Hmm, I guess what's behind all of this: these people are deeply, massively invested, timewise, emotionally. Them, me, now you're too to a small extend as well. Nothing wrong with it in itself, sure. They also have big hopes, expectations and hidden agendas for the future outcome/payoff/benefit, be it personally, financially, reputation-wise, experiencal, and these interests are largely in conflict. OK, whatever. The grim fear is that it might just implode and vanish, and more times than not, that's exactly what happens (those who continue running aren't much more pleasant either). The technology/tools (including language etc.) are hugely inadequate and can't be changed/improved, fair enough. The group/harmony can continue by mainly remaining vague, because otherwise they might find out that they're all in fundamental conflict and can't agree. It's like this with them and in many other places, be it a diverse network or a state or the planet. The meta-idea that it can eventually be figured out, well, maybe, yes, no. In the end, it doesn't matter much after all, as complexity, spread and limitations aren't going away any time soon. In there, all these phenomenons occur and happen in parallel, we somehow have to deal with them, regardless if the GCC needs fixing or is the fix, as one doesn't have much control over any of it anyway. Even system- and structurelessness is just another instance. You might say that a few people in power can adjust the design/structure here and there, but a lot of factors impact and influence that just as well. Better get used to this nature of things.
All I know is trying to clarify systemic tools and to build augmentation tools -- failing badly, no surprise, that's all I know.
most of our personal conflictseverybody is;All the others areI amsomeThere's nthatAdditionally, there arei in groupsthe joint effortgroups/projects thatnecessarily "harmony" in a groupbe maintained by partimay rely on its participants justdisagreement that's impossible to resolve,
on every level, from your family and neighbor s to small groups up to large, diverse sthe state, entire atheto , nation statesattempt to evnentually figure out how to avoid or handle/mitigate conflict it can, bmaybe it can't (note that these aren't self-selected , like might happen or just as well might not that. W'll always encounter them and and somehow have to deal with themgroupto be fixed categosystemic/structural categorythe of the and therefore hugely influence the courseasteerthe who are (less so with self-sle-selected mostly groups like friends or companies)companiesfriendsdistribution//entropy natural + deliberatelseconstructedsuch an environmenthence have to adjust of the system/groupsuch attempts too, they might indeed simply go wrongWhat can we do other than b?tingelse canWhat beneBetter get. and failWhat can be done about it? to do a bIn lack of
if you don't have a solution or approach .We b should B
acknowledgeWhy not b instead of getting surprised that thyey don't and what they actually arethat they don't work out as expected?it doesn'tanticipated/emerging setups
Agreements, trust, procedures, ownership, that's all primarily needed to protect the investment. The fear of loosing it is a result of it's scarcity. There are several approaches to deal with it: never investing to avoid later loss, investing while denying any value/relevance + objecting that there is scarcity, design ways that avoid/prevent loss. Conversations, talk are easy/cheap to produce so not much would be lost (not the presence in the moment anyway, if not kicked out and prevented from access to a way to be present in a context that appears to be meaningful and an investment), and lessons learned, experiences, etc. are of the category of not being loosable. Again, "investment" doesn't need to be related to money or any sort of value at all, it can be the simple decision to participate in contrast to not to, or elsewhere or differently. It can be more about values (deeper convictions and not so much measurable value). The values of the participants differ or even conflict because of their development in entirely different and separate histories, being distributed in a complex environment. Trying to align/agree and protect investment or do without is the attempt to optimize the setup/design/structure for the single individual (at the expense of the others) or for the group by arriving at a stage at which some or all values of the participants converge, which may or may not happen and doesn't come with interesting implications/effects either. Just a small general theory of everyting concluded from system and network theory. But with Gödel, it's necessarily either incomplete or incorrect ;-)
they'ressthemtheirfor trying to avoid loss at allthe outcome is realing ,investment with this type of investmentthe audience and ways to make the contribution meaningfulare un hadcontacts established other in different waysindependent arriving fromoriginsprevious as they'reEven in the group rppresence, not everybody can share the same experience all the time. , and there's independent time spent other time is spend t outside of the group presence as well. ""possibly without the sthem wouldlead to questionalble tieither way
Here's a small general theory of everything, concluded from system + network theory. With Gödel, it's either incorrect or incomplete, but why not have a look?