INTEGRAL ANTI-CAPITALISM cont'd.

[Layman Pascal]

For an introduction to this expanding meta-thread see Integral Anti-Capitalism pt I. We continue here because we have, hilariously, exceeded this website's capacity...

LAYMAN PASCAL

I agree that holacracy should be singled out for special investigation. The provocative notion that we are dramatically over-emphasizing the need for "conscious leadership" pertains very pertinently to this discussion. Robertson, like ourselves, is pointing to the fact that business (organizations) which integrally improve the interiors and cultural
spirit of their participants are still predisposed to certain outcomes as a result of their actual structural habits of communication and their specific decision-making protocols.
His notion of a constantly self-correcting dynamic organization drawing upon the capacity of individuals to act as tension-sensors relative to the "evolutionary purpose" of the organization is compelling and admirable.

More important is simply that he is making a stand and making an attempt to construct a protocol (constitution). I am not fully versed in the 4.0 version of the holacracy constitution but we should get deeper into some of these proposals.  

Given the level of your current knowledge of their protocols, what would you want to change or add in order to ethically and functionally empower this approach even more?

THEURJ

First some housekeeping in providing links in part I to comments on holacracy: their website, comment 1, comment 2, comment 3 (and 3 more on p. 7), and the first 7 comments on p. 8. 

I’m not yet familiar enough with holacracy to know it might need. So for now I’ll ask questions.  From p. 8 there was a blog post on ownership and the model might (but not necessarily) include outside capital investors. I asked:

“One question immediately pops up on outside investors. Are there limits on the amount of outside capital investment? What if their investment is such that without it the company could not financially survive? And/or depends on it for start-up? Then such investment would control the company, like it or not. If you don't do what I say I'm taking my ball and going home. No ball, no ballgame. Not the same as a mortgage or loan company.”

Granted why such investors are included on the Board there are other stake-holders to balance their input. But are there rules about which outside individuals or companies can invest? Do they have to have similar values like triple bottom lines instead of just profit for their investors? Can a Goldman Sachs provide start-up capital? Or Romeny’s ex-firm, Bain? Just wondering, so perhaps it’s time for those out there more familiar with the system to engage us?

LAYMAN PASCAL

I appreciate your inquiry about the potential influence of outside investors in holacratic systems. Perhaps they have a good protocol for that. Or perhaps not. In general, all "smart groups" need to comprehend and anticipate the distortion influence that donors and enablers wield. The psychology of human nature shows that we may believe ourselves to be quite sturdy and impartial while we are really bending in the breeze.

One of the concerns I had while perusing the holacracy constitution was about the voting procedure for filling roles. There are many parts of their approach which impress. In particular I would like to make not of the necessity to place constraints upon discussion. When the mention of a concern is met with the mention of counter-concerns then the intelligence and practical efficacy of discussions drops dramatically. A highly suspicious mind might even supposed that the human hive is encouraged to engage in the constant casual usage of dysfunctional conversation. So their use of controlled phases in both operational and hiring decisions is admirable. However, their actual voting protocol seems (to my naive glance) to be based on a model of transparent majority. A sophisticated "show of hands".

So this may be an area in which holacratic principles can be expanded to include a more thorough use of "secret ballot" and "averaged ranking".

The former often seems like a show of bad faith and an invitation to covert dangers... but these are considerably outweighed by the liberation of individual intelligence from any conscious or unconscious concerns about the social consequences of their input.

The latter evades a primitive "first past the post" approach in which our intelligence is functionally limited to a yes/no determination about each candidate relative to other candidates.

Another thing I admire about holacracy is that it represents a functional procedure and culture in which participants would appear to become better participants by participating. Their capacity and ethical commitment to the good of the organization through its evolving protocols should be an increasing trend. Any smart group needs to be arranged so that even people who try to distort the results will find their capacity and will to do this reducing over time. Replaced by the inspirational efficacy of the group.

This brings me to another issue relative to voting, both in political and economic groups. That is the relative absence of specific instructions about how to translated ones feelings into a vote-mark. This is almost completely unaddressed in terms of popular elections. To discuss it even seems insidious to some people who fear coercion (and/or wish to maintain the current material power structures).

Protocols should have at least a clear suggestion about how to locate both "gut" and "intellectual" data within ourselves and convert that into a numerical value which can be contributed to a group decision. A lack of clarification at this critical junction may act as an invisible source of drag upon an otherwise very functional group organism.

It might even be possible to define an "integral-level organizational set up" for business or politics by simply compiling a list of areas in which intelligence and capacity are distorted. We might recall that most of Wilber's philosophy has emerged in levels correlated to his discovery of "fallacies" or "basic errors". Integral proposals about business and society could be all over the map unless there is a reasonable set of constraints that make sure they fall in the most lucrative zone.

So other than the potential influence of outside "helpers" and "donors" what other sources of distortion or inhibition do you see going mostly unaddressed in otherwise progressive groups?

THEURJ

My next question of holacracy is who came up with it? It seems to be the pet project of Brian Robertson, his own brainchild. I'm wondering if that is so of if it was a community or P2P project? I mean, the structure of holacracy itself calls for distributed decision-making but was the creation of holacracy itself derived from this process or mostly dictated by Robertson? I've yet to find an answer at the site so I posed this question to them via contact info. I'll provide the response if/when received. I think the answer is pivotal in determining if this thing called holacracy arose from its own medicine.

