One Way Out of Polarized Hell

About: Consensus decision-making (Wikipedia)

Consensus is the ultimate multi-party system!

For further research & discussion. The link above is a fairly good summary. Where the word is used in Congress it means mostly that the voting body has been bribed with earmarks in appropriate numbers to make agreement possible.
An attempt to have everybody win never works or is aimed at in a majority rules pure democracy. Winning is the primary objective in Majority-Rule contexts.
An additional resource that would be interesting, but I'm not going to read unless I get it free somewhere is here.
John C. Calhoun: ... The staunchest advocate of the consensus model of government as an alternative to majority rule, he proposed government not by one, by few, or by many, but by all: each key group enjoying veto rights over collective decisions.

Another link is here as a discussion.

(*)

Tags

  1. consensus
  2. polarity hell
  3. obamafish free

Comments


Mark de LA says
MR 2013-02-04 10:30:12 16412
seth 2013-02-04 10:25:17 16412
Well have fun with that.  Living from principles is not my way.  Nor do i think that should be the direction of our common government.  One reason is, me thinks, that agreeing on principles is far  harder than on agreeing on common purposes.  I do understand that you like being ruled by principles and I respect that ... however I do not ... and i ask that you also respect my view here.
Our founders thought that life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness were good principles for the people to have protected.  Too bad for some, eh?



Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-04 09:15:34 16412
First the people forming the consensus must form a common purpose.  Without a common purpose there is no consensus.  The purpose of most of our representatives in congress is to get reelected and prevent their opponents from getting elected ... to get their own "gang" elected and prevent the other "gang" from taking over.  So there is no consensus there ... there is no common purpose ... indeed there is a cross purpose ... a win-loose purpose ... a zero sum game ... or as you call it the RWG. 

If your interest here is to move the country in the direction of consensus government ... a direction that is certainly close to my heart ... a direction that i could form a common purpose with you .... then I think you need to identify those things that are preventing it now.   Then identify  the common purposes that should constitute our governing.  See if even you and I could agree on those purposes. 
I would look first for common principles rather than common purpose. Rather than forming another kind of Congress that evolves & acts the way it does now, I am looking for processes which take grass roots & shadow parties to the point of influence that minimizes the otherwise destructive nature of majority-rules democracies. In those places where I have observed consensus occurring I have found that stating things in positives rather than negatives works a lot better. Rather than solving problems I want to create visions & principles which lead to social interactions which are positive. It's hard to stand up before an audience & state all your goals as positive without referring once toward some ill your product or point of view is supposed to remedy.  I tried it once in a seminar selling Common Logic.  In the end I had to admit I was looking for a vehicle to begin exploring the principles of threefoldness rather than a cure for society's ills.


Mark de LA says
Majority rules creates polarity.


Mark de LA says
One principle which is deeply fundamental is that action should be such that if exhibits dynamic equilibrium in the overall perspective.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-05 05:44:02 16412
Incidentally a good common purpose can be as simple as an agreement among some people to determine and write down the best possible description of what "is so" in some matter.
Yeah, I had some ideas on that just the other day, mostly related to points of view in a consensus argument - a database of arguments.  I already have the database structure in 2339.


Mark de LA says
MR 2013-02-05 06:58:15 16412
seth 2013-02-05 05:44:02 16412
Incidentally a good common purpose can be as simple as an agreement among some people to determine and write down the best possible description of what "is so" in some matter.
Yeah, I had some ideas on that just the other day, mostly related to points of view in a consensus argument - a database of arguments.  I already have the database structure in 2339.

Just about any normal conversation or event can be pinned down with answering the questions: who? what? when? where? why? how? is? The substructures of who etc. like groups, relationships amongst individuals, etc can be pinned down as we populate the databases.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-05 05:23:26 16412
MR 2013-02-04 11:05:16 16412
MR 2013-02-04 10:30:12 16412
seth 2013-02-04 10:25:17 16412
Well have fun with that.  Living from principles is not my way.  Nor do i think that should be the direction of our common government.  One reason is, me thinks, that agreeing on principles is far  harder than on agreeing on common purposes.  I do understand that you like being ruled by principles and I respect that ... however I do not ... and i ask that you also respect my view here.
Our founders thought that life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness were good principles for the people to have protected.  Too bad for some, eh?


Well we could argue forever about what principles to choose, which are more important than others, what they mean, and how to apply them.  These principles and rules are just in the meta-world of rationalizations.  They are abstractions.  They are mere voices in our heads. They can be anything or nothing.  But when we actually have a will to do something together, then that will be completely beyond and in a different dimension than those mere arguments said in ... and among ... our heads. 

Perhaps we are not going to be doing anything together here. 
Probably not since you disagree with working from principles rather than a goal which may or not be wanted. I still insist that the means and the end have to be good . An abomination does not come out of a good processes. Neither do good processes turn into an abomination if the end is good. There are many examples of both in current politics.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-06 08:29:19 16412
First, let me say that principles are great and i have no intention of opposing any of yours.  Groups of people who adopt principles, rules or laws are just fine with me.  The U.S. government is just such a group.  I am not against principles.  They are necessary to provide criteria and restraints for our useful actions.

But i thought we were talking here of how a group of people decides to act in the face of the diverse, and at times contradictory, interests of its members.  A common purpose, which all members of the group have agreed to pursue, provides the best context in which the interests of only one faction can be weighed against the common purpose of the group. 

Principles do not do that.  Rather, they become just a mechanism to override some faction's interest ... with no sensitivity to context of the matter at hand.   It is a common purpose which unites people and focuses their actions.  Principles and laws are used to rationalize what went wrong and to place blame.  In my experience they rarely actually assists in figuring out what will make things work.  Instead they are used to provide restraints on that creative process.
      I think you misunderstand how I think of principles - not constraining but more like specification. In the case of racism honoring each ethnic component as a part of the whole human race theoretically solves the problem except for those who want the polarity for personal gain.
      The NLP pattern of the Milton Model allows groups to move away from the specific to the more general. Such questions like "What else also has the same pattern you are talking about?". Crawling up the tree of specification. The NLP Meta-Model goes in the opposite direction to greater specifics &  this chart does a nice job of showing it.
      Both are ways out of perceived restriction to more concerns that stakeholders in the game should be able to agree on.  If we are running into hardened stances then I suspect that we are dealing with people who are not real stakeholders (i.e. politicians, monied interests etc.) & should be dealing with a more grass-roots collective.



Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-06 08:50:05 16412
MR 2013-02-05 08:09:41 16412
One principle which is deeply fundamental is that action should be such that if exhibits dynamic equilibrium in the overall perspective.

I like dynamic equilibrium.  For me, it is another expression of a generalize design restraint, like plastic habit and ordered liberty.   The more we have of it, the better.  Another one like this is the concept of renewable.  All the processes in my kitchen should be renewable, else i work to improve them.
I don't think of principles as constraints or restraints.  The human body is the best example of dynamic equilibrium - it's temperature ~98.6 temp, it's food & oxygen keep the parts working; it's a marvelous work never duplicated except as it always has been.
True, though you have to constrain the process of getting a cabbage from those processes which are not of cabbages.


Mark de LA says
Interesting Milton Model ideas abound.
Taking a process like caring for one's health & turning it into a noun, a commodity, & a concern of insurance has mislead the country, IMHO.
The other one below is what we do to each other.



Mark de LA says
A good example of spreading memes in Dr. Benjamin Carson's prayer breakfast speech with Obama et al. The facebook post is for CSPAN2 video which has speech at ~34 minutes in.



See Also

  1. Thought Getting from I to We with 0 viewings related by tag "consensus".