22K Indian Gold Jewelry Online - Buy 22 Karat Gold Jewelry in USA
consensus
1.
2.
3. a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people
in a group
one idea .. shared by all people..
i don’t know.
perhaps if that idea is deep/simple/open enough for all of us.. ie: short..
but we keep manufacturing consent.. aka: asserting power.. to force/prescribe inhumane/unnatural things.. to insist our
choices are binary/finite.. ie: spinach or rock ness.. in the name of solidarity..
5. perhaps we have the tech capabilities (io dance ness) to redefine decision making..
and if we do..
perhaps we shouldn’t perpetuate efficiency of a mode/medium/means we no longer
need.
6. perhaps we be brave enough to disengage from what’s irrelevant.
from all the manufactured consent ness.
perhaps we reimagine our broken feedback loop.
7. Collaboration is how problems are solved. It is the ability to reach consensus.
Jaime Casap @jcasap https://t.co/hwe5HfWfYe
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/kprebble/status/703366414317416448
is it..?
or is the ability we now have to find our people… with the short lag time we all
crave..
perhaps we quit chasing the puck.. pleasing others.. assuming supposed to’s..
8. let’s do that.
what if it’s less about moving our thinking around to match..
and more about moving us around to match..
11. @urban_commons
“We need friction instead of consensus and culture instead of economics” | Social
Citybuff.ly/1oMAYoCpic.twitter.com/tvR7bV12AI
http://socialcities.org/blog/we-need-friction-to-coexist-and-culture-instead-of-economy-to-
guide-us/
It is precisely this dissensus that can hold a society
together, because it presumes a great deal of trust
in the other.
12. [..]
we should learn to deal with dissensus, instead of trying to ‘solve’ everything through
consensus. We need to avoid consensus, because it is excluding.
Those who don’t fit the consensus, are truly left out. Dissensus,
however, respects different perspectives and always holds the possibility that we see or
realise something that we hadn’t noticed before.
[..]
the need to redefine decision making.. ie: disengage from consensus ness
perhaps public can't have consensus w/o oppression ...
13. This also means that our ways of attributing meaning can continuously change. That
way we can escape our current conservative model, which confuses a state of culture with a
state of nature, as is happening both in politics and mainstream media. Here, the free market
is perceived as a natural given, as well as the financialised society. There must be values
that are worthier than a balanced budget. Current acts of terrorism, and least as much
governmental responses to it, show that some things are more important than a balanced
budget. Unfortunately this doesn’t count for the care of elderly or disabled, to name just one
example. If we would look at this from a cultural perspective instead of an economic one, we
would understand that the world could always be different. And that’s the point. If we would
embrace commonism, we would create an enormous sense of possibility and cultural
freedom.
Pascal Gielen
14. It *seems to me no coincidence, then, that so much of the real practical work of developing a new
revolutionary paradigm in recent years has also been the work of feminism; or anyway, that feminist
concerns have been the main driving force in their transformation. In America, the current anarchist
obsession with consensus and other forms of directly democratic process traces back directly to
organizational issues within the feminist movement.
huge questioning of this below.. freeman/male-female/interpretation/timing-of-
imagination ness.. perhaps that was our interpretation (ie: obsession w
consensus).. but we were missing that it was..
..more a consensus of 7 billion people with their gut.. not 7 bill people
with each other..
the daily gut check being the true north.. rather than some political mech for
decision making.. to get us all to waggle/consent on an idea..
brown quotes via David Graeber‘s revolution in reverse:
15. What had begun, in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, as small, intimate, often anarchist-inspired collectives were thrown into
crisis when they started growing rapidly in size.Rather than abandon the search for consensus in decision-making,
many began trying to develop more formal versions on the same principles.
