Author Topic: Local Improvement Network  (Read 352 times)


Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Re: Achieve Goals
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2022, 06:37:11 am »
Better Planning Procedure
Achieving Goals
- For effective planning we have to determine what our true goals are. That will tell us what direction to go with our lives. If we don't know our true goals, we don't know what direction to go in and we can't achieve our goals.
__#1. Ideal Day Exercise
- Write down every essential thing that would happen in your ideal routine day that doesn't already happen: where you'd be - what area/s, state, country, or climate; what your most important possessions would be; who'd be with you; what main things you'd be doing from the time you get up till you go back to bed; and who you'd do them with, or with what kind,s of person,s.
__#2. True Goals
- These essential elements of your ideal day are your true goals. To be sure a goal is your true goal, ask yourself if you'd be happy if you attained that goal right now. If it wouldn't make you happy, rethink your true goal by referring to your ideal day and ask again if the new target or goal would really make you happy. If that doesn't work, write a list of 20 things you like and see if you think any of those things would make you happy. Select all that would seem to make you happy as your true goal,s.
__#3. Flow-Chart Calendar
- To build a path to your true goal, decide on a series of steps, which are subgoals, by asking about each goal or subgoal what needs to be done first in order to achieve the goal or subgoal. The answer must be a doable action and each answer will be a preceding step.
- Write the goal at the bottom of a page and write each preceding step above the goal or above the subsequent step. Check to make sure each step is in chronological order.
- When the flowchart is complete, assign reasonable dates to each step, or subgoal, at the beginning of each line, to make your calendar.
__#4. Problems Solutions List
- For each step that you don't know how to accomplish, write an explanation of your problem on a Problems Solutions List. For each problem on the list ask people with experience for possible solutions. Or participate in an Idea Party, such as at http://wishcraft.com/wishcraft_ch7.pdf , and ask participants for possible solutions. Write down all the suggestions on a separate page, the Suggestions List, then pick your favorites and add those as solutions on your Problems Solutions List. If a solution doesn't work out, go back to the Suggestions List for other possible solutions.
- For emotional problems complain privately or throw a safe tantrum to help overcome fears etc. Also, ask a buddy to accompany you in uncomfortable situations.
__#5. Morale Support
Ask someone to be your reminder. Give the person a list of your plans for the week & decide together what days & times you need calls as reminders on important plans. You may be that person's reminder too. The reminder may also accompany you for certain actions that you're nervous about doing alone.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2023, 02:40:06 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Better Meetings
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2022, 06:39:46 am »
IDM: INTEGRATIVE DECISION MAKING
IDM is the method that should be used in all formal meetings. IDM is a simplified form of Sociocracy, which is scientifically developed consensus. See end for advantages of IDM over other decision making methods.
Following are suggested guidelines for Meetings.

MINIMALIST FORMAT
This is a version of the basic IDM process for beginners for each meeting proposal.
1. _Proposer: read proposal. _Members: say OK or state concerns.
2a. _Recorder: [If all say OK] record decision.
2b. _Proposer: [If anyone states a concern] modify & restate proposal based on comments. _Members: say OK or state more concerns.
3. Return to step 2a or 2b or postpone decision to a later time.

FULL FORMAT: MEETING PREPARATION & AGENDA
Before each meeting the clerk [or E.O.] should contact group members to decide on an agreed place, date and time to meet and to ask for any proposals for group action. The clerk should write all proposals on a meeting agenda. If there is no approved clerk or reporter for the group, make their election the first proposal on the agenda.

MEETING FORMAT
At the meeting, the Clerk reads the meeting format. The Reporter records and reports on decisions & announcements.
A. Opening Round:
-a- Give everyone a copy of the proposed agenda and this meeting format and ask everyone to read along silently.
-b- Decide together what time the meeting should end and announce it.
-c- Decide together when and where future meetings should be held.
-d- Read the minutes of the previous meeting & ask for corrections.
-e- Everyone take turns saying briefly what and how you've been doing.
-f- Anyone who has announcements may make them now.
-g- Ask if anyone greatly wants to change the agenda order or add a proposal.
-h- Clerk read the final agenda.
For action proposals goto B;
for election proposals, goto C;
when there are no more proposals, goto D.

B. Decision-Making Process
1-State the action proposal, including:
who made the proposal,
what the proposed action is,
who is to supervise the action,
when it should be completed,
and what the clear, measurable aim of the action is.
2-Everyone who wants to, make quick comments on the proposal.
3-The proposer should then amend the proposal, if needed, based on members' comments.
4-Anyone who still has objections to the proposal, state your objections and reasons, while the Clerk writes them down on a blackboard or flipchart etc without immediate discussion.
5-When all objections are written, everyone may suggest how to modify the proposal to remove all objections.
6-Clerk should amend the proposal based on suggestions and ask everyone for consent; if anyone does not yet consent, go back to step 4, or get group consent to put the proposal on the agenda of a specified later meeting.
7-Otherwise, if all consent, record the decision and go back to h.

C. Election Process
1-State the job description and term of office for the elected position.
2-When the job description and term are decided, someone should give out ballots & everyone fill them out, writing Your Name and Your Nominee, then hand them back.
3-Everyone say why you made your nomination.
4-Anyone may change your vote after hearing others' reasons.
5-Clerk should propose a nominee based on members' comments.
6-Everyone say if you consent to the clerk's proposal and the nominee should answer last.
7-If anyone does not consent, go back to step 5.
8-When election is finished, record the decision and go back to h.

D. Closing Round: Evaluation
-Everyone may answer these and similar questions to evaluate this meeting and group progress on current action projects:
How is use of meeting time?
Did the Clerk provide equal time and power to all members?
Could the decision-making have been more efficient?
Did everyone arrive prepared?
What issues should be on the next meeting agenda?
Are group-consented tasks being done on time?
Does the group have clear goals and is it making clear, detailed plans to reach the goals?

ADVANTAGES of INTEGRATIVE DECISION MAKING
Greater effectiveness and enjoyment in the group or organization
More creativity and better problem solving throughout the organization
Faster adaptation
Higher quality products and services
Higher staff commitment to and identification with the organization
Less sick leave
Better safety record
More awareness of costs
Improved client orientation
Much less burnout
More program self-discipline
Better leadership among peers
Better organizational continuity when many volunteers are present
Better fund raising
Fewer and better meetings

CHAPTER ORGANIZERS
Anyone who wants to organize a local chapter of LIN should:
-1. agree with LINC's concern for local and world peace and justice
-2. recruit up to six other local people who share the concern and have time to meet once or twice a month to act as a LIN core group

CORE GROUPS
-3. commit to these effective action guidelines [from www.empowermentzone.com/eff_act.txt]
-4. identify potential adversary groups & plan to publicize the LIN group in a way to avoid offending anyone, so as to build a broad base of support
-5. publicize the group purpose as soon as possible
-6. get a congenial phone contact person for the group
-7. choose at least a temporary name for the group; it can be Local Improvement Network, or anything non-offensive
-8. meet regularly, using consensus: integrative decision making [IDM] and elect one member to represent your group at monthly LINC meetings by teleconference or email etc - and make sure your rep contacts LINC soon
[See the following webpage for IDM Meeting Guidelines]
-9. form a press committee to handle press releases
-10. use role playing to prepare for public relations events as described at www.empowermentzone.com/eff_act.txt
-11. when a member proposes a local improvement project for the group that most members are not interested in, request that the proposer form another LIN group and the group should help recruit new members for that group, up to 7 in all
-12. form a LIN Reconciliation group & ask adversary groups to elect reps to join it to help resolve differences

TEACH YOUNG PEOPLE
LINC suggests that each LIN promote the following to Young People:
1. Knowing their Rights and Responsibilities
2. Non-coercion & IDM, i.e. integrative decision making
3. Alternative education, instead of coercive education brainwashing
4. Alternative healthcare, instead of supporting greedy big business drug companies et al
5. Running for public office to increase responsible leadership
6. Forming or joining coops for better lifestyles and jobs.
Good Day! Lloyd Kinder - LINC Founder

© 2006 All Rights Reserved.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 06:47:38 am by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Local Improvement
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2022, 06:43:30 am »
Start a LIN Chapter
    WELCOME to  Local Improvement Networks Center, or LINC. LINC is a U.S. monthly meeting of representatives of Local Improvement Networks and related groups. Each LIN [Local Improvement Network] is autonomous and self-organizing, but has access to LINC for help, facilitation etc.

    CONTACT US
If you have a LIN or IDM testimonial, or If you want to organize a local LIN, please email us at LKINDR@yahoo.com and tell us where you are.

    IMMEDIATE & LONG-TERM BENEFITS
- for individuals or groups who start or join a Local Improvement Network - include making the basic activities of your home, community, workplace, or group more productive, more fun, less boring and more empowering for all members.

    MISSION & GOAL
Our mission is to improve all aspects of society for the betterment of all. Our goal is to help young people, aged 10 to 25, learn healthier thinking and behavior via Step Ten & IDM and to learn cooperative community living. Step Ten is self-improvement exercise.

    MEANS
Our means may change as we learn more from each other and outside, but initially our primary means of improvement include non-domineering consensus integrative decision making [IDM], self-examination and correction methods [Step Ten], nonviolent communication [NVC] and creative arts.

See the following pages for help with improving groups, meetings, activities, relations etc.

Enjoy this site. Good Day! Lloyd Kinder - LINC Founder

LINC or Local Improvement Networks Center [www.freewebs.com/lin4] says:
START A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NETWORK [L.I.N.]!
These are suggestions for how anyone can help start a local LIN chapter.

.1. PARTNERS - Ask one to three people to help you start a Local Improvement Network meeting to help local young people learn good habits for better living.

.2. MEETING PLACE - With or without partners, find a weekly meeting place by asking local churches, schools, hospitals, libraries etc for a room for a 12 Step AA-Alanon meeting. [AA is for recovering alcoholics. Alanon is for family and friends of addicts.] Ask if they require a fee or take donations.

.3. AA, ALANON PARTNERS - Attend AA, NA and Alanon open meetings and ask a member of each to join or assist your group. Contacts are in many phone books and on the internet.

.4. SPEAKERS - Invite different members of AA, NA, Alanon and other 12 Step groups to come to the meeting each week to speak for 10 to 20 minutes about Step 10.

.5. PUBLICIZE MEETING - Give meeting announcements to local newspapers, radio stations, local websites, churches, saying: Step Ten Meeting for young people and friends to learn good practices for better living.

.6. MEETING FORMAT - A different member at each meeting can read as follows.
_Let's open the meeting. Are there refreshments and literature? Where are restrooms?
_Our starting and closing times are ....
_Let's everyone take turns saying our first names.
_Pass around a container for donations for meeting expenses.
_Pass around sign-in list for members' first names, phone #s and emails.
_Pass around Step Ten leaflets for everyone.
_Does anyone want a members' contact list. If so, pass around another sheet for each person wanting one.
_Announcement: the day and time of the next business meeting & LIN meeting and other group events & phone # of contact person ..
_Announcement: the LIN forum is at www.yahoogroups.com/group/lin4. Members are asked to share personal stories etc on the forum.
_2 volunteers read your favorite paragraphs from Step 10 below.
_Guest speaker speak about Step 10 or the 12 Steps.
_Everyone take turns commenting. Anyone may pass.
_Let's close now and clean up and put things back in order.

.7. BUSINESS MEETING FORMAT
This is for improving Step 10 meetings. See IDM Integrative Decision Making, page 4.

.8. LIN MEETING TOPICS
The Step 10 meeting regular members may be LIN members. If there are more than 7 LIN members, they should form 2 groups that meet separately. Meet after the business meeting or the Step 10 meeting and use IDM [see page 4].
_Ask all Step 10 members to invite more people to attend the Step 10 meetings and to help members start new meetings.
_Teach young members public speaking, creative arts and leadership.
_Encourage young members to investigate corruption in society and to promote Step 10 self-correction methods to reduce it.
_Teach young members cooperative community and business.

.9. LIN IN ORGANIZATIONS
Members of existing organizations may start a LIN group to help the organization to improve, using the above guidelines.

.10. LINC REPRESENTATIVES
Each LIN group is asked to associate with LINC, the LIN Center, by electing one member to be your group's representative to LINC. LINC has a monthly meeting for the representatives via email or teleconference for the purpose of improving LINC's effectiveness and usefulness to LIN groups. Join LINC for free: contact LKINDR@yahoo.com and tell us where your group is, or will be.

LINC's NAME
For any successful cause, it's important to start by building a broad base of support without alienating or threatening anyone. That's the reason we choose the name Local Improvement Network. It's a name that few could oppose.

Good Day. Lloyd Kinder, Founder of LINC
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 06:49:37 am by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Effective Communicating
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2022, 06:52:06 am »
Better Communicating
SENSITIVITY DIALOG [Thomas Gordon: Parent Effectiveness Training]
- This is from http://www.freewebs.com/codaplus.
- Love would cure much of the world's suffering. Love means respect and respect means being sensitive to others' concerns and feelings. This requires meaningful dialog, but it doesn't mean solving others' problems. Respectful dialog usually helps others start their own problem solving.
- Passive listening is one way to communicate respect. When someone expresses emotional disturbance, we can use body language to show that we're listening attentively, or we can also say things like, uh-huh, I see, really?, wow, oh, etc.
- Active listening is a simple way to show and build our own sensitivity and practice respectful dialog. It is used when someone expresses, verbally or nonverbally, a negative emotion of fear, anger, sadness etc. Passive and active listening can also be used together.
- Active Listening involves paraphrasing what the other person expressed and avoiding roadblocks to communication. Active Listening helps build understanding. Effective Sharing is similar, but expresses our own feelings to others.

EXAMPLES OF ACTIVE LISTENING
- Someone's upset with me for doing something in an undesirable way.
I'm sorry. Are you upset with me for doing something wrong?
- Someone is bored, lonely and sad with no one to play with.
Are you bored or sad because there's no one to play with?
- Someone is worried because another person has not arrived.
Are you worried that something may have happened to him or her?
- Someone says: I can't figure out what to do about this messed up paperwork.
Are you puzzled about how to get all that paperwork organized?

ROADBLOCKS TO COMMUNICATION [Gordon]
- Roadblocks to communicating with someone are roadblocks only when that person has an emotional problem. When the person doesn't have a problem, the same kinds of communication are less likely to be roadblocks.
Some of the Roadblocks are: criticizing, blaming, name-calling, questioning, reasoning, advising and commanding.
- When a kid is frustrated because another kid won't play what he or she wants, you can say by Active Listening: Are you sad [or "frustrated," if old enough to understand] because [someone's name] won't play your game? Or in a different case: You seem sad because [someone's name] doesn't want to play your game with you.
- The formula for this kind of effective dialog is: paraphrasing the person's Feeling + What it's about. This is called Active Listening and it can be in the form of a question or a comment. Active Listening as a question is different from the questioning that becomes a Roadblock. Questioning that doesn't follow the Active Listening formula is a likely Roadblock. That is if it doesn't ask the person's feeling or what it's about.
- Roadblock question examples would be: [advice] Why don't you find something else to play with? [distraction] Do you want to hear a funny story? [criticism] Who died and made you King?
- Active Listening shows sensitivity, while Roadblocks show insensitivity. Most of the time it takes only one Active Listening response to "solve" a kid's problem. That's because their problem is mainly fear, which is due to lack of affection. And Active Listening shows sensitivity, which shows affection, respect, love, or caring.
- Much of the time adults aren't in the mood to be sensitive to someone else. We're in a hurry to get something done and don't want to be interrupted. Having grown up fairly insensitive, we don't appreciate the value of sensitivity to others. To be responsible as adults is to be sensitive to ourselves and others, but it takes practice.
- Adults [and kids] can have practice sessions pretending to have problems and using Active Listening for them.

MALE & FEMALE CULTURE [Deborah Tannen ...]
- It is said that male and female cultures tend to differ quite a lot, though some members of each sex have traits of the other. The male culture is said to have been occupied largely with hunting in ancient times. The female culture is said to have been involved with gathering food or gardening and with home life.
- Effective hunting required that males be quiet and stealthy and suppress emotions so as not to scare prey off. The home life of females benefited from talk and emotional sensitivity. The frequent talk of women helped to keep away predators and pests. Their emotional sensitivity helped women better care for the kids and adults of the group.
- Males learned to cooperate through hierarchy and competition, with the most experienced being dominant. Females learned to cooperate through sensitive talk and equality, but with some subtle hierarchy based on experience.
- Male hunting abilities seem to have led them to learn war against other tribes, and to learn domination. The traits of ancient times seem to remain largely in effect in modern time, but are in great need of modification.
- It is responsible for everyone now to learn emotional sensitivity and try to understand each other's differences. It is responsible for guardians to be sensitive to the conscious and subconscious feelings of dependents. Parent Effectiveness Training and Moral Inventory greatly help to develop such sensitivity.

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Self-Examination & Self-Correction
One of the best cures for negative emotions. Try the exercise in Section I to see if it helps you.

There are 4 Sections on this page:
I. Overview; II. Blueprints; III. Family Bill of Rights & Duties; IV. Bible Quotes.

