[Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?

Wed Mar 3 16:04:03 CST 2010

If you want to know what's going on at the micro level of society, (USA) Google Coffee Party USA.It looks like people are beginning to wake-up but they do need methods for reaching  consensus. Maybe this is the time for Town Meetings!

Marianna
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jack Gilles 
  To: Order Ecumenical Community 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20100303/3f1d65bb/attachment-0001.html>