[ad_1]
Non-Dual consensus building is a manner and form of building a continually resolving consensus between ideological divides. It applies a form of Game Theory to a conversation, especially disputes and disagreements, with only one possible mathematical and psychological outcome, mutual resolution.
Non-Dual consensus building can elegantly achieve a resolution in an online discussion without the need for any third party mediator, attorney, or negotiator and especially without voting.
It is decentralized consensus building via direct one on one conversations via dynamic pairing.
What?
Non-Dual is defined specifically as any “collaborative” process of consensus building as opposed to “dualistic” process, which is competitive, like voting, to arrive at an outcome.
A consensus, from a non-dual perspective, is comprised of both conflict and resolution, and all of the stages in between. A non-dual system of consensus building is by definition a system of conflict resolution which produces a result, a consensus article which is published inside of a consensus library.
While this may seem daunting, perhaps an even impossible level of chaos to manage, it is a lot simpler than you can imagine. And it only requires a computer interface to make reality.
Essentially voting is a form of consensus building too–just a flawed one, both on social media as well as in governance. But instead of giving us one consensus, reliable, voting gives us consensus ad nauseam.
Voting is emotional consensus building
Non-Dual consensus building is a way to build an open and transparent process of scaled consensus without voting, through the construction of a shared narrative article, a truly rational consensus.
Instead of voting, all sides in ideological struggles participate in building a shared narrative in an article format.
Building the shared narrative requires collaboration, and participants who are shown to collaborate when in disagreement are awarded micro-permissions to publish and curate the consensus article and the library that publishes it.
What’s more, Non-Dual consensus building has only one mathematical and psychological outcome, resolution. It can only publish a resolution. This means that as long as viewpoints continue Non-Dual consensus building, resolution is the only possible outcome.
Note that all forms of “dualistic” consensus building, which are competitive by definition, have win-or-lose outcomes for various sides in the consensus process.
Non-Dual consensus building in comparison allows for all sides in a consensus process to “win” influence on the consensus. It simply is not possible to lose, “losing” in Non-Dual consensus building is not an outcome that exists within the system, unless someone prefers to leave the process before completion, at which point they would lose all of their contributions within the consensus process.
Non-Dual consensus building entails building a shared narrative through the writing and publication of text around the subjects involved in the disagreement.
What is the subject of the consensus? What is the origin of the subject? What are the terms of the subject? Where is there conflict around the subject? What is the conflict within the subject? What are the proposed solutions within the conflict?
All of those questions are answered by narratives, collaboratively written.
All of the answers to these questions have a natural follow up question; How was this conclusion or narrative arrived at?
Those narratives have competing ideas between ideological divides. It is this disagreement specifically that is assigned to a pair of individuals who are on opposite sides of a claim in the consensus.
Well what happens when one side wants to lie? Or just try to bully their answers? What happens when any side approaches the process in bad faith of their counterpart?
Well, nothing happens. There is no possible outcome for those choices in non-dual consensus building. So while there will be those that attempt such processes, eventually they will learn there is no possible payoff within the system for those very same processes.
Because Non-Dual consensus building is not relying on a voting process, any type of “brute force” manipulations of a good faith process is stopped at the level of a direct one-on-one conversation.
In Non-Dual consensus building, “mistakes” or misunderstandings are actual entry points into influence status within the process.
In the Non-Dual consensus process, acts of rationality and honesty through the acknowledgement of mistakes or misunderstandings are not only measurable, but they award permissions to begin writing the consensus.
How does all of this become measurable and publishable?
Logic. Literally. And by literally, I also mean literary. The logic of non-dual consensus building has a hyper rational razor-edge as found mathematically, but it also has a hyper-intuitive element, which allows for the process itself to tell its own story through naturally occurring narrative arcs which exist psychologically between conflict and resolution.
Let’s look at voting and dualistic (competitive) consensus building. What type of logic operates it?
Binary. On or off. Up or Down.
And certainly win or lose.
While it is clear the logical operation of voting is binary, what about the psychological?
What about the actual state a consensus builder is in when they are approach the ideological divide from a competitive place?
This is also binary, although we experience it directly as something more commonly known as “black or white” thinking, this is a psychological state that has its own binary logic embedded into its conceptualization and symbology.
Black or white thinking is dualistic thinking.
Things are either wrong, or right, and always us versus them, or you versus me. You are either with me on this, or against me.
Non-Dual consensus logic is not bivalent.
It is not binary, on or off, left or right.
Technically, it is a form of ternary logic, and quite likely an unbalanced ternary paraconsistant logic.
