Thoughts on Ethical and Effective Transactions
I must allow (XX) to act according to the rules of (his) tribe until/unless (he) is willing/able to act according to those of my tribe. And the reverse is true. So, we must come to a meeting ground, by agreement, with rules likewise.
It is necessary to hold each party in this kind of situation to its own rules; for without this the rules agreed for the meeting are invalid.A basic rule that must be observed is that all parties must apply any knowledge base which is known or reasonably assumed to be common. Much trouble and waste of time and effort can be saved by ensuring commonality of basic knowledge. It is ongoing: each item discussed becomes a part of the common base. This is generally the easiest and least threatening way to increase the efficiency of the process, but the willful refusal to incorporate or provide information as common may be the single most obstructive factor in the process.
The degree of analysis and explanation in a transaction is subject to initial specification and subsequent correction. The explainer picks a starting point, based on the questioner’s specifications and then corrects based on feedback from the questioner. Too little explanation can be interpreted as incompetent, inconsiderate, or evasive; too much as deliberately confusing and obstructive. If the feedback is erroneous for any reason, then the explainer cannot possibly match the questioner’s requirements correctly. This error can only be corrected by the questioner.
"You see what you want, or what you fear, but not what you do not understand"-- FRM
Understanding enables vision, satisfies desire, vanquishes fear, and bestows power. It is the responsibility and task of any adult to actively seek and honestly come to his own understanding. It is in the interest of any bureaucracy (formal or informal) or other con-artist to instill Fear, but not Knowledge, in its subjects.In any transaction, the balance of power between participants is critical; the greater the imbalance, the greater the delicacