You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: THE USAGE OF (voting) BUTTONS: RELOAD?
hey, my dear AG!
Many thanks for the resteem and your participation in this. You already know that method and again you are gifting me with your time and effort to it. This time though it was a little easier, I guess :-)
Question 2: I changed the first proposal, I hope for a better understanding.
Complaint is often so useless even though it gives a short term satisfaction. But never lasts and never gives joy in the sense of an idea can.
Have a good morning (or already day), my friend!
<3 LOVe,
Erika
P.S. Oh, and a question: Is No 2 from Question two giving you much pain when you think about it? Do you have a great resistance because you don't like the proposal itself or because you think that people would do behave as you think they would?
Hello Dear Erika, I do admire your determination to bring all of us into a reasonable analytic approach. I'm willing :)
I like the way you word #1 of the second question now. Definitely, that gets a 0. The same for everyone. Fair shot. That's what I want.
As for your question about my resistance to #2 (question 2): I think we live in a cynical universe. I am an idealist, as you may guess, but I think the cynics would rule if #2 prevailed. The rest of us would be like goldfish in a tank of sharks. Look at Steemit now. The bad behaviour of bots and whales. Some people just aren't nice :)
Today was a slow day on Steemit. I hope response to this picks up tomorrow. It really is a reasonable way to approach consensus.
I'm trying to ignore New Steemit. Just proceding as before. As long as my friends are around, I'm peaceful.
Very nice to see your post today. Made me happy.
Love from the States, where a hurricane menaces, (but not in New York, I hope)
AG
I very much appreciate your openness to this topic. Thank you so much!
My answer got - again - long. I apologize. If I would be able to express it briefly, I would :D
I believe that, in the long run, the systemic consensus in all would bring to light reason rather than the needy sides of the human race. Why Steemit seems to behave differently as a small system has, in my eyes, to do with how the whole platform was founded. Young people have a business idea that promises wealth. Whoever goes public with this promise attracts the needy and greedy qualities of people accordingly.
The cynicism reminds me of my experiences with the Unconditional Basic Income when I was still actively working in the group here in Hamburg. When people are asked whether they would continue to work with a UBI themselves, most say "but of course", but when they have to assess whether the others would continue to work, they say "No". Other people are viewed with suspicion, while one knows of oneself that one needs a task in life and that the experience of generosity is better than stinginess or narrow-mindedness.
If one were to make a new assessment on the basis of this insight, the result would change. But we are so used to mistrust others that we value the pain of bad experiences higher than the joy of good experiences.
My provocative invitation to you: If you can exchange the cynical assessment for a construction of the world as you would like it to be, would you take another view? Maybe a part of you might say that if you had the choice, you would choose the larger part of the cake? But what would your other part say? As I know you now, you are generous.
Isn't the single answer depending on the particular situation? Because as humans we are emotional and therefore in different moods. We sometimes act with a wide heart and sometimes with a narrow one, sometimes calm, sometimes excited, and so on.
Ultimately, systemic consensus is something completely new in our modern civilizations and has not yet been tested. So so far nobody can know what the results look like, it would be an open question. This is, where my excitement about it feeds from!
Maybe we forget that as a human being we often make better decisions if we don't feel restricted and suspicious. The ideology that I think we need is possible by emphasizing the appropriate narratives and writing: that there is not really much difference between "my interests and the interests of others".
Actually, this method aims to show the more authentic view of people if you don't vote by majority vote. It is easier to be satisfied with a vote if one knows that it was taken after the least possible pain/resistance than with a single preference that would inevitably lead to disappointees/losers.
Even if one believes that the loss of others means the gain for oneself, I would say that every human being basically does not want to have losers, because they make life difficult and in turn influence the system negatively.
For me personally, a systemic consensus choice would mean that I could learn to accept that the choice will turn out as it does.
Years ago I went through a whole bunch of classical Utopian literature. The concept was so appealing. But I always thought, not based on an understanding of human nature. You're right, experience has made me cynical...that is, realistic.
My children often correct me (and my husband does, too) when I meet someone for the first time. Invariably I attribute to them the best of motives. I see light. Good will. My family takes me aside and points out the reality of the situation to me. They all claim I live in a bubble. So I am inclined to see the positive.
