Sender: Cynthia Kurtz
Subject: Re: Leadership Affinity Network
Date: Sat, Sep 6, 2014
Msg: 101154

Bruce, I like this idea a lot (and I like the name). On the meanings of words, I agree that "there is no universal common standard for agreement on words" and that words like "freedom" and "fairness" cannot be stated simply as if everyone meant the same thing by them. (See Deborah Stone's _Policy Paradox_ and Carol Gilligan's _In a Different Voice_ for support on this.)

However, I do think that people working together can agree on a set of operational meanings for selected terms - as part of a constitution for collaboration - when doing a project from which they all want to benefit. What that constitution should be can only be decided by negotation that includes all parties. Taking the starter list of terms from conversations in this list would highlight commonalities and diversity, which is a good thing. I would argue for transparency and flexibility in developing the list - this is fairly easily done with links like: - don't like this term? suggest another - prefer a different term? - suggest a new term - can't see a difference between two terms? suggest a merge - think this term is too broad? suggest a split

...and things like that (similar to how wikis and folksonomies work).

|| Cynthia Kurtz || Researcher || cfkurtz.com || storycoloredglasses.com

On 9/1/14 7:22 PM, Bruce Schuman wrote: > Thank you, David. > > I too saw the Kissinger article, and saved it to my framework for > special consideration. As I wrote to you privately (thanks for the > reply), I expect to go through the Kissinger article and comment on some > of the important points he makes. > > But I want to suggest an action proposal, as a framework for any > philosophical observations. > > *LEADERSHIP AFFINITY NETWORK* > > The idea that has been emerging for me -- helped along by some very > strong comments from Cynthia Kurtz on the main NCDD list, who introduced > me to the concept of "Holophily" ("love of the same" - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily ) -- I'm exploring the idea of an > "leadership affinity network" -- which would involve an outreach in > every constructive direction, towards leaders and groups and individuals > who take a position on solutions for the world, and who appear at least > tolerably willing to consider basic transpartisan ideas (cooperation, > mutual respect, cocreativity, etc.) > > The project would involve creating a substantial field (list) of > "keywords" or tags -- several hundred, maybe 1000, maybe more -- that > can be "fast clicked" without much thought, and no debate -- and be as > logically simple as a Facebook "like". > > This project is grounded in basic principles of semantics. There is no > universal common standard for agreement on words, and without a Supreme > Court as final arbiter, arguments about words in politics go on > forever. So -- the real way word meanings work in the world is: words > mean to us what we think they mean. Click the words you like, or find > interesting, or support. Get enough of those words in play, in a fast > process of internet-based statistical correlation -- and a huge field of > soft statistical agreement could emerge at the center of the most > diverse political spectrum. Maybe there are 50 or 100 or more keywords > or tags that describe aspects of transpartisanship. Get them all in > play, in a big soft cloud. > > A core group builds an initial list -- maybe taken from our discussion > here -- and then invited participants get to add new ones -- from which > all participants can select. If we can promote interest -- keep it > fast, keep it light, keep it easy -- a huge field of soft agreement on > basic operating principles and interests would emerge. What do we > like? What do we feel good about? This approach -- similar to > "Appreciative Inquiry", but conducted at large scale, might take us a > long ways. > > In the context of that soft cloud of agreement -- building trust, > awakening to the real complexity of what we are doing here, seeing all > the nuances in one place -- real action proposals with "win win" > implications can start to emerge. All stakeholders, all voices -- all > in one big soft cloud, finding its own center of agreement by sheer > statistical correlation. > > I've been exploring this kind of thing for quite a while. I'll see what > I can make happen, and see whether it makes sense as a response to the > issues raised by Henry Kissinger (I have the article in a word.doc if > anybody needs it) > > http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075#printMode > > - Bruce > > Bruce Schuman > > NETWORK NATION: http://networknation.net > > SHARED PURPOSE: http://sharedpurpose.net > > INTERSPIRIT: http://interspirit.net > > (805) 966-9515, PO Box 23346, Santa Barbara CA 93101 > > -----Original Message----- > From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators > [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of David Nevins > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 7:37 AM > To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: [TRANSPARTISAN] A world in Turmoil > > The turmoil in the world is perhaps the most critical issue facing our > country today. Whether the polling data yet shows that the American > public has caught up with the events and understands the critical nature > of what is occurring around the world, is less important then > understanding that this dramatic change potentially impacts our country > more then any other issue of our time. > > If you have not already done so I suggest you read Henry Kissinger's "On > the Assembly of a New World Order" from the Wall Street Journal on > 8/29/14. The link appears below > > http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?mobile=y > > After reading Kissinger's article it is apparent to me that neither > Democrats nor Republicans have a clear concept of the direction our > country must go to address the conflicts around the world. There is no > shortage of ideas, from both sides of the aisle, but there is no defined > national strategic agenda related to foreign policy. > > Most Americans believe the United States must play an important role in > global affairs, but there is little consensus as to what the parameters > of that role are and should be. > > At the end of the article Kissinger raises the following questions > > What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary > alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any > multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if > supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on > by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values > that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these > values depend on circumstance? > > For the above questions to be answered properly, and for our country to > develop a coherent foreign policy we need a transpartisan analysis that > is consistent with the definition of the word itself; an approach that > "advocates pragmatic and effective solutions to social and political > problems, transcending and including preexisting political ideologies" > > An opportunity exists for the transpartisan movement to bring the great > minds of our country together. The result very well could be a board > policy of principles and associated specific actions that will serve as > the template for the foreign policy of our country going now and in the > future. > > I fully realize the enormous complexity of the task I have outlined, yet > I have no doubt that the rapidly changing events in the world can only > be effectively dealt with from a transpartisan approach. Whether the > execution of such an approach is possible within the organizational > framework of the transpartisan movement, as it exists today, I do not know. > > David L. Nevins > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: > > write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > > or click the following link: > > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 >

############################

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1