LAYMAN PASCAL

I look forward that answer if it is forthcoming. The notion of self-arising systems is something which haunts the periphery of these discussions. My fantasy is that we can devise a group protocol which so reliably and simply exceeds the cognitive capacity of the individual participants that it would be foolish to predetermine the purpose and nature of the group. Collectively we could a better job of determining what kind of a collective we should be. "Smartgroups" of this kind could then spread through the world in a very radical social uprising. How possible that is remains uncertain...

As I understand holacracy, the different companies making use of it are assumed to engage in their own mutational modifications of the "constitution". So even if Brian wrote the whole thing out in his bathtub it still retains an open source quality. The answer to whether its current forms are or are not the result of distributed decision-making is almost certainly: sort of.

One of the reasons the holacracy approach is so amenable to business organization is that it seems to depend upon the functional axis of a specified purpose. The aim is somewhat pregiven -- our job is to sell widgets or maximize share-holder profit, etc. His use of the metaphor of the sensors on an airplane derives from a mechanism that is assumed to be designed for a well-known purpose.

My question would be whether or not this "aim" is a necessarily functional element in generating enhanced organizational capacity? Or whether it is simply an artifact of the need to make these systems serve a relatively conventional marketplace task?

THEURJ

Your suggestion of a smart group that arises creatively from a continually evolving set of parameters seems to be the intent and practice of holacracy. As to the organizational purpose of Holacracy One, it seems to have multiple bottom lines including but not limited to profit. For example, see this post in the comments where I noted that the top to bottom pay ratio is 3 to 1, and quoted some of those multiple purposes:

"With Holacracy at play, the game is entirely different: with the decentralization of authority, the separation of people and role, and the dynamic evolution of those roles, we end up with a situation that looks more like free agents going about their work with no central planning. There might not even be a single person who knows about everything you do."

This sounds much more like the sort of emerging P2P organizational structure discussed throughout this thread. And also of significance in the post following this article where The Integral Center of Boulder has "voluntarily relinquished their rights to control their company as owners. Instead, they have ceded authority to a purpose-centered governance process called Holacracy, a model that distributes authority across the organization and gives primary power to the organization itself."

These are indeed advances over the kind of conscious capitalism promoted and AQALly packaged for sale at I-I.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

This is an interesting moment. Apparently Amazon.com is experimenting with a version of holacracy as well. It clearly represents a theoretical advance over the typical kind of conscious capitalism which combines advanced sentiments with a potentially dangerous and uninspected ideological allegiance to more primitive routines of social organization and wealth production. Yet we cannot know the results of the experiment in advance.

I have tremendous optimism about emergent p2p organizational structures. Experimentation is utterly necessary and should be strongly encouraged. I am also very hopeful that advances can be made in terms of quantification. This is very central in my thinking lately.

It seems that experimental protocols for advances social organization systems suffer from the lack of a quantifiable evaluation of their respective degrees of "collective intelligence". Most people are drawn to such possibilities by ethical and aesthetic criteria which do no necessarily persuade the world. So I would love to see experimentation supplemented by the attempt to devise a metric for estimating the intelligence of a social organization protocol.

Along similar lines, my "tetrabucks" type notions represent the possibility/necessity to structure our currency at a level that correlates to advanced P2P organizational structures and post-pluralistic consciousness.

The potential of an evil holacracy has hardly been broached. If it works -- it works. Other than simply the tendency of less complex people not to use more complex systems, and the tendency of more complex systems to complexify their participants, there needs to be some inter-organizational structures which incline all organizations int he direction of broad human well-being. It is my assertion that as long as primary areas of value remain outside monetization the actions of groups trying to utilize official social credits will constantly become unstable.

So I am imagining a line leading from pathological capitalism to standard capitalism to conscious capitalism to trans-capitalist network organizations to such organizations bound together by a integrated set of metrics for determining the intelligence of groups and splicing together (at least) four broad domains of human value.

Along these lines -- how will we decide whether holacratic integral business is working better?

THEURJ

As to how we determine whether alternative economic paradigms are 'working,' I'd suggest that even by the standards of typical business democratic workplaces like co-ops are successful. If by that we mean the organization runs smoothly, has low employee turnover, high employee satisfaction, makes a profit or surplus over operating costs, and other such typical measures. Plus they fulfill their stated purposes as expressed in theRochdale principles, like community education, cooperation, democratic control, etc.

I'd say the same applies to holacracy. They also have to accomplish the usual business parameters like above but also meet stated principles like in their constitution. Given Robertson's business acumen I'm sure at the site he has precise and measurable indices to track such progress, though I didn't try to find them as yet.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

[andrew]

The U.S. justice department is all over Bitcoin: 

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-bitcoin-subpoena-idINBR...

We should note that the justice departments mantra when dealing with the bank crimes in 2008 was, 'we will not prosecute'….'we will not prosecute'…...

Hey, the Canadian gov. has just spent a billion on a new state of the art surveillance building. Apparently, the U.S. gov is building one somewhere, too. I heard that the computers in the American building will be phenomenal…..

I can just smell the doom!lol

[Balder]

This talk by Latour is circulating on FB:  The Affects of Capitalism (video here).