SECTION I - OVERVIEW - First, TRY THIS EXERCISE!
.People often have negative emotions, but most don't know how to deal with them well. Such emotions lead people to do many things they later regret. Try this exercise for one or more weeks and see if it helps you.
.Most negative emotions involve fear and fear is based on false ideas. So the exercise is to list one or more serious negative emotion you've had, the reason for each one, what fear is involved, what falsehood is behind the fear and then see if you can decide what
truth is. Such truth can be life-changing.
.If you develop the habit of doing the exercise in the following Part 2 most of the times you experience a negative emotion, it would probably make such emotions very short-lived and eventually they wouldn't bother you much at all. My webpage discusses this in more detail: http://freewebs.com/codaplus.
.
THEN TRY SELF-EXAMINATION & SELF-CORRECTION!
.The 12 Step program is a spiritual discipline, based on sound religious traditions, that heals people of emotional maladies and renews their spirits. Steps 4 through 10 are the heart of the program, but Step 10 sums up all of these steps. Step 10 says in effect: We frequently take personal inventory of ourselves privately and, when we do wrong, we promptly make proper amends.
.
Part 1. Commit to meeting with one or more others weekly or monthly to discuss Step 10. [Appropriate, brief AA and Alanon literature and Bible quotes can be read, including AA's Step 10 below].
.
Part 2. Privately make a list of your major wrong-doings: Wrongs are triggered by negative emotions, which involve fear, which is based on false ideas. Do this sample exercise for each wrong-doing:
-My wrong-doing:  ......e.g. damaged someone's property
-who I wronged: .........e.g. ??
-my emotion: ..............e.g. anger
-reason for emotion: ....e.g. this person made fun of my behavior
-what fear I had: .........e.g. fear of being inferior
-what falsehood: .........e.g. thinking I can be worthless
-what's true: ...............e.g. nothing I do can make me worthless
-what's proper amends: e.g. apologizing and fixing, replacing, or paying for the damaged property
.
Part 3. Share your list with someone you trust and ask God to remove your fears and false ideas.
.
Part 4. When you feel ready to stop committing each kind of wrong, make amends to anyone you wronged. If you think you improperly hurt anyone's feelings, apologize to them. If you took something or damaged something belonging to someone, return or replace it or pay for the damage and apologize. Making direct amends may sometimes seriously hurt someone unfairly. In such cases find ways to make indirect amends, such as anonymously.
.
Part 5. When you've done the first 4 parts properly, did it renew your spirit? Anyway, you may then start working with your group to help carry this message to others, so they can also learn this healing discipline.

---
SECTION II - BLUEPRINTS
Step Ten: Self-Correction for a Better Life - from AA's 12 & 12 book etc
www.cyberrecovery.net/12steps10.html
www.therecoverygroup.org/wts/2004/2004-10q2.html

Step 10. "Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it."

.The first nine steps for a better life include admitting we need help, believing that a higher power can help us, praying for help, writing a private personal inventory of our good and bad deeds and habits, telling our inventory to a person we trust, preparing for change, asking our higher power to remove bad habits, making a list of those we've harmed and making amends if appropriate without doing further harm. Step 10 is a combination of these steps. With Step 10 we begin to learn how to live happy, joyous and free, no matter what is happening in our lives. And we learn to do so on a daily basis. The acid test is: can we stay sober-minded, keep in emotional balance, and live to good purpose under all conditions?
.
.In Step 10 we "Continue to watch for selfishness, dishonesty, resentment, and fear. When these crop up, we ask God at once to remove them. We discuss them with someone immediately and make amends quickly if we have harmed anyone. Then we resolutely turn our thoughts to someone we can help. Love and tolerance of others is our code." (AABB pg. 84).
.Let's break that down as follows.
1. We see our mistakes (selfishness, dishonesty, resentment and fear)
2. We discuss them with someone we trust soon, or when ready.
3. We make amends quickly if we have harmed anyone.
4. We turn our thoughts to someone we can help.
.
A continuous look at our assets and liabilities, and a real desire to learn and grow by this means, are necessities for us. We .. have learned this the hard way. More experienced people, of course, in all times and places have practiced unsparing self-survey and criticism. For the wise have always known that no one can make much of life until self-searching becomes a regular habit, until  able to admit and accept what find, and until patiently and persistently try to correct what is wrong.
_When a drunk has a terrific hangover because he drank heavily yesterday, he cannot live well today. But there is another kind of hangover which we all experience. That is the emotional hangover, the direct result of yesterday's and sometimes today's excesses of negative emotion--anger, fear, jealousy, and the like. If we would live serenely today and tomorrow, we certainly need to eliminate these hangovers. This doesn't mean we need to wander morbidly around in the past. It requires an admission and correction of errors now. Our inventory enables us to settle with the past. When this is done, we are really able to leave it behind us. When our inventory is carefully taken, and we have made peace with ourselves, the conviction follows that tomorrow's challenges can be met as they come.
_Although all inventories are alike in principle, the time factor does distinguish one from another. There's the spot check inventory, taken at any time of the day, whenever we find ourselves getting tangled up. There's the one we take at day's end, when we review the happenings of the hours just past. Here we cast up a balance sheet, crediting ourselves with things well done, and chalking up debits where due. Then there are those occasions when alone, or in the company of our sponsor or spiritual adviser, we make a careful review of our progress since the last time. Many .. go in for annual or semiannual house cleanings. Many of us also like the experience of an occasional retreat from the outside world where we can quiet down for an undisturbed day or so of self-overhaul and meditation.
_Aren't these practices joy-killers as well as time-consumers? Must we spend most of our waking hours drearily rehashing our sins of omission or commission? Well, hardly. The emphasis on inventory is heavy only because a great many of us have never really acquired the habit of accurate self-appraisal. Once this healthy practice has become grooved, it will be so interesting and profitable that the time it takes won't be missed. For these minutes and sometimes hours spent in self-examination are bound to make all the other hours of our day better and happier. And at length our inventories become a regular part of everyday living, rather than something unusual or set apart.
.
_Before we ask what a spot-check inventory is, let's look at the kind of setting in which such an inventory can do its work.
_It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us. If somebody hurts us and we are sore, we are in the wrong also. But are there no exceptions to this rule? What about "justifiable" anger? If somebody cheats us, aren't we entitled to be mad? Can't we be properly angry with self-righteous folk? For us .. these are dangerous exceptions. We have found that justified anger ought to be left to those better qualified to handle it.
_Few people have been more victimized by resentments than have we. It mattered little whether our resentments were justified or not. A burst of temper could spoil a day, and a well-nursed grudge could make us miserably ineffective. Nor were we ever skillful in separating justified from unjustified anger. As we saw it, our wrath was always justified. Anger, that occasional luxury of more balanced people, could keep us on an emotional jag indefinitely. These emotional "dry benders" often led straight to personal disaster. Other kinds of disturbances--jealousy, envy, self-pity, or hurt pride--did the same thing.
_A spot-check inventory taken in the midst of such disturbances can be of very great help in quieting stormy emotions. Today's spot check finds its chief application to situations which arise in each day's march. The consideration of long-standing difficulties had better be postponed, when possible, to times deliberately set aside for it. The quick inventory is aimed at our daily ups and downs, especially those where people or new events throw us off balance and tempt us to make mistakes.
_In all these situations we need self-restraint, honest analysis of what is involved, a willingness to admit when the fault is ours, and an equal willingness to forgive when the fault is elsewhere. We need not be discouraged when we fall into the error of our old ways, for these disciplines are not easy. We shall look for progress, not for perfection.
_Our first objective will be the development of self restraint. This carries a top priority rating. When we speak or act hastily or rashly, the ability to be fair-minded and tolerant evaporates on the spot. One unkind tirade or one willful snap judgment can ruin our relation with another person for a whole day, or maybe a whole year. Nothing pays off like restraint of tongue and pen. We must avoid quick-tempered criticism and furious, power-driven argument. The same goes for sulking or silent scorn. These are emotional booby traps baited with pride and vengefulness. Our first job is to sidestep the traps. When we are tempted by the bait, we should train ourselves to step back and think. For we can neither think nor act to good purpose until the habit of self-restraint has become automatic.
_Disagreeable or unexpected problems are not the only ones that call for self-control. We must be quite as careful when we begin to achieve some measure of importance and material success. For no people have ever loved personal triumphs more than we have loved them. When temporary good fortune came our way, we indulged ourselves in fantasies of still greater victories over people and circumstances. Thus blinded by prideful self confidence, we were apt to play the big shot. Of course, people turned away from us, bored or hurt.
_Now that we're winning back the esteem of our friends and business associates, we find that we still need to exercise special vigilance. As an insurance against "big-shot-ism" we can often check ourselves by remembering that we are where we are today only by the grace of God and that any success we may be having is far more God's success than ours.
_Finally, we begin to see that all people, including ourselves, are to some extent emotionally ill as well as frequently wrong, and then we approach true tolerance and see what real love for our fellows actually means. It will become more and more evident as we go forward that it is pointless to become angry, or to get hurt by people who, like us, are suffering from the pains of growing up.
_Such a radical change in our outlook will take time, maybe a lot of time. Not many people can truthfully assert that they love everybody. Most of us must admit that we have loved but a few; that we have been quite indifferent to the many so long as none of them gave us trouble; and as for the remainder--well, we have really disliked or hated them. Although these attitudes are common enough, we find we need something much better in order to keep our balance. We can't stand it if we hate deeply. The idea that we can be possessively loving of a few, can ignore the many, and can continue to fear or hate anybody, has to be abandoned, if only a little at a time.
_We can try to stop making unreasonable demands upon those we love. We can show kindness where we had shown none. With those we dislike we can begin to practice justice and courtesy, perhaps going out of our way to understand and help them.
_Whenever we fail any of these people, we can promptly admit it--to ourselves always, and to them also, when the admission would be helpful. Courtesy, kindness, justice, and love are the keynotes by which we may come into harmony with practically anybody. When in doubt we can always pause, saying, "Not my will, but Thine, be done." And we can often ask ourselves, "Am I doing to others as I would have them do to me--today?"
.
_When evening comes, perhaps just before going to sleep, many of us draw up a balance sheet for the day. This is a good place to remember that inventory-taking is not always done in red ink. It's a poor day indeed when we haven't done something right. As a matter of fact, the waking hours are usually well filled with things that are constructive. Good intentions, good thoughts, and good acts are there for us to see. Even when we have tried hard and failed, we may chalk that up as one of the greatest credits of all. Under these conditions, the pains of failure are converted into assets. Out of them we receive the stimulation we need to go forward. Someone once remarked that pain was the touchstone of all spiritual progress. How heartily we can agree, for we know that the pains of had to come before sobriety, and emotional turmoil before serenity.
_As we glance down the debit side of the day's ledger, we should carefully examine our motives in each thought or act that appears to be wrong. In most cases our motives won't be hard to see and understand. When prideful, angry, jealous, anxious, or fearful, we acted accordingly, and that was that. Here we need only recognize that we did act or think badly, try to visualize how we might have done better, and resolve with God's help to carry these lessons over into tomorrow, making, of course, any amends still neglected.
_But in other instances only the closest scrutiny will reveal what our true motives were. There are cases where our ancient enemy, rationalization, has stepped in and has justified conduct which was really wrong. The temptation here is to imagine that we had good motives and reasons when we really didn't.
_We "constructively criticized" someone who needed it, when our real motive was to win a useless argument. Or, the person concerned not being present, we thought we were helping others to understand him-her, when in actuality our true motive was to feel superior by pulling him-her down. We sometimes hurt those we love because they need to be "taught a lesson," when we really want to punish. We were depressed and complained we felt bad, when in fact we were mainly asking for sympathy and attention. This odd trait of mind and emotion, this perverse wish to hide a bad motive underneath a good one, permeates human affairs from top to bottom. This subtle and elusive kind of self-righteousness can underlie the smallest act or thought. Learning daily to spot, admit, and correct these flaws is the essence of character-building and good living. An honest regret for harms done, a genuine gratitude for blessings received, and a willingness to try for better things tomorrow will be the permanent assets we shall seek.
_Having so considered our day, not omitting to take due note of things well done, and having searched our hearts with neither fear nor favor, we can truly thank God for the blessings we have received and sleep in good conscience.
.
_"We have ceased fighting anything or anyone.. For by this time sanity will have returned. We will seldom be interested in . If tempted, we recoil from it as from a hot flame. We react sanely and normally, and we will find that this has happened automatically. We will see that our new attitude has been given us without any thought or effort on out part. It just comes. That is the miracle of it. We are not fighting it, neither are we avoiding temptation. We feel as though we had been placed in a position of neutrality---safe and protected. We have not even sworn off. Instead, the problem has been removed. It does not exist for us. We are neither cocky nor are we afraid. That is our experience. That is how we react so long as we are in fit spiritual condition. (AABB pg. 85)

---
SECTION III - FAMILY BILL OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES
_Duty to learn what is right and wrong.
_Right to make mistakes, and Duty to apologize and make amends for them, as soon as possible.
_Right to feel good or bad, and Duty to find and correct false ideas that cause bad feelings.
_Right and Duty to make family decisions by mutual consent as far as possible, to help each other to achieve worthy goals and to share ideas and concerns for this.
_Right and Duty to help protect each other from harm.
_Right as an adult to say and do anything that causes no one harm, and Duty to allow others the same right.
_Right to have a family by mutual consent, and Duty to show family members love and respect and to teach the kids moral responsibility and optimum knowledge for healthy living.

---
SECTION IV - BIBLE QUOTES
Biblical Support for These Steps

4) made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. -Mat 7:3-5 Jesus said ,Why worry about a speck in the eye of a brother when you have chaff in your own? First get rid of the chaff then you can see clearly enough to help your brother. -John 8:32 And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free. -2 Tim 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind.

5) admitted to God, ourselves and another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
-Mat 3:2 saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. -Jam 5:16a Therefore confess your sins one to another and pray for each other that you may be healed. -Pro 27:17 Just as iron sharpens iron, people sharpen people.

6) were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. -Jn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. -Rom 12:1 I plead with you dear brothers to give your bodies to God. Let them be a living sacrifice, Holy - The kind He can accept. -Rom 12:2 Be not conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

7) Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings. -Mat 23:12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. -Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. -1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins, and purify us from all unrighteousness. -Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. -Ps 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, [so] far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

8 ) made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all. -Luk 6:31 And as you would like and desire that others would do to you, do so to them. -Is 1:18 Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.

9) Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. -Mat 5:23-24 If you are offering your gift at the altar and suddenly remember a friend has something against you, go and be reconciled to that person.

10) continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it. -1 Cor 10:12 If you think you are standing firm, be careful you don't fall.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 07:08:36 am by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Unanimous Rule
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2022, 07:12:12 am »
UNANIMITY
For those who are interested, the following presents Biblical support for Unanimous Rule, instead of majority rule. The explanations given are excellent.

THE BIBLICAL METHOD OF GOVERNMENT
by G. H. Lang, Unity Chapel, Bristol 1900 AD - Paraphrased by L. Kinder
www.neve-family.com/books/lang/Unanimity.html
 
MAJORITY OR UNANIMITY?
- The question is whether the Word of God sanctions the practice of making church decisions by a majority vote of the members present, or whether it teaches and exhorts us to defer each decision until one undivided mind and judgment is arrived at.
- My answer is the latter.
- Considering that the Church represents before the world the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, so that worldly men judge of Him according to that which they see in us, it is manifestly of the utmost importance that, before carrying out any proposed action, we should make as sure as can possibly be that the course proposed is a right and proper one, and well pleasing unto Him whose will we seek to do.

- Experience has abundantly shown that the minority is frequently in the right and the majority in the wrong.
- Rather than making known to the Church His wishes by this majority rule plan of voting, the Lord has rather promised to reveal His will by and through the bringing of His people to unanimous judgment.
- Considering the vast importance of the doings of His people, it would have been very strange had He left no more sure method of learning His will and receiving His directions than this very uncertain plan of acting according to the view of the majority.
- We are often so very carnally- and so little spiritually-minded, that divine things are but slowly apprehended by us.
- This is obviously a good reason for more carefully going over in our minds any matter of group action.
- It is to guard against the mistakes inevitably arising from this too frequent haste that the Lord wishes us, I believe, to defer our decision and continue our conference until unanimity is reached.

LEADING TO DISSENSION
- It seems clear that a method which is as likely to lead to a wrong decision as to a right one cannot be a divine method, and ought not to be followed by those possessing the divine nature, and capable of having the mind of Christ (2 Pet. 1:4, 1 Cor. 2:16), in whose workings mistakes are unknown.
- Majority rule is eminently likely to lead to dissension, both secret and public, a truth with which any who have had much experience on the subject must be sadly familiar.
- Can anything be more likely to stir up contention and cause disaffection than that a section of the church should have their wishes and, possibly their sincere convictions, rejected, simply because a larger section of the church, with no other advantage, has different opinions?
- A method at all likely to cause disagreement and possibly open division cannot be of God, who is "not a God of confusion, but of peace," (1 Cor. 14:33).
- But when nothing is done till one judgment is come to all, everyone is pleased with that which is done and discord and disunion are averted, while concord and union are strengthened, bringing spiritual blessing to the whole community.
- It will doubtless be agreed that, seeing that we pray, "Lead us not into temptation," a method which tends to so lead us cannot be of God, who delivers us from the Evil One.

TEMPTATION TO BAD CONDUCT
- But given a member possessed of an ardent and honest conviction that the plan he or she proposes is right and good, does not majority rule present very obvious and severe temptations to bad conduct?
- One has every inducement to "pack" the meeting, by secretly urging those who think alike to be present in force, rather than leaving it to the Lord to bring together those who it is known to Him are qualified to deal with the particular matter to be discussed.
- One is tempted by vehemence in argument to gain other adherents to one's own view, rather than by patient reflection to submit one's judgment to the Lord.
- In the eagerness to gain a majority of votes one is more likely to be anxious to persuade others, than to be willing to be persuaded by others.
- A method that stirs up such temptations, in order to obtain a majority of members, cannot be of the Lord.
- Such temptation to "pack" a meeting is absolutely banished by the necessity for entire accord, while the desire to give up private views, if needful, to arrive at the mind of the Lord, as the only possible means of reaching unanimous judgment, is very much increased.
- The one method appears likely to lead me to press forward my views, the other to lead me to carefully wait upon the Lord for His views.

BODY OF CHRIST
- In Romans 14:4-5, 1 Cor. 12:12-27, Ephesians 4:11-16, and other scriptures, the Church is compared to the human body.
- Of this spiritual body each believer is individually a member, while the Lord Jesus is the head of the whole body.
- The more this analogy is prayerfully studied, the more it will be seen to be the most perfect comparison the divine wisdom of God has presented to us to illustrate the working of the Church.
- Very little thought is required to see two things concerning the human body: (a) it is not the members that plan, will and control the body, whose functions are vested solely in the head, it being the duty and beauty of the members to recognise and respond to the impulses and directions of the head: (b) any lack of harmony in the members in doing the will of the head indicates a measure of disease in those members where the failure is found, as, for instance, if one arm or hand fails to co-operate with the other for completing a desired piece of handiwork, the member has become more or less independent of the head.
- When this condition occurs, the proper course is to try patiently such means as will restore the undisputed control of the head.
- When it is found in the church that there is a divergence of opinion upon a matter connected with the church, the proper plan is to wait prayerfully for the whole body to be again brought under the control of the Lord into united action.
- For a church to depart from unanimity and to act according to the desire of a majority only of the believers in its membership is as if the affairs and actions of a man's body should be decided upon by the impulses of a certain number of the members thereof.

