupted interests.

For example, by breaking up the nation into a larger number of districts, corruption will have to accumulate across a larger number of districts to be democratically effective. This is where we can see the grass roots being made stronger in relation to centralized power. By breaking legislative powers down into committees, or executive powers down into separate offices, or by having the greatest powers broken down into branches; these are all recognized as examples of added power (separation or) distribution.

Adding elements of distribution means adding elements of bureaucracy. Using a larger number of districts adds distribution without adding bureaucracy, perhaps unless the body they elect gets so big that it needs more elements of bureaucracy within to manage itself.

Local: Localization and Community

To be local is to have a more direct and intimate connection with the grass roots, which is to be local to the individual. It is taken as a matter of fundamental virtue to maintain strong connections to the individual amidst greater or more distant manifest structures, and so as an example, a national district grid, wherein each district is local unto itself, may put forth representatives, which maintains a connection with some strength, between the individual, and in this case, a body of representatives in some more distant sphere.

We benefit by being closer and more familiar with one another locally, in how our interaction may be less formal and more efficient. More simplified is more organic. With experience, a local jurisdiction may also master its own people and landscape with a local understanding.

I find a fundamentally substantial contribution to all of human intelligence to come to us by way of human interaction. I like to draw lines on a level of quality of interaction at the point of including the nonverbal, and at the point of open audio exchange. Much of what exchange takes place in an organization is in written and electronic form, and in every community across the country, the organization we implement adds more productive interactions of this kind, and more opportunity for high quality interaction. A national implementation adds to the infrastructure of a human society.

The human species is noted to be a social creature. I think of architectural note in the modern age that community health is a part of human health. I think modern pressures accrue which push us to greater mental occupation, and less interaction. I think that if I have a body, mind, and soul, or however we wish to break ourselves down, and my various parts interact with your various parts, then there is a place for us to be enlightened by the interaction of our various parts bouncing off of one another, and for us to expand in our overall harmony, intelligence, and effectiveness. Also, I think just being in a better place in terms of community means improving the quality of community in one's own life, which can be comforting.

All good results may occur at the level of the individual, the community, the city, the county, the state, and the society, and in our endeavors, I think we will do well to note of each of these contributions. In the American system, for example, there are places for success at city, county, and state levels, which are more accessible to those locally organized, and easier to function with as a peer.

-- Immediacy

Immediacy is a facet of localization. As an example, when electing someone to a high office, voting can be distributed in various ways. Everyone in the country could vote, or a delegate body could vote. The grass roots gain greater connection by everyone voting, but I see something else coming to bear. The example of immediacy herein is to use the delegate body to do the voting (which may also make the votes public). In the actions of electing, monitoring, and possibly recalling an elected person, the delegate body is more immediate than all voters nationally. That which has more immediacy can more acutely control itself, react, and respond.

Localization and immediacy trade off with logistics; there is a balancing act between these two. We could put everyone in the country into the legislature, and there will be a great many particulars to endure. To be local altogether is more along the lines of pre-civilization, and minimal architecture. There is also the matter to note of how large a group can be before it is too big for a member, within their own mind, to call the group local. In this, we see that local is local to the individual.

Organic

There is the personal life that each of us must live. Beyond this, there are the individual costs and benefits to participation in community and society. On the cost side, there is how much work is added, and on the benefit side there is an improved quality of life. One could also easily argue that community and society will to some extent rule over us, and this may be for better or for worse. Organic means that when a person is doing the work, they feel like they are living their regular life.

Clearly, being bureaucratic may be threatening to being organic. Unnecessary hoops and ladders stand to cause friction with volunteer-participants. It will be good for being organic if one can say that the organization and its procedures seem necessary, or useful. Things that we understand to be integral parts of our society will give us more of a sense of place and purpose in them.

How organic a system is may be affected, it seems, by every other element in the system. For any element that may be added, there is the question of how it fits with us. Anything that doesn't work or causes undue stress will wind up not being organic, which means friction with volunteers.

As an example of being organic, I might choose to break down offices such that they fit more easily (and sustainably) in with people's bodies, minds, and souls. The body needs enough time, as does the mind, and the mind enjoys knowing what it is doing, and the soul enjoys harmony with it all. Clarity and simplicity in rules help.