[Edward theurj Berge]

Reading the first 6 pages so far I'm reminded of Rifkin's comments in this post, on how economics was originally formulated based on the well-ordered clock metaphor, enlightened self-interest its invisible hand. All of which was based on the reversible nature of Newtonian physics, which had yet to account for the irreversible nature of time via the laws of thermodynamics. It's that transcendent world divorced from the relative world inherent to metaphysical formal rationality, or false reason. Also remember this Rifkin riff (and following post) relating it to the capitalist economic frame, which must change if we are to survive.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Wow! The author's use of "first and second natures" made its way into my lexicon and book Your Third Nature, although in likely modified form, in that I don't believe that the answers come from either of those two natures by themselves. Some integrative capacity, previously called a spirit, exists which can take the best that first and second natures have to offer and can make a better, more sustainable, and happier world. I agree that the second nature learning, like David Bohm's Thought as a System (am trying to read Bohm's and Hiley's Undivided Universe currently; it is WAY over my head for the most part) is a closed, conditioned, and "incoherent" system which has an unfortunate life of its own (Gordon Allport's "functional autonomy"). To transcend it would involve listening to first nature pragmatic issues, but would require a yet higher sense -- our Third Natures. Fortunately our Third Nature has the added advantage of retrocausality in which an as-yet unseen DNA-like future can assist us in making a better present (and, therefore, a better actualization -- turning the evolutionary genotype into an actual phenotype -- of a quantum probabilistic future). Our Third Natures can see the form before it's formed. This is not the merely arbitrary second nature learning of a model like modern economics, but a true Intuition which can help save us from uneccessary hardship. It holds the spark of imagination and innovation to synthesis a new and improved resource allocation system, one that especially includes the human resource with all its depth and potential.

Bruce, Thanks for sharing that lecture/article.

I sent an email attachment of what I have so far of the book Your Third Nature. It develops a depth-view of reality, not afraid to use speculative metaphysics to inform our epistemological "ways of knowing." In fact I place the epistemological/methodological Integral Quadrants right inside the "ever-unfolding flare" (self), and venture a guess at the depth location of each. The integral quads then become the Quantum Quads. At the very least an imaginative fusion of models or systems of thought. At most, a much needed way of bringing an awareness of depth and unfolding back into our reality views and worldviews. 

My discussion of a quantumized version of the LR quad suggests a way to use horozontal structures in the form of systems to enhance depth (vertical integration of whole self or Self). I am now preparing to imagine and write about a local expression of a new social system which helps unfold a deeper appreciation of interdependence and quantum entanglement. Instead of a model community starting from scratch, I plan to show how an Allsville-like intervention might be done in an existing financially-strained community. It is a down side of town which my church is attempting to do mission work in. What is lacking, IMO, is a well-thought out system to help with the hoped-for social transformation. Traditional charity does little more than piss on a fire or even worse maintain the current ineffective structures/systems by making us feel good about "helping." What is needed is game-changing on a small scale, in order to see what new systems and/or approaches actually work or don't work. What is needed is an sincere experiment. Not just more traditional "charity." Traditional forms of charity have made us feel a little better about not really changing things for the better. Time to create better systems which serve humankind. Start small and work our way up. Same basic idea as my first book, but applied to an existing community-in-need. The new social transformation system "thought experiment" will be the next chapter in my book, literally. Chapter 4, Alltop Forming, in Your Third Nature. I am mentally gearing up to begin that chapter. Thanks for your sharings which give me new food for thought before I take another writing plunge!  

Darrell

Darrell 

Balder said:

This talk by Latour is circulating on FB:  The Affects of Capitalism (video here).

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Would be interesting to me personally to examine the holocracy concept up next to my own "giftocracy" concept as forwarded in Allsville Emerging. Where can I go to study the holocracy concept. You mentioned someone. Robertson. Would either of you two have any leads or links. 

For starters, would you mind defining again what holocracy means. If you already did, I skimmed past it. Would you mind describing it again? 

Is this (Pascal's) related to holocracy: 

"So I am imagining a line leading from pathological capitalism to standard capitalism to conscious capitalism to trans-capitalist network organizations to such organizations bound together by a integrated set of metrics for determining the intelligence of groups and splicing together (at least) four broad domains of human value.

Along these lines -- how will we decide whether holacratic integral business is working better? "

 Certainly is related to thoughts Pascal and I dream of weaving into a book called The Pergram in the not-to-distant future. 

Hope you don't mind trying to catch me up on this insightful discussion. 

Darrell

[Edward theurj Berge]

Here is the holacracy website. This link is called "how it works." The latter is a good intro, about a 5-minute read.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Dear inthesaltmine (actual name?), I am currently poised to write a chapter about applying the general integralish/holistic Allsville approach to another thought experiment for a depressed urban area. The new thought experiment will be a chapter in a book which I am in progress of writing, Your Third Nature. The term "third nature" is a secular way of saying spirit, since the "s" word has unfortunately been associated so much with dogmatic religions. The term came from Pascal's mention of "first nature" and "second nature" ways of activiting wholeness, in our co-authored book, About Wholeness. Publication is stalled because we wanted to rule out Integral Publishing as a traditional publisher, but they have not responded to our first query letter and it has been about two or three months since submitted, so not looking good. As soon as we decide that that is not going to be an option, we'll self publish as I did with Allsville Emerging. In About Wholeness, Pascal described first nature as what happens without thought when you decide to just be whole now. It is like the way a kid swings a baseball bat or golf club without any training. Second nature is learned techniques to gradually develop wholeness. Pascal mentioned the need to integrate those two approaches to wholeness, but never identified a hypothetical "third nature" which we might possess, even if only as a potential, as an aspect of self which has such an integrative capacity. I decided that it is reasonable to assume that we do in fact have such a capacity and that it would more or less match the function of spirit. I generalized the terms first nature and second nature to broader spheres of life. First nature in this general sense is natural aptitudes or "gifts." Second nature is any skill and knowledge learned on top of or to the side of those natural predispositions. A problem occures when second nature learning does not overlap very much with first nature gifts. The result is like someone having free rent in your head. Or like wearing the wrong size of clothes. It is a typical self-alienated state of modern humans. In the sense that a proposed third nature has innate potential, it leans toward first nature "relative potentials" or gifts, but to the extent that it can manage to integrate or harmonize those relative potentials with the tendencies and aptitudes which come naturally, it appears to be something more than simply first nature, because first nature doesn't seem to handle the complexities of learned material all that well. In general it looks like first nature gifts are processed more by the "right brain" and second by the "left brain." The right brain is good at gross patterns and at general orientation but not so good at organizing a bunch of details such as learned subskills and standard information in the sense of data or lists of differentiated things or topics. 

