same on issuu
[image linked to mw defn]:
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.
make that’s our hold up.. our roadblock ..
and if we do.. perhaps we shouldn’t perpetuate efficiency of a mode/medium/means we no longer need.
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
let’s do that.
what if it’s less about moving our thinking around to match.. and more about moving us around to match..
be\cause public consensus always oppresses someone (s)
It is precisely this dissensus that can hold a society together, because it presumes a great deal of trust in the other.
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.
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.
from Rebecca Solnit‘s hope in the dark
jim dodge claims anarchy as an essential element of bioregionalism, ‘ the conviction that we as a community, or a tight, small-scale federation of communities, can mind our own business, and can make decisions regarding our individual/communal lives and gladly accept responsibilities/consequences of those decision.’.. this brings us back to he activism of the past 20 yrs.. or more, since contemporary anarchist organizing draws upon the decentralized models of the anarchists of the spanish civil war for its affinity groups, the more or less autonomous associations of five to fifteen people that constitute the basic unit of direct action
in other words, they were, or rather we are, anarchists, and this mode of organizing comes most directly out of the antinuclear movement of the 1980s, where direct democracy was established through affinity groups and spokescouncils using consensus decision-making processes (a spokescouncil is a meeting to which member affinity groups have each sent a spokesperson
yet.. again.. even deeper.. now have means to disengage from (or at least go ginorm small.. approach limit of zero/infinity).. consensus
from the trap doc
32 min – what this meant was.. politicians..bureaucrats who said were working for public good.. was a complete fantasy.. because to do that.. *dependent on creating shared goals in society based on self-sacrifice and altruism.. but in a world that was really driven by suspicous/self-seeking individuals.. such concepts could not exist..
and shouldn’t really.. again.. playing extremes here… today we can go beyond.. *shared goals in society.. so we can’t not.. because public consensus always oppresses someone (s)
out of this came a theory called public choice.. and a group of economists who wished to destroy a politicians dream.. that they were working for the public good… their leader: james buchanan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Buchanan)
James McGill Buchanan, Jr. (/bjuːˈkænᵻn/; October 3, 1919 – January 9, 2013) was an Americaneconomist known for his work on public choice theory (included in his most famous work The Calculus of Consent), for which he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in 1986. Buchanan’s work initiated research on how politicians’ and bureaucrats’ self-interest, utility maximization and other non-wealth maximizing considerations affect their decision making. He was a member of the Board of Advisors of The Independent Institute, a member (and for a time the President) of the Mont Pelerin Society, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute, and professor at George Mason University.
via jon rt:
Jan Höglund (@janhoglund) tweeted at 9:52 PM on Sun, Dec 22, 2019:
“There is a deep irony in the fact that platforms built to connect the world instead reduced our capacity for finding common ground.” https://t.co/kRy6bZVrDm
title: mediating consent
The printing press, invented approximately 50 years before the 95 Theses, extended Luther’s reach from the door of the cathedral to the entirety of Europe.
huge diff.. not entirety .. ie: language as control/enclosure
has to be everyone or it won’t work
This portends a societal transformation: our information ecosystem no longer assists us in reaching consensus. In fact, it structurally discourages it, and instead facilitates a dissensus of bespoke pseudo-realities.
perhaps consensus (aka oppression) isn’t what we ever wanted
Today, there is no institution with the legitimacy capable of bridging these gaps and *restoring our capacity for achieving consensus, and neither are there **credible technological means with which to create and preserve harmony within a pluralist dissensus.
*again.. thinking that’s not what we really want/need
**yeah.. i think there are.. which is huge.. listen deeper .. tech as it could be..
dissensus et al
This tension is unsustainable for *democratic society, which leaves us with two choices: either we rebuild mechanisms for achieving consensus, or **develop new technologies for operating sustainably within persistent dissensus. The tension itself is not new — the history of media is in part the history of managing it — but the severity with which it is manifesting today, is.
*perhaps not what we need
Beyond matters strictly within the realm of material reality, fully determined by the laws of physics and for which consensus opinion is irrelevant — a tornado is destructive regardless of whether the community believes in it or not — reality has always been, to an extent, a matter of social consensus. Achieving consensus requires that people communicate, discuss facts, debate actions, and reconcile – or compromise on – differences of opinion.
who’s deciding what facts are.. ? our discussions end up being off a menu/script.. so not really alive/reality.. no? (nora on voice-change et al)
Although the phrase was popularized by Noam Chomsky decades later, it was journalist Walter Lippmann who first described the process, which he called the “manufacture of consent”.
manufactured consent ness
The manufacture of consent has not stopped; it just happens at the micro-reality level now. . sometimes, the only thing required to sustain authority is the ability to claim one possesses it, loudly and frequently enough.
this pervasive, acrimonious dissensus is untenable for a democratic society; something has to change.
Can we redesign or create an information ecosystem that engenders sufficient consensus for governance functions? If not, how do we transition to a non-toxic form of dissensus that can sustain governance at least as well as older processes of manufacturing consent, for all their faults, did?
In the United States, as in many other nations that have undergone a digital media shift, we have an actively *disinformed citizenry, fragmented into an archipelago of perpetually warring island realities, at a time when we face profound societal challenges that require consensus action. Addressing issues like climate change, public health disasters, technological shifts transforming the workforce will be impossible if we remain in this phase of intractable hyperpartisanship and pyrrhonism.
*informed citizenry.. not what we want/need
We’re at a turning point: the fragmentation of media and the collapse of elite institutions did not lead to a better, more honest, or functional system. There is a deep irony in the fact that platforms built to connect the world instead reduced our capacity for finding common ground.
The path forward requires systems to facilitate mediating, not manufacturing, *consent. We need a hybrid form of consensus that is resistant to the institutional corruption of top-down control, and welcomes pluralism, but is also hardened against bottom-up gaming of social infrastructure by **malign actors.
not about *consent.. about curiosity
The question is whether the more viable solution comes from addressing the formation of factions, or by *creating an environment that will lead to a politically and socially healthy relations among the island realities in the archipelago of dissensus.
Instead, we can focus — as Madison did — on mitigating the harmful effect
we need something to serve as a trusted *factual mediator as well. It has been possible to design systems that facilitate collaborative consensus realities that largely align with the truth; Wikipedia’s negotiated facts are one such example.
tech as it could be.. listening to every voice everyday..
let go of *fact ness.. what we need is more about human ness – mufleh humanity law: we have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh
Ultimately, the promise of social media — systems to facilitate human connection, and to disintermediate access to information – still has the potential to be a powerful force for good in the world. But it won’t happen on its own. The future that realizes this promise still remains to be invented.
already invented.. we just need to set 8b people free – so they can practice/be/live it
let’s do this first: free art-ists.
2 – can a society be sick – the pathology of normalcy
what is so deceptive about the sate of mind of the members of a society is the ‘consensual validation’ of their concepts. it is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings.. nothing is further from the truth.. the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane