Partisans, Polarity & Consensus

There are some things (in spite of triangulation) which do not resolve themselves by compromise & conciliation.  The abortion issue is one. Bipartisanship can't resolve that one. Neither can triangulation.  I devised such a triangulation, but I am afraid that it merely pisses off both sides on the issue. There are, however, several other concerns which are similar to abortion which also fall in the category of unresolvable by government. If you think about it, unresolvable by government means that a consensus group decision is impossible & that the matter is one for the individual to handle. 

1. Abortion - it is undecidable as religion (including science & atheists)
2. Money in Elections - those in power write the rules & determine what goes up for election
3. Education - educate all the same way & we get all the same answers
4. Health Care (or Healing)
5. transparency - almost all regimes want to hide something
6. The bread & circuses problem

Consensus & co-operation is a laudable goal for governmental & community (group) action. I say that if we fail to participate by voting or otherwise involving ourselves in the community then we give up our right to complain about the results.

Here are some questions to be answered:

•    How to decentralize power & get people more connected with solutions?
•    How do we switch from polarization to cooperation?
•    How do we get more stakeholders into the process?
•    What role must leadership play?
•    What role must integrity play?
•    What role must principle play?
•    Can we agree that atheism, agnosticism & scientific materialism are also religions protected by the first amendment?

Comments

Mark de LA says

M 2011-11-17 08:10:42 15630

Notice some thinking, feeling & action is required here; prolly not interesting to partisans.

Prolly have to drag an Obamafish through this one to get thinking attention. So ....

Mark de LA says

seth 2011-11-19 08:31:55 15630

yeah i read this ... and read it again ... and can see no starting point here for useful dialogue with you.  where you have impasses, you need to really comprehend and believe the reality of what you call the opposition, there is always going to be some truth there.  but you do not ever do that.  you never acknowledge the truth in the other side.  you always twist it and change the topic and talk about something else.  after watching you do that that again and again i've pretty much given up ever having any interesting dialogue with you let along a useful one.

if you really do want my attention to this ... put as prerequisite the ideas i have scoped here:

• understand and acknowledge the opposite point of view
• do not twist the truth of the opposite point of view
• solutions to problems must deal with all the realities - the ones being felt by other people, as well as the ones you feel
• follow the rules of reasonable and useful dialogue 

and drop that ridiculous Obama bullshit ... don't expect me to be your straight man as you disrespect the elected president of the united states for no good reason.

If your opposition is lying there then there is no truth to talk about - is there?. I do not twist the truth except in parody. Your last two bullets are fuzzy & incomplete. I try to open an item on partisanship. I suggest that some things can't be resolved & supplied examples. If you think they can be resolved (like a consensus) there is room for dialogue but, it needs details. Majority rules, like a dictatorship,imho is not resolving the problems. Such a democracy is like the oftquoted "Democracy has been defined as two wolves and a sheep discussing plans for lunch."

We are also a Republic; decentralizing some of the effect.  Of all the things I have posted without using the "O" word none seem to get any attention until it surfaces. This is a prime example.  The last president I had an emotional affinity to was JFK. Otherwise I am a registered independent.  I am a theoretical threefoldist trying to find a way to practicality.  If you don't want to think - that's fine with me I will just continue to use fbi as a place to stage my thoughts.  BTW, It's hard to understand the opposite point of view it it comes out in talking points, anger & slander  ... try rational, logical & some ethos & pathos & I can listen.

 

Mark de LA says

Dear brother, I respect, appreciate & acknowledge & even honor that you have a different opinion than I in most things political. That's what this item is all about ... where do we go from here? ... where can we go from here when we "hair-up" to groups, organizations & governments?

Mark de LA says

seth 2011-11-19 13:55:51 15630

Mark i find you dialogue tactics disgusting and reprehensible.   You did it again in a  train, where i was having a productive discussion with Norma and Jeffery.  So from now on i will just be ignoring you until you can listen to my actual points ... start with not twisting what i said above ... hint you did not comprehend what i said above nor digest the truth of it.

You are having a real sad time of it - doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. You have addressed nothing of what I have said in this article except your own partisan hurtings. Too bad you can't command everyone else to agree with you just by crying "partisanship" . All arguments are "ad hominem" for you, eh? Dude. Try the subject itself on for a change.

 

Mark de LA says

seth 2011-11-19 20:09:23 15630

source: M
Too bad you can't command everyone else to agree with you

Mark, do you really think that is what i am saying here?

What you are saying may be one thing but I think that is the bottom line. Your ad hominem replies have increased. Of course the obamafish proved a point because the item was around for a day or two before I put it there.  In your own zen way you probably were illustrating partisanship, eh?  I was trying to handle the topic. I get tired of doing all the principle ideas with very few new ones coming back so I may give up as well. I don't need to collaborate with myself or my opposition double. I do that most of the time without having to type.

Mark de LA says

Just like with Zen it is good to take the perspective that "not knowing" leads to more answers & "knowing" usually cuts off the inquiry at the first one;  likened to a school child raising his hand with "the answer"; the analogy extends to holding a problem, challenge or issue as undecidable by government. I say it is OK to be undecidable by government & can devolve back to individual responsibility in the matter.  This is the principle in the body of the item.

A great example is the Golden Rule which is the essence of individual conduct but doesn't translate well to diverse groups of individuals.

 

Mark de LA says

seth 2011-11-20 11:20:49 15630

M 2011-11-20 10:48:05 15630

seth 2011-11-20 10:38:52 15630

M 2011-11-19 20:41:17 15630

seth 2011-11-19 20:09:23 15630

source: M
Too bad you can't command everyone else to agree with you

Mark, do you really think that is what i am saying here?

What you are saying may be one thing but I think that is the bottom line. ...

But it is not what i am saying ... nor is it the intention of what i am saying ... nor is it in any way "the bottom line" of what i am saying.  Can you change your mind and accept that?  See if you can go back and really read what i actually have said for understanding and tell me yourself in your own words what i am saying ... tease it out, if you will ... perhaps i was not sufficiently articulate.  But if you keep propping up these ideas from your own mind, you can never hear me at all. 

You are still arguing about arguing & not the substance in the basic item. You will have to say what you are saying while actually saying it for me to "get" it.  I am having to read through a bunch of bad shit to get to the ambrosia of your point of view & am not really willing to re-read the bad shit again.

There is no argument here at all.  I am simply telling you that i am fed up with your way of conversing.   You asked, in your own indomitable way, why this item had not attracted attention.  I told you.  If you do not listen to the meaning of my words, what the fuck is the use of me trying to converse with you.

Still nothing about the actual topic here ... move along there is nothing here for you - there are no angry droids here for you to play with.