For organic reasons, I proposed that elected executives get to vote on legislative proposals, and they might even be able to make proposals in the area of their own department. One major reason for this was to make it so that when people prefer one branch or the other, they are not restricted on voting power.

Feasibility/Practicality

Concepts like these seem very localized in their area of concern, and easy to say. I think that the simplest way to put this concern is to ask this question about what design element we propose. Are we proposing something that is feasible? Is there a reason why it is not? The world should not be asked to do things that it will not do. Practicality is close to feasibility, in that what is infeasible does not work, whereas what is impractical may fall somewhere in a range between excessively difficult and infeasible.

An example of this type of concern that I recall having has been in regards to how many elected offices I would ask a general member to well follow. Some offices could be made to be voted in by the legislature, for example, or by elected people in general. My concern comes in when asking general members to track 'x' number of offices, and at least twice as many candidates during elections. Is it more than what they will do? I think there are a variety of factors that can play into whether this is of particular concern, and in summary, we may try to make an estimate of how informed voters are. For other reasons, the general membership could by rule vote for everyone.

Persistence/Sustainability and Robustness

I think this is another fairly simple and straightforward set of concepts. For a given design proposition, we can ask if it will persist. I would call a structure that well persists robust.

This is a question of how a system fairs over time, and not just under more immediate circumstances. As an example, there was talk of achieving success in the A&P section, as a place where persistence issues may crop up. It may be difficult to persist in areas that matter to begin with, but not to follow.

Volatility

Political volatility, as it is used here, boils down to how many bad votes there are. When we say this, we'll pretend that good votes are the ones we would like to see, and then we'll be looking at all of the non-good voting, and we can call this a measure of volatility. As a result, there will be more mixed voting. Factions are the single most capable sources of volatility overall. When factoring in volatility, the percentage of good votes goes down, making only lower support thresholds achievable.

As examples, the proposed claims process seems like it will not be seeing volatility. For these, I would sooner guess that either everyone will support or everyone will oppose. When it gets to campaigns, however; this is a place for disagreement on how to break down and organize all of the claim and redress territories. Everything will get done regardless of how it is broken down, and so I suggested that any claim must be referenced by at least one campaign within so many days of its passage. This would help the legislature to come to an arrangement.

Culture

There is the culture of our society, with which our organization will interact. There is the culture of the proposed organization, and what appeal it may have in recruiting.

I will use my architectural proposition for examples of cultural consideration. I began this with an A&P assessment, in conjunction with the larger logistical considerations. What I saw was a society exhibiting a small percentage of political awareness, and a clear majority of more distant, trusting souls. Persistence became an issue. If we have done this before, then we may do so again.

I would also like to note that having each person spend forty or more hours a week on news should not be regarded as feasible or sustainable. This great logistical challenge may be overcome with added infrastructure.

In response to all related considerations, I decided to target what I came to call the "one percenters" as the ones who would give this approach its core persistence and robustness. The kind of feasibility I am looking for includes achieving sufficient infrastructure for success. I guessed that in the long haul, one person in one thousand would be enough to keep this system rolling, on the basis that this many Americans will persistently exhibit high levels of relevant interest and awareness. The beauty of this approach is in its culture, because of its more concentrated A&P within.

The allowable legislative material of this organization will be all evidence, capped by statements of active corruption. The activities will all be for redressing injustices. The halls of this organization will be ringing with these things. What kind of culture would this organization have, and who would or would not join?

People who read alternative news would join. People who do not want to hang out with these people and go on about these things would want to go away. When that fine day comes where everyone wants to join, then success will have already been had. We're talking about people who don't like conspiracy theorists, or being looked at by everyone else as such. In terms of the establishment response, I would much anticipate being blacked out in the news, and of seeing various other tactics.

If naive persons are encouraged to join, in defense of corruption, then they will be sent to these halls, where all of this evidence will be right in front of them. They are, after all, still human beings, and I think we should give them credit to respond to facts in the same way that everyone else has. There are those of us who used to believe in the authorities, and then looked at evidence that made us think a different way. This is why I say that this is the last rallying point of them all; I think it can net any like attempt before it, and still service the need.