|
|
||
|
|
|
2.0 PROJECT ISSUES
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 From: Arjen Mulder Hi Paul, the rules for bolo bolo are written in an international sign language, that anybody anywhere on earth can write and understand. I'll take the book along so you can see the signs (which are connected with special words). Basically the central unit is 'ibu' (the individual), who lives in a bolo (village, tribe, community of max. 500), that has a special nima (way of life, culture, philosophy). Their individual rights are a taku (a box for privat property, secret) and a nugo (suicide pil), and the collective rights/dutys are sila (guest friendship) and sibi (a little bit of work for the bolo - any sort of activity). From this simple system a complete new planet arises. So far for the bolo. I will have to write you about my reading (partial) of Tipler Physics of Immortality. I hope I can find the rest to do it this week, because it will take me some time and consideration. But I need to write this before I can fully join in the project again. So, see you on thursday, Arjen Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 From: Paul Perry Hello Jaakko, Maurice, Arjen et al, Here's a brief list of what Jaakko is calling the 'Law of Laws' (or a specification of the assumptions underlying and connecting the possible cities) PREMISE 1: the CITY may be any physical size... PREMISE 2: the CITY may exist without the presence of people... PREMISE 3: the CITY requires neither a single nor fixed location... PREMISE 4: the CITY does not have to serve or be 'good' for people... PREMISE 5: given the above the CITY must possess a purpose... PREMISE 6: given the above the CITY must be 'selfish' (putting its own survival first)... Elaboration will follow. -- Paul Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 From: Arjen Mulder Hoi Paul, The Mare Liberum is translated into English in 1916 as 'The Freedom of the Seas' by Hugo Grotius, Oxford University Press. The original is from 1633. Now in the Amsterdam Universiteitsbibliotheek they have a copy of this translation, but somebody borrowed it till 23.07.98. I made a reservation to get this copy once it comes back. But if you are in Groningen now, it's much easier for you to go to the Universiteitsbibliotheek of Groningen, because they have a copy too. The third copy in Dutch Libraries is in the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in Den Haag, in het Vredespaleis. In Amsterdam they also have a copy of the original book, but you may only take it along to have a look at it (it's prohibited to copy it, but that can be done). So please let me know if you can get the Groningen or The Hague copy, otherwise we'll have to wait a bit till the Amsterdam copy comes in. For the sentences for the 400 cities: I'm working on it, but it may take some time still. OK. Did you know that your Wageningen project was in the newspaper this weekend? There was a special issue on the Bijlmer ramp, and it quoted your 'case' as an example how uranium is feared, even in ridiculous small proportions. I still have the newspaper (Het Parool) in case you want it. Bye, Arjen Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 From: Jaakko van 't Spijker Hello Paul, Working on Amsterdam project today, and thought it 'd be an idea to order our ideas by mailing to you what we're up to. I have read through all of your constitution and I do think it opens up very interesting possibilities. Especially when the manner is discussed in which the cities can be made to co-exist within the framework of the city-state. The jurisdictional body of the city-state as a whole seems pretty hard-core legal stuff, but I guess that's inevitable to be convincing. Still I wonder where exactly it is innovative and explicitly about the Amsterdam 2.0-character. On which issues does it differ from a 'conventional' constitution, apart from the fact that the citizens are called shareholders? (This critical note may well derive from my little knowledge of law). I could imagine a certain (subjective) aim or goal for the city-state could be more explicitly incorporated, something the city should achieve or develop towards by applying this constitution. You seem to be much freeer in expressing this sort of thinking in your hyper-lexicon. As I said, the part describing the cities is very strong, as it gives a convincing idea of how this system could work. Our next move is to literally imagine what would happen if we just applied your constitution to the gemeente Amsterdam. As if it were a scientific experiment where substance A (Amsterdam 1.0) is exposed to a force or radiation B (the constitution). In the course of time, A will change. Our hypothesis is that the constitution will affect Amsterdam like this: T=1: The most explicit existing zones in Amsterdam will be most eager to react to the constitution. In the transition period inbetween Amsterdam 1.0 and 2.0 areas around the Zuid-as and Schiphol will start finding ways of becoming independent rich/extravagant cities. As their anti-pole a few communities in the Bijlmer and Osdorp will see their chance