ONENESS AS TESTIMONY
- By the failure to act in complete unity, the church ceases to give one of the most effective forms of testimony to the world that is possible.
- In John 17:20-21, the Lord Jesus, in speaking to the Father, says, "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also who shall believe on Me through their word; that they may all be one even as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that You did send Me. And the glory which You have given Me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that You did send Me, and loved them, even as You loved Me."
- Without attempting an exhaustive exposition of this passage, it is sufficient for us to notice three things:
(a) The Lord's desire for all His people to be perfected into one;
(b) The pattern of that oneness to be the oneness of the Father and the Son;
(c) The object of this oneness to be the testimony thereby given to the world.
- With regard to (a) the prayer of our Lord was in effect that the Holy Spirit might be sent into everyone who should believe on His name, so that by the Spirit of God indwelling, we might all be united into one in God; so that (b), the pattern of our unity should be the oneness of the Father and the Son, who are, not only one in Person, but also in action; in all their doings there is the most perfect harmonious unity: and it would be sheer blasphemy, in fact it would logically involve the most absolute atheism, to suppose the doings of the Godhead to be regulated by the decision of any two of the Persons thereof, the one Person being either opposed to the view of the two, or merely submitting to being outvoted.
- As to our last point (c) it is to be observed that believers are to manifest a corporate union publicly, for the world is to see it. The object the Lord desires to attain is that the world may know and believe that He was sent by the Father, and that the believer is a sharer in the love of the Father to the Son.
- Why He chose this method I shall hope to next show, but for the moment what I strenuously emphasize is that the deliberate departing from oneness of action by adopting the practice of majority voting is undeniably not even attempting to attain such united working as is set forth in these words of the Lord Jesus, and cannot, therefore, result in that testimony which He taught oneness alone could give.
- I submit it as an invariably true principle for the guidance of the children of God, that any course of action which tends to mar, even partially, their testimony before the world, is not a line of conduct which is of the Father, but rather of the world.

HOW IS UNANIMITY POSSIBLE?
- There arises a question; namely, how is it possible for unity of judgment and action to be attained?
- In divine things the question of "How?" is of comparatively small importance.
- It is for us to at least endeavor to obey the revealed will of the Lord, and to seek after unanimity; and we may leave to God the question of how it is possible for Him to bring to one mind many persons of different types of character, of different habits of thought, having varying ways of looking at the same subject and sometimes opposite ways of doing the same thing.
- I freely concede the point that humanly speaking unanimity is not possible.
- To bring together scores, and perhaps hundreds, of mere men and women and expect them to come to one unanimous decision upon questions of perplexing and delicate nature is to look for more than fallen human nature is capable of.
- Because each human spirit is a separate individuality possessed of the power and tendency of acting independently of every other being, therefore it is true, "many men, many minds."
- But, as we have seen, the glorious and all-important fact concerning the children of God is that in place of being any longer entirely dissevered spiritually from every other creature, we are all indwelt by one and the same Spirit, the Spirit of Christ; and when this fact is clearly recognized and acted upon, the humanly impossible is seen to be divinely possible.

INDWELLING SPIRIT
- The human body is composed of many various substances, and the several members--hands, ears, eyes, etc--vary vastly in form and use, and yet these manifest differences do not hinder the whole body working together, because each part is under the personal influence of the one spirit inhabiting the body.
- So it is true the members of the body of Christ differ greatly, but because we are every one indwelt by the one Spirit, the co-operation of all members is possible, and should be sought after.
- It may be that with this, as with other Christlike graces, full and eternal harmony will only be attained when the last trace of the rebellious carnal spirit shall have been removed at the coming of the Lord; but, on the other hand, with this, as with other fruit of the Spirit, we should aim at perfection and "give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit" (Eph. 4:3) and then a unanimity can be reached which will astonish us, just as time back should have been astonished had we been told that love, joy and peace could be ours to the degree they now are through the Spirit.

- Here I state why I believe the Lord chose this oneness of mind and working as His testimony to the world.
- It was that through the fact of His people acting upon a principle and in a manner that the world has never found continuously possible, it might be made apparent that a divine power was at work among them, that the Spirit of God, not the spirit of the world, controlled them all.
- And, therefore, it is that I say the testimony is utterly ruined by the plan of a majority vote settling matters, for this is the very method which worldly men uniformly adopt as the only practicable plan known to them; and I doubt not it was from them that this, like numerous other evil practices, was borrowed and adopted by the Church, in days when, by the toleration of evil doctrine and doing, she had so grieved the Holy Spirit as to forfeit His unifying and directing help.
- Seeing it is one of the functions and rights of the Spirit to control the whole body, for us as a Church to arbitrarily say He shall express His will through a section only of the members of the body here present is to assume the office of dictating to Him whom it is our duty and wisdom to obey, and to thus prevent Him from fully doing that which He would graciously do for our blessing, namely, lead to unanimity; and also we forfeit that certainty of knowing what is His will which an undivided judgment alone can give; for while it is certain what is the desire of my spirit if my whole body works to one end, it would be by no means so certain were some only of my members to seek that end, and the rest to oppose.

OLD TESTAMENT TESTIMONY
- It is to be noted that the whole burden of Scripture testimony is on the side of unanimity.
- This is more clearly seen by observing two very remarkable lines of thought: first, that unanimity is in the Word of God associated with spiritual prosperity; and, on the other hand, a divided judgment with lack of spirituality.
- For instance, Israel in the wilderness were in a state of unbelief at the time the spies went up to search out the land, and ten of the twelve selected men reflected the condition of the people, dissuading the nation from going forward, and the two only, Joshua and Caleb, persuading them to do so.
- This was a very striking instance of the minority having the mind of the Lord, but of their being hopelessly outvoted; and by acting on the view of the majority the whole people made a fatal error.
- Again, how sad was the state of the kingdom, while some of the people followed Saul, and a smaller company helped David; but how significant the statement, (1 Chr. 12:38,40) that "there was joy in Israel" when "all Israel were of one heart to make David king."
- Once more, what a time of spiritual prosperity was inaugurated when David proposed to once again seek the Lord and worship before the ark of the Lord; "and all the assembly said they would do so, for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people." (1 Chr. 13:1-4)
- On the other hand, how miserable was the condition of affairs when most of the people worshiped Baal, while 7,000 followed Jehovah (1 Kings 19:20); but what a revival of godliness in Judah is indicated by the words, connected with the proposal to return to the keeping of the passover feast, "the thing was right in the eyes of the king and of all the congregation," (2 Chr. 30:4).
- Yet again, what a startling contrast is seen between the rapidly increasing prosperity of the people during the undivided allegiance of the twelve tribes to David and Solomon, as compared with the surely downward course after the division under Rehoboam.
- And how terrible was the condition of Israel when it could be written (1 Kings 16:21) "Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts; half of the people followed Tibni, the son of Ginath, to make him king: and half followed Omri. But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni": as compared with the comparative prosperity of Judah and Benjamin in their unbroken submission to the rule of the godly Asa.

NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONY
- I am aware that it may be said that these examples from the Old Testament have no very direct bearing upon the government of a Christian Church; but they were "written for our admonition," and the remarkable frequency with which unanimity and prosperity are connected in these and similar instances, gives an emphatic Scriptural testimony in favor of undivided action by the people of God; and the lesson is yet more impressive when it is seen that the New Testament follows upon the same side, and sets before us under the new covenant, the same precept and example as was set before the earthly people of God.
- Take, for example, such exhortations as the following.
- Rom. 15:5, 6: "Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus: that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
- 1 Cor. 1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind, and in the same judgment."
- 2 Cor. 13:11: "Be perfected, be comforted, be of the same mind; live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."
- Galatians: The direct object of this epistle was to bring the Church to oneness of mind upon the question discussed; to exhort them to all walk by the Spirit, and thus to avoid the "strife, factions and divisions," spoken of as being of the flesh, (Gal. 5:20).
- Ephesians 4:3-16: "Giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
- The "unity of the Spirit," is that unity which is manifested by the Spirit through united action on the part of the body; and therefore in this passage the apostle at once proceeds to a revelation of the inter-working of the whole body in perfect harmony.
- Philippians 1:27: "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ; that, whether I come and see you or be absent, I may hear of your state, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving for the faith of the gospel."
- Philippians 2:2: "Fulfill my joy, that you be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind; doing nothing through faction or through vainglory."
- Philippians 4:2: "I exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syntyche, to be of the same mind in the Lord."
- Colossians 3:17: When this Church met together to discuss the work of the Lord they were met with this injunction, "Whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."

- Now, if a matter had been decided by a majority only, the members of the minority could not have given thanks for the doing of that which they had urged should not be done; therefore the plan of so deciding a matter forces some to take part in doing things for which they cannot give thanks, and which they cannot do in the name of the Lord Jesus.
- Can a method which forces unscriptural conduct upon some members be itself Scriptural; for the only alternative is that they continue to show their objections by refraining from the work to which they objected.
- Can this be considered a Scriptural course in the face of the above quoted exhortation in Phil. 1:27, "with one soul striving"?
- Or 1 Thessalonians 5:13: "Be at peace among yourselves."
- Earlier I sought to show that dissension is one of the probable and, indeed, frequent results of majority rule.
- 2 Thessalonians 3:16: "Now the Lord of peace Himself give you peace at all times in all ways," which must include business meetings.
- 1 Timothy 6:3, 4; 2 Timothy 2:23; Titus 3:9: In the first passage certain men, and in the second and third certain questions are condemned, and the avoidance thereof exhorted, because they engender strifes; that is, not that every time a foolish question is discussed it leads to strife, but that there is a general tendency in such discussion to provoke dissension.
- So it does not require that every time a matter is decided by a majority vote it should provoke strife; it is sufficient if it has a tendency that way.

- James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally, and upbraids not; and it shall be given him."
- When a church meets together and some think one course the best, and some another, it is evident one, or both, of the parties has not the wisdom of God in the matter.
- This Scripture indicates what should then be done.
- Not the opinion of the majority is to be acted upon, for they may be wrong in their judgment and, for the same reason, not that of the minority: but let all wait on God for wisdom, and it shall be given, in God's time, to those who ask in faith.
- In addition to these passages, exhorting to "peace," to "oneness of mind," to "all speaking the same thing," to being "perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment," we have the already commented upon words of the Lord Jesus, from John 17, and the Scriptural analogy of the body; and also the example of a church transacting affairs in its corporate capacity recorded in Acts 15, which we shall now consider.
- As if the Lord foresaw that the precepts and whole tenor of His Word would not be sufficient to preserve His people from adopting almost universally the practice of the world in the matter of making group decisions, He caused to be given a very full narration of the discussion of an important and intricate question by the church at Jerusalem, including the apostles, to whom was specially committed the knowledge of His will, and who were undoubtedly those most likely to know what method was most accordant with the mind of the Spirit.

THE APOSTLES' EXAMPLE
- This record is found in Acts 15.
- When closely studied the story gives not only the decision upon the question actually discussed, but also the principles by which the judgments of believers were influenced, and, further, that which directly bears on our subject, the order of discussion.
- Before the reader goes further I would earnestly ask that the chapter be carefully read, and then the following remarks may be better considered.
- To the Gentile church at Antioch there had come from Judea certain men who taught the brethren that, as circumcision had from the time of Abraham been the sign of a person belonging to the visible company of the people of God, they could not be saved unless they were circumcised.
- Paul and Barnabas dissented from this teaching, and in order to the obtaining of the opinion of the apostles and the mother church, the brethren at Antioch deputed Paul and others to proceed to Jerusalem and there discuss the question; and, we read, "when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders."

- The order in which the matter proceeded is then shown as follows.
- "They rehearsed all that God had done with them," evidently including in their remarks a statement of their having refrained from teaching Gentile believers that they must be circumcised, and also laying before the church the facts concerning the discussion that had gone on at Antioch.
- That they did this is clear from verse 24, where the apostles display a knowledge of what had transpired at Antioch, which things they evidently learned in the information of Paul and Barnabas.
- Thus the matter was laid before the church, and the proposal to enforce circumcision thrown open for discussion.
- Certain of the Pharisees, not having been yet divested of their sectarian spirit, rose and urged that it was needful that Gentile Christians should be circumcised and enjoined to keep the law of Moses.
- This imposing of the ceremonial Judaic law upon Gentiles had not been the practice of the early church, as may be seen by the recorded teaching of the apostles and their speeches on this occasion; but the addresses of these Pharisees made it clear that there was a division of judgment upon the question.

- Now, had their method been the more modern plan that we are discussing, it would have been recorded that they ascertained on which side of the question there was a majority of members, and so settled the matter.
- But, as opposed to this, we learn that when this divergence of view is manifested, the meeting is adjourned, and a fresh gathering of apostles, elders (v. 6), and the whole multitude of the disciples (v. 12), constituting the "whole church," (v. 22), is called together to consider the matter.
- Then we learn that upon the subject being again brought forward, there was "much disputing" (v. 7), showing that those wide and opposed differences of opinion which now manifest themselves were seen then also.
- Here again I remark that had the apostolic method of reaching a decision been the present one, we should expect to find a record to that effect; but, on the contrary, the disputing and speech-making uninterruptedly continued.
- Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James all freely expressed their thoughts, until we find the significant record (v. 22).
- "Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders with the whole church," to do certain things.
- This is the essence of the whole question--nothing done until all differences have disappeared in unanimity; then action taken.
- So that, with the approval of the whole church, it could be written to the brethren at Antioch, "it seemed good to us, having come to one accord," (v. 25).

UNANIMITY AS AUTHORITY OF GOD
- And it is of the most momentous importance that we should notice that the church thus "being of one accord," (Phil. 2:2), and having learned to "all speak the same thing," so that there were "no divisions among them" but that they were "perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment," (I Cor. 1:10), they are then able to calmly and confidently claim the authority of the Lord Himself for their decision, and say, (v. 28), "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."
- Thus would our divine Lord impressively set before His people the method to be followed by the church when considering matters in a corporate capacity, and teach us that when, by patiently waiting before Him and focusing upon the particular subject in hand the light He has given, the church comes to oneness of mind in their decision, we can then claim His approval of and authority for that which we do.

- This teaching is the underlying basis of the seemingly difficult passage, Mat. 18:15-18.
- There the Lord says that if my brother sin against me, and I cannot by personal influence lead him to repentance, and thus bury the matter, I am then to take one or two more brethren and see him with them. It is evident that these brethren would not agree to help me unless they are convinced that I am in the right and my brother is the offender; so that there is thus found a consensus of opinion on the subject.
- But if the sinning brother will not listen to these further remonstrances, I am then to narrate the circumstances to the church.
- Once more, it is evident that the church will not side with me unless I am in the right; but if they--the church, not a section thereof, but "the church," implying the whole church, just as when we speak of "a city," we mean the whole city--agree with my view of the case, we have the fact that a body of those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and so having the mind of Christ, are of one judgment in the matter; and that if the offending brother will not hear and submit to the church, he must be dealt with and treated as a Gentile and a publican, that is, he must be put out of church fellowship.

BINDING AND LOOSING
- When the church thus unanimously deals with a case, the Lord assures us that we may be certain of doing the right thing, and that "what things soever we shall so bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," for the simple reason that it is the will of our Lord in heaven, that, through the Spirit, we have done on earth.
- So again, Paul, having instructed the Corinthian church to thus deal with a wicked person (I Cor. 5), upon learning that the discipline had produced in him the desired repentance, instructs them (II Cor. 2) to now forgive and receive back the offender and restore him to the joy of the fellowship of saints; and having invoked the name of the Lord Jesus for the former measure, he now claims the authority of the Lord for the latter course; and thus the one who had been "bound" over to Satan as an evil-doer for the destruction of the flesh, is now, upon repentance, "loosed" by the Church from the sentence, that no advantage may be gained by Satan.
- Thus, in this practical matter also the Lord indicates His willingness to recognize the decision of a church, if that decision be unanimous; nor is there one single precept or example in His Word to indicate or even appear to sanction the thought that He allows the authority of those of His name to be attached to the will of a section only of those of His people who have to decide a question.
- They may, and sometimes do, by that means decide according to His will; but they have no Scriptural right to claim His authority and profess to act in His name; such authority being clearly given to the company of His people, and to them only, who act unanimously.

DEALING WITH MINOR MATTERS
- Against the application of Acts 15 to the matter in question it has been urged that the plan there shown is doubtless advisable and possible in matters of such great importance as the one then discussed, but that it is neither needful nor likely that unanimity should be or can be reached in details say connected with the construction or fitting up of a hall or schoolroom, most of the church being unacquainted with such matters.
- But surely this is a very irrational objection, for if the Lord has undertaken to produce oneness of mind upon important and intricate questions, why should there be any difficulty in His doing so upon questions comparatively simple and unimportant?
- And as to the necessity of these latter things being brought within the rule, I would ask is it not often over absurdly trifling matters that personal differences most frequently arise?
- And ought not these things therefore be dealt with in the way most likely to produce and preserve peace?

DESPITE HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS
- Beloved brethren, these numerous passages are written, and this clear example is given, for our guidance, and it is for us to conform our practice to the Scriptural pattern; nor is there the least suggestion in the Word of God that any other than this procedure was followed, whatever the question to be decided by the church might be.
- It now only remains for me to offer some concluding and confirmatory remarks.
- I am asked -- Do you really believe this plan possible?
- My reply is that in divine things the question is both irrelevant and irreverent.
- For the believer in Almighty God there is but one question -- not, Is it possible? but, Is it Scriptural? not, Can it be done? but, Does God, in His holy Word, bid us do it?
- I have endeavored to show clearly and definitely settle the latter question, and, I say, it is Scriptural!
- Then it is also possible.
- It was impossible humanly for the man with the withered arm to stretch it forth.
- He would have done so long since, had he been able.
- But when the Lord bade him do the impossible, it was at once done; for the question of power rested with Him who gave the command.
- Thus it is with this question, and all other of His commandments.
- Moreover, I would point out that the Apostles uniformly insisted that they were men of like passions with others, (Acts 10:26, 14:15).
- The believers, also, who gathered at that pattern church meeting had very deeply rooted prejudices, very stubborn human wills, yea, all those infirmities of mind and spirit, which some fear must render this plan of church government inoperative in our days.
- But the thing was not impossible and, therefore, is not now impossible.

MODERN EXAMPLE
[This was a modern example in 1900, but there has also been the Quaker example from 1652 to the present time. Quakers began to adapt the practice of reaching unanimity at an early date. Sociocracy seems to be the highest development of the practice to date. - LK]
- Yet, again, as I informed you, there is in this very city of Bristol a church numbering many hundreds of members, the affairs of which, since its founding on August 13th, 1832, by the late George Muller and Henry Craik, have been constantly settled in this way.
- Further there is the China Inland Mission, the Councils of which deal with the evangelizing of the vast country of China, involving the support and control of nearly 750 missionaries and large numbers of native teachers, and the securing and disbursing of many thousands of pounds annually, involving also the solving of problems far more intricate than any that usually come before home churches, involving further the central governing not of one but of scores of scattered churches in that immense empire, and yet the Secretary writes me that since the founding of the Mission in 1865 the affairs of its great work have been conducted on the plan proposed by Scripture.
- Thus, dealing with these two cases only, we have in the aggregate 103 years of modern and satisfactory experience of the method, simply proving, as might be safely expected, that in the "keeping of His commandments there is great reward," (Psalm 119:11).
- What reward, it will perhaps be asked.
- Is there not great risk of matters needful to be decided promptly being delayed, to the injury of the work?
- Let the Secretary of the China Inland Mission answer, and confirm my remarks under section 1, page 5.
- I asked him, Has any matter which it would have been for the good of the Lord's work to have had decided promptly, been delayed to the prejudice of the work by the waiting for unanimity?
- He replied, No, decidedly not.
- Whenever there has been delay, it has always proved to have been a wise step, and the necessary guidance has come later on.
- I asked also, Has the experience of this plan shown any distinct advantages accruing therefrom?
- The reply is, Yes, after-experience has proved that by this method mistakes have been avoided which might otherwise have been made.
- And I am further informed that no inconveniences have been found to arise from the plan.
- Is it not a great gain to avoid mistakes?
- Does not this method wholly cast us upon the Lord, and so, by our dependence, glorify Him?
- Do we not thus corporately "acknowledge Him in all our ways", and should we not so secure the fulfillment of the accompanying promise "He shall direct your paths"? (Prov. 3: 5, 6).

- I am persuaded that by attention to three things all difficulty in this matter may be removed, and unanimity always attained, when the Lord deems it desirable.
- The most diligent and careful inquiry in ascertaining that candidates for church fellowship are (a) scripturally converted to God through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, so as to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Whose working it is produces unanimity; and (b) that there is every reason to suppose from their past life and present conduct that they are really desirous of knowing and doing the will of God.
- This is by the cultivation of personal communion with God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, by regular meditation upon the Scriptures, so that we may advance in the knowledge of His will, and by habitual prayer, wherein we bring all our doing and thinking beneath His inspection, and have discrepancies and evils shown us, and whereby we receive grace to do those things which are pleasing to Him.
- It also involves the due and loving exercise of discipline against any on whose conduct the Word of God commands discipline.
- So our corporate life would be lived beneath the eye and under the control of God; and the Spirit of the Lord would obtain continually increasing power over us, working in us to will and do of God's good pleasure, so that we should be one in action in and through the Spirit, even as the Father and the Son are One in the communion of the Spirit, and thus would our Lord's desire and prayer be fulfilled more and more perfectly.
- So would the harmony and love of our church life be secured and promoted and so should our joint testimony before the world be unceasing and effective, to the honor and praise of Him to whom belongs the glory forever.

- For reference sake I subjoin the terms of the motion now under our consideration, that the God of all grace may give us grace to do His will for ever is the prayer of Your fellow servant of Jesus Christ, G. H. LANG, Globe House, Old King Street, Bristol, August 1900.
- PROPOSED MOTION: "It is unanimously Resolved that in future no proposal shall be deemed to be carried or be recorded as a resolution, until the church unanimously consents to the same at a duly convened church meeting, it being understood that the absence of any objection to a proposed motion may be taken to signify its acceptance."

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Better News Media
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2022, 07:19:51 am »
Media for Honest Communication (MHC)

- The world needs better Media.
- People are divided against each other, because they don't know each others' needs and concerns.
- People of all major groups need to speak and listen to each other in order to understand and treat each other humanely.
- We need a self-organizing alternative grassroots nonprofit media, which I refer to here as the GRAM.
- Each segment of society should have reps who will honestly report each group's major concerns to the GRAM, which would report directly to the public.
- Some major groups that seem relevant in the U.S. are:
Anti-imperialists
Religious Right
Progressives
Libertarians
Civil Rights Supporters
Alternative Health Users
Environmentalists
Special Interests
Alternative Science Supporters
Foreigners
- MHC is looking for people to be reps for each such group. The reps report their groups' main concerns and most important info, which the major media are not reporting.
- MHC will begin operating via the internet.
- Our main uncertainties seem to be re:
1. what are some of the best ways to find good people to be reps for the major groups? and
2. how could MHC's info be disseminated most thoroughly to the public?

- Please Reply on the GRAM Blog.

AIM: Promote optimum communication for understanding and harmony among all groups.
PLAN for creating a better alternative medium:
_a1. Ask on forums for members to be reporters & sources to report on major concerns of these major groups: Anti-imperialists, Religious Right, Libertarians, Civil Rights Folks, Environmentalists, Special Interests, Alternative Science, Foreign Citizens
- Also ask these major groups to provide reporters
- Explain rationale: to provide a better medium that's nonprofit that reports each group's main concerns honestly, to promote greater understanding and harmony among all groups
_a2. Give reporters guidelines
_a3. Get a webpage for the reports
_a4. Have reporters submit reports to the webpage or to me or an editor
_a5. Organize the reports
_a6. Send the reports to forums, blogs, email subscribers & an archive
_b7. Teach reporters NVC Sociocracy
_b8. Ask techs to team up to make weekly youtube report videos
_c9. Ask radio & tv stations to broadcast weekly reports
_c10. Ask major groups for donations for their reporters
_c11. Ask for more reporters to do daily reports instead of weekly
_c12. Ask for pollsters to poll major groups for greater accuracy
_d13. Promote NVC Sociocracy to all groups via the reports etc
_d14. Plan to prevent major attacks on the medium by opponents

NOTE ON NEED FOR REPORTERS: Honest Reporters Wanted!
- The world needs better Media for Honest Communication.
- MHC, a nonprofit group, will report major news that the major media ignore.
- It is a new alternative medium different from other alternatives, because it seeks to inform the public of all major groups' main concerns and views.
- Our view is that people of all major groups need to speak and listen to each other in order to understand and treat each other humanely.
- Initially MHC will report news in the U.S. from these groups:
Anti-imperialists
Religious Right
Libertarians
Civil Rights Supporters
Environmentalists
Special Interests
Alternative Science Supporters
Foreigners
- Can you see the value of an alternative media that seeks to aid understanding among all groups?
- If so, is there one of these groups that you'd like to report news for?
- We want to have a team to represent each group.
- Can you assemble a 3 or more person team to cooperatively report weekly on one of the above groups?

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Improve Scientific Method
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2022, 07:52:43 am »
From http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7608
ADVANCED 5-STEP SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

-- 1. Observe; 2. Experiment; 3. Replicate; 4. Publish; 5. Use (for good)

(Scientific Method is a process by which to improve understanding of reality for humane purposes. Each step can be performed independently by individuals or groups, or can be performed cooperatively. The Advanced Scientific Method includes checking for & removing errors at all 5 stages.)

1. OBSERVE — Make and publish accurate observations of a subject.

2. EXPERIMENT —
a. Make a hypothesis that may explain the observations.
b. Experiment to test and improve the hypothesis, taking accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and perhaps math, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved.
c. Publish the experiment.

3. REPLICATE — Two or more unaffiliated parties independently replicate the experiment.

4. PUBLISH — Publish the experimental results as a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful.

5. USE FOR GOOD — Use the finding humanely as determined by local unanimous agreement among morally mature people.

-----

COMMON ERRORS THAT UNDERMINE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ARE:
(Re 1:) making inaccurate observations;
(re 2:) making an untestable hypothesis, or misusing logic or math in the experiment, or recording or publishing a false or inaccurate record or suppressing it;
(re 3:) failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties or failing to debate it properly;
(re 4:) publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
(re 5:) using the finding inhumanely or without local unanimous agreement among morally mature people.

-----

PROPOSED METHOD FOR SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION
1. Choose a theory & state what is the most crucial statement of the theory.
2. Other participants then choose to:
a) agree with the statement;
b1) request explanation, or proof;
b2) someone give explanation, or proof;
b3) others choose (a or b); or
c1) propose a modification of the statement
c2) others choose (a or b) for the modified statement.
3. Step 2 is used for all subsidiary statements.
4. The theory is then organized & published.

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

(7/11/13 Version)

(Scientific Method — It is a process by which to improve understanding of reality for humane purposes. Each step can be performed independently by individuals or groups, or can be performed cooperatively.)

5 Steps of Scientific Method:
1. Observe; 2. Experiment; 3. Replicate; 4. Publish; 5. Use

1. Make and publish accurate observations of a subject.

2. Experiment.
a. Make a hypothesis that may explain the observations.
b. Experiment to test and improve the hypothesis, taking accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and perhaps math, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved.
c. Publish the experiment.

3. Two or more unaffiliated parties independently replicate the experiment.

4. Publish the experimental results as a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful.

5. Use the finding humanely as determined by local unanimous agreement.

Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:

(Re 1:) making inaccurate observations;
(re 2:) making an untestable hypothesis, or misusing logic or math in the experiment, or recording or publishing a false or inaccurate record or suppressing it;
(re 3:) failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties or failing to debate it properly;
(re 4:) publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
(re 5:) using the finding inhumanely or without local unanimous agreement.

Proposed Method for Scientific Discussion for Publication

1. Anyone, whom we'll refer to here as P1, invites a second party, P2, to suggest an important scientific theory to discuss.

2. P2 suggests a theory that P1 accepts.

3. P2 then states the most crucial statement of the theory.

4. P1 then accepts the statement, or requests an explanation or proof, or proposes a modification of P2's statement.

5. P2 and P1 may continue proposing modifications of each other's proposed statement until they agree on or table it.

6. As each statement is agreed to, P2's next most important statement is discussed in the same way (alwasy seeking accuracy, scope and simplicity). This process repeats until a complete theory is drafted with both parties agreeing to all of the statements.

7. The theory is then published from the draft.

(Previous Version) The Scientific Method involves:

choosing a subject matter and making accurate observations of it;
making a hypothesis that may explain the observations;
testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, logic and, if needed, math as well, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted; and revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted;
making an accurate record of the experiment and the evaluation and publishing them;
getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
explaining and publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and using the discovery to humanely increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society and the biosphere, all as determined by local unanimous adult rule.

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
I'd like to suggest that we start with some definitions of what a good theory is supposed to be. I subscribe to the view that there are three metrics for estimating the "cash value" theory:
Accuracy
The "cash value" of a scientific theory is quite obviously rooted in the practical utility of being able to predict future events, insofar as this gives us the ability to arrange things to our advantage. If it were not for this value, there wouldn't be any, in any intellectual enterprise.
This does not negate the value of being able to explain things after the fact (sometimes called "postdiction"). No hypothesis that can successfully predict future events would fail to "postdict" past events. And since the existing data are free, the first test of an hypothesis should always be whether or not it accurately explains the known data (i.e., would the hypothesis actually have predicted those data had they not already existed). If the hypothesis fails at that, any successful prediction is surely just coincidence.
Scope
This is just a "cash value" multiplier. A single hypothesis that can accurately explain & predict 10 times more stuff is worth 10 times more, just as a universal wrench is worth more than an entire toolbox full of standard wrenches (assuming that it performs as well on each individual bolt).
Simplicity
All other factors being the same, the simpler theory is just easier to use, so that's the one we'll consider to be "correct."
By using objective metrics such as these, we can get past the most common problem in pseudo-scientific thinking. A lot of people seem to think that if they can get people to believe what they're saying, then it's just as good as any other hypothesis out there. In other words, they think that hypotheses are social activities, which don't actually have to be about anything (except the people who are proposing the hypotheses). People who think this way will then engage in all kinds of tactics to bring people around to their way of seeing things. But there isn't any intrinsic merit to such an enterprise, and with objective metrics, we can easily see this. The value of science isn't that somebody won an argument — it's that we became better masters of our destinies.

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
I revised my opening post above and included accuracy, scope and simplicity as part of my proposed method of scientific discussion.
I request that any of you guys propose a scientific theory to practice discuss with me, using the method described in the opening post after the description of the Scientific Method.
Along with the theory you want to propose discussing, please also post the most crucial statement of the theory.

brant
Re: Improve Scientific Method
I disagree with #7.
Control over nature is not part of the scientific method and really has nothing to do with the end result or goals.
Science is done or should be for knowledge, or for sciences sake.... Let the discovery guide you to the next step.
Currently science is done for "societies sake right now.... See Global Warming or vaccines" -  And look at the mess its made... Its politicized...
Personally I think working with nature is more beneficial to humans than trying to control it....

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
Brant,
I'll have a hard time arguing against the point that science has become political, and that this is bad for science, politics, and society. And if we should err here, it should be on the side of pure science, just for the sake of increasing our understanding. Nothing keeps politicians honest, and keeps technology from destroying the environment and poisoning the people, like a thorough understanding of the whole thing, and how we relate to nature. The more we know, the more cautious we become, and the more immune we are to fads and scams.
But I still agree with the definition of science as being something that benefits society. The difference is all in the connotations. Does benefiting society mean raping the environment for a quick buck (or to get campaign contributions from big business), or does benefiting society mean coming to understand how we relate to nature? I think we would all go with the latter. :) So I think that the definition is a good one, but perhaps we have to spell out more of what we mean by it.

brant
Re: Improve Scientific Method
The problem is now you have defined the goals of science depending on whether your doing the right kind of "good", and who your doing good for..
Which leads us to the reason we are having our discussion in the first place...
If we were doing science for sciences sake we would have access to the same funding that the universities have by the virtue of being able to put together a scientific proposal.
If we were doing science for sciences sake the sun would be solved because we would have equal time acess to telescopes and other tools.
We wouldnt have to wait several years for data products that tax payers paid for.
Instead because science is supposed to benefit society its turned to false time wasters like global warming or what ever fraud is big at the moment in the name of "saving the world(society).
In my view science is a tool. Does a gun benefit society? Depends on who you ask and whos life is at stake at that moment in time.
The moment you add "Benefit to society to the equation" you have colored your notion as to what should be your next step and I believe that science would actually be more of a benefit to societ because the "free energy technology or backengineered UFOs that the controllers of the world hold onto." would be in use.
To all of a sudden add in a subjective arbitrary qualification to the definition of science I believe renders science a less than useful tool, like saying you can only use a hammer to hit nails that are used for building houses...

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
@brant:
Well said. OK, I'll go along with that. So then it would be science just for the sake of understanding. The moral issues can then be taken up by the philosophers. ;)
Lloyd, what do you think?

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
I'd call scientific method without step 7 incomplete or immature science, or recreation, or, if it's for evil purposes, antiscience. I think the only part of nature that should not be controlled is that which has free will, such as humans, or those with imminently potential free will, such as fetuses. If all of nature comes to have free will, then I'd agree that it should only be collaborated with rather than controlled.
What is currently called science is partly science, partly recreation and partly antiscience. Antiscience is immoral and real science needs to be used to help show that antiscience isn't science, i.e. conventional science that endangers society is antiscience. Using subliminal manipulation, peer pressure, ridicule, force, forced taxation, unfair discrimination, or any other trick is abuse, which is antiscience.
Is there any reason the 7 step scientific method I outlined above would not be able to reveal which supposed sciences are actually antiscience? And isn't the failure to identify antiscience what has allowed conventional science to become largely antiscience? Sociocracy can likely help improve scientific method to distinguish between science and antiscience. Right?

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
Lloyd said:
Is there any reason the 7 step scientific method I outlined above would not be able to reveal which supposed sciences are actually antiscience?
The problem is that we don't have a clear definition of what is good/bad for society. I think that part of what Brant doesn't like is that ambiguity — if it's open to interpretation, then a global warming scam can be considered a benefit to society (in some sort of rationalized political way), while under no circumstances could a scam be considered true science.
But I think that there is actually more to it than that.
brant said:
In my view science is a tool. Does a gun benefit society? Depends on who you ask and whose life is at stake at that moment in time.
This is true, but science is the kind of tool that encourages good use. Recall Alexander Pope's words, "A little learning is a dangerous thing — drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring, where shallow draft intoxicates the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." So it's not that any science could be used for good or for bad. It's that the more you know, the more likely you are to put your knowledge to good use.
Furthermore, if we were to wonder what might benefit society, we could only answer if we already had a full understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. Is anthropomorphic global warming good or bad (if it is real)? It's presented as bad, but the Earth is presently still cooler that the Medieval Optimum (which is now being called just the "Medieval Warm Period" so it doesn't conflict with the political agenda of global warming being bad). Only a far more mature science could answer whether or not the world is actually warming up now, and if so, if people had anything to do with it, and either way, whether it is good or bad. So science is not only the tool, but also the measuring instrument by which we determine its proper use. You can't have good applications of science until you have a mature science to apply. Then it will tell you how to do it. ;)

brant
Re: Improve Scientific Method
To use the hammer analogy again. Do you think there is such a thing as a anti hammer?? How long could you keep a hammer made out of anti matter stable??
Partly recreation? I hope so... Thats how I come up with some of my best work..
The part I think you missed is how science is treated like a religion. Actions are carried out in faith(based on  a paper written by one of the accepted members of the faith) which is totally anti science. I am always questioning the basic tenants of science. It takes more time but you never become comfortable which leads to better discoveries and more pure science...
Is it necessary that science have the human element to it?? I think that Vulcans would do great science.... Do they do science for sciences sake or because it benefits them...
Here is something people rarely talk about.. I think that the information from the Nazi war experiments should be available...
Now who is to determine if its morally wrong and who is to determine if its good for society.. Which one overrides which one? Dont they always say in the movies" Dont let his death be in vain!".
The idea that intelligence breeds goodness is a great idea but then you have to ask where does evil come from? Because intelligent people do bad things with science... Is it that too much knowledge is a bad thing??
I maintain that you have to seperate the philosophy of science from the actions of science - that is the part where you go this data fits my model vs the part where you say this is interesting data that shows this physical principle and it belongs here in the order of what we know.
Take for example my current investigation into MDI and HMI. They use the absorption line for neutral iron and nickle for magnetograms. This  supposedly oscillates around a 100-250 mile center. Based on solar models this is a layed of neutral plasma dense enough to give accurate helioseismology readings. Based on physical principles you would have to say there is a nickle/iron surface there... I am kinda stuck right because nothing obvious is presenting itself. I have to come up with a more compelling physical reason than the standard model.
Its more a collection notes right now but I believe the data locates the physical surface...
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9484-9454-9840-8919-6961-9927-9914
A benefit to society presupposes you have godlike powers and can see the future, however you could say that understanding every physical principle of the universe would be a benefit to society because you would now have space travel and limitless energy. Its not necessary to add this into the definition of science thereby eliminating the chance that someone would use the definition for nefarious purposes.  It is very important to understand these two different ways of speaking. One is a physical realization of the other.  The less knobs available for government to turn, they being one of the major funders of science, the less trouble they can get into....
How come you dont have a spell checker... i'm lazy...

