So i have this penchant for agreement.

And it's over the top.

A pretty good label would be "groupthink".

To some degree, i think that was my (sunconscious) goal when i started ask-my-friends almost a dozen years ago and began interacting with this "replacement" group (as i flailed about, trying to replace what i thought i might not be able to live without after Mom's death).

But of course, you all have your own opinions. Often they differ from mine.

This has caused me great stress over the years, though perhaps it only really came to a head after the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict when i tried to "test" you all.

Two people passed the test. And left the group.

Was that what i'd intended?

i don't think so, but in hindsight, it's definitely what i deserved.


The thing is, underneath my neediness and dysfunction, i think there was and still is a core of a very very good idea (though it's certainly not "new" in any sense, as people have been trying to do the same thing probably for as long as there have been people).

That is, i think that it's OK to look for others who agree with me IN A LIMITED WAY, and to try to gather together in order to change the world.

We don't all have to agree about everything. But we must have some basis for consensus on at least one issue.

The trick is of course how extensive these core ideas should be.

The more dimensions one adds, the more people one potentially alienates.

This ends up being super-hard for me. There are way too many topics i think "i have the answer on" and that "i know i'm right" about.

As i'm calmly processing in a more abstract fashion (as i'm doing right now), i realize that i'm actually probably wrong on a number of these.

So let's come together in uncertainty. Let's begin with the realization that there are very few absolutes in this world; possibly none...

But i'm not sure there is enough there to build a consensus around without anything more "tangible".

So let's next try to start with some ideas, but it's important that we consider all of them provisional.

i mean, we can say "we're probably right about these things", but we do have to keep open minds to the possibilities that there may be other, better ways of framing problems in order to find solutions.

1.

so the environment

for me, that's a super important one

pollution, degradation of ecosystems, extinctions of so many species

all of these things are the result of humans

i'm intentionally being vague here, as it seems like we want "more people in the tent" and if we find things that few will be able to argue against, it makes sense to me to allow for open discussion (though perhaps subgroups will move forward on things that they/we agree on)





it's possible that that's enough, but i want to add a 2nd dimension (which may end up excluding some who could be helping with 1. above -- so how to deal? should there be separate groups instead of trying to bring one under the larger umbrella, and by demanding agreement, we don't allow the group to be as big and/or powerful?)

i don't know the answer to that, but i do think there's a necessity (at least for me) to proceed


2.

justice and fairness

this gets super-complicated immediately as i'm not sure there's consensus in the wider world on definitions for those two concepts

yet i do think that some sort of allowance *needs* to be made, and these things should be considered explicitly

in fact, i'm not sure that there's value in having "numbered" these two aspects of what i see as a way forward for us

2. is just as imporant as 1.

the way i see it, they are inexorably intertwined