from *seems to me no coincidence
so since no mech.. theory.. equitable imaginations beyond feminism…
settled/compromised on consensus w/in public… rather than.. w/in self.. if even that…
(because then not brave enough to change mind daily… perhaps)
leading us to begging for antifragility
16. This, in turn, inspired some radical Quakers (who had previously seen their own consensus decision-
making as primarily a religious practice) to begin creating training collectives. By the time of the direct
action campaigns against the nuclear power industry in the late ‘70s, the whole apparatus of affinity
groups, spokescouncils, consensus and facilitation had already begun to take something like its
contemporary form. *The resulting outpouring of new forms of consensus process constitutes the
most important contribution to revolutionary practice in decades. It is largely the work of feminists
engaged in practical organizing — a majority, probably, tied to the anarchist tradition.
ok.. so let’s go one iteration further.. ie: redefine decision
making.. ie: disengage from consensus ness
*most important contribution?.. perhaps.. but i’m thinking more.. worst damage..
because like shaw’s take on communication.. we assumed it/interpretation had
been done.. and quit questioning the whole premise of decision/consensus
making..
17. **This makes it all the more ironic that male theorists who have not themselves engaged in on-the-
ground organizing or taken part in anarchist decision-making processes, but who find themselves drawn
to anarchism as a principle, so often feel obliged to include in otherwise sympathetic statements, that of
course they don’t agree with this obviously impractical, ***pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic notion of
consensus.
from *the resulting outpouring
the resulting.. comes right after talk of Quakers/religious consensus ness
**this makes it all the more ironic…that *male theorists….
*rather today.. all the more ironic that we designate male/female… rather than
human.. perhaps even multitude… does that cover…ie:humanity ness…?
*rather today… all the more ironic that we designate.. and/or couple anarchy w set
process… ie: decision making process
18. then last sentence.. on ***pie in sky.. unrealistic notion of consensus..
perhaps that.. framed… notion is unrealistic..
perhaps humane consensus.. is more w individual daily/hourly
intentionality… gut ness…
the whole.. improv.. shake-my-frames-up ness (ambival my frames) of the
antifragile
19. perhaps even more – unrealistic notion would be of a consensus w/in
each gut.. everyday/moment
asking david… if perhaps interpretation of intent on consensus (in large groups-by said men) and/or perception of possibility/capability of consensus/decision-
making (in large groups- by said women) was missed/ misunderstood (like how I’m perceiving his *Jo freeman take)
and that.. we still haven’t gone deep enough…
ie: to no consensus on an idea… rather regrouping people (freeman small enough ness).. to the
like idea… so their work/interpretive-let’s-just-call-it-art….isn’t compromised.. by having to buy in
sell out to a diff mindset on their art…messing with the..
one ness
..of the dance we’re missing
20. david – could it be the *jo freeman interpretation of misconception (by you and/or her because of the imagination/capabilities of the time) is off/short/compromises the potential of a mech to facilitate us.….
ie: focus on consensus.. when idea in small ness is more about hearing everyone than
everyone consenting.. rather than spending time waggling/defending/pitching/selling each
other toward one idea… we use mech to facil us according to daily (or 24/7 ish)
thinking/curiosity/interpretation/idea/desire.. and then this is huge/different… trusting that if we
are living a nother way.. where people have 23 plus hours of luxury/solitude/silence/freedom.. to
decide for self and have bravery to change mind et al.. that what we are trusting in.. isn’t
some man made mech/system of decision making (ie: polling/voting/waggling/et al) but
rather.. we are trusting in 7 billion hearts/guts/whimsies..
the huge ness acknowledges the reliability oriented thinking.. ie: here we go again.. w tragedy of
the commons ness; w tragedy of the structureless ness; et al… but have we honestly ever give
it a fair shot.. have we ever honestly trusted people.. enough.. along with.. a mech to facilitate
alive trusted people..?
i think not.
i think that’s why this is so huge/diff.