  Anyway, all this to set the stage for another thought experiment about what a collective might achieve via cultural shaping of itself should it attempt to develop higher degrees of "third nature" overall. And unlike starting from scratch as I imagined Allsville to be, what if we started with an already-existing community-in-distress, and managed to apply the existing resources to positively transform the community. Economic group empowerment is high on my list of things needed in order to achieve such turnaround/transformation. The kind of small business or microbusiness support networks as appear to be working in third world countries when money if funneled there by Kiva or other microinvestment services/programs is first and foremost on my mind while preparing to describe in fiction the social transformation intervention. The church I attend actually is starting up a mission in a depressed community in the city of Columbus, Ohio. The area is called the Hilltop, and it has not yet spiraled all the way down to inner city levels of degeneration, but is rapidly approaching that status. While my church wants to provide mainly educational services and moral support and perhaps some traditional charity, so far there is no plan for helping participants of the community develop pooled resorces or forming a small business co-op or "indigenous corporation." To me, such systemic approaches (LR economic empowerment systems/programs) are needed if we really want to "help" the demoralized and disenfranchised members of the particular community being targeted/served. Standard patchwork charitable services seem to be like pissing on a forest fire or worse, they may simply enable the same old same old because in the meantime we feel all warm and fuzzy from trying to help. Trying to help and really healing a community are two different things. I feel called to attempt what might be called "sincere charity" (borrowing from the Taoist term "sincere thought"). To me, standard charity and missions work is insincere charity, whether the insincerity is intentional or not.

   So how you and I might work together is to start a correspondence about making a blueprint of sorts for the chapter. The chapter then could later be used to sell the concept to folks both in the target community and outside of it in the form of support agents and agencies. "Alltop" (words "Allsville" and "Hilltop" put together) would be a profit sharing indigenous corporation where everyone living there are equal shareholders and where outside investors/shareholders would be carefully phased out as "conditions on the ground" allow. Even the mere imagining of such a project needs to be entered into quite thoughtfully. This should be more than a dream. This chapter should be a starting point for an actual intervention. If not at the Hilltop, then perhaps later at some other depressed inner city area. I know of some of those areas and have visited them in less than favorable circumstances, so I have a some feel for collective depression or "learned helplessness" or disenfranchizement, etc. (but also a rational hope for its healing). 

   If you want to begin working on consulting for the writing of my chapter 4 of Your Third Nature, I will use your ideas and give you credit in the book for your contributions. Perhaps our collaboration could lead to a later co-authored book like the one Pascal and I did. A book about this sort of local social transformation interventions. Perhaps even the journalling of an actual (rather than virtual) project, should it take place in the next few years. Perhaps you could help me sell the actual project to my congregation once the thought experiment or "blueprint" is written. 

   You and I both seem "called" to manifest something of the order of Allsville. I look forward to working in whatever capacity I can to fulfill that mutual calling. 

   Do I have your email address? I don't think I do. Mine is [e-mail]

P.S. I know of a multi-factor approach to community empowerment going on currently in the Springfield , Ohio area. We might want to look into that project. I know that on paper at least, it does include systemic changes rather than standard charity only. 

   I also have been lightweight educated about the "Bridges Out of Poverty" program (and book by that title). This would be another organization we might research. 

Darrell

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

thanks, Quite helpful. I saw some significant overlapp between holocracy and my "giftocracy." Holocracy is more organized or more thoroughly developed. A "role" seemed superior to "job" and seemed to approximately match my notion of weighting votes according to a gift. An artistically gifted person has 2 or 3 more "votes" (each vote counts as that many votes, wieghted)  for artistic matters as compared to an engineering gifted person who only has one vote for artistic matters, but 2 or 3 votes for matters related to engineering decisions. This seemed to approximately match the role "domains" as described below: 

A Partner duly filling a Role shall have the authority to control and regulate each Domain assigned to such Role, by (a) assessing specific requests for permission to take actions that impact such a Domain, and approving or denying such requests, and (b) defining or amending ongoing grants of authority allowing others to exert control or cause a material impact within such a Domain, as well as limits or constraints on how others may do so when otherwise authorized (each such grant or constraint of authority a “Policy”), which shall be valid and binding once published in a forum freely and conveniently accessible to all Partners who may be impacted by such a Policy; provided, however, that the authorities granted under this Section 1.3 shall be further limited by and subject to any constraints duly operating upon such Role itself or such Domain per the terms of Section 2.1.4.

