A Common Consensus

Phelim McDermott phelim at mac.com
Sat Aug 16 16:03:16 PDT 2008


Like the question mark that was wanting to appear at the end of my  
last paragraph.


?



On 16 Aug 2008, at 18:50, Phelim McDermott wrote:

> Hi There,
>
> This may be a tangent but the thought is there. This makes me think  
> of a very good exercise which i did with Keith Johnstone as an  
> improvisation/ensemble training. I have done it with others and the  
> emphasis has been off kilter and nowhere near as useful and subtle.  
> Its called something like. "Lets.. yes lets" So the game is you have  
> a large group and people shout out: "Let's all stand on one leg!",  
> "let's jump up and down" "Let's jump out the window!" etc.. or any  
> proposal. At that point the whole group shout "yes let's.."  and  
> they do it.
>
> People think it's a game about saying yes and everyone not blocking  
> ideas however, this is not keith's emphasis. He says you have to  
> notice if you do or don't want to do it and if you don't you drop  
> out. (Two feet). You have to be honest about whether you do or don't  
> want to do it. So it's actually a game about finding out which  
> offer's are "clever ideas" and which are offers it's easy to say yes  
> to. The discovery I had after doing this over the years was that the  
> ideas people consent to are not the "wacky" or "clever" or even more  
> "interesting" ones, they are ideas that are already emergent but  
> have been caught in the moment and crystalised or voiced by someone  
> in the group. They are often slightly out of awareness but seem oh  
> so obvious once said. However they are still definitely within the  
> frame of the group's culture and don't interrupt or destroy the  
> world the players are inhabiting.
>
> When these ideas are suggested.. there seems to be a freedom to  
> follow easily and when they are more like intellectual ideas they  
> involve duality and the assessment of whether it's a good idea or  
> not. Similarly ideas that come from nature in the sense of things  
> like mistakes or things that come out of including  a more secondary  
> process are taken up with great energy. They are easy for the group  
> to play with. This means that ideas that there is  an in the moment  
> consensus for are the ones which one can choose to bring oneself to  
> and play.  Sometimes it feels like there is no question but to  
> follow and play.  Suggestions that seem like orders are harder to  
> play with. Suggestions which have open space around them seems to  
> make them an attractor  for engagement with choice.
>
> This seems to suggest that consensus which is taken up with energy  
> may be the ideas which are emergent within the field. In searching  
> for consensus could it be possible to vote on the idea which hasn't  
> quite revealed itself yet but is already present.
>
> Phelim
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Aug 2008, at 17:51, Peggy Holman wrote:
>
>> I must admit to having little energy for consensus process, though  
>> I have seen its remarkable power to shift a group to a new level of  
>> understanding when people truly do listen to that one hold-out  
>> voice who brings some very important truth into the mix.  Still, I  
>> believe Open Space, as an ongoing practice, a collective way of  
>> being, provides a very useful alternative framework.
>>
>> I think of the essence of Open Space as taking responsibility for  
>> what you love.  (As an aside, I now believe that to do so is always  
>> an act of service, not the selfish act that some assume it would  
>> be.  But that's another conversation....)
>>
>> Now, there is a major assumption in what follows, but I seem to  
>> recall this is a going in condition for consensus process as well:  
>> that the people involved are committed to the well-being of the  
>> system of which they are a part.
>>
>> This is primarily what I learned from Spirited Work, an Open Space  
>> community of practice which used the four principles and the law as  
>> its operating framework (along with Angeles Arrien's four-fold  
>> way).  In practice, those who cared about something, took  
>> responsibility to make it happen.  If, for some reason, their  
>> actions created dissonance, the issue found its way into the  
>> marketplace and those who cared showed up to deal with it.  This  
>> happened with everything from washing dishes to dealing with a  
>> financial deficit early in the community's life.
>>
>> I think this approach puts decision making into the flow of life, a  
>> reminder that no decision is permanent.  Those who care, act and if  
>> something hiccups, well, then, it surfaces and those who care,  
>> convene, reflect, and act anew.