key is – nationality: human
21. *The organization of mass actions themselves — festivals of resistance, as they are often called — can be
considered pragmatic experiments in whether it is indeed possible to institutionalize the experience of liberation, the
giddy realignment of imaginative powers, everything that is most powerful in the experience of a successful
spontaneous insurrection. Or if not to institutionalize it, perhaps, to produce it on call. The effect for those involved is
as if everything were happening in reverse.
from *the org of mass actions
spot on w the reverse… or rather.. stigmergic…
but those festivals/occupies/et-al… can they really be considered pragmatic experiments…
(ie: more like stuvoice ness in Ed…not a free enough experiment.. if experimenters still
intoxicated w system… w broken feedback loop)
ie: festivals ..thinking bi, or less police/political/et-al power… but those have all always been
part/ial…so the dance has never danced…
science of people ness
22. The organization of mass actions themselves — festivals of resistance, as they are often called — can be
considered pragmatic experiments in whether it is indeed possible to institutionalize the experience of liberation,
the giddy realignment of imaginative powers, everything that is most powerful in the experience of a successful
spontaneous insurrection. Or if not to institutionalize it, perhaps, to produce it on c
possible to institutionalize the experience of liberation..
indeed… ish… but not by consensus as we know it..not public consensus
23. the need to redefine decision making.. ie: disengage from consensus ness
perhaps public can't have consensus w/o oppression ...
24. binary ness (from consensus ness)
is keeping us from us
it’s killing/suffocating us
25. key is – nationality: human
we play any binary card.. and we’ve lost/compromised from the get go..
we have to help ourselves out of this mess by constantly reminding ourselves.. of the stories
going on in each head .. the every actor has a reason ness.. the danger of a single story
ness..
26. ie: men vs women…
on assumed group we call men – and their condition today.. toxic… because we
all placed on them the responsibility of: finances – owning/measuring/valuing
money; wars- killing other humans to keep us from killing humans; work – bring
home money from jobs they don’t love
and to show how intoxicated that has made us all.. in regard to the assumed
feminist movement ness.. remnants include women wanting responsibility for
assumed honorable/desirable men’s responsibilities: finances – wanting pic on
bills; wars – wanting to help kill in order to keep us from killing; work – wanting to
spend hours of our day doing things we don’t necessarily/always love for money
let’s let our combined/unified true north (for decision making/consensus/et-al).. be
found/heard/seen w/in each gut/heart/soul everyday.. that’s a foundation we
haven’t yet tried
ie: hosting life bits where the data we focus on is self-talk .. but within a
completely diff/nother way to live..
27. What had begun, in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, as small, intimate, often anarchist-inspired collectives were thrown into
crisis when they started growing rapidly in size.Rather than abandon the search for consensus in decision-making,
many began trying to develop more formal versions on the same principles
freeman ness
perhaps mech simple enough wasn’t yet imagined… to fit in mind/rationale/practicality of
interpretive labor…. but now it is… now we can… which means we don’t have to continue
compromising/misunderstanding/misconceiving.. smaller-size/intent issues because of
larger-size/agenda issues
more formal versions on same principles … always compromise all-of-us ness
has to remain… antifragile/stigmergic/rhizomatic/et-al
28. let’s let our combined/unified true north (for decision making/consensus/et-al).. be
found/heard/seen w/in each gut/heart/soul everyday.. that’s a foundation we haven’t
yet tried
ie: hosting life bits where the data we focus on is self-talk .. but within a completely
diff/nother way to live..
29. the need to redefine decision making.. ie: disengage from consensus ness
perhaps public can't have consensus w/o oppression ...
30. and now that we have the means to facilitate all-of-us ness..
why would we go on manufacturing consent..
let’s disengage from consensus..
quit putting people on hold..
31. re
re
reading of David‘s rev in reverse ..
last two paras under r in r section
bureaucracy, however much it serves as the immediate organizer of situations of power and structural blindness, does
not create them. Mainly, it simply evolves to manage them.
begs the rules be... no rules...