-----

This suggests a 100 percent authority over things falling in that domain. In Giftocracy some areas are left for 100% authority (in order to create efficiency, instead of having to vote on everything all the time) per gift niche/role, but other areas would be subject to gift-weighted voting, so that others in the group would have at least some vote about those areas.

 And holocracy's "domain" is not by any means necessarily the same as the person's "gift." It may tend to work out that there is a careful process to make sure the right person is fit into each role, some gift/aptitute assesement process that I did not yet see in what I read at the holocracy site. If the "roles" are assigned by carefully assessed aptitudes or "gifts," then the domain assignments are essentially a strong "weighting" of votes in the designated domains. But if the roles are not based on a gift-assessment process, wouldn't a greater amount of "tension" be generated than necessary? The holography system seems to hit a home run by systematically addressing such "gaps" or "tensions" but unless each person's role does not really "fit" their innate, natural, pattern within, or who they really are inside, then gaps and tensions will be generated because the system has not found the right person for the role. This matching of person to role or job or type of authority (domain) is a central point of my "giftocracy." Not sure if it is in holocracy, although it might tend to happen naturally over time as the "tensions" are ironed out. 

Overall, my sense is that "holocracy" matches "giftocracy" a lot more than it doesn't match it. I will have to continue reading and processing the areas of similarity and difference between the two concepts of "holocracy" and "giftocracy." 

Here are some excerpts from Allsville Emerging about "giftocracy." I think I anticipated qute a few (but not all) of the realities which the more thorougly thought-out "holography" concept addresses. For instance, in the below excerpts about "gift-shift" I ackowledge how natural gifts have to be adpated to tasks at hand. A perfect "role" (to use holograpy's termonology) or "niche" (to use giftocracy's termonology) is not always possible. Gift shift is a process which allows for the best possible compromise between an ideal gift-fit and the practical needs of the group or "organization" (to use holgraphy's termonology). But first a general description of giftocracy : 

Allsville will use a political system called giftocracy. A

giftocracy is the hybrid of a (human) gift developing system

and a democracy. “Gift” means a natural aptitude, and/or a

God-made pattern, in accordance with which the individual’s

energies best flow. When a gift-developing system and democracy

are woven together, a powerful synergy is created.

The whole of the two together is greater than the sum of the

two parts.

Democracy by itself (without the intent to develop and

utilize gifts, and without a systematic means to carry out that

intent) is less effective than when it is combined with a giftdeveloping

system. Why? One reason is that an uninformed

vote that is not based on any kind of expertise is of little real

value. The development of human aptitudes, or “gifts,” helps

create both the expertise and the attitude needed to cast an

informed vote. ...

But equal doesn’t mean everyone participates equally in

all things. “Each according to her gift” is a giftocracy motto.

The foot (metaphorically speaking here) of the collective

body doesn’t have the same (equal) access to forks as do the

fingers. Nor do the fingers have equal access to shoes. Those

would be poor “fits” in a survival-by-the-fitting-est scheme.

The understanding and practice of intrinsic power would

replace the lust for extensic power. A finger would not want

access to shoes (except to help tie shoe laces!), nor would

feet want to hold forks. Those “powers” would be extrinsic

to the nature of the respective gifts.

Because of the respect given equally to all the gifts, and

because of other high trust culture qualities (including the

sharing of basic provisions), Allsville will be able to sustain

a different but equal voting privilege system. Some

issues would still be addressed with the “one person, one

vote” principle of regular democracy, but other issues would

weight votes according to gift domains and expertise. For

example, a person with engineering proficiencies could be

given a power-enhanced vote (one person, three votes) about

what kind of bridge to build, whereas a gifted artist may be

given a regular vote that has one third the say-so of the engineer’s,

in regards to that particular issue. But (say) in regards

to the purchase of an artwork to be placed in the Allsville art

museum, the gifted artist will have the power-enhanced vote

(one person, three votes), and the engineer will get the regular

vote that is of one third the value or strength.

Developing a process of deciding what voting issues should

be weighted (and how much) would be a challenge. But a

highly cooperative and high trust culture, such as the one in

Allsville, will inspire consensus about such a process. Under

these healthy conditions, the citizens of Allsville are likely

to agree on what issues need the traditional “one person, one

vote” method, and which issues are best for weighted voting...

...

Of course, not all decisions need to be voted on. People assigned

to tasks according to their gifts are already entrusted

to be trustworthy representatives who can make independent

decisions that will be in the best interest of all. A pure democracy,

without any such empowerment for representation,

would be constantly voting, and never actually getting anything

done!

The current system of capitalism empowers (for instance)

directors of electric companies to make decisions all the

time that affect large numbers of electricity consumers. We

don’t need to vote about each and every one of the decisions

that the director has to make on a day to day basis. It would

be unfeasible to do so. Plus, it would accidentally create a

climate of distrust, because the meta-message would be “we

don’t trust you to do your job.”

All existing democracies have found balances between

representation, direct voting, and other means of making decisions.

Allsville would be no exception in that regard. Its

climate of trustworthiness would go a long way toward giving

representatives and experts the elbow room they need.

We would trust the intent and the competencies of workers

and neighbors who are happy about sharing their gifts for the

welfare of all.