This means that it can account for states that are on or off as well as states that are both on and off, at once. Which is the whole system itself.
That is all non-duality is, the whole system of duality functioning as one whole system of opposites.
It may seem arcane or too complex at first, but the important feature here is that regardless of its mathematical elements or properties, the non-dual view is natural to us, it is something we already intuitively understand, and it also happens to have an elegant mathematical form, allowing non-duality to enter into very practical domains.
While the 0 and 1 of binary logic may govern dualistic and voting ruled consensus building as well as computer science–0, 1, and 2 govern Non-Dual consensus building.
And this is true both logically and psychologically. In some ways, you could say that how binary logic relates to the programming and operation of computer software and hardware, ternary logic, non-duality, 0, 1, 2 is equally programmatic, but to consensus psychology and the complexity of human behavior and decision making.
Ternary logic gives an allowance for an “unknown” to exist logically within the subject. A third value, or variation or absorption between two opposing viewpoints.
What’s more, from a psychological perspective, ternary gives the mind a complete rational environment for consensus building, reviewing all ideas exchanged within the consensus through their naturally occurring states that are, empirically, either unknown in some sense, true in some sense, and false in some sense. In what sense exactly? Well, that is for the consensus to work through.
Ternary allows a whole system accounting of concepts exchanged within narratives as they are experienced directly by those building the consensus.
It provides an environment for consensus building that is thorough, but more importantly, it collapses “dualistic” or competitive psychological approaches, which usually form of a type of “group think”.
Psychologically speaking, black or white thinking as a psychological state seeks to avoid the “middle” or “third value” of the subject in conversation.
Remember Weapons of Mass Destruction? The conversation around WMD as a justification for going to war in Iraq in 2003?
That is a perfect historical example, where a national conversation avoided the third value, unknown, and could only process a discussion around the existence of WMD as either true or false. Fear of a “dirty bomb” insured the dualistic swing, avoiding the third value consideration.
What different outcome could the United States have built a consensus around if the actual truth value, unknown, was applied to their existence instead of true?
It is easy, some 20 years later, to understand the tragedy of the decision to invade the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. While many may have good reason to lay blame on various institutions, the full tragedy of it all may simply be we had a breakdown of understanding and war was nothing more than a result based upon a misunderstanding, around something as so simple as unknown, 0 confused as something real, true, something that had actual existence. We simply had no way to process a rational conversation about an unknown.
This ternary application, as a design principle for a computer interface, can well manage the chaos of disagreement because the ternary application provides a whole system view, and this view shows us that conflict itself, disagreement, is necessary to build resolution, in fact it is the only way to build resolution.
Ternary, or non-duality, allows us to view the conflict from a whole system perspective, which exalts itself, both logically, and psychologically, in win-win.
How does this “win-win” play out in consensus between ideological divides?
In the form of a permission to edit, write, re-write, or co-write the consensus agreement itself.
Non-Dual consensus building can form a human psychological “blockchain”, comprised of our better natures and wiser decisions.
It can form this blockchain by overlaying a meta “game”, where as the most collaborative and rational decision makers are awarded the keys to the publication itself of the consensus.
The Great Game is a collaborative one, the algorithm of Non-Dual consensus building ensures only the most rational and honest and collaborative of us, performing to our best abilities, are the guardians of the knowledge and the understanding of the consensus itself.
While The Great Game is collaborative, it’s tensions are psychologically very real because the stakes of the game are the control of the consensus broadcast voice.
On a social level, The Great Game is for the control of editing and writing permissions in the consensus building library of Aiki Wiki and the Front Page View of a consensus article.
On a personal level, the Great Game is a psychological matrix for the conflict of idea, requiring the direct and even brutally honest confrontation of contradictions that are unresolved, unaddressed, and unaccounted for.
Those who control the permissions of the Digital Library control the voice of the rational consensus, and therefore control the content of the consensus article.
These are combined simultaneously by the algorithm and the users “gaming” the tagging and selection permissions.
Combined, these emerge within the whole system of consensus building as a way to view the conflict from a new and even rewarding perspective, whereas the disagreements become less ideological and a more “administrative” deliberation around which selection of 0, 1, or 2 best fits the consensus points, creating a pathway of exchange that creates a natural process of self reflection and thorough critical thinking.
The Great Game is the full consensus journey as all ideas, concepts, and proposals pass through all possible events that occur between conflict and resolution, deliberating all possible viewpoints seamlessly through tagging and selecting and commenting.
This is Non-Dual consensus building, and a demonstration is available upon request 🙂
[ad_2]
Source link