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
Evil is simply making immature decisions that threaten the well-being of self or others. I think that's about as clear a definition as we can get. Some studies seem to have found that about 6% of people in any society are psychopaths, having little or no conscience, which I take to mean not caring about others' well-being. Another 12% of people are sociopaths, meaning people who have conscience but suppress it, often under pressure from psychopaths. One scientist who studied psychopaths accidentally found that he had psychopathic personality himself, but the condition can be minimized or prevented from manifesting.
I did not say that the first 6 steps of my proposed scientific method are not science. I said they're incomplete or immature if step 7 is not taken. As it is, psychopaths tend to attain control of any institution, whether govt, science, religion, or any other, with sociopaths supporting them. I consider that a societal disease process or the like. I believe it's necessary for science to find ways to end such societal disease, or civilization is likely to be destroyed. Sociocracy is the most promising means I know of for fixing or healing science and society, although I've found that it can likely be considerably improved. Anyway, I believe science is the only method by which society can be healed or "saved" from "pathocracy", i.e. rule by psychopaths. And, if step 7 is not made part of an improved scientific method, there's likely never to be a cure for pathocracy.
By the way, government in our system is defined as all of the people. The govt officials are our public servants. Servants are not defined as rulers. But pathocracy has infected our system like parasites.
I hope to get a chance to read your answers to the questions about your iron sun model soon.

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
brant said:
How come you dont have a spell checker... i'm lazy...
In the "full screen" editor, click the  button.
Lloyd said:
Evil is simply making immature decisions that threaten the well-being of self or others.
I agree — evil stems from incomplete knowledge. For example, Oppenheimer figured out how to make an atom bomb, but then he spent the rest of his life regretting it. Had he thought about the implications of what he was doing before he did it, he would have told the politicians to go pound sand when they started talking about weapons of mass destruction. So a little learning is a dangerous thing — fully consider the social, economic, and political implications of what you're doing, or taste not the nuclear physics spring, where shallow draft just might blow you, me, and everybody else to smithereens, while further drinking might make you realize that weapons of mass destruction are a Really Bad Idea. ;)
 
brant
Re: Improve Scientific Method
I still dont see how step 7 prevents any manner of crazy people from declaring that are doing it (science) for the good of society and doing bad things, and having people believe them because it part of the scientific method....
People in power have a track record of that. If they cant say we are doing it for the good of society then what do they have to manipulate the people?
If you are an ethical scientist you will do it for the good of society... Thats what I do. Nobody has to tell me to do good...
Do you think that a bad guy (immature) will do good just because thats part of the scientific method?
If you ask me the method should be brief and thorough. Just like a well tuned hammer...

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Sociocracy to Improve Scientific Method
I wrote this yesterday, but a little rain screwed up internet reception here, as usual, so I'm delayed.
I was thinking we could maybe apply sociocracy to this dispute we're having about scientific method. We seem to agree largely with the first 6 steps that I outlined, so the dispute so far is only with step 7. The way I've been modifying sociocracy is by focusing on concerns. I think that gets to the heart of a dispute quicker than anything. So I like to try to see what all of the main concerns are on an issue.
Brant's concern seems to be that step 7 would give the govt an excuse to unfairly or irrationally limit scientific research.
And I guess it's apparent that my concern is that science is already abused by govt and other power abusers and needs an additional step at least to help prevent such abuse of science.
Since step 7 is at the end rather than at the beginning, I think it would already not hamper any scientific research. The research would be done in the normal way, but it would just not be deemed complete until step 7 is taken. Who would carry out step 7? I agree with the concern about scientific and academic freedom as well as the right of all morally mature people to be self-governing, while immature people have the right and duty to learn moral maturity partly by participating in self-government at their own pace. Of course, no one is fully morally mature, so that's everyone, but to varying degrees. And moral simply means respecting everyone's human rights.
Obviously, this won't be an easy matter to settle, but I think it's necessary to work on it. Does anyone have a proposal for rewording step 7 that satisfies everyone's main concerns?

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
To address my point, about bad things coming from incomplete knowledge (i.e., "a little learning is a dangerous thing"), you could say something like:
7. integrate the new findings into the larger body of knowledge accumulating on the topic, and consider the implications for society.
I think that with "increasing control over nature" as the stated objective, people would be running out to see what they could do to wreck the environment the first chance they got, assuming that they're not done until they're changing nature to suit their needs. With a full understanding, sometimes you can just leave nature alone, and let it provide for your needs, the way it always has. So I'm not sure that we should assume that nature needs to be changed. But no matter what, it all comes back to how thoroughly we understand what we're doing. A levy that holds back flood waters isn't such a bad thing — that's manipulating nature to suit our purposes. But we have to understand that it's only going to cause a bigger flood somewhere else, because the water has to go somewhere. Did we think about that when we built the levy? So that's my point — we might not have to change nature, but we do have to consider the long-term implications of everything that we do.

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
Charles, I read your proposed modification of step 7 and here's my proposal for rewording it:
7. (previous wording:) using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.)
7. (new wording:) using the discovery to humanely increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society and the biosphere, all as determined by local unanimous adult rule .
I also modified step 7 of common errors in science accordingly adding the phrase in bold at the end as follows:
7. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society (or the biosphere).
How about that?

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
Maybe the issue is that we don't have a definition of what is good for society. So how 'bout:
7. integrate the new findings into the larger body of knowledge accumulating on the topic, and when a sufficiently complete understanding has been achieved, apply it to resolving the conflicts among people and nature.

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
If we believe in human rights, we believe in the right to local self-government by unanimous rule, e.g. sociocracy.
I want to avoid trying to micromanage science. I think it may be best to let each local self-governing group handle micromanaging their science, including how to record and store findings.
7. (new wording:) using the discovery humanely  as determined by local unanimous rule.

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
I've posted a new version of Scientific Method above. I think it's much better, more succinct etc. Agree?
There are now 5 steps: 1. Observe; 2. Experiment; 3. Replicate; 4. Publish; 5. Use.
Two of the original 7 are now part of step 2.

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Make Discussion More Efficient?
I want to continue this discussion, but I think we could probably make discussion in general more efficient. Do you guys agree? So, if yous have ideas how to do that, would you please discuss them with me on the thread called Improve Scientific Method? I'll copy this post there.
What are some of the obstacles you can think of to coming to common understanding or agreement?
not defining terms clearly enough?
not describing data clearly enough?
not citing data accurately?
prejudice?
other?
What might improve discussion?

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
In the opening post I suggested the following method of discussion. Does anyone have ideas how to improve this proposed method of discussion?
Proposed Method for Scientific Discussion for Publication
1. Anyone, whom we'll refer to here as P1, invites a second party, P2, to suggest an important scientific theory to discuss.
2. P2 suggests a theory that P1 accepts.
3. P2 then states the most crucial statement of the theory.
4. P1 then accepts the statement, or requests an explanation or proof, or proposes a modification of P2's statement.
5. P2 and P1 may continue proposing modifications of each other's proposed statement until they agree on or table it.
6. As each statement is agreed to, P2's next most important statement is discussed in the same way (alwasy seeking accuracy, scope and simplicity). This process repeats until a complete theory is drafted with both parties agreeing to all of the statements.
7. The theory is then published from the draft.

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Comets
And just how is it that NOAO has any copyrights anyway? That's a publicly funded institution. Why aren't their products public domain from the start? For that matter, why is it that we pay for scientists to conduct research, and then we don't have free access to the journals? I understand that the journals are private enterprises, and they have to pay editors, printers, etc. But when they're charging $30 or more for electronic access to single articles, that's just ridiculous. Granted, they get to say that the articles are publicly available. But at $30, they're not selling any of those. Professionals get colleagues to snag the articles for them, and students go to the library. And it's just enough inconvenience to the independent investigators that it keeps them out. Argh.

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
As I said in the Comets thread, all material in public libraries should be readable online.

Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Re: Improve Scientific Method
I totally agree. In fact, the entire publishing industry is due for an overhaul. They need to get out of their Gutenberg mentality, and get with modern times. Electronic publishing should be the standard. Anybody who wants a hard copy of something should just request it from the nearest Kinko's, who will print it out and deliver it. Forget about the whole manufacturing~wholesaling~retailing~advertising model. Make everything available online, and let on-demand printing serve the secondary market that wants hard copies. The editing and updating is what will benefit the most from an online model. I really think that we're on the threshold of a new age, in which books won't be written by one or a couple people, and then handed over to an editorial staff with just a couple of people in it. Rather, books will be collaborations of hundreds or thousands of people, many of whom will donate their labor. If a book requires professional services, that's fine. So they'll have to charge money for access to the finished product. But printing is currently the biggest expense in the publishing industry, and if that's taken out of the picture, there will be more money available for decent writers, illustrators, and editors. Then, if the publishers charge a reasonable amount of money for their articles (e.g., $1 or less), they'll make plenty of money. I personally think that if the price is low enough, piracy will go away, and the publishers will actually make a lot more money. And we'll get much higher quality stuff, and a lot more of it. And the same goes for scientific literature. They don't have to be a bunch of control freaks about it. A certain amount of funding enables a certain amount of research, writing, illustrating, editing, etc. Then it gets published online for free, because the general public already paid for it. Once others get ahold of it, they'll spot errors, and it will start to improve.

Lloyd
St. Louis area
Re: Improve Scientific Method
Charles, I see you got some info from Deliberatorium elsewhere. That info may supercede what I just came across, but I think this is worth posting anyway.
After briefly checking out truthmapping.com and deliberatorium, I reviewed dialog mapping etc and here are my edited notes on that.
First video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pxS5wUljfjE
Jeff Conklin shows that dialog mapping allows those involved in discussion to get a better understanding of the discussion, using issue structure, instead of mere linear conversation structure.
Next video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ezBqafgAvMw
he says: "I'm now interested in the collaboration that needs to happen online, synchronously, in virtual meetings, conference calls, conference calls with web excerpts or go-to meetings. And, beyond that, even more challenging, is people connected to a set of maps working from their own computers asynchronously at different times and doing time-shifted sense-making on complex problems. . . . It takes moderation skills and . . . a certain level of skill in the IBIS process and with software to make it work."
Third video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s4VNpCwc7SE
Gene Bellinger says: "If one practices the four principles of dialog according to Bohm, which are to suspend decisions, suspend judgment, transparency and build on the ideas of others, it creates a chart of exchange where new things just seem to happen. So people don't debate, or defend their positions. People continually are seeking to understand perspectives"
With InsightMaker/s dialog has four components: Question mark = Issue or Question; Light bulb = Position or response to an Issue; Plus = Support for argument; Minus = Opposition to argument.
This site http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/about.htm says
Compendium is a software tool providing a flexible visual interface for managing the connections between information and ideas. [It might be downloadable at http://compendium.open.ac.uk/developers/os_home.php ].
 --- Extending Compendium's support for personal sensemaking, we have a particular interest in what we term collective sensemaking, and have developed a technique called Dialogue Mapping, and its extension, Conversational Modelling. Our experiences with these techiques for capturing and managing — often in real time and under pressure — the perspectives in meetings that emerge in open discussion or in collaborative modelling, lead us to claim that Compendium offers innovative strategies for tackling some of the key challenges in managing knowledge and making meaning:
- improving communication between disparate communities tackling ill-structured problems
- real time capture and integration of hybrid material (both predictable/ formal, and unexpected/informal) into a reusable group memory
- transforming the resulting resource into the right representational formats for different stakeholders.
This http://debategraph.org is an online usable tool for dialog mapping maybe. I didn't have much luck with it though. But see the following.
The above compendium.open.ac.uk links to
http://cognexus.org/dm_book.htm which links to
http://www.cognexus.org/id27.htm which says
"Taken directly from the Debategraph.org website: "Our goal is to make the best arguments on all sides of any public debate freely available to all and continuously open to challenge and improvement by all. In pursuit of this goal, Debategraph is (1) A wiki debate visualization tool (2) A web-based, creative commons project to increase the transparency and rigor of public debate everywhere ­by making the collective insight and intelligence of the global community freely available to all and filtering out the noise and (3) A global graph of all the debates.""
So maybe if I learn more about that, I'll be able to get more out of it. Maybe we could both or all try it out sometime soon.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 07:54:16 am by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
IDM Examples
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2022, 07:59:43 am »
7 Testimonials
*** IDM TESTIMONIAL - #1
<IDM is a simplified form of scientifically developed consensus, referred to below as Sociocracy - IDM is the best hope for world peace, justice and prosperity>
www.champlainvalleycohousing.org/Round-tabling%20Manual.htm
www.champlainvalleycohousing.org/Round-tabling%20Manual.htm#_Toc36078182
.
Volume 1
.
“Round-tabling” <=Sociocracy>
.
The Practice of Sociocracy in Our Community
Prepared by Sheila Braun
Edited by John Buck
Copyright 2003 by Sheila Braun and John Buck
.
Chapter 1
.
So you want to live in a cohousing village…
Now, how do we make our decisions?
.
As you have explored the idea of living in cohousing, you have perhaps read and heard a fair amount about the challenges of making group decisions. Many cohousing communities use the consensus model, which gives each member a voice, but can be exhausting. A few are beginning to look at a new option we call round-tabling, which is also known as sociocracy <or scientific consensus>.
.
What is round-tabling? Whereas consensus is a decision-making method, round-tabling is both a decision-making method and a decision-making structure. In this manual, we will describe these two aspects as a whole.
.
You’re getting ready to attend your first round-table meeting since becoming a member. What can you expect? Round-table meetings follow a predictable pattern.
.
Opening Round
During a round, each member gets a chance to speak. During an opening round, each member brings him- or herself into the meeting. People change from meeting to meeting and checking in with each member of the circle when we first meet helps us to get back in touch with one another. We are seeking a kind of harmonization for the meeting.
.
This is the time to mention any items you would like added to the agenda and to talk about your hopes for the meeting, your fears if you have any, and your personal feelings about things either in the meeting or out of it.
.
During opening round, you get a chance to set the tone of who you are in this minute - -and you get a sense of who others are, as well.
We have had meetings in which people who seem to have strong feelings about the group or about something on the agenda have chosen not to express these feelings during the opening round. It can feel a little odd, watching someone shrug and say, “I have nothing to say,” when you suspect that they might have significant fears, frustrations, or anger. It is important, however, that the group honor the participant’s resistance. We try to recognize the dissonance if someone doesn’t actually “bring themselves in,” perhaps by the chair saying, “I sense that there is a strong undercurrent today,” and letting it go at that.
.
... <Sociocratic meetings involve the chairperson reading aloud members' proposals for group-supported actions; objectors modifying proposals, including modified proposals; and, when modifications are finished, the recorder recording the decisions.>
.
How do you prepare a good proposal?
The General Circle chair helps people create proposals. She meets with the proposal-crafter and they work together until the proposal seems clear and inclusive enough to make it through a no-objection round at a round-table meeting.
 
