When working on a problem many understand that the right and wrong of it will surface. So it is imperative that we understand how to recognize the underlying sense of rightness. In order to come out on the side of rightness, one has to learn how to make decisions and accept responsibility for those decisions.
We do know, before we have acted, that our process of arriving at an eventual decision weighs the appropriateness of said act. Many, before acting, ignore the wrongness of an act because they want the end result so much. They are willing to suffer the consequences of an ill conceived act because they believe the benefit to themselves outweighs the negative results later on.
Feeling the effect of the ill conceived decision before the act has been committed would probably alleviate many problems of this world.
So how do you realize the effect of a decision and accept responsibility for that decision before it has happened?
Well, one option is to ask yourself if anyone will object to the act you are about to commit. If anyone would object, is that objection well reasoned and will it help you to act differently?
In Nature and in all aspects of our daily lives if something doesn't function properly it stops working. In other words it objects. Marriages break down because one partner objects to the status quo. Corporations go bust because they have been involved in making wrong decisions and failed to find consent for that undertaking. Governments fail for the same reason.
So if one part of Nature or human interactions or machinery break down it is because someone or something be it plant, animal, human or mechanical has objected so there is no longer a functioning aspect.
Should we find consent for what we are doing before we try to reach consensus? Consensus means some will not be happy with the status quo, but consent means all have consented to the eventual process.
Anthropology was my major in college and i remember studying about African tribes being confronted with one man one vote when the colonial powers took over. The story goes that the new rulers went around to each village trying to encourage the natives to vote. The idea of voting went against the tribes traditional values for they ruled by consent not consensus.
In order to get the voting underway the representatives of the colonial government armed themselves with rocks which they handed out to villagers. Each villager was given a rock that he was then instructed to place in one of two pots. Each pot represented a leader running for office.
After the placement of the rocks in the pots the "winner" was declared. Well, the tribes didn't like this because not everyone had consented to accepting the new "winner". They reacted negatively and claimed that the process wasn't a good one because too many people didn't want the winner. Majority rule made no sense to them because too many people were left angry about the outcome.
We find this today in our elections. All though we have bought in to the idea of one man one vote too many of those left on the losing side remain angry throughout the winners term in office. There are objections which make the eventual outcomes not always right for all.
While this subject is exhaustive I am quoting a few paragraphs from a piece that compares Democracy and Sociocracy. I retrieved this from the Sociocracy website referenced below.
"In a Sociocracy the power of argument is given the authority that the vote is given in a democracy. The group to which a decision is delegated, the companions, the sociocratic citizens, will study, discuss, and debate issues until they have crafted a solution that meets the aims defined for it.
The objective is to find the best and most workable solution for everyone affected given the constraints of money, time, ability, etc.
When we think of a congress or parliament discussing issues in argumentative and divisive ways this emphasis on argument may seem unworkable, but in fact, once the mind-set of the participants has switched from majority rule to cooperation, this divisive attitude resolves to searching for the best solution for everyone and a new synergy develops leading to better solutions in less time."
I'm putting this out there for consideration, objections are always welcome.
This process of consent is known as Sociocracy and you can learn more about its attributes at:
http://www.sociocracy.info/about.html
No comments:
Post a Comment