As a giftocracy, however, Allsville would have to replace

the willy nilly decision-making of the marketplace (where

people “vote on their feet”) with other effective means of

making decisions. Not having the internal marketplace as a

means of making decisions would require more actual voting

than occurs in the current form of a regular democracy that

is embedded in a capitalistic economic system. Again, Allsville

has a good solid base of trust, cooperation, and faith,

from which to meet this challenge, and many more to come.

Gift Shift

... thought about gift-hood had evolved from a fairly static concept of

each person having a natural gift which was, more or less, a

consistent trait, to the idea that gifts are more dynamic than

that. Gifts needed to be looked at in relation to a given environmental

context. They had noticed how a person may

step up to the plate and offer whatever gift they have in their

repertoire, even if it is not their primary gift.

For example, a person who is a gifted artist happens to be

on a committee for preparing a budget. The committee notices

that the individual also happens to organize data and keep records

well. The tertiary gift of data-keeping may be valued

much more than that individual’s strong suit of art. Outside

of the committee, somewhere in the larger population, there

may be an individual who is much better at data-keeping.

However, they are not accessible at this time. The committee

must choose from the gifts available to it. Of the seven committee

members, the natural artist happens to be the best at

data-keeping. Out of a spirit of cooperation, the artist may step

out of her comfort zone and offer what is needed most by the

group, even though it is not her primary gift.

Jan and Jeffery called this phenomena “gift shift.” Unlike

“mission shift” (or is it “mission drift”?) which suggests a

failing, gift shift is generally a plus for groups of people.

It becomes a natural part of good cooperation. If the group

waited for the perfectly gifted individual for each needed

function/role, it may never get the job done.

...

While Allsville’s focus is on the long haul (on sustainable

optimal matches), if it is to move forward it must make use

of some temporary arrangements between gifts and niches.

At times, a gifted mathematician may be needed to clean

the toilets! But its goal is to shift back, as soon as possible

and as much as possible, to the primary, sustainable, or even

“perfect,” matches of person to job. Gift shift allows for a

workable compromise between the needs of the group and

the need of the individual to find his or her optimal “place in

this world” (lyric from contemporary Christian music songwriter/

singer Michael W. Smith).

474 Darrell Moneyhon

Based on this recognition of gift relativity, and the need

for gift shift, Jan and Jeffery identified two gift-to-niche assignment

errors. Type 1 error is when you let a person be

used in a secondary gift area too long. A better match for

both the individual and the group could have been made.

Type 2 error is when you wait (or when a group allows a person

to wait) too long for the perfect match, not being flexible

enough (with gift-to-niche matches) to allow the person to

be sufficiently productive.

...

Gift shift in particular greatly served the ongoing experiment

of democracy. A sustainable democracy involves more

than a mere vote or voice. It requires effective collective action—

not just during elections, but day in and day out. Orchestrating

a way to best use the gifts available, in relation to

the functions required of the society-building tasks at hand,

is a must for democracy. Without gift shift, democracy could

easily end up in history’s trash heap of other experiments

that didn’t work.

The ideal of everyone being empowered can only be sustained

if it leads to an adaptive outcome. Gift shift is a tool

that aids group adaptiveness. It both acknowledges the idealistic

idea that each person has a gift, and provides a conceptual

tool which helps translate individual gifts into practical

terms that “work” for the collective. It allows democracies

to steer clear of both type 1 and type 2 gift-utilization errors.

Gift shift marries the ideal to the practical, without requiring

an abandonment of either, and it allows for an uplifting

of both. ...

...

Allsville would truly empower its voters and citizens, by

developing their gifts. No window dressing here. No psuedodemocracy.

No back room business. Allsville was the United

State’s second major experiment in democracy. Jesse was

proud to be a part of that second experiment. Not that he

was no longer proud to be an American. He never lost his

appreciation of what the United States has achieved. But

now he was proud enough, caring enough, and loyal enough,

to heavily, wholeheartedly, invest in conducting his nation’s

second experiment in democracy. This second experiment

was sometimes called “Giftocracy.”

-----

darrell

theurj said:

Here is the holacracy website. This link is called "how it works." The latter is a good intro, about a 5-minute read.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Hi salt, Got a chance to speak with a church member yesterday about the Hilltop woes. One main problem is vacant homes. Brings down real estate value and disparages stable folks from moving there. Second problem he mentioned was instability. Then trust. These all are interrelated. Low real estate value attracts the low rent crowd who happen to be more transitory. This creates an unstable community and sets the stage for lack of trust and cohesiveness. The person I spoke to mentioned the approach of working with a few stable neighbors who have been there and plan to stay, and to try to use them as both positive role models and as messengers or interpreters. Outsiders like myself and other interventionists would not be trusted enough for a good union unless backed by the trusted ones who live there. All told, the issue of "trust" loomed large in my head after hearing some of my advisor's comments. Then I thought of another trust issue. From Bridges Out of Poverty workshops I remember that lower class subculture members have little or no trust in systems and tend to have a learned helplessness attitude about systems. The "indigenous corporation" system which I (we?) would want to "pitch" would be dismissed as just another big idea that no one follows through with, not to mention that learned helplessness would lead to dismissing just about any hopeful intervention and goal no matter how rational and effective. When you give up, you can't afford to buy into a hopeful idea that will just build your hopes up and then let you down. Building up trust would at least offset the part of the hopelessness which assumes that no one will actually follow through or go the distance to help. The more trust, the more rational hope can be built up in the "edges" of the group mind, so to speak. By that I mean something like getting a foot in the door. Enough trust will let us get our foot in the door to at least explain a possible new process toward greater prosperity (like an indigenous corporation or small business co-op, resource pooling, etc.) for the affected community.  