But cold reflection instructs me that people really can be quite selfish and even predatory. I'm sorry. Utopia won't work, because a few predators will destroy it for the rest of us who naively insist on trusting.
However, I don't see your systemic approach as utopian. I think, if we all understand that we've had a voice weighed evenly, we will accept the outcome. If only you could persuade people to take the time to join in consensus decision making, it would work fine. Getting people to invest the time and energy in something new--a new way of proceeding--that's the hard part.
What an interesting brain you have, dear Erika :)
With great respect and affection,
Your friend, AG
(waiting for my VP to grow so I can continue to respond to comments and upvote them--such a weak, weak, VP)
Thank you, my dear AG, I very much like your clear mind about distinguishing utopia from what is pragmatic and actually easy to apply. I like to answer you to what you said and I hope, you will bear with me and not get tired.
If you treat someone as a blank page, wish to see the good in him, and treat him as if he were honorable and sovereign, despite possible deceitful or dishonorable intentions, that person could become just that. What you call realistic is only one side of experience. The other - utopian - always contains the possibility of an unfinished future. None of us knows this possible future, because it also consists of the mental constructions and thus a will. The worst villain can find humility in this way by meeting someone who wishes to ignore the evil in him and instead experience his potential for compassion and reason.
I call your inclination to meet people openly at first a gift, not a weakness, but a strength. Why should it be the other way around? That doesn't mean you can't be critical.
What do you want to be treated for yourself? After what mistakes and wrongdoings you have made? After that, where you supposedly disappointed others? Is it not the case that you are pleased when you receive encouragement in your abilities instead of someone pointing to your small-minded or anxious qualities?
This is my greatest opponent: to let myself be taken in by what my fellow men say: "I can't do that". Or "the others cannot do that". I often let myself be led on this path and say: "But you can want to be able to do it". The answer is again: "I don't know how" and then I get bogged down in such conversations. Often without noticing that my conversation partner is not really interested in wanting to achieve something, but does not want to let go of his habit of feeling himself small and unworthy. Suffering and pain is a powerful companion. So powerful that we are reluctant to let go of the identification, to let ourselves be surrounded by it.
But there are ways to avoid it, aren't there? How important proposals are and when an ideology appears slowly or steadily in the consciousness of us humans, we cannot really see nor consistently judge. But we don't need it either. All the good things that people planted decades, centuries and millennia before us in the garden of mankind are today with us and among us.
I want to challenge you once again: trust is ... yes, you could call it naive. But is naivety a bad thing?
Trust is probably the strongest component in human coexistence. My mother, for example, was a bit naive in many ways and often trusted me and others blindly. As questionable as this may be in some cases, it was the best thing that could happen to me. It is this unneeded kind of trust that brings people together and makes them cooperative. A group that sees this unconditional trust in itself may be capable of many things.
Of course, people are selfish and predatory. How else would you know the opposite? I feel compassion for those who believe they have no choice but to kill and enrich themselves. They may be very poor and alone. Do you not think that those with the greatest material wealth have the most to lose? How hard it must be to carry the burden of power and money all the time. But when "from below" the reflection comes that one wants to be rich and powerful and it is worthwhile to go to the heaven of material and powerful fruits, no one really has to wonder that this is like a hundred percent confirmation. People very much confirm the riches they think they hate so much.
But that shouldn't make me (nor you) desperate. If it wasn't for the 3-5 percent (I make that number up) of odd minds and non main stream thinkers all the good we have today wouldn't be here.
At least, you give utopia a chance and I can see also your fascination about it.
Receive my trust in you <3
yours Erika
Thank you for trusting me. I trust you--your intentions, your good will.
So much to think about, so many contradictions in my own thought. Cautious, and yet trusting. I think the caution comes from not wanting to be hurt (in the physical sense--there's experience there), and the trust comes from an absence of ego. So what if someone 'gets one up on me' in a social context? I don't care. I'm beyond worrying about saving face.
Expecting harm (being cautious)... that's so complicated. I'm working on it :)
What an interesting person you are. And very good for the heart (mine).
Your friend,
AG
🌸 🌸 🌸 🌸