of developing into idependent and outspoken tribal cities. T=2 (10 years): The pioneer cities will trigger a chain reaction which will gain momentum in the course of time. All over Amsterdam independent cities will spring up and test their ability and potential to live an independent life. Because of the nature of the general constitution, more and more radical (in many ways: physical, ideological, economical etc.) cities will see the light. Temporarily this will cause a situation of chaos and insecurity. T=3 (15-20 years): Evolution. Slowly certain patterns become visible. Cities of similar nature start moving towards each other. Some cities turn out not to be feasible and stop existing. Other cities discover they are well feasible but only if they relocate to a more suitable spot. Two ecological zones of opposite nature become manifest in Amsterdam. T=4 (25 years): The constitution and the potential present in Amsterdam 1.0 have reacted into Amsterdam 2.0. A state of cities, a possibility space where possibilities are constantly exploited, a more or less stable organism. We are now working on diagrams that will visualise the process. See you tomorrow, Jaakko Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 Form: Maurice Nio Beste Paul, Woensdag is de laatste dag (!) dat Thomas Buxó nog wat aan de dummy kan doen. Daarna gaat hij op vakantie. Ik zou bij je willen aandringen om je constitutie voor die tijd te wijzigen en aan Thomas te geven. Jaakko heeft zijn opmerkingen vorige week al doorgegeven, en ik sluit me daar volledig bij aan. Bij 't lezen van de constitutie, zoals ik die heb, heb ik nog steeds het gevoel in Amsterdam 1.0 te zitten. Ik heb als enig advies: probeer niet even degelijk, ethisch en wetenschappelijk te zijn als de normale 'wettenmakers'. Enige amorele bepalingen zijn zeer welkom in Amsterdam 2.0. 'We the Shareholders of the country known as AMSTERDAM 2.0, in order to establish a perfect balance of justice and injustice, insure worldwide turbulence, provide...' enzovoort. Groet, Maurice Nio Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 From: Jaakko van 't Spijker Hello Paul, Maurice and I have discussed the fax you sent us this morning and we have a few remarks. They are important in relation to the role your work is going to play in the dummy, and eventually the book. The important issue is quantity. The more compact and sparkling the message can be packed the stronger it's impact. That's why we wonder whether you really need both an introduction, a preamble and the constitution itself to get across what we're aiming for with Amsterdam 2.0. Of course ideally the constitution becomes some kind of poem, a mantra that strongly contains the why/where to within the articles and rules themselves. It does not completely do this yet, but that is indeed a lot to ask for: muting the lawyer and the artist into a poet. It is clear that that is a lot to ask for. To comprise the information however, it is possible is to have the preamble of the constitution function as the introduction. Our proposal would then be to replace the current preamble by the chapter "An introduction to the constitution of Amsterdam 2.0 or 5 good reasons why Amsterdam 2.0 should secede from the rest of the Netherlands." This way the constitution will get a more descriptive and rich start. Can you inform us on whether you agree with this, and if you do inform Thomas on the changes that have to be made? Let us know what you think of this proposal!!! (I'll check Alamut and our mailbox first thing in the morning tomorrow) Jaakko Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 From: Paul Perry At 19:21 +0200 15/7/98, Jaakko wrote: Maurice and I have discussed the fax you sent us this morning and we have a few remarks. They are important in relation to the role your work is going to play in the dummy, and eventually the book. The important issue is quantity. The more compact and sparkling the message can be packed the stronger it's impact. That's why we wonder whether you really need both an introduction, a preamble and the constitution itself to get across what we're aiming for with Amsterdam 2.0. Hi Jaakko (and Maurice), God, I'm confused. Is there a problem with the existing preamble? I'm starting to think so... The other day I received this mail from Maurice: Bij 't lezen van de constitutie, zoals ik die heb, heb ik nog steeds het gevoel in Amsterdam 1.0 te zitten. Ik heb als enig advies: probeer niet even degelijk, ethisch en wetenschappelijk te zijn als de normale 'wettenmakers'. Enige amorele bepalingen zijn zeer welkom in Amsterdam 2.0. 