It is possible, however, to come to a meeting with an unannounced proposal. If there is time on the agenda and the proposal is simple enough, it can pass. However, a complex proposal (such as a plan to change the pricing structure for the houses we’re building) may be referred back for further development and coordination if the members haven’t had a chance to become familiar with it. The proposal-writer ought to speak to other members while preparing the proposal and take their initial reactions into account, because the circle is within its rights to expect to spend precious meeting time only on well-prepared proposals.
.
... Suppose the same person is always the one with an objection?
.
It might seem to make sense to give each member a sort of informally-agreed-upon amount of “objection credit” and then ask seemingly obstructionist members to step out of the way more often. However, we hesitate to do this, keeping the following in mind as alternatives:
.
Maintain some humility: A member who seems dysfunctional may in fact be the only normal person in a dysfunctional group. Don’t be too quick to judge.
Welcome objections as opportunities to make the proposal better. Get good at quickly integrating objections into proposals.
.
... The "no-objection" <objection-modification> round ... is like turning up stones as you plow a field. Move them out of the way, and you have a good furrow. The chair seeks objections because once they are overcome the proposal is likely to be a good one.
.
“Reasoned and paramount” is a guideline to help you determine whether you have a serious objection that you need to voice. A reason is something that we can work with — it is not necessarily cool logic. “Paramount” is something that is important to the person bringing the reason — it is not necessarily important to everybody.
.
An objection such as “I’ll miss my dog if she has to sit home without me” may lack what some people would call logic, and it may not strike other members as very important, but it can be worked with and it is of concern to the member bringing it <up>, so it is not set aside. On the other hand, a member’s objection, “I don’t like the rule, I won’t like it, and I have no more to say,” would need further explanation. On hearing such a statement, the chair might say, “Would you please explain why you don’t like the rule?” A lack of further explanation can cause the objection to be set aside.
.
... Emotion is okay in our open discussions — personal attacks are not.
.
... <Closing> round is an excellent time to answer the questions, “How did we do? How could we have done better?” It’s a good time to give feedback to the people who forwarded or, in your opinion, obstructed the process. It’s also a good time to let the chair know any ideas you may have for running the meeting better next time.
.
The note-taker should write down all the issues raised in closing round and include them in the minutes. They are an important measure to review before the next meeting.
.
Chapter 2
.
... A project like ours includes many smaller jobs. It’s useful to create circles, or committees, to carry out these smaller jobs. We have numerous circles during our development phase. There’s just so much going on: while the finance circle is working on forecasting cash flow for the rest of the permitting process, the legal circle is drafting the purchase and sale agreements for our house buyers, and the land use circle is coming up with a plan for planting new food sources for wildlife that may lose them when we build.
.
What if (as we hope) you want to do more than just attend meetings? What if you would like to join a circle, make some interesting proposals of your own — or what if you are suddenly surprised by finding yourself nominated to chair a circle?
.
... Joining a Circle
Joining a circle is voluntary. If you are interested in a particular aspect of our project, you can approach the chair of that circle and ask them if you can attend the meetings in the hopes of becoming a member of the circle. Each circle has its own policy about how members are accepted. Some accept all volunteers, while others have only the members they need to get their work done.
.
... Round-tabling <sociocracy> doesn’t seek the “best” of everything, but rather what is “good enough,” so that we don’t spend endless hours splitting hairs over final details. We make the decision and move on to the next one, knowing that we have done well enough <and that there'll be opportunity to make improvements later>.
.
--
.
*** IDM TESTIMONIAL - #2

<Here's one more item of highlights from:>
www.champlainvalleycohousing.org/Round-tabling%20Manual.htm
www.champlainvalleycohousing.org/Round-tabling%20Manual.htm#_Toc36078182
.
<Sociocracy> Chapter 3
.
Our Structure
.
We’ve been talking about circles without discussing in detail how circles relate to each other. That is the subject of this chapter.
.
First, a few words about hierarchy. It’s hard to talk about how a round-table organization is structured without raising questions of hierarchy. Cohousers, in many cases, are allergic to hierarchy. That may be because in our culture a hierarchy is often about some people having autocratic power over other people. This is not the case in a round-table hierarchy.
.
Round-tabling assumes that if it is necessary to order tasks, it is necessary to arrange task-doers in some way that makes communication lines and functions clear. Imagine a ship with no crow’s nest, no sailors who follow instructions, no navigator, and no captain. Perhaps everyone would be “equal” (though I doubt it), but almost certainly such a ship would sink on its first voyage. People play different roles in a well-run organization.
.
Just as all the sailors on a ship cannot make all the decisions involved in taking a voyage, so every member of our cohousing community cannot make all the decisions involved in the development process. It isn’t practical, and it isn’t efficient. Each member must find a way to fit into the overall effort.
.
For example, if you like to sit in on work sessions that produce creative proposals about how we will manage our village farm, then you belong on the land use committee, which is engaged in the “doing” aspect of land use functions. If you don’t like coming up with those proposals, but enjoy giving feedback on farming proposals created by others, then you should attend General Circle meetings, especially when farm proposals are on the agenda. If your strength lies in figuring out how the farm village concept fits in with our overall strategy for building and maintaining the community, then others may decide to elect you to the Steering Circle, which takes account of a broader perspective in its decisions. If you are good at focusing on a large goal and expressing the difference between where we are and where we want to be, then you might best serve the community as the Project Leader, who leads the “doing” throughout the organization. If you are good at working with a group and leading meetings, then you are likely to be elected the chair of a committee, of the General Circle, or of the Steering Circle (or more than one of those).
.
Power…
Power is another one of those subjects that cohousing groups don’t really like to talk about — at least, not using the word “power.” But cohousing communities usually go out of their way to confer maximum power upon individuals. Our structure, on the other hand, might seem to take such individual power away. So does round-tabling empower an ordinary member? If so, how?
.
This question of power is an incredibly important one, because many people have deep feelings about other people’s power (possibly stemming from hurtful experiences).
.
A key concept in round-tabling is that nobody has total power over the organization, though we do strive to provide everybody with equivalent power within the organization. Here is a list of the powers or strengths that an ordinary member has:
.
·    Membership in the General Circle. This includes several key powers:
_The power to elect the chair and the note-taker of the General Circle;
_The power to help define the aims and activities of the sub-circles (and to propose to redefine them whenever you feel it is necessary to do so);
_The power to elect the chairs of the sub-circles;
_The power to make proposals of your own that can affect day-to-day operations;
_The power to offer reasoned and/or paramount objections to proposals you can’t live with;
_The power to elect representatives to the Steering Circle who will represent your point of view in strategy decisions;
_The power to call a meeting of the General Circle if something comes up.
.
·    Calling for an election. Any member has the right to call for an election if he or she feels that the decisions made by the Steering Circle or the chair of the General Circle or of a committee haven’t been sensitive to the will of the members.
.
... The General Circle chair-person, who, among other things, directs day-to-day operations and guides the sub-circles, is elected by the members and can be re-elected <replaced> at any time.
.
... Committee circles have power to act freely within — but no power to act outside of — the range of tolerance set by the General Circle. The General Circle can redefine circles’ parameters when necessary.
.
Any member can offer an objection that will serve to improve a proposal, but trivial objections or objections without reason are explored and tested rather than immediately acted upon.
.
... For example, does the General Circle make all decisions that affect the entire membership? The answer is no, not always, because our efficiency would be severely hampered by never doing anything that affected everybody without first getting everybody’s buy-in. We are trying to build a large real estate project in a world that we must sometimes respond to quickly, so what we have instead is a total of four representatives from the membership on the Steering Circle, participating in these development decisions. These representatives are charged with the task of informing members about decisions and discussing them ahead of time. Members can replace any representative if they feel they are not being adequately represented; members can also ask the Steering Circle chair for an invitation to participate in a particularly “hot” issue.
.
--
.
http://www.knoxtnusa.com/KnoxCoHousing/decision_making.htm
.
Get Experience Now!
Knoxville Cohousing Community is using sociocracy right now during the development phase. Please consider volunteering for one of the development committees. Volunteering for a committee offers a wonderful opportunity to gain experience with sociocracy and to contribute to the creation of your new community.
.
... Knoxville Cohousing Community - Building an old-fashioned neighborhood in a new way.
.
Comments on this Web page should go to knoxtnusa@chartertn.net
.
--------------------------
.
*** IDM TESTIMONIAL #3

www.compassion-response.net/12Circulars/Year%202002/06CircularJan02.htm
.
COMPASSION RESPONSE NETWORK CIRCULAR No 6
.
By David Keane, 30/January/2002
PO Box 582, Gosnells WA 6110, Australia
keane@nw.com.au
Healing site address: www.nw.com.au/~keane/healing
.
Main Objective of Compassion Response Network
.
The Inner Planning Circle has agreed upon the main objective for the Compassion Response Network, as follows:
... "To facilitate the emergence of a goodwill network in which the hands of men and women of goodwill are strengthened so that they become enabled to directly provide a meaningful compassionate response to the most urgent needs of humanity."
.
... The Esoteric Significance of the Compassion Response Network
.
The Compassion Response Network provides a new dimension to global goodwill networking.
.
Many established esoteric groups, networks and schools, focus upon subjective development and education. Many of these seek subjective group integration using a meditation of synthesis. Many other service groups are of a more practical orientation. For these groups, Sociocracy provides a pathway towards objective integration for group members.
.
The Compassion Response Network links a meditation of synthesis and Sociocracy together in the one network. It will provide an organisational base in which members can invoke a pathway for higher purpose to manifest upon Earth through intelligent service activity.
.
... The Compassion Response Network therefore is developing a pathway by which disciples and men and women of goodwill can unite together "in one spiritual undertaking", so that theory for the solution of humanity's many problems is gradually turned into practical reality, and the word "united" comes to have a true significance and meaning.
.
... As we have seen with Kyoto and Agenda 21, a talkfest frequently leads to an illusion of progress, keeping the service work on the theoretical level. It does not touch upon the essence that manifests the vision. A talkfest is a step forward when we do not yet have clear vision. But we have had clear vision for twenty years. We now need to move forward and manifest that vision.
.
Convening and discussing is about lateral relationships. We agreed to focus first upon the vertical relationship for our network, the purpose or vision inspiring it. Once this had been defined, we can discuss constructing lateral relationships.
.
We choose first to trust in the overshadowing goodness and provision of God. To suggest we cannot muster enough strength for the service tasks of the heart will be to declare the power of God within us as impotent.
.
We discussed for a while the Sociocracy approach to Vision, Mission and Aims. This would provide a wonderful model for coordinating and empowering many members within our network. We agreed to discuss these matters more after our Main Objective was decided.
.
Much discussion was then involved in wording the Main Objective in everyday words so that people can really understand what's being said.
.
Pioneering Experiment with Sociocracy by Email
.
Our Inner Planing Circle of four members living in three different continents, convened over Email and collectively debated and agreed upon the ideas to be embraced within the Main Objective, and then the precise wording for the Main Objective.
.
Two of our members have extensive Sociocracy experience, and although other attempts have been made, this is believed to be the first time in the world all parties were willing to participate throughout the meeting in a Sociocracy meeting by Email. This is therefore a global first in pioneering Sociocracy through Email meetings.
.
As acting secretary of the Compassion Response Network, I must say I am impressed with the Sociocratic Method. I have eight years of former experience in seeking to coordinate group work through our East West Network projects. Whenever there was a divergence of viewpoint in EW Network, the matter would inevitably be resolved by my meditating on the matter, and then making a firm decision. As the decision was mine, the responsibilities which often had a material or financial component were also my own. This led to an overload of duties and responsibilities upon myself, the coordinator of EW Network. This was why the potential of EW Network was limited, and had to eventually close down. The demand had grown too big for it.
.
The Compassion Response Network however has group leadership through its Inner Planning Circle. Important decisions are made through the group. In EW Network, dedicated members were able to find a subjective harmony and agreement through meditation, but much of the objective management was centred through a single personality, as is frequently the case with so many goodwill initiatives.
.
Members of the Inner Planning Circle, despite not being able to meet physically, were able to convene a deep discussion and make decisions on many fine points, because they were assisted on the objective level by the Sociocratic Method.
.
In Sociocracy, the circle consultation method results in airing of many views and variations of emphasis, but nevertheless the essential group (or circle) harmony remains. And Sociocracy provides an avenue to reach to a deeper level of group understanding and agreement than was ever possible in EW Network, guided though it was by goodwill principles. In the Sociocracy way of doing things, the final decision is definitely a group decision, and the group accepts the responsibility.
.
... The Email meeting to decide on our Main Objective took nearly two months. There are many interactions and matters to resolve in a Sociocracy meeting. If everyone were gathered in the one conference room, it would take just a moment to pass from one speaker to another. But using Email, it may take a day or several days between each communication in a sequence of discussion. We are learning all the time, and hopefully we can speed things up as we proceed.
.
Our approach has a significant advantage over global gatherings and conventions. We dispense with the immense cost of travel to such gatherings, and are therefore able to direct the money saved into positive service work. In an age of immense human need and inequality of income, this approach therefore greatly strengthens the hands of the poor server.
.
... Yours in Love and Light,
.
David Keane
.
.
--------------
.
*** IDM TESTIMONIAL #4

www.champlainvalleycohousing.org/sociocracy.cgi
.
Our Decision-making Method: Sociocracy
...
Here's an example: Suppose you are a member of our group, and you decide that it is important that we include some kind of swimming pond or pool in our landscaping plan. What do you do?
.
Your first step is to take your suggestion to the committee most concerned with the issue, the Land Use Committee.
.
...<You> type this on your computer: “I propose that we include in our landscape design a sandy beach for swimming, at a cost of not more than $x,000. A Swimming <Place> Committee shall be formed to research and carry out a plan.” You email your proposal to the Land Use Committee Chair about 10 days before their next meeting. They add your proposal to their agenda and you attend the meeting specifically to speak on the details.
.
During the meeting, You <may> participate in the <other> discussions but ... not <any other decisions, unless you join the committee>.
.
Then ... The facilitator reads your proposal and asks you to explain it ... and why you think it is important.... The facilitator asks if there are any objections to your proposal. Two of the five members consent to it as it is; one member is worried that our wetlands will need to be changed and we would therefore take longer getting Act 250 <government> permits; another member says she wouldn’t want a swimming pool unless it had fresh water only, like Underhill’s swimming pond; and another member is worried that the landscape architecture budget will be over-run if this is done.
.
The facilitator takes notes and asks you for comments. You explain that the swimming pond wouldn’t be anywhere near the wetlands, and that you agree that fresh water would be necessary to make it work for our community; and you point out that $y,000 of the landscape architecture budget was allocated to building a bridge that ... isn’t needed <any more>. The facilitator alters the proposal to add a phrase keeping the swimming pond out of the wetlands, and adds the words “fresh water” to your description. On this round, then, no member of the committee objects. Since this proposal does fall within the purview of the committee that heard it, someone proposes immediately to form a sub-committee with you as the chair with the aim of researching the best way to get this done and to propose contractors, exact fees, and dates, making reports to the Land Use Committee before spending any money.
.
... once <we soon learn> how it works, We find <this sociocratic process> to be elegant, efficient, and fair.
.
------------------
.
*** IDM TESTIMONIAL #5

www.sacredspaceinc.com
Our Atlanta-based team of Feinknopf & Moe specializes in corporate and community facilitation, communications, and strategic planning as well as transportation-related urban design.
.
We imagine a world of caring, creative and vital people, each engaged in passionate, satisfying, enriching pursuit. We work with organizations, communities and individuals to achieve that possibility.
.
Nonviolent CommunicationSM (NVC)
We believe the foundation of healthy relationships and communities is authentic, respectful connection. Because of our profound belief in NVC's ability to build and maintain such connection, we support and offer NVC trainings and base all of our work on NVC values.
.
Sociocracy Training
We are sponsoring in-depth training on Sociocracy, an organization and governance method that supports power-with, rather than power-over. Internationally certified Sociocratic trainer and business consultant, John Buck, will be offering five days of workshops. ...
.
-------------
.
*** IDM TESTIMONIAL #6

www.homes-across-america.org/search/details.cfm?who=155&Feature=all&action=showInnovation&Que
.
<An EcoVillage:> Community Governance
.
Goals of Innovation: The EcoVillage Community Association, as a community of homeowners, requires a system of governance that allows and fosters residents to build community and respect the Earth. The community desired an effective and efficient system of governance in which there are not “winners and losers,” but rather a true building of community through resident involvement with the interests of all equally served.
.
Description: For about two years, the community used consensus to make its decisions. Although respected, this proved inefficient and exhausting, and led to serious concerns among homeowners. The group discussed other ways by which they could self-govern. It wanted something more than decisions being made by a pure majority vote. Without a better system of governance, it was possible that the ideals, goals and harmony espoused by EcoVillage would be seriously compromised.
.
The group was willing and committed to find a way of governance that fit the community’s situation. After discussion and review of options, it was decided to try a system of decision making where power was vested into committees of people who regularly interact with one another and have a common aim. Each member of the committee is guaranteed a voice that cannot be ignored in managing the organization. This system, known as sociocracy, is used in corporate enterprises. It allows participants to give and receive effective leadership while remaining peers.
.
The principle of consent governs the decision-making process. A policy decision can only be made by consent, that is, if nobody raises a reasoned and paramount objection against it. Introducing sociocracy was a relief. The group became more efficient and subsequently has been able to make many difficult decisions in harmony with one another. ...
.
-------------
.
*** IDM TESTIMONIAL #7

www.worldteacher.faithweb.com/sociocracy.htm
.
... <Kids Should Have Sociocratic Meetings>
.
Partly because the stated aim of the school is to impart knowledge and skills, and partly because people regard obedience as a virtue in itself, children have been trained to obey. We are only beginning to realise the dangers of this practice. If children are not taught to judge for themselves, they will in later life become an easy prey for the dictator. But if we really want to prepare youth to think and act for themselves, we must alter our attitude to education. The children should not be sitting passively in rows, while the schoolmaster drills a lesson into their heads. They should be able to develop freely in children’s communities, guided and helped by those who are older acting as their comrades. Initiative should be fostered in every possible way. They should learn from the beginning to do things for themselves, and to make things necessary in their school life. But above all they should learn how to run their own community in some such way as has already been described.
.
... From Beatrice C. Boeke, Holland

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
IDM Examples #2
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2022, 08:03:24 am »
6 More Testimonials
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #8
<IDM is a simplified form of scientifically developed consensus, referred to below as Sociocracy - IDM is the best hope for world peace, justice and prosperity>

www.awakeningsanctuary.org/images/The%20CERES%20Project.pdf
.
The Vision:
We visualize a simple model represented by a very ancient symbol, the Seed of Life. In a visual culture, symbols embody a great deal of information in a very efficient way. This particular symbol, comprised of seven intersecting circles, is the essence of the Flower of Life, nineteen intersecting circles encompassed by two concentric rings.
.
<Sociocratic Circles?>
... The Flower of Life represents the unity of all life and consciousness within the universe. It has been found in temples in Japan, Egypt, and India, and can be seen in design patterns from cultures throughout the world. The Seed of Life, the essence of the Flower of Life, is a particularly potent symbol for our community model.
.
Surrounding and enclosing our seven sacred hoops are two concentric, protective rings, for a seed is in need of protection. The outer ring represents LOVE, the source of all creation, and the inner ring, GRATITUDE for this source and for our ability to co-create a community both nurturing and sustainable. It is within the two outer rings of Love and Gratitude that the seven basic precepts of the Ceres Sustainable Community Model exist.
.
... COMMUNITY QUALITIES
Underlying the circle of life community model are some basic community qualities:
Compassion, kindness, integrity, inclusiveness, trust, freedom with responsibility, respect for the interrelatedness of all life, heartfulness and the sacredness of all creation.
As we manifest these qualities, the following may be realized:
We will acknowledge the rights of others.
We will respect and hold sacred all life.
We will treat others as we would like to be treated.
We will be honest and live in integrity.
We will practice being spirits walking gently on this sacred planet.
We will be self-responsible for our thoughts, words and actions.
We will reach out in service to others.
We will join each other as whole persons creating diverse, creative and
thriving communities.
"As we come into our wholeness all that truly exists between souls is love."
- Gary Zukov
.
-------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #9

ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-000138.htm
.
Ming the Mechanic: Sociocracy
The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
Sociocracy 2002-07-10 18:00
2 comments
 
by Flemming Funch
.
I'm just reading in a new member site about Sociocracy. It is quite similar to what my vision would be of how groups of people ought to organize and make decisions. The main 4 principles are:
Governance by Consent
Circle Organization
Double Linking
Elections by Consent
.
The "Governance by Consent" thing is almost the same as what I'm used to calling "Consensus". But in the text it is contrasted with Consensus. Which I can understand, because for many people "Consensus" means that everybody agrees. Whereas the Consent principle is more that everybody can live with it and don't have any specific and substantial objection.
[Ming the Mechanic]
.
Category: Patterns
2 comments
18 Jul 2002 @ 11:00 by ted : soci. elections are unique and interesting.
**Sociocratic elections are like nothing I've ever experienced before. **Ted here. It's my website sited above. During my first workshop weekend we did an election. It had to be something real so we chose some<one> to give a review in the evening. Everyone votes on paper first putting their own name on it as well. The facilitator says, "Ted, you voted for Mabel. Why?" A reason is always given. "Because she already seems to understand this stuff and I think she'd present the material clearly." You end up saying nice stuff about each other! People feel good and get positive feedback. The facilitator puts the votes in piles for each person and asks if anyone wants to change their vote. Usually people do. If there's not a clear majority for someone, the facilitator can choose any of the ones most voted for (or even not if they think they can get a 'no objection') and go for a 'no objection' round. The candidate asked about is asked last. Elections are interesting and fun, but most importantly nobody feels like they lost!
.
21 Jul 2002 @ 07:55 by ming : sociocratic elections
That's interesting. I'd like to try that sometime. I wonder how well **it might work online, or whether it depends on in-person facilitation.
.
----------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #10

groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/message/111245
.
From: "Brian Robertson" <brian@...>
Date: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:10 pm
Subject: Sociocracy brian65535
.
Hi Folks,
.
The discussion on Sociocracy and its "consent" system was recently brought to my attention, and I may be able to offer some useful input from our actual experiences with the system.
.
A bit of background: I'm with Ternary Software; we are an XP-based software development firm, and we've used Sociocracy for awhile now throughout our organization. I have significant knowledge and practical experience with the model as a result, and we are also working closely with a Sociocratic consultant trained in Holland, where many companies now use the system (so many in fact that they've recently added national legislat<ion> to exempt Sociocratic organizations from employment laws that no longer make sense in a Sociocratic context).
.
...On Consent vs. Consensus:
.
... Consent isn't about "votes" at all per se. There are no votes, and people do not "vote". People do say whether they know of a reason why the proposed decision is outside the limits of tolerance of any aspect of the system. This isn't at all the same as consensus-with-veto, either in theory or in practice, although it sounds similar at first. That process also has two possible reactions that sound similar, but both are about personal support and/or opinion about the decision, whereas neither of the two options in consent is about personal support or opinion (more on this later).
.
By the book definition, consent is a process of decision making whereby decisions are made only when no one involved knows of a reasoned argument against the decision.
.
... If a proposed decision requires something that is outside of the limits of tolerance of any aspect of the system, then there is a reasoned argument
against it. A function will not operate properly if arguments are passed in that are outside of its limits of tolerance, and a whole system will not operate properly if any of its functions do not. For example, in a boiler-based heating system, the boiler has a limit: if the water actually boils, the unit will cease to function, and may explode. That is a reasoned argument against allowing the water to boil. This is a valid argument for decision-making because it's about something that won't work well, and not because the boiler "wants" to keep the water below boiling
.
... Personal support ... is a result of the consent decision-making process, even though it isn't actually considered as part of the decision-making process itself. When the process is truly followed, all decisions I've seen have had the support they needed at the least, and usually the full support of everyone, even those who were uneasy about the issue at first. My experience has been that consent results in more support for decisions than any other decision-making process I've used.
.
Likewise, consent is not about trust, and it relies upon trust less than any other decision-making process I've run into (it's quite unique in this regard). Again, trust is an output of the process, not a required input. Consent decision-making is among the most powerful means I've seen for actually building the trust teams need; in fact, it is often brought into extremely dysfunctional companies specifically to re-establish and build trust, and several companies in Holland have seen amazing results in this regard.
.
Support and trust are both very personal, and consent decision making has an impersonal quality to it; it's about reaching decisions that do not fall outside the limits of tolerance of the many aspects of a complex system. I've been quite amazed at how much personal trust and support such an impersonal process builds, largely I think by shifting the focus from the personal to the more practical.
.
On Agile Decision Making:
.
Agile software development places value on "responding to change" over "following a plan", through focus on iterations, incremental design, continual improvement, and refactoring. My experience with Agile development has taught me that, when it's practical to do these things (and it usually is), you'll usually get better results than trying to anticipate everything and get the "perfect" design up-front. Likewise, Sociocracy uses the same <approach> [[value]] when crafting decisions and policies and such. If it's practical to design decisions, plans, and policies incrementally (and it usually is), then that will be much more effective than agonizing over the "perfect" decision up-front.
.
So, built in to the idea of Consent is that any decision can be revisited at any time (consent for anything may be withdrawn simply by voicing a reasoned argument at any regular or specially-called meeting of the relevant Circle). For consent to work, there needs to be a value placed on making reasonably fast decisions for most (but not all) issues just based on the facts at hand, without too much speculation and anticipation, and then adapting when new information and understanding presents itself - much like incremental design improvement on an XP project.
.
I've found it becomes quite easy to say "Yeah, let's try that!", knowing that we're doing Agile decision-making, and that we'll incrementally improve decisions, policies, and plans as we go, whenever new understanding is available. Yet I am also understandably hesitant to make the same "let's try it" commitment in a traditional organization where non-agile decision-making is the norm - if you can't adapt as you go for whatever reason, getting the right decision up-front becomes more critical.
.
When I used to design and code software, I had a comparable feeling. On a non-agile development team, I was much more hesitant to accept (or support) a design I wasn't totally sure about, since I knew it was a big commitment. On an agile team, it became comfortable - preferable even - to support a colleague's design, even if I had gut feel concerns I couldn't yet articulate, so that we could get some more real data and feedback. That would typically *help* me uncover and articulate the reasons for my gut feel, and then we could all adapt and end up with a better design and a better codebase as a result. So it is with Sociocracy and consent as well, and that changes both the nature of decision making and people's emotional reactions (e.g. "support") toward decisions.
.
--------------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #11

On "Sabotage" and "Politics"
.
When I see "sabotage", "politics", and other seemingly dysfunctional behavior, I typically ask myself why the behavior makes sense - what purpose it's serving for the individual and for the team. Often I find that seemingly dysfunctional behavior is actually an attempt to achieve something healthy - often it's a way of achieving influence when there is no other readily apparent or effective means of doing so. It's not that Sociocracy directly solves problems of sabotage and politics - it just helps an organization "outgrow" the need for such things in the first place.
.
I read somewhere that "behavior that is healthy in a pathological environment becomes pathological in a healthy environment" (I don't recall the source unfortunately). <majority rule is unhealthy>  Sociocracy has been instrumental in our ability to create a healthy environment where everyone has an explicit and effective means of influencing *any* decision in the company at any time. I have not seen sabotage, politics, and similar behaviors since we rolled out Sociocracy, probably because they are no longer useful.
.
On Results
.
Studies from Holland have purported finding a major productivity and loyalty boost when companies adopt Sociocracy, and from our experiences, I believe it. Sociocracy has helped us build unprecedented levels of trust, buy-in, support, emotional commitment, "humane" and socially responsible business practices, and all of that other "feel-good" stuff. And it's done this with a system that has also proven to be highly practical, effective, and efficient from traditional measures of economic and business results - more so than we had ever imagined up front. By traditional business metrics, our company overall and our project teams specifically are doing amazingly well, in addition to the other more human benefits of the system.
.
Following are two short stories from our experience with Sociocracy:
.
- Recently, one of our programmers designed a change to our salary system. He saw that some of our junior folks seemed to be feeling undue pain from their salary level, investigated further, and came up with a better idea. He knew exactly how to present his proposed change for consideration, and the appropriate Circle saw that this design addressed both their initial concerns and the new concern he discovered. The change was passed, and our junior folks are now paid more. Perhaps more interestingly, the new system resulted in a lower salary for the more senior programmer who presented it, and he knew it would, yet he presented it happily. He felt it was best for everyone, including himself from a bigger-picture perspective (if it improves our business results, he will share in that gain via our profit sharing system, and if it improves the lives of those around him, he will enjoy a higher quality of life and more success on his project teams).
.
- Our primary business line is implementing projects for other companies, and we recently addressed the topic of how we would decide which projects to accept from potential clients. I initially proposed that our sales team be granted the authority to make those decisions. One of our programmers objected, saying it wouldn't work for the programming teams if they were given assignments that would cause significant pain (e.g. lots of offsite work) or were outside their expertise enough that they couldn't succeed. The programmer proposed we first bring potential projects back to the Circle for consent, before
committing to clients. Our sales guy now objected, out of concern that we might lose needed business if our clients saw too much "bureaucracy" and delay in the sales process. Given the two explicit and reasoned arguments, the facilitator was able to quite easily through out a proposal that met both concerns: That our sales team would be authorized to accept or decline projects on their own within the limits that the few potential projects we see that are either significantly different than our usual mold or that the sales team expected to be significantly painful would first need consent of the broader Circle.
This resolved both arguments, and quickly passed consent.

For More Information
.
I have a blog with a few posts about Sociocracy and our experiences with it, available at http://enlightenedbusiness.blogspot.com. The main page only shows a few recent posts; others are listed down the right-hand side - there are only a dozen or so posts in total, so it's not much to sift through. I also have an article I was given permission to share with interested individuals (but not to post publicly, so you'll have to e-mail me if interested).
.
I was invited to speak about Sociocracy at the Agile 2005 conference's Executive Summit last month, and there was enough interest there that I went ahead and submitted several sessions on Sociocracy to a number of software conferences coming up next year. Keep an eye out for them if you're interested.
.
I will be speaking (on another topic) at SD Best Practices coming up in Boston in September. If anyone is interested in getting together and learning about or discussing Sociocracy there, drop me a line. If enough folks are interested, I'll ask the conference organizers to consider giving us a room for it.
.
Thanks again and best of luck!
.
- Brian Robertson
Ternary Software, Inc.
President & CEO
www.ternarysoftware.com
Blog: www.enlightenedbusiness.blogspot.com
.
---------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #12

groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/message/111245
.
From: Nancy Van Schooenderwoert <vanschoo@...>
Date: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:31 am
Subject: Re: [XP] Sociocracy nancyvanscho...
 
Hi, Brian!
Thanks for taking the time to write this excellent description. Now I think I get it.
.
When trying to move forward with my software team (seeking consensus) I always found it easier when I'd point out that we can just try out one or the other idea, and then revisit the discussion next week, or next iteration, whatever. I could sense everyone relaxing a bit, and feeling that it's ok to experiment. I see that Sociocracy captures that nicely. This reminds me of the Lean Software principle of small chunks of work flowing faster through a system. In this case, a new idea can flow faster (i.e. be tried and ok'd or rejected) if there's not a big irreversible commitment that has to be made early.
.
I really like the notion of allowing an idea unless there is a fact-based reason not to. It helps get past simple stubbornness, and biases. This is a valuable improvement to what I understand of consensus decision making. I really would like to see more of this discussion at software conferences. People issues are the toughest ones on most teams - I can see how this method is able to actually build trust, rather than requiring it as an input.
.
I'm reminded of a quote from Brad Appleton that I've seen here on the list "First you build trust." And now you're showing us a clear mechanism for doing that. Excellent! ...
.
From: "Brian Robertson" <brian@...>
Date: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:48 am
Subject: RE: [XP] Sociocracy brian65535
.
.
On Monday, August 29, 2005 at 1:32 AM, Nancy Van Schooenderwoert wrote:
>
> I'm reminded of a quote from Brad Appleton that I've seen > here on the list "First you build trust." And now you're > showing us a clear mechanism for doing that. Excellent!
.
A great thought, and Sociocracy is definitely a concrete tool that builds trust in a team (and, even cooler, throughout an entire organization). Our teams have found it to be a beautiful complement to XP, and it provides a specific mechanism for bringing some of the ideas behind XP throughout an organization, beyond just the software development teams.
.
-----------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #13

www.alliance21.org/2003/article.php3?id_article=263
.
Proposal for a World Parliament for the Twenty-first Century (October 2002 - October 2003)
.
... 1. Values and Principles for a World Parliament
.
Promote personal maturity and sovereignty. “Parliamentary” democracy has become demagogy, because parliamentary majorities control the executive branch. We all have to make a cultural leap to see ourselves as Sovereign Citizens. Human beings must be rigorously educated from childhood to think of the world with rights and a prince’s responsibilities, rights and duties shared with all other Citizens.
.
Develop self-governance. That is to say, base global governance on the voluntary coordination of behavior for the benefit of all, on decision making entrusted to those who are most affected by the decisions. Modern technology makes this possible. The World Parliament should try to influence governments with the help of a well-informed public opinion.
.
Organize ourselves through self-regulation and continuous adjustment. Implement tools for self-criticism for all the elements of the organization of global governance and of the World Parliament. We will thus be able to design improved versions of our own societies, and to avoid that the best of our previous successes do not become future obstacles through excessive conservatism.
.
Institute peace, cooperation, and generosity among international actors. The obvious prerequisite to democracy is cooperation. The people who expect to bring about such democracy must obviously first be in a state of cooperation with each other before they can agree to design appropriate government institutions. War must be declared illegal.
.
Make progress in the means for transparency. For every citizen to remain informed on everything taking place at the World Parliament. Transparency means that a government body is open at all times to inspection during its debates. Transparency is not easy to implement because it runs up against fundamental self-protective human reflexes when facing the possible danger of being stabbed in the back.
.
Move toward representation by tasks. In countries that claim to be democratic today, political parties announce a complete program. On the other hand, "communities of ideas" are formed around a single aspiration, for example “food for everyone" or to "put an end to racism," giving the elected officials of these communities a program that is clear to everybody.
.
Uphold the principle of consistency. Consistency is indispensable to prevent contradictory laws to be voted in, canceling the Parliament’s credibility. It cannot support the criminal behavior of one state and condemn another for the same behavior...
.
2. The Architecture of Global Governance
.
Combine centralized and decentralized approaches.
.
... A Council of Wise Thinkers.
.
... An international Peace force. Its first mission is to intervene peacefully "as soon as the first signs of tensions appear," before conflicts break out. It will exercise a "right of peaceful intervention" to operate at the very beginning of a conflict.
.
Give NGOs a democratic legitimacy.
.
... Institution of "transnational embassies." That is to say, not representing a specific nation and at the service of all of the Earth’s inhabitants, in coordination with the World Parliament.
.
3. Organization of the World Parliament
.
A Chamber of advisers ...
.
Representation by task or "community of ideas", Which would reflect the main concerns of the Earth’s inhabitants and would lead to representation on a clear and precise contract that is to be necessarily fulfilled. ...
.
Automatic dismissal of elected officials who do not vote according to their people’s will or comply with it. According to organized polls. ...
.
Organization in "sociocratic circles" and networks of actors, from the bottom to the top. Deliberative circles at a human scale (no more than a very limited number of people) of the actors concerned (clients, infrastructure suppliers, etc.) should form networks, and when the dimension and the complexity of the community unit grows, nests of networks.
.
One of the practical aspects that make sociocracy work is the double link among circles. This means one or several representatives at the next level up and one or several to bring the decision making back down to a lower level. This ensures bottom-up and top-down communication. It also takes into account a bilateral delegation of the execution of the tasks. One can thus establish eight levels of small circles from the street to the planet, where everyone can move up or down on the ladder.
.
In the "professional politicians" version, each level of government would be fairly independent, so it would not be possible for a politician to move from the bottom up. Every legislator - cantonal, provincial, national, or continental - would be catapulted to his/her position by a combined lottery, for a single term.
.
... www.alliance21.org/annuaire/ENG/us.html