>>
>> Now all that said, when the risk goes up, perhaps because the  
>> nature of the action is difficult to undo, then it can be  
>> challenging.  Transparency is essential so that people can step in  
>> should they choose to do so.  As groups stumble through learning to  
>> do this, I think they develop the capacity to discern when to bring  
>> something into a larger group for discussion, knowing that action  
>> will flow based on taking responsibility for what one loves as an  
>> act of service.  I have experienced this sort of co-sensing on many  
>> occasions.  It seems to involve 1) understanding that a decision is  
>> a moment in a larger unfolding and 2) radically trusting others in  
>> the community, knowing they are taking responsibility for what they  
>> love in service to a larger whole.
>>
>> So much more to be said, but I'll end off here for now.
>>
>> open-heartedly,
>> Peggy
>>
>> ______________________________
>> Peggy Holman
>> The Open Circle Company
>> 15347 SE 49th Place
>> Bellevue, WA  98006
>> 425-746-6274
>> www.opencirclecompany.com
>>
>> For the new edition of The Change Handbook, go to:
>> www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook
>>
>> "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not  
>> get burnt, is to become
>> the fire".
>>   -- Drew Dellinger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Bui Petersen wrote:
>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> This is necessarily my favoured definition of consensus but rather  
>>> the most thorough one that I have seen. Just meant to illustrate  
>>> the amount of work sometimes required to reach consensus.
>>>
>>> Bui
>>>
>>> Peter Emerson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Bui,
>>>>
>>>> You propose the following definition:
>>>>
>>>> "Consensus is a group decision - which some members may not feel  
>>>> is the best decision but which they can all live with, support,  
>>>> and commit themselves to not undermine - arrived at without  
>>>> voting, through a process whereby the issues are fully aired, all  
>>>> members feel that they have been adequately heard, in which  
>>>> everyone has equal power and responsibility, and different  
>>>> degrees of influence by virtue of individual stubbornness or  
>>>> charisma are avoided, so that all are satisfied with the process.”
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest a slight amendment, adding the two words ‘with or’,  
>>>> as follows:
>>>>
>>>> "Consensus is a group decision - which some members may not feel  
>>>> is the best decision but which they can all live with, support,  
>>>> and commit themselves to not undermine - arrived atwith or  
>>>> without voting, through a process whereby the issues are fully  
>>>> aired, all members feel that they have been adequately heard, in  
>>>> which everyone has equal power and responsibility, and different  
>>>> degrees of influence by virtue of individual stubbornness or  
>>>> charisma are avoided, so that all are satisfied with the process.”
>>>>
>>>> And a voting process in which “everyone has equal power” is, may  
>>>> I further suggest (as in my original splurb), a consensus vote, a  
>>>> multi-option preference vote, a Modified Borda Count.
>>>>
>>>> Just because some voting procedures are so dreadful – probably  
>>>> the worst is the two-option majority vote – does not mean that  
>>>> all voting procedures are bad.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> Peter Emerson
>>>> www.deborda.org
>>>>
>>>> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of  
>>>> Harrison Owen
>>>> Sent: 15 August 2008 20:30
>>>> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: A Common Consensus
>>>>
>>>> I quite like what Scott Peck says, although when you read it, it  
>>>> sounds like very hard work, something which can be achieved only  
>>>> occasionally and under special circumstances. I wonder whether  
>>>> the truth is rather different. Indeed I might suggest that the  
>>>> vast majority of decisions made in any group or organization  
>>>> occur by consensus. There is no argument, no great discussion,  
>>>> “it” whatever it was, just seemed like the right thing to do –  
>>>> and that is what happened. Somewhere along the line we came to  
>>>> the notion that decision is always a matter of formal action,  
>>>> constrained by rules and procedure. This certainly seems to be  
>>>> the reality in a number of organizations – which I find totally  
>>>> claustrophobic! Probably just me – but my experience is that the  
>>>> essence of life is deciding. Most of the time it just sort of  
>>>> flows. But there are certainly times when it gets bumpy and hard  
>>>> and most usually that happens when I try to force things. Crazy?