'We the Shareholders of the country known as AMSTERDAM 2.0, in order to establish a perfect balance of justice and injustice, insure worldwide turbulence, provide...' enzovoort. Maurice didn't seem happy with the preamble. I immediately called Maurice and explained that yes the constitution is sound ("degelijk") and scientific ("wetenschappelijk").But wasn't that necessary to communicate its ABSOLUTE RADICALITY? I believe that the 'Constitution of Amsterdam 2.0' is extreme because it opens an extraordinary possibility space. You seem worried that it is too 'normal' -- nowhere in the world is such a constitution as the 'Constitution of Amsterdam 2.0' in effect! A close reading of the constitution reveals how it differs from the legal documents of what Maurice calls 'the normal lawmakers' ("de normale wettenmakers"). The 'Constitution of Amsterdam 2.0' is NOT the constitution of Amsterdam 1.0. It is designed (as you also know) to spawn up to 400 idiosyncratic cities, cities that may be ethically questionable, dedicated to using proscribed technology, racist etc. Cities that--without the 'Constitution of Amsterdam 2.0'--could never possibly exist. You know this of course. Instead of changing the preamble I agreed to write an introduction to the entire constitution in order to communicate this idea better. I worked two or three days on it and faxed a draft version of it to you yesterday. Looking back at our correspondance I see that Maurice wrote a few weeks ago to me: Persoonlijk denk ik dat je alleen overtuigend kunt zijn door arbitrair te zijn, door te zeggen: 'dit is mijn logica, dit is mijn wereld, en die wereld klopt van geen kanten maar er is geen speld tussen te krijgen'. A constitution gets it power from being 'air tight' and because there "is geen speld tussen te krijgen". On the other hand, to be arbitrary means to be both caprious (frivolous) and/or despotic. Amsterdam 2.0's cities can certainly be arbitrary--but Amsterdam 2.0 should not be. After talking with Arjen the other day I got the idea that the 'Constitution of Amsterdam 2.0' might not mesh very well with your project plans. Is this the problem? If it is, why don't you just say so? When I first proposed a possibility space of 400 cities (or 1001), the question arose as to where to place Amsterdam 2.0? Should it be just 'one' of these (arbitrary) cities or should it create the conditions by which 400 new cities could come into being? We agreed that Amsterdam 2.0 should provide 'a law of laws', 'a constitution of constitutions' to facilitate the creation of 400 cities, each with their own individual constitutions. Jaakko you wrote: Of course ideally the constitution becomes some kind of poem, a mantra that strongly contains the why/where to within the articles and rules themselves. It does not completely do that yet, but that is indeed a lot to ask for: muting the lawyer and the artist into a poet. It is clear that that is a lot to ask for. To comprise the information however, it is possible is to have the preamble of the constitution function as the introduction. Our proposal would then be to replace the current preamble by the chapter 'An Introduction to the Constitution of Amsterdam 2.0 or 5 good reasons why Amsterdam 2.0 should secede from the rest of the Netherlands'. This way the constitution will get a more descriptive and rich start. I feel that the introduction that I've written augments the constitution very well and gives a 'poetic' indication of what Amsterdam 2.0 is about. I do not follow, however, your suggestion. The existing 'preamble' is 68 words long. I don't understand the (space saving) to be gained by replacing it with the introduction that I wrote yesterday. Something within the preamble must be troubling you. For the record, here is the preamble: ------------------------------------------------- PREAMBLE We the Shareholders of the country known as AMSTERDAM 2.0, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of variation and diversity to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the country known as AMSTERDAM 2.0 as its supreme law, deriving its just authority from the law of nature and the consent of the governed. ------------------------------------------------- Again: The 'Constitution of Amsterdam 2.0' is the constitution of a country whose sole purpose is to generate 'radical cities'. In order for this to happen the country must ensure the 'domestic tranquility' (the resolution of conflicts between the cities and their ideologies), and provide for a 'common defense' (in order to discourage a world superpower from becoming irritated by, and 'stomping on' a despotic city of 1700 people) within the country's dominion. Obviously this is still not understood. But THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. Our group's desire for 'turbulence' and change shall be met in the constitutions of individual cities. Amsterdam 2.0 is a shell a framework, not really an identity. The world of poetry and literature is filled with fantasy cities, without much effect. I want the real thing. Amsterdam 2.0 can provide the real thing. The purpose of Amsterdam 2.0: To allow as much identity, diversity and as many 'experiments in living' as possible. Can you inform us on whether you agree with this, and if you do inform Thomas on the changes that have to be made? Let us know what you think of this proposal!!! (I'll check Alamut and our mailbox first thing in the morning tomorrow) Jaakko I realise that our groups intention is to make this clear--to communicate this to our readers and I appreciate your help and critique. -- Paul
Please report errors to --> errors@alamut.com
|
|