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
IDM Examples #3
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2022, 08:05:53 am »
Last 6 Testimonials
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #14
>

http://integralvisioning.org/article.php?story=p2p90
.
P2P Governance (6): Consensus vs. consent
www.republicrat.net/disc/aeas/burnicki01_en.htm
.
Two items give contrasting views on peer governance. In the first, a neo-anarchist tradition promotes consensus. It is an approach that in my mind constitutes the dictatorship of a minority over the majority, and I do not see how to reconcile it with individual initiative and a dynamic society. The second item is about consent, which is different, cfr. the following quote.
.
"The consent principle says that a decision can only be made when none of the circle members present has a reasoned, substantial objection to making the decision. The consent principle is different than "consensus" and "veto." With consensus the participants must be "for" the decision. With consent decision-making they must be not against. With consensus a veto blocks the decision without an argument. With consent decision making, opposition must always be supported with an argument."
.
I find consent, which is a form of governance explicitely taking into account the equivalence of participants, very closely related to the peer to peer mode, which is based on equipotentiality. Sociocracy, see item 2, may well be the breakthrough form of governance I had been looking for.
.
1.     The neo-anarchist consensus approach.
.
Excerpt from a video-interview with Ralf Burnicki: The anarchists that I refer to in "Anarchismus und Konsens" are more from the neo-anarchist realm. Among them are: Jan Stehn, Burkhard Keimburg, Charlie Blackfield, and Gunar Seitz. That is the question: how can we imagine an alternative anarchist society that is able to exist without a Soviet system, a society that forms at the grass roots, at the grass roots of everyday life, in daily mutual cooperation. The upper social classes are entirely done away with. The issues are: how we can arrive at decisions free of political authority and how we can survive without an "above."
.
The neo-anarchy that has developed in Germany since 1968 is mainly non-violent. Also in anarcho-syndicalist contexts and in non-violent contexts, the motto is that the goal of revolution, namely, freedom and equality, should be reflected in the means for achieving revolution. Accordingly, these means cannot rest on violence, because violence is not a goal of an anarchist society.
.
Furthermore, anarchy is so difficult for people to understand, because many people can't imagine life without control, the organs of the State, control from above. They haven't learned to develop self-administered organizational structures; they haven't learned to realize dominance-free decision-making, beginning with their private affairs.
.
The anarchist principle of consensus democracy foresees a very different principle that can be understood in two ways. First, in an anarchist consensual democracy, affected persons would have the right to be consulted on decisions. Second, all persons who are disadvantaged by a decision - I'll call them dissenters - would have the right to veto in this decision-making process. This right allows them to nullify the decision so that discussion can begin again. Through their right to veto, dissenters would have great significance within the decision-making process, and the possibility to avert disadvantages.
.
Waste transport, for example, as it takes place in a representative democracy, would never occur. With today's waste transport and radioactive waste dumping, the affected population living at the site has no veto rights whatsoever. It has no right of any kind to nullify these decisions by the government, although it is very strongly affected on site by the effects of radioactive contamination and accidents. In an anarchist consensual democracy, such decisions would be impossible, because they could be nullified at any time by those affected, and in these cases the affected population would simply use their right to veto.
.
Three basic elements provide a rough picture of how the principle of consensus functions: there is a meeting of the affected persons, or of those who bear any consequences of a decision. It is possible to react to a decision by either rejecting it through a veto or accepting the decision. The latter means that this issue affects me now, but I can accept the consequences, because the impact is not significant, or because I don't want to hold up the process and I see a rationale in it. Ideally, there is consensus, or unanimous agreement and adherence to a decision or a perspective on the decision. Unanimous agreement represents the ideal of consensual democracy.
.
In practice, however, there are often compromises for which all sides are able to notch up half or three-quarter advantages. Consensus is, however, the intended goal in an anarchist consensual democracy. The aim is to eliminate overriding majority-based decisions. The anarchist consensus model, like anarchy as a whole, represents a view of society that focuses especially on the micro-level of society. Concern is not with relations between the government and the governed, but solely with the governed that dispose of the government. The idea is for people to come together at a grass roots level, independently and autonomously, and in cooperation with others, make decisions on the so-called micro-level of society.
.
Anarchist theory actually has two fundamental critiques of the State: first, the State constantly produces governments, regardless of whether they can be voted out of office after a certain amount of time, and, second, this creates a hierarchically structured upper and an affected lower class. This is unjust and runs counter to any concept of egalitarianism and also to a demand aired in democratic theory - that ultimately, the main concern is the people's interests.
.

.
--
See sociocracy + benefit or testimonial or improvement
--
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #15

Vermont Peace Academy
www.shapingnewworlds.com/youthlt.htm
Promoting the Teaching, Learning, and Practice of Peace
Peace-Building Training
Skills for an Interdependent World
Designed for Grades 6th-12th
.
Interpersonal Peace
.
Communication Skills: We learn and practice a language that connects, empowers, and enriches our communication by focusing on observations, feelings, needs, and requests. This simple form becomes a useable and healthy practice in any situation.
.
Conflict Transformation: Council and NVC are evolutionary processes that help us to break patterns of thinking and cultural conditioning that lead to conflict. We use innovative strategies to free ourselves from these effects and to develop relationships based on mutual respect.
.
Community Building: In circle, we honor the value of community. Everyone is important and has a unique piece to add. Importantly, each voice is respected and heard. We explore how we can move from a hierarchal structure to one of shared power and cooperation.
.
Decision Making: Based on the model of Sociocracy, we learn to make decisions efficiently while respecting every person in the group. Instead of operating by majority rule, we learn to construct the best decisions that are within everyone’s range of tolerance.
.
Global Peace
.
Cross-cultural Systems: Cultures around the world differ in their belief systems and underlying values. By becoming aware of what is important to us and others, we expand our vision to a larger world view? We discover the commonality within our diversities.
.
International Relations: We are introduced to youth from around the world who are actively working for peace. We learn about their ideas, vision, and projects that are helping to make a difference today. We network and share resources to build an international youth community.
.
Social Justice: Social and economic equity are vital to a globally sustainable and interconnected world. The big question is, “Can we be free while others are oppressed?” In Council, we address the topics of poverty, gender equality, and discrimination.
.
Sustainable Communities: Sustainable practices protect natural resources and rely on patterns of production and consumption that are renewable and enhance community well being. Historically, these practices originated with indigenous peoples who lived in synch with the rhythms of nature. What might we learn from these people and their ancient traditions that may be applicable today?
.
--
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #16

www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmaking_power.htm
MasterNewMedia by Robin Good
What Communication Experts Need To Know
.
Taking Back Our Decision-Making Power: Sociocracy
Thanks to a message forwarded through the Participatory Society discussion group Cifranogy, I have just learned about a fascinating cooperative working model that brings together many of the traits we, freedom thinkers and independent agents feel so close to.
.
The system, originated by a Dutch thinker during the 20th century allows the realization of the many dreams that have fallen flat with the advent of many so-called democracies.
.
It is a system to run your social network and your community locally. On its own gas. It is a system that supersedes representative democracy with a cooperative participatory approach where everyone is a critical, active stakeholder.
.
It is a system that recognizes that the sustainable size of such communities is a critical issue and that acknowledges the need for many small interconnected networks of communities to replace traditional government-like centralized solutions.
.
Too good to be true? Read on what sociocracy is, and then tell me wat you think of it. The contents that follow have been collected, prepared and published by Ted at Twin Oaks Community web site. Please visit the site to read more about this subject.
.
SOCIOCRACY
.
A theoretical system of government in which the interests of all members of society are served equally.
.
Gerard Endenburg, one of the developers of Sociocracy stated:
"On the road which we have taken as organizing beings, sociocracy follows on from democracy."
.
Sometimes it seems like democracy is just an illusion that the powerful use to fool people into thinking that they have self-determination.
.
Sociocracy was developed specifically to address human needs. It resembles and is specifically designed to mimic living organisms. In a mechanical model a mechanic runs a machine. This is analogous to managers running their employees.
.
Living organisms run themselves. Not only does sociocracy address human needs, but it allows for the most responsive organization and uses a minimum number of levels of hierarchy.
.
Many of our large-scale problems are systemic. Especially relating to our decision-making methods.
.
A huge source of our trouble in this world is that we unwittingly give up our power to consent in decisions that affect us.
.
... HOW SOCIOCRACY WORKS
The sociocratic method can be applied to every kind of organization. It starts from the concept that people are unequal, unique persons who should be equivalent in decision-making.
.
Gerard Endenburg has come up with these FOUR MAIN PRINCIPLES used to form a sociocratic organization:
-Governance by Consent
-Circle Organization
-Double Linking and
-Elections by Consent.
.
... Besides the four main principles Endenburg has come up with some agreements that help "maintain equivalence" between participating members:
-Everyone has a right to be part of a decision that affects them.
-Every decision may be reexamined at any time.
-No secrets may be kept.
-Everything is open to discussion.
.
--------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #17

www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmaking_power.htm
.
Sociocracy is a form of governance. It models an organization that can function and function well with the least levels of hierarchy possible. It cannot be owned because ownership indicates who has the ultimate decision-making power. As power is shared, ownership is shared too.
.
Two more traits make Sociocracy uniquely identifiable:
Organomorphism and strong support for Diversity.
.
1) Organopomorphic
.
Sociocracy resembles organic systems? In their pamphlet Sustainability Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. and Diane Olson, Ph.D. write:
"Fritjof Capra wrote that the wisdom of nature is sustainability. Ecologies and organizations are living systems and share the same principles of organization."
"In most organizations these dynamics are driven underground by efforts to control." "Both [ecologies and organizations] are networks, their histories determine their structures, and they are intelligent and capable of learning. Ecological literacy means using the principles of organization of ecosystems (a community of organisms and their physical environment interacting as an ecological unit) to create sustainable human communities. We can learn much from nature about sustainability."
.
Here is a list of qualities of organic systems:
-1. Cooperative mutual dependence (networks)
-2. Any holon (a whole made of it's own parts, yet itself part of a larger whole) is never completely independent (hierarchy)
-3. Changes constantly
-4. Expresses Diversity
-5. Cannot be controlled and dominated
-6. Is self-maintaining and self-renewing (Autopoietic)
.
Some people think that Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest' means that competition is the way everything in the world operates. If we look at nature, though, we find that it is much more cooperation than that.
.
Ecosystems evolve to dance/flow/proceed in balance. If one part of an ecosystem disappears it severely directly affects other parts and severely indirectly affects all parts.
.
Cooperation is the exception rather than the rule within most businesses today.
.
Since a sociocratic organization's purpose is to serve community and participants in the company, competition outside the organization is also reduced, which, of course, isn't the rule today at all.
.
Sociocratic organizations link up with other sociocratic organizations and become reliant on each other.
.
For those of you, like me, who strongly oppose centralization and hopes of a world government, there is a different way to look at things.
.
Through the sociocratic lens you can have one world government without being controlled by one power center. All of it could be achieved with cooperative networks.
.
A sociocratic organization is always connected to other sociocratic organizations. Ideally there would be a lot of them. Each community network would be connected to a top circle of other similar communities. Then there would be a circle of community top circles. This would go on, hopefully indefinitely.
.
2) Diversity
.
With Consent the more people that make a decision, the better the decision will be. People with vastly different ideas can craft a decision that is win-win for everybody. A group makes better decisions when ten people are present than when five people are present.
.
The more people involved in a decision, the more checks and balances there
are that will bring the proposal closer to heeding what the little-angel-on-our-shoulder says. If there is only one person making the decision, there is too much temptation from the little-devil-on-our-shoulder, and as Gerard wrote, people certainly can be "uncaring, idle, and unreliable egotists."
.
--------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #18

www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmaking_power.htm
Are Corporations Slaves?
.
John Buck, who found out about sociocracy in the Netherlands, studied it,
and brought the idea to North America, has an analogy for you to think about. A corporation is a legal person. If that corporation is owned, then that 'legal person' is owned and is a slave. If the owners make the decisions that affect everyone in the corporation, then we see here that there is a master/slave relationship.
.
In a sociocratic organization a person must be included in a decision that affects them. They also get total veto power - as do all members of the decision-making body (circles in sociocratic parlance). In other words, if the owners make a decision that affects an employee, then the employee is due a say in the decision. The owners would also be included in any decision that affects them, but they wouldn't make the decision exclusively.
.
In a non-sociocratic organization the owners could decide to move a manufacturing plant to Mexico. In a sociocratic organization, that couldn't happen unless every single employee who is affected by the potential move doesn't object to it happening. Is this the difference between a slave and a free person?
.
This brings up an interesting thought. If the organization cannot just be told what to do by owners or a separate management class, then it cannot really be "owned." It exists to serve community and participants in the company. A participant is everyone who wishes to share in the interest of the company.
.
There can be stockholders, there can be investors, but if they sell their interest in the organization, the new owners cannot change anything without the consent of every employee who is affected by the changes. Hostile takeovers and buyouts become meaningless.
.
All of the material excerpted on this page has been collected, edited and originally published by Ted at the Twin Oaks Community website. I have only moderately edited the original content to make it more legible without changing in any significant way the actual content or ideas expressed in it.
.
posted by Robin Good on Monday November 29 2004
updated on Saturday January 21 2006
.
Readers' Comments
December 13, 2004 Cielja Kieft
.
I was happily surprised by the article over sociocray on your site; knowing that spreading this wonderful (open) system by the internet is a direct way to have more people know about it. The way you explained it is clear, informative and makes curious. I was glad you had all kind of links for people to read more about it, because only describing the method is a very technical approach, as are the books about sociocracy.
.
My first encounter with sociocracy was a ‘live’ one. We had a meeting with some 80 trainers. And we had hired a person from the Sociocratic Center to lead the meeting. Already after the openings round, the first ever for me, I was ‘sold’: I wanted to know more about this! It felt good, it felt right, it felt supportive, it generated enthusiasm. The aggressive complaints that the people in the meeting started with, just melted away, to never come back! All of a sudden we knew again what we wanted and that we wanted to do it together.
.
After I took the sociocratic management training I started an elementary school parliament. I discovered that sociocracy is very quick adapted by children. In fact it reflects the way they want to interact and have conflict resolutions. After they had experienced the voting system they never wanted the ‘unfair democratic way’ again.
.
So back to basics! I recommend every one to look for ‘life’ opportunities to experience sociocracy!
.
December 1, 2004
.
"The role of cooperation has been largely unmapped... Now is the time to finally build this map...". Here is a map www.1-900-870-6235.com/PeaceMap.htm of a whole new approach to dispute settlement / resolution; one that does not require either black or white party to compromise to "grey". It maps the way to new forms of cooperation, that still honour conflicting opinions and objectives.
.
December 1, 2004 Sepp Hasslberger
.
Cooperation vs. Competition - Toward a Literacy of Cooperation - A course at Stanford University, open to the public.
.
Darwin had a blind spot. It wasn't that he didn't see the role of cooperation in evolution. He just didn't see how important it is. So for two centuries -- a time during which the world passed from an agrarian landscape into a global post-industrial culture of unprecedented scale and complexity --science, society, public policy and commerce have attended almost exclusively to the role of competition. The stories people tell themselves about what is possible, the mythical narratives that organizations and societies depend upon, have been variations of "survival of the fittest." The role of cooperation has been largely unmapped.
.
November 30, 2004 Sepp Hasslberger
.
Not only are corporations slaves, as John Buck eloquently shows, but it appears that corporations own more of the United States than we normally would believe. Many of the nominally government entities are actually corporations, and even the United States itself seems to be a corporate entity.
.
Recommended Books
.
Sociocracy As Social Design
Gerard Endenburg, Clive Bowden, Murray Pearson

Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making
Gerard Endenburg, Jasper Lindenhovius, Clive Bowden
.
It Ain't Necessarily So : How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality - David Murray - Amazon Price: $15.72
.
-----------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #19

Zen Practice : Zen Peacemaker Circles : Starting a Circle - Principles
www.zenpeacemakers.org/zp/circles/starting/principles.htm
Key Principles of Circle Practice
.
1. Circle practice as Zen practice.
.
Circle practice is a form of Zen practice. It is about realizing and actualizing the oneness and interdependence of life by integrating Zen practice with loving action. The intention is not to replace traditional Zen practice or any other type of contemplative practice engaged in by circle members, but to extend those practices by offering a form wherein people can come together to study, receive support from one another, and engage in loving actions that reflect their deepening understanding of what life is. Dogen tells us that to study Buddhism is to study the self, that to study the self is to forget the self, and that to forget the self is to be enlightened by all things. In circle practice we come to genuinely care for one another, and we begin to get a sense of belonging to something larger than our individual selves. As we practice together the circle grows wider and wider. Is it really possible for any of us to become "enlightened" without all of us crossing to the other shore together?
.
2. Recognizing everyone in the circle as a jewel in Indra’s Net.
.
Everyone is encouraged to bring forth their authentic voice, to speak from the heart of their own experience, and to participate fully in the life of the circle with a sense of responsibility and ownership for the circle.
.
3. We’re all peers.
.
Everyone in a circle is a peer. Even if a person functions as a teacher outside the circle, within the circle he/she is a peer. This principle also holds in the organizational structure where the various local circles come together as peers.
.
4. Tension between the vertical and the horizontal.
.
Different people have different skills. There will be times when the circle looks to one or another person for guidance in a particular matter. However, fundamentally the circle is the teacher and everyone needs to take responsibility for bringing awareness of the tendency for people to assume positions of authority and power and for people to project authority or power onto certain individuals.
.
5. Honoring diversity.
.
We invite all the voices - all the voices within ourselves as well as the diverse voices within the circle.
.
6. Respecting the voice of the circle.
.
We listen openly, intently, and respectfully to everyone in the circle and think about the direction the circle is moving in. Sociocracy has a saying, "Priority for the benefit of all." We do strive for consensus, but in a way that works for everyone. Before making a decision we ask, "Can you live with it?" If someone absolutely cannot, we discuss the issue again. Each person is important. It is not a matter of submitting or giving in to the majority. We don’t give up our ideas, preferences, or values, but learn to speak from the heart, to honor our differences, and to be less attached to the idea of a separate self. We care for everyone. We also care for the well-being of the circle and expect individuals to commit to its healthy functioning.
.
7. Honoring the shadow.
.
It is important to allow awareness of those parts of ourselves from which we are operating unconsciously, as individuals and as a group, and to name what we see.
.
8. Turning into the skid.
.
When difficult issues, feelings or problems arise, go with them. Change the agenda to reflect what is truly alive in the circle at that moment. Don’t deny what is happening. Embrace conflict and explore it.
.
177 Ripley Road | Montague, MA 01351 | Phone: (413) 367-2080 | © 2006 Zen Peacemakers

-----------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #20

http://www.ecovil.com/Pages/governance.html
EcoVillage of Loudoun County, Virginia
Mission and Goals
- EcoVillage of Loudoun County combines the co-housing ideal of people living together in community with the ecovillage ideal of people living in harmony with Earth and its inhabitants. We aim to restore nature and expand human potential by creating a lifestyle that nurtures the human spirit and offers hope for future generations.
- Initially the group used consensus to make their decisions. This proved inefficient and exhausting and led to serious rifts. Introducing sociocracy was a relief. The group became more efficient and subsequently has been able to make many difficult decisions in harmony with one another.
-----------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #21

http://gr.grassroots.org/jive3/thread.jspa?forumID=9&threadID=1581&messageID=5939#5939
Sociocracy - Posted: May 28, 2006 12:30 PM   
Has anyone heard of this new form of governance that is considered an evolutionary step forward from democracy? We are finding it a most exciting and encouraging practice that is transforming how organizations function and become places where good ideas thrive.
Maggie Dutton in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/?p=17
http://thesourcefarm.proboards92.com/index.cgi?board=governance&action=display&thread=1174073542&page=1