Re: COVID divisions | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharon![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 13:22:40 -0700 (PDT) |
> On Aug 16, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Alan O'Hashi via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] > cohousing.org> wrote: > When you find yourself lapsing back into the American Way, take a step back. > In a consensus community, the question is, What is the x-thinkers willing to > give up to bring the y-thinkers into the whole? This doesn't mean that the > y-thinkers can block a decision based on individual discomfort or > self-serving perspectives. The y-thinkers must frame their objections in > terms of how their view is a community issue. I haven’t repeated this thought in awhile so I will take this opportunity. Like Liz, I agree that the best decision is the one that allows everyone to behave in a way that is both acceptable to themselves and to the rest of the community. That acceptance is the secret sauce. But the limitation is that a community is made up of individuals. The energy comes from individual people. They might all be energized by others in the group but the group is not an entity apart from its individual members. To emphasize that is why sociocracy is insistent on the use of the word “consent”. Consent is given individually by each person. Not by the whole group saying “amen." One reason the use of the word “consensus” can lead down the garden path is that “consensus” has been used in groups that did have an entity apart from the group — usually a religious teaching, a set of commandments, for example. Or a charismatic leader. Or a commitment to a creed like ecological living that may be defined by the group or an outside source. A purpose the community is committed to and was formed to help members achieve. In some situations where people are for the first time trying to bond with people outside their own families or religions or villages, the act of supporting the existence of the group itself is important and people struggle with what that means. The caution is that one shouldn’t put aside their own interests or reasoning just because they are in the minority — even a minority of one. A group is strong because all the members of the group are strong and working together. There has to be a way to work out a solution that is satisficing, is sufficient to address the purpose and satisfying to all members. "Sufficiently satisfying.” Sharon ---- Sharon Villines, Washington DC Save Our Planet. It's the only one with chocolate.
- Re: COVID divisions, (continued)
- Re: COVID divisions Sharon Villines, August 15 2021
-
Re: COVID divisions Alan O'Hashi, August 16 2021
-
Re: COVID divisions Elizabeth Magill, August 16 2021
- Re: COVID divisions b farris, August 16 2021
- Re: COVID divisions Sharon Villines, August 21 2021
-
Re: COVID divisions Elizabeth Magill, August 16 2021
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.