   This is not the same as my going to meet the neighbors in the Hilltop area, but it probably is a good orientation for do so in the future. I see now that I would need to identify and stable and strong neighbor who others there are likely to look up to and listen to. At first I could just ask that representative what he/she things the neighborhoods problems and possible solutions might be. If a problem solving attitude can be achieved with such representatives then the likelihood of them and others considering innovative social transformation concepts goes up a bit. More open mindedness. The strong/stable representative could then role-model this openess and willingness to weigh options. Without enough hope and openess then hypotheticals or reviewing lists of alternative solutions would be next to impossible. Depressed people simply won't risk entertaining such possibilities. The dark filter assumes the possibilities won't work. Plus the energy to try them isn't there anyway, so why invest. It is a "we can't win for losing" sort of culturally shared attitude. The key (or one of them, anyway) is to get the role models to shift toward the combo of trust and openess and an assumption that solutions just might be found and just might work. In other words, the strong/stable role models could help break the cycle of group depression and/or disenfranchisement. 

Sound about right? If so the next step is for me to ask around and see if I can find the candidates for role-models and representation. I forget what these key figures are called in a sociogram? "Alpha" something or others? Who has clout and respect and the most influence on the overall group? 

In summary, I think I decided on what might be termed the "sociogram" approach to helping the affected community. 

Darrell

inthesaltmine said:

Hi Darrell - nice to see you here; I just finished your book yesterday.

What have you been up to lately? I'd like, if possible, to contribute some of my available energies to working with you if you're organizing anything at the moment.

Best wishes. 

Darrell R. Moneyhon said:

Would be interesting to me personally to examine the holocracy concept up next to my own "giftocracy" concept as forwarded in Allsville Emerging.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

"Sociograph" instead of gram is the right term I believe. Finding the key players in the social system. It seems a good way to start with a communty development project. Making a version of a sociograph, that is. 

d

Darrell R. Moneyhon said:

Hi salt, Got a chance to speak with a church member yesterday about the Hilltop woes. One main problem is vacant homes. Brings down real estate value and disparages stable folks from moving there. Second problem he mentioned was instability. Then trust. These all are interrelated. Low real estate value attracts the low rent crowd who happen to be more transitory. This creates an unstable community and sets the stage for lack of trust and cohesiveness. The person I spoke to mentioned the approach of working with a few stable neighbors who have been there and plan to stay, and to try to use them as both positive role models and as messengers or interpreters. Outsiders like myself and other interventionists would not be trusted enough for a good union unless backed by the trusted ones who live there. All told, the issue of "trust" loomed large in my head after hearing some of my advisor's comments. Then I thought of another trust issue. From Bridges Out of Poverty workshops I remember that lower class subculture members have little or no trust in systems and tend to have a learned helplessness attitude about systems. The "indigenous corporation" system which I (we?) would want to "pitch" would be dismissed as just another big idea that no one follows through with, not to mention that learned helplessness would lead to dismissing just about any hopeful intervention and goal no matter how rational and effective. When you give up, you can't afford to buy into a hopeful idea that will just build your hopes up and then let you down. Building up trust would at least offset the part of the hopelessness which assumes that no one will actually follow through or go the distance to help. The more trust, the more rational hope can be built up in the "edges" of the group mind, so to speak. By that I mean something like getting a foot in the door. Enough trust will let us get our foot in the door to at least explain a possible new process toward greater prosperity (like an indigenous corporation or small business co-op, resource pooling, etc.) for the affected community.  

   This is not the same as my going to meet the neighbors in the Hilltop area, but it probably is a good orientation for do so in the future. I see now that I would need to identify and stable and strong neighbor who others there are likely to look up to and listen to. At first I could just ask that representative what he/she things the neighborhoods problems and possible solutions might be. If a problem solving attitude can be achieved with such representatives then the likelihood of them and others considering innovative social transformation concepts goes up a bit. More open mindedness. The strong/stable representative could then role-model this openess and willingness to weigh options. Without enough hope and openess then hypotheticals or reviewing lists of alternative solutions would be next to impossible. Depressed people simply won't risk entertaining such possibilities. The dark filter assumes the possibilities won't work. Plus the energy to try them isn't there anyway, so why invest. It is a "we can't win for losing" sort of culturally shared attitude. The key (or one of them, anyway) is to get the role models to shift toward the combo of trust and openess and an assumption that solutions just might be found and just might work. In other words, the strong/stable role models could help break the cycle of group depression and/or disenfranchisement. 

Sound about right? If so the next step is for me to ask around and see if I can find the candidates for role-models and representation. I forget what these key figures are called in a sociogram? "Alpha" something or others? Who has clout and respect and the most influence on the overall group? 

In summary, I think I decided on what might be termed the "sociogram" approach to helping the affected community. 

Darrell

inthesaltmine said:

Hi Darrell - nice to see you here; I just finished your book yesterday.

What have you been up to lately? I'd like, if possible, to contribute some of my available energies to working with you if you're organizing anything at the moment.

Best wishes. 

Darrell R. Moneyhon said:

Would be interesting to me personally to examine the holocracy concept up next to my own "giftocracy" concept as forwarded in Allsville Emerging.