>>>>
>>>> Harrison
>>>>
>>>> Harrison Owen
>>>> 189 Beaucaire Ave
>>>> Camden, ME 04843
>>>> 207-763-3261 (Summer)
>>>> 301-365-2093 (Winter)
>>>> Website www.openspaceworld.com
>>>> Personal Website www.ho-image.com
>>>> OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of  
>>>> Bui Petersen
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:46 PM
>>>> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: A Common Consensus
>>>>
>>>> I have been absent from this list for a rather long time. Life  
>>>> has intervened again (I have just moved from Vancouver to St.  
>>>> John's, Newfoundland) and kept me away from anything to do with  
>>>> Open Space. But the discussion on consensus makes me come out  
>>>> from hiding.
>>>>
>>>> Harrison, I agree with much of what you say. However, I think the  
>>>> difficulty with any discussion on consensus is that everybody has  
>>>> a different interpretation of what "consensus" means. The way I  
>>>> see it, consensus is not something you come at easily. Reaching  
>>>> what I consider to be true consensus requires a process that  
>>>> gives plenty of space for disagreements to be voiced. If a  
>>>> solution can be found that everyone believes is the best  and  
>>>> most reasonable (considering the alternatives), and that everyone  
>>>> is willing to support, that could be considered consensus. It  
>>>> requires a lot of time and effort and is not always practical or  
>>>> even desirable.
>>>>
>>>> What irritates me the most is when people talk about consensus as  
>>>> if it only means a strong majority, as in "8 out of 10 support  
>>>> this options; it looks like we have consensus. A more common  
>>>> problem, however, is that people suppress their disagreement in  
>>>> order to not be seen as "difficult".
>>>>
>>>> The most thorough definition of consensus that I have come across  
>>>> is:
>>>>
>>>> "Consensus is a group decision - which some members may not feel  
>>>> is the best decision but which they can all live with, support,  
>>>> and commit themselves to not undermine - arrived at without  
>>>> voting, through a process whereby the issues are fully aired, all  
>>>> members feel that they have been adequately heard, in which  
>>>> everyone has equal power and responsibility, and different  
>>>> degrees of influence by virtue of individual stubbornness or  
>>>> charisma are avoided, so that all are satisfied with the process.  
>>>> The process requires the members to be emotionally present and  
>>>> engaged; frank in a loving, mutually respectful manner; sensitive  
>>>> to each other; to be selfless, dispassionate, and capable of  
>>>> emptying themselves; and possessing a paradoxical awareness of  
>>>> both people and time, including knowing when the solution is  
>>>> satisfactory, and that it is time to stop and not re-open the  
>>>> discussion until such time that the group determines a need for  
>>>> revision." [© 1988, Valley Diagnostic, Medical, and Surgical  
>>>> Clinic, Inc. of Harlingen, Texas and the Foundation for Community  
>>>> Encouragement, Knoxville, Tennessee] (as quoted by M. Scott Peck).
>>>>
>>>> My two cents.
>>>>
>>>> Bui
>>>>
>>>> Harrison Owen wrote:
>>>> Peter – Tyranny by the majority is certainly a downside of  
>>>> Democracy as practiced in my country (USA). That said, it seems  
>>>> to me that there are circumstances where it is the preferable  
>>>> alternative. The passage of the Civil Rights Act here in the US  
>>>> was vociferously and often violently opposed by a very vocal  
>>>> minority, however I would doubt that many black Americans opposed  
>>>> the vigorous enforcement of that act, and fortunately (for the  
>>>> good of the country) a majority of all Americans, regardless of  
>>>> hue, were in agreement.
>>>>
>>>> Consensus politics has much to commend it, but it too has its  
>>>> downsides. Resolution at the lowest common denominator is one  
>>>> such, which often appears to be no resolution at all.  
