[Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?
Jack Gilles
icabombay at igc.org
Wed Mar 3 10:11:35 CST 2010
Dear Colleagues,
This is a fine discussion and I harken back to our days (70's?) when
we asked "What is the new polity system that needs to emerge?". The
SP triangles are of course important, but they don't help much with
the question of 'form' or 'method'. Though I would urge people to
look at the Golden Pathways CD and re-read the two talks on the
Political Triangles, "Political Theoretics" and "Political Triangles"
and you'll see we had some very helpful insights. I also remember a
paper (actually a rather lengthy document) on Order Polity in which we
tried to spell out the theoretics and dynamics of our self-governance,
but I haven't found it yet.
But there is a good question when you ask "Who needs to decide what
and where is that decision located"? For that I turn to our work on
gridding. It has been clear for a long time that in a globally
interdependent world, decisions made by a few people in one place can
dramatically impact people someplace else. It is also been clear for
some time that the invention of the nation state is less and less the
way the future needs to have people "assembled" and that the rise of
"regionalism" around cultural values is becoming more and more
powerful. We are living in a really messy time where the old
structures are ill suited for governance and the new ones have yet to
take form and many of the really important questions are being asked
and decisions made in global corporations.
But there is another related issues, and that is the one of the need
for a global ethic. Because it is now indicative that our actions
(individual and collective) affect so many, it is imperative that we
seek a common context, a common understanding of our common future. I
am sure this is ONLY going to happen from the bottom up, therefore,
the Town Meeting dynamic, with methods of participation, needs to be
happening everywhere.
But now back to gridding. I have done considerable work on this and
I'll not present it all here. As you recall, we had nine levels for
the world, divided into three dynamics, Globalis, Regionalis, and
Localis. Each of these three had three dynamics, with the center one
being the key to the other two, and understood primarily as a
"cultural" center. Now each of the nine levels (G.S. CARMP M.P.) is a
way to see the whole world, that is for example, to see the world in a
global sense with a cultural screen, you'd divide it into three parts,
East, West and South, to see the whole world as a collection of highly
influential metropolitan centers you'd divide the world into 54.
There is some form of governance (decision making) for each of the
dynamics, but the insight was that the Regionalis was the key to
enabling the flow between the Globalis and the Localis. People at the
local level would have a way to participate in the whole. If you
examine what we were pointing to with the term "Region" you'll see it
corresponds closely to the emergence of the present powerful cultural
movements in the world today. I've seen this especially in India
where several of the States are breaking into smaller, cultural
entities (Bengal, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Maharastra to name a few). It is
also true that in India these new entities are the source of political
power, so that single national parties are less and less meaningful
and coalitions of these new forces are the way governance is happening.
But for me, the real creative and exciting governance question is:
"What is the form of the Localis (polis, micro, parish) Dynamic?" I
believe the reason we failed in replication in Maharastra is that we
didn't understand that to create something that would self-replicate
you needed to work at establishing the "micro" system in the context
of the polis with work taking place at the parish level. That would
have meant doing the replication only in one District, with
vitalization of the Taluka by creating clusters at the local level.
We instead were at the Regionalis level and you will never get
replication happening with those dynamics (area-region-metro).
I'll leave it at that for now. I think there are several implications
for us. One, we do have a lot of wisdom that needs to be polished and
shared. Secondly, our trans-rational methods of work, research and
understanding need to be shared. And finally, we need to do this,
along with our methods and constructs of social analysis,
participation, spirit and polity, with a the newly emerging awakened
global servant force. They're out there in large numbers eager for
what we have to share. We just have to find a form (forum?) to make
it happen. That is why I believe the work on the ICA Archives in July
is so important. We can't wait five years to do this kind of work
with our common memory. It needs to happen soon!!
Grace & Peace,
Jack
On Mar 3, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Herman Greene wrote:
> Thanks for the compliment Carlos. Tim, your thoughts are well taken.
