re/ In pursuit of a transformational movement


Richard Moore

Bcc: FYI
rkm website

     In pursuit of a transformational movement
Nikki wrote:
Why not check out:

With that kind of approach, what typically happens is that some self-selected group of online individuals cluster around the project, exchanging documents with one another. A larger audience also clusters, following the action and commenting once in a while. As the conversation proceeds, it typically degenerates in one of two ways: either it becomes a parochial discussion among a group of contributors who happen to be on the same wavelength, or it becomes a repetitive debate between contrary solutions. 
Good process could help, if an appropriate one can be found for a large audience, but there remains the biggest hurdle: attracting enough attention to the site to enable it to claim any kind of democratic legitimacy. It is very difficult to get attention-share on the net. You’re competing with social networking, movie downloads, emails, viral Youtubes, and everything else everyone does with their online time, not to mention other movement-projects, of which there are probably thousands. 
If somehow the audience did become massive for the project, then we get into a MoveOn scenario, where the project is likely to become an agenda-vehicle of the project/website managers.
Peter Koening wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I’m sorry I didn’t join you in St. Imier, but hope to have a chance on another occasion.
It looks like you have had a great group of dynamic thinkers. I like the idea of CIPs, as they are ongoing – an inherent engagement. I would also like to think that CIP could strand for Creative Insight Practitioners, since ideas need to be validated in a reality check. Looking forward to further developments,

The fundamental idea I’m working on is how best to map the imaginal-cell model onto a model of social transformation. I’ve done a lot of scenario analysis, and I’ve moved on from the notion of ongoing panels, for efficiency reasons. Instead of convening a panel to look into Monetary policy, for example, we’d simply convene a DF weekend, where the participants include advocates of all the various monetary schemes. I’m talking a lesson here from Manfred, regarding the efficiency of Creative Insight Councils. 
I’ll be posting a description of the refined model in the next day or two, most likely with the subject: ‘The Transformation Project’. The refinement has been major. The project has morphed into something that a small project team could realistically undertake. And the strategy for encouraging public engagement has become much more effective and efficient. Also, the approach leads to a scenario where the project becomes self-organizing: the project itself becomes owned and propagated by the people.
Hope to see you in Switzerland on my next visit.
Vera Bradova wrote:
Richard, a great post, and very encouraging! Loved the video of Hellrigl. Infectious.
One thing’s been bugging me re the wisdom council process. Why unanimity? Unanimity is not that far from groupthink, methinks, and when people are looking for solutions, many different things being tried seems to serve best. Think of the people trying to invent a flying machine, way back, some with flapping wings, some with flying bicycles, some with contraptions pushed off a hill… how could unanimity possibly had served them? When we are all ignorant, unanimity is a trap. Any thoughts of yours on this would be appreciated.
Sounds like you have found your niche and a doable way to go forth. Best of luck.

At the macro level, where society-as-a-whole is seeking a breakthrough, such as creating a flying machine, you are right: a lot of approaches and experiments are needed, and that’s generally what happens. But at the micro level, you can be sure that Wilbur and Orville shared a unanimous perspective on their own approach to the problem.
What happens in a DF session is that people take on board everyone’s concerns, regarding the problem, and they work together to find a solution that takes everyone’s concerns into account. It’s a creative, dynamic process, nothing at all like groupthink. 
It’s not that the people agree unanimously on someone’s proposal, rather the people create a new proposal together, with everyone’s voice listened to. It’s like when some engineering team releases a new computer model; they will naturally be unanimous in their enthusiasm for what they have created together. 
You might want to google ‘dynamic facilitation choice creating’ and see what is said there about unanimity. 
best wishes to all,