Upgraded version of a proposal for organizing decision-making within Assemblies.

Views: 160

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"WHY ARE WE ORGANIZING OURSELVES? We want to make decisions together."

That's how the proposal begins.  That answer doesn't satisfy.  It feels narrow and off-course.  I wonder:  should I keep reading or promptly begin a competing proposal?  I must decide!

How would you improve the proposal?

Hi Clark.  Based on the line I read, I would change the answer to the question and go from there.  Having read so little, I only suspect that a totally different proposal would follow.

The new first line might be, more or less:

WHY ARE WE ORGANIZING OURSELVES?  We want a quality of life for all beings that is higher than what the present arrangements are capable of yielding.

The distinction explains why I identify as a neutral observer.  I mean to shift the culture, not to amass a political majority.  I stay close, greatly appreciating this cafe, for a view of the movement's purpose and intentions, as the movement is a welcome sign of life.  My wish is that it will develop in such a way that protester soon will lose its applicability.

There is no satisfying answer to the misleading question.

I post here to inspire David – trying (with no success as yet) to introduce the change in the way we think – from objective to dynamic (process oriented).

Objectively we can arbitrary decide that current organization is no organization and start to organize - asking why.

Process oriented way of thinking would imply another question: How are we organized, how we have been organizing, to what extent we can re-organize? The principle and pattern of existing organization(s) is global - the question is meaningless locally.

My attitude has been formed by the experience of organization experiment called Soviet Union – the soviets being equivalent to the circles in your model, Clark. I have lived in the “experimentally” organized state (Poland) for over 40 years (till 1989 – the transformation, another organizational experience), observing interaction of three different levels of organization: natural/organic, traditional Christian/capitalist and official communo/socialist. You must not repeat the fallacy of Marxism!

The process way of thinking would demand to start from questions concerning confirmation bias – in your proposal added only as a kind of attachment.

David, the dynamic concept of culture shift has been proposed by your authority,  David Holmgren:

"...bottom-up collaborative behavior is a fundamental element of (permaculture) action, whether it is in the garden or the community and this behavior is informed by holistic systemic understanding which can be characterized as top-down."

Within objective mode of thought it is unimaginable. Thinking dynamically we would be able to start right now – technically we are ready. Unfortunately subject/object observation have been the principle of cognition development and the reason of whole set of cognitive biases.

appreciate your mention of process and dynamic thinking.

Not clear that Soviets are equivalent to the circles that I am describing.  What specifically from what I've written leads you to assert this?

--Clark

The idea of Soviets was parallel to your idea of circles and assemblies. Local, bottom up, equality based etc -  in intentions.

In reality it created the social environment of multilevel hypocrisy, to say what one thinks was dangerous even within family.

It's no use to compare in details - 100 years makes a difference.

Dynamic thinking can approach it generally - explain why no revolution of local social system has changed the pattern of human development.

I can see why you are reminded of soviets in terms of circles and assemblies, but that structure is almost peripheral to what I'm describing.  For instance, the prominence of dynamic steering through the consent process, the double-linking by delegates, and the specific way a transparent selection process fills roles.  Have you viewed those 3 elements?  If so, do you still worry about what I'm proposing being in danger of falling to the pitfalls of the soviet system?

--Clark

Yes, I do. If you really appreciated the idea of process/dynamic thinking you wouldn’t ask.

It all depends on perspective. We/humans were organized before we started to think. Any present organization is the effect of coevolution of natural organization and cognition (process!). We cannot effectively address the internal process of organization (consent or whatever) unless we understand the process of civilization growth. That was the error Marx has made and IMHO Bryan and Foerster are repeating.

I don’t think we disagree. The organization and the goal are discrete objects. Organization distributes tasks for the collective goal, the goal is essential to start, to motivate. I would say the inertia of highly effective organizations in absence of the clear collective goal is close to the core of global problem.

All over 50000 years the individual, group, collective goals were not exactly the same, but at least compatible. Effectiveness was clearly defined. Speaking about “us” as 7 billions of living generation, in spite of poverty and injustice, we must say the goal of our ancestors has been reached. In the given conditions (the planet) we cannot reach more.

My conclusion: whenever we speak about process effectiveness with in organization we should stay linked to the process with out it. Is there any goal visible in the wider perspective?

I'm not yet clear you understand the error I'm making, even on the scope of failing to understand the process of civilization growth, because I'm not clear I've made myself clear to you what I'm proposing. What I'm calling "shared purpose" includes your concept "clear collective goal."

I'm enjoying your observation that we/humans were organized before we started to think.  I'm going to ponder that significance.

Not sure what you mean by "stay linked to the process without it." or "is there any goal visible in the wider perspective?"

There are a couple challenges in talking about this for me.  One, having the conceptual awareness.  Two, having the skills to communicate this awareness so that it is understandable to the recipient.  Good luck to us both!

Clark,

I am very sorry to break the promising discussion - and very anxious to continue as soon as possible.

You may understand the reason if you visit 'Occupy 2.0: Transforming Systems from the Inside Out' and read my last question to David Eggleton there.

                                                                  Pawel

"trying (with no success as yet) to introduce the change in the way we think – from objective to dynamic (process oriented).

Objectively we can arbitrary decide that current organization is no organization and start to organize - asking why.

Process oriented way of thinking would imply another question: How are we organized, how we have been organizing, to what extent we can re-organize? The principle and pattern of existing organization(s) is global"

I am not certain that we disagree about that portion of your comments, nor much else.  I am certain that I concluded that the process way of thinking is more likely to follow broad adoption of the whole person paradigm than to precede it.  At the time, I believed ways of thinking are most difficult of all to advance.  Is that belief an American thing?  I don't know.

Notice that Holmgren shifted from behavior to understanding as he moved focus from bottom-up to top-down, and that his definition of top-down may not allude to anything global.

I believe local is meaningful because it's human-scale and so practical; energy that fosters the anywhere economy (aka the big inhumane system) will one/any day fail it, through disruptions of production and/or delivery, through steady price increases and/or through depletion.  Local implies a readiness, just as militia (of farmers and other producers) did for the American colonists.

This is the general reply to both of you, to display the orientation of my thinking. I shall try to post tomorrow more detailed answers to your posts:

Notice that Holmgren shifted from behavior to understanding as he moved focus from bottom-up to top-down, and that his definition of top-down may not allude to anything global.

And this is our problem. His definition describes something we desperately need to orientate local actions in one direction and reach systemic effect. We are technically (knowledge, communication, motivation) ready to change the phantom in something real. The only obstacle is the way we think, focused (naturally, unconsciously and involuntarily) on individual perspective. No individual can change the way he thinks, our brain/mind structure and flows are a given.

Collectively we can do it - but it must be something synergistic, a subject of collective dynamic creation (process!), something more than shared individual understandings (they can be shared to limited extent only, not wholly). The vision of the goal of humanity in the wider perspective is not accessible today, holistic systemic understanding of the present moment of our path can be reached.

IMHO it should be the temporary, only possible, first step to the change (of the way we think), leading to global re-cognition of the sense of our existence.

RSS

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT


Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group
Thumbnail

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service