> While one could say that what is going on now is “just politics” I
> agree with you that if this is politics it is standing in the way of
> consideration of important issues.
>
> Is spirit of collaboration and dialogue different than consensus?
> Certainly on any large scale there will not be agreement for example
> on what to do about climate change (a/k/a planetary
> destabilization). There are ideologies, cultural and cultural
> convictions, psychological factors (from archetypes to simple fear),
> in the case of climate change the ideas that we can manage nature
> and the power of free markets, wildly imperfect knowledge, economic
> and other interests that necessarily make the process messy, though
> I do think a different ethos and spirit of collaboration could
> change the nature of the debate, but not the difficulty of it. I am
> astounded sometimes when the hard fought battles of the past seem to
> appear as new issues and have to be re-fought perhaps in every
> generation. I thought, for example, that is was clear that the
> framers of the American Constitution wanted separation of church and
> state. Now this is up for debate again, with some arguing that is
> not what they meant.
>
> Which leads back to what does “participatory government” mean? The
> Tea Baggers certainly think they are participating. On the surface I
> think the democratic system (of the republican nature where people
> elect representatives) is the best system. It’s not consensus by any
> means, but it does allow for change, witness the election of Obama,
> and earlier of Reagan. Yet no sooner does the public elect Obama
> then they become impatient because the problems are not solved. Left
> goes after the administration for not being Left, Right goes after
> the administration for not being Right. Some would argue that the
> corporate and money interests sail happily along above it all. If
> this is democracy it is messy. (On democracy I always think of you
> when I see your cousin (?) Mary Landrieu at work.)
>
> On the issue of small group consensus, I have experienced the
> tyranny of the group where a leader of insight is drowned out by the
> common mind of the past. The creative is submerged in the way it has
> been done. I’ve also seen that those with charismatic power are the
> ones who can move the consensus when things are stuck and they can
> have inordinate power that way.
>
> I do know that political is more than three triangles on the social
> process triangles. It is an issue of how can wisdom and creativity
> be given the best chance to prevail in a complex, pluralistic world.
> The three triangles give areas to consider but they are only
> placeholders. While I once was a political science graduate student
> and studied political theory, it has been a long time since I have
> really given deep thought to governance. I am dealing tangentially
> with that now as I consider issues of “Earth Jurisprudence” and am
> presently writing on the rights of nature (I think nature has
> rights, but the more difficult issue is rights in relation to what,
> and the value of wholes and parts). (I’m a very small and
> inconspicuous voice but am writing an article on this.)
>
> I won’t try to wrap this up, just some thoughts. I will add one more
> thing, in the book I earlier mentioned by David W Orr on Down to the
> Wire, I think he rightly makes the point that ultimately only
> government has the power to take the steps needed to turn the tide
> on ecological issues. The problems of course are governments,
> governance and what the constituents are prepared to ask their
> governments to do, and the need at some levels for global governance.
>
> Herman
>
> From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net]
> On Behalf Of Carlos R. Zervigon
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:46 PM
> To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'
> Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?
>
> Tim
>
> For not being well thought out, WOW!
>
> Carlos R. Zervigon, PMP
> Zervigon International, Ltd.
> 817 Antonine St.
> New Orleans, LA 70115 USA
> 504 894-9868 Mobile: 504 908-0762
> carlos at zervigon.com
> http://www.zervigon.com
>
> From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net]
> On Behalf Of Tim Casswell
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:50 PM
> To: Order Ecumenical Community
> Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?
>
> I think this is an interesting debate. It has produced a heartfelt
> if not altogether thought through meditation of my own...
>
> As we go towards a hung parliament in the UK we are facing a period
> where consensus and collaboration will be precisely the process
> skills that are needed. In almost every other country apart from the
> USA the democratic process is multiparty coalition government. In
> our two party polarisation we watch our politicians stuck into their
> party lines locking horns as if they wete in court in a shockingly
> wasteful display of adversarial stupidity.