[Balder]

Reduce and redistribute ... or else ... :-)

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Thanks Bruce, I copied the link to the book User's Guide ...

  While the researchers noted that, mathematically speaking, improved technology alone is not likely to reverse the tragic pattern, I don't think this takes into account the degree of convergence between technology and culture, LR and LL, which seems to be a historical first. In other words the "structural changes" may be so much aided by technological advances, particularly an emerging peer-to-peer culture via increased "light" (requiring a lower threshold of the "heat" which elites in the catbird seat have been traditionally slow to respond to).

Why? because the internet is being used as what I call "gear three" in the "four gears for govering" model (formerly called the "regulation matrix" in Allsville Emerging). Third gear is govering by culture. Well before there is uniform governing-by-enlightenment we can tap into our herd mentality to make it fashionable to go "interdependent" or "green" or "integral, " etc.

I think the Plutocrates (wealthy who seek to rig the game in their favor, and take us down the same old historical path as elucidated by the researchers) will at some point fairly soon, fail to successfully use propoganda. The peer to peer culture showed its first coming in the Occupy Wall Street episode, but that is only the begining. Note how it seemed to correlate timewise with the Arab Spring. Now observe how the Ukrane cultural/political shift is similar to the Arab Spring. New up against old, with old winning some battles but new looking like it is destined to win the overall war. The almost-inevitability of evolution. If looked at theologically this inevitablility is along the lines of John Wesley's "prevenient grace." 

I don't think the "elites" or modern version, Plutocrates, can win the war for the mind of culture. New battles will be won by groups similar to the 99ers. The Milinials even trend toward believing in larger government. This means that the we-the-people's "body" may not be dismantled at the alarming rate which Plutocrate-backed conservative groups are trying to achieve. At some point the Milenials (sp?) will create a critical mass (also, note that they don't just throw up their hands in the same apolitical manner than the Gen-Xers do) which will include not only more Occupy-like events but a reversal of the trend to starve the people's body for regulation and investment. This is important not only to offset the elite fiddling while Rome burns, but to more effectively utilize economy of scale so that there is a central mechanism to make necessary investments in greener and more interdependent technologies along the lines of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution. 

Interesting also to note that Rifkin in his book by that same title, claims that the energy-depletion is actually closely linked to the economic downturn which contributes to the widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots. During the last days of an old energy regime the elites are not willing to go backwards in wealth and power in order to share the limited resources due to the old energy system reaching its production limits. But if the "body" is strong enough to both directly invest and also to steer  taxation and other incentives toward renewables via forward-thinking regulations (such as "Yes, you can frack as long as 30% of the profit goes toward the pooled money for the development of renewable energy. No 'pay us forward' tax, no freakin' frackin' ").

But the proposal in parenthesis can't be accomplished if government is weakened too much to make such rational, both/and, programs. The Plutocrates will wield as much power as they can, up until it looks like their old ways simply won't fly anymore by the newly assertive masses. The Milineals and the Peer-to-peer internet-supported factors will likely turn the tide. Here's another reason why I predict this: the "whatever-happened-to-Kansas" sect composed of Traditionals oppressed by Easter-Bunny overexuberence about the radically "free" market are shrinking in numbers at around the same time that the Milinials are becoming old enough to get more politically active (and, unlike the Gen-Xers, are more likely to do). 

Anything short of completly overiding democracy will not allow the modern elites, the Plutocrates, to continue to control the levers of power. Their resources will run out like a runner who is ahead most of the race but gets overtaken by the wise runner who managed his resources with a longview. The more interdependent-minded group will "reel the Rabbits in" during the last third of the race which would have otherwise been another civilization biting the dust. These first-time-in-history factors were not taken into account in the researchers mathematical model. 

Of course we can't sit back and allow evolutionary inevitability to do all the work. That would be the one way to prove the researchers right. It would be like sitting on a lead you expected to have, but as long as you are "sitting" you won't ever have the lead. The inevitablity is only "in the bank" in a "sort of" way. It is not inevitably inevitable, just probably inevitable! Its up to us to turn the probability into an actuality.

In Your Third Nature I propose a pacing or transition strategy of sorts.

"New sin, type 1," is clinging to the old energy/cultural paradigm too long. Type 2 New sin is moving too fast without utilizing existing structures and resources to aid in the evolutionary transition. New Virtue, type 1, is the visionary who moves us sustainably forward without rushing things too much. New Virtue, type 2 is the conservative centrist who makes sure we utilize the existing structures in order to phase them toward the changes. My frack forward tarif/tax is in the Type 2 New Virtue domain. This as oposed to no-friggin-frackin stance by green level political activists. 

On a larger scale the whole trick is to use money to put money out of business, as we gradually move toward what I call "Integral Resourcism." "Integral Resourcism" looks beyond anyone "owning" anything plus looks beyond our overemphasis on material resources. The "Integral" part upgrades the worth of UL and LL human resources. Moral and Inspired Vision are powerful "resources" to be tapped into. So is rational critical thinking or problem solving. Tap into the Vision and Rationality and you have one hellova resource combo. But these have to be located and carefully mined and distilled/processed before they can actually produce. That means structures must be increasingly developed and supported to do this "mind-mining and refining." It's all part of the "dematerialization" of the resource alocation system or "economy." Inevitable but in that probabalistic way that I discussed earlier.

darrell 

Balder said:

Reduce and redistribute ... or else ... :-)