32. This is one reason direct action proceeds in the opposite direction. Probably a majority of the participants are
drawn from subcultures that are all about reinventing everyday life. Even if not, actions begin with the
creation of new forms of collective decision-making: councils, assemblies, the endless attention to ‘process’
— and uses those forms to plan the street actions and popular festivities. The
this is second to last para in r in r section
actions begin ( in direct action...r in r ness)... with creation of new forms of collective
decision making: councils, assemblies, process.....used to plan street actions
new forms...?.
why can't collective decision be.. free/dom... ie:deep/simpe/open enough.. for all our
changing/ambiguous/chaordic decisions…
why can't only focus in solidarity (call it B if you must) be.. a&a.. 3 & 30..
33. and uses those forms to plan the street actions and popular festivities
repeat from last copy...
or perhaps.. ginormous/small planning... aka: whimsy ..ie:w/in each gut.. every
day/moment
or perhaps... call it no planning/prep/et-al... just use mech to live/listen to gut
each day
34. The result is, usually, a dramatic confrontation with armed representatives of the state.
this wouldn't happen.. because would-be/used-to-be... armed reps of state would also be
playing... doing something else..
no more inspectors of inspectors... none free if one chained.. to
inspectoring/representing/forcing .. et al.. to some manufactured binary ness
35. While most organizers would be delighted to see things escalate to a popular insurrection, and something
like that does occasionally happen, most would not expect these to mark any kind of permanent breaks in
reality. They serve more as something almost along the lines of momentary advertisements — or better,
foretastes, experiences of visionary inspiration — for a much slower, painstaking struggle of creating
alternative institutions.
why spend our days on momentary ads/foretastes/experiences-of-visionary-
inspiration...
for... slower...painstaking struggle of creating alt solutions..
36. last para in r in r section
One of the most important contributions of feminism, it seems to me, has been to constantly remind everyone that “situations” do
not create themselves. There is usually a great deal of work involved.
no doubt... but more from listening... being quiet enough to hear.. perhaps even call it...
a collective... nother way…
one each soul craves... and then crafting... to ensure its emergence/perpetuation... has no
pre/script/ions
37. For much of human history, what has been taken as politics has consisted essentially of a series of dramatic performances
carried out upon theatrical stages. One of the great gifts of feminism to political thought has been to continually remind us of the
people is in fact making and preparing and cleaning those stages, and even more, maintaining the invisible structures that make
them possible
huge.. from last note i wrote above... invisible structures.. that perpetuate/regenerate.. no prescribed
structures
people who have, overwhelmingly, been women.
perhaps ... but whether female or male... overwhelmingly.. not themselves.. not free to be
themselves... rather women/people enslaved to do-the-work/mend-the-remnants.....produced from
toxic/manufactured actions/ideas
ie:what person would make excuses for... clean the stage for... make the food/clothes for... the
person(s) oppressing them...
not free people in a free world
(what we haven't yet seen... and won't see... perhaps... till we try it full on.. for (blank)’s sake)
38. The normal process of politics of course is to make such people disappear. Indeed one of the chief functions of women’s work is
to make itself disappear.
not women's work.. fake.. imposed.. forced.. women's work....
One might say that the political ideal within direct action circles has become to efface the difference; or, to put it another way,
that action is seen as genuinely revolutionary when the process of production of situations is experienced as just as liberating as
the situations themselves.
only because in process ness is perhaps where you find alive... un prescribed...un obliged
people...
It is an experiment one might say in the realignment of imagination, of creating truly non-alienated forms of experience.
39. it’s time we break the chains of the invisibility that is breaking us
blindness from trying to see with our eyes (little prince) via manufactured
numbers/credentials/proof/prescription..
and free ourselves to the invisibility that awakens us
the awareness/sight we get/grok from our hearts (little prince) via love
40. once we get caught up in visibility ness
we perpetuate wilde not-us law
because the being seen
(perhaps just because we’re currently so intoxicated)
ends up trumping the being