>
> As we face the complexity of global financial, ecological,
> political, and resource challenges it will be probably through
> conflict but just maybe through collaboration that we work out our
> salvation.
>
> I am weary of the "Reality" TV gameshow approach the personality
> politicians adopt which effectively excludes us from the social
> process other than as consumer - voters.
>
> The situation before us now requires collaboration. I yearn for a
> politician or a party that declares a stand for consensus.
>
> A party that declares that the global financial, ecological,
> political, and resource situation we face is so complex, so
> critical, it is a state of catastrophe in which we all are faced
> with the choice of caring for one another or competing, looting, and
> fighting with one another over broken pieces and depleted resources.
>
> The adventure we face today is so overwhelming it probably cannot be
> won or even survived. However I know which way I want to die. In a
> community of people listening, caring, dancing, chancing,
> cherishing, in a slow, frustrating, exquisite, subtle, elusive,
> consensual community of human relationships Community is still the
> most fascinating dance of all.
>
> I think the tide is turning. We are tired of the adversarial alpha
> male good shepherd rhetoric we once admired and flocked to in our
> herds. Now we know it really is in our hands and we have a choice.
> Consensus, collaboration, trust, listening, understanding,
> generosity, responsibility, and decisions based on love, or
> conflict, suspicion, hostility, hoarding, and decisions based on fear.
>
> I long for a politician to declare "I stand for consensus. If you
> elect me it is because you know I can do nothing for you just that
> you dare to share a dream of a collaborative sharing world where
> rights are what we give rather than fight for. Voting for me is a
> vote not for what you can get but for what you can give and a
> declaration that we are choosing to take up the challenge of this
> awesome moment ourselves"
>
> Wasn't this the language of MLK and Ghandhi?
>
> I see again the scene towards the end of that film where the field
> is full of people who were once slaves declaring "I am Spartacus".
> Slaves no longer to charisma, power, manipulative political forces.
> The complexity of the catastrophe makes it simple. This is the time
> for each to dream and if you let me be in your dream you can be in
> mine.
>
> Let's dance with Zorba let's sing with don Quixote, let's shout our
> dreams to the empty sky with Thelma and Louise, and work out our
> consensus with diligence.
>
> Consensus is not the abandonment of beliefs. It is the art of human
> being.
>
> Tim Casswell
> creativeconnection.co.uk
> 07956 851 852
>
> On 2 Mar 2010, at 02:43, "Carlos R. Zervigon" <carloszervigon at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> If you are pure in your stance you finally are a group of one that
> can get nothing done. Stand on your principles and be ineffective.
> Politics is a healthy science that acknowledges that we live in
> community and must make decision s as such. Effective and creative
> leadership helps form consensus on a creative, inclusive, depth and
> futuristic context but does not bully it’s way through charismatic
> demagoguery. Margaret Thatcher was a guardian of the illusionary
> past and did not contribute much to a future for the planet. Herman
> Greene however has made his mark many dimensions above Margaret.
>
> Carlos R. Zervigon, PMP
> Zervigon International, Ltd.
> 817 Antonine St.
> New Orleans, LA 70115 USA
> 504 894-9868 Mobile: 504 908-0762
> carlos at zervigon.com
> http://www.zervigon.com
>
> From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net]
> On Behalf Of Herman Greene
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:00 AM
> To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'
> Subject: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?
>
> I received this morning meditation today:
>
> Lord, guard me in my convictions.
>
> "To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs,
> principles, values and policies in search of something in which no
> one believes, but to which no one objects--the process of avoiding
> the very issues that have to be solved merely because you cannot get
> agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought
> and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus?'" <image001.gif>--
> Margaret Thatcher in a 1981 speech as reported in The Wall Street
> Journal
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Herman F. Greene
> 2516 Winningham Drive
> Chapel Hill, NC 27516
> 919-942-4358 (phone and fax)
> hfgreene at mindspring.com
> Skype: hgreene-nc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100303/02667ba0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the OE
mailing list