>>>> Alternatively, the whole system may simply become paralyzed. At  
>>>> such times, I for one find myself longing for a straight up or  
>>>> down vote. There is also such a thing a Tyranny of Consensus, I  
>>>> think.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it is useful to think in terms of both/and as opposed to  
>>>> either/or? For example, Majority Rule, as in the case of the  
>>>> Civil Rights act, was possible only because of a prior consensus  
>>>> in the American Population that the Rule of Law was to be  
>>>> preferred even if you were on the wrong side of the Law.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that the situation is infinitely more complicated than  
>>>> the simple alternative (Consensus/Majority Rule). My learning has  
>>>> been that our capacity to design and implement effective systems  
>>>> of all sorts (political, corporate, etc) is limited at best. We  
>>>> simply cannot comprehend the infinite complexity and random  
>>>> occurrences (essential chaos), characteristic of all living  
>>>> systems. Our solutions are always approximations, and try as we  
>>>> might, we will never get it “right” – and for sure we will never  
>>>> be in control.  This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep trying,  
>>>> but I think it is essential that we understand the true status of  
>>>> our creations – they are maps, and never to be confused with the  
>>>> territory. Like all maps, some are better than others, and as  
>>>> conditions change these maps become more or less relevant/accurate.
>>>>
>>>> We really get in trouble when we decide that there is “One Right  
>>>> Way.” This effectively limits our options and reduces the living  
>>>> space (open space). Pushed to extremes the system will die –  
>>>> which is the end state of all systems, regardless. When you run  
>>>> out of space/time you run out of life. Fortunately our maps do  
>>>> not create the systems, and our systems are infinitely more  
>>>> robust than our designs could ever be. Are they perfect? No. They  
>>>> are always on the way to something new. And if they ever get  
>>>> “there” that will be the end, I think.
>>>>
>>>> Harrison
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Harrison Owen
>>>> 189 Beaucaire Ave
>>>> Camden, ME 04843
>>>> 207-763-3261 (Summer)
>>>> 301-365-2093 (Winter)
>>>> Website www.openspaceworld.com
>>>> Personal Website www.ho-image.com
>>>> OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of  
>>>> Peter Emerson
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:21 AM
>>>> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: A Common Consensus
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jack,
>>>>
>>>> They key, then, is to ask these folks, do they believe in  
>>>> democracy?  Yes?  Oh jolly good.  And do they believe democracy  
>>>> is for everybody, or just a majority?  And if they agree to the  
>>>> former, away you go.
>>>>
>>>> Mediation works only when the parties to the dispute agree to  
>>>> it.  Democracy should work for all democrats.  Russians and  
>>>> Georgians claim the adjective.  But the idea that a majority can  
>>>> determine the fate of an unwilling minority should be abhorrent…  
>>>> to both.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Emerson
>>>> Director, The de Borda Institute
>>>> 36 Ballysillan Road
>>>> Belfast BT14 7QQ
>>>>
>>>> 028 90 711795
>>>> 078 377 17979
>>>>
>>>> pemerson at deborda.org
>>>> www.deborda.org
>>>>
>>>> The Borda count "is the best protection ever devised from the  
>>>> tyranny of the majority."  Professor Sir Michael Dummett.
>>>> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of  
>>>> Jack Martin Leith
>>>> Sent: 14 August
>>>> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: A Common Consensus
>>>>
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for taking the trouble to explain the method in so much  
>>>> detail. I've turned your post into a Word document and filed it  
>>>> under Decision Making Methods for future reference.
>>>>
>>>> The challenge is getting people's agreement to use the method.
>>>>
>>>> Catch-22!
>>>>
>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Jack
>>>>
>>>> Jack Martin Leith
>>>> Now-to-New activist
>>>> Bristol, United Kingdom
>>>> Mobile: 07831 840541 (+44 7831 840541)
>>>> Skype: jackmartinleith
>>>> email: jack at jackmartinleith.com
>>>> www.jackmartinleith.com
>>>> * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>>>> your options, view the archives of  
>>>> oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists andOSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.3/1611 - Release Date:  
>>>> 8/14/2008 6:20 AM
>>>>
>>>> * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>>>> your options, view the archives of  
>>>> oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists andOSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist 
>>>>  * * ==========================================================OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>>>> your options, view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>>>> * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>>>> your options, view the archives ofoslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist 
>>>>  * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>>>> your options, view the archives ofoslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.3/1614 - Release Date:  
>>>> 8/15/2008 5:29 PM
>>>>
>>>> * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>>>> your options, view the archives ofoslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>>> * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>>> your options, view the archives ofoslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>>
>> * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
>> your options, view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>
> * * ========================================================== OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
>  ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  
> your options, view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html 
>  To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist


*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20080816/bbd4c6c6/attachment-0016.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list