[FoRK] Meaning Re: Worth

[Lion Kimbro]

> Instead of seeking understanding, people try to argue that they're right.

  I argue that I'm right **a lot,** and it's precisely **because**
  I seek understanding.

  The goal isn't to "win," the goal is to get the ideas out there,
  and then see what clicks, and what doesn't.

  People become "position-holders."  This is like all the people
  making an airplane-- they take on different tasks.  One person
  holds the fuselage, one person the left wing, another the right
  wing, and so on.

  You can't come to an understanding of chess, without
  chess players.  Chess players collectively push forwards
  the understanding of chess.

  There comes the task of fitting the thing together.

  Some people have the wrong parts, or something;  What they
  do is drop what doesn't fit, and exchange for something that
  will.

  But the whole process relies on people *earnestly trying.*

  Sincerity, putting forth your best arguments and positions,
  and so on.  It is a labor, and it's how we develop our
  understanding.

  If you're *not* trying to show that your argument is good,
  then you're failing the system, (by this model of
  understanding,) because your good pieces are necessary.
  Maybe the whole thing won't stick, and maybe none of it
  will stick-- but you have to contribute what you know.


  Now, -- this is just one model of how understanding
  is reached.  There are myriad other models:
  NVC, Delphi, group processes of myriad types.
  I am honored to have been invited into conversation
  with Peggy Holman and Tom Atlee and Juanita Brown,
  who research these myriad methods of garnering
  collective wisdom.

  If FoRK chose to take on another style of conversation,
  I'd be happy to try out the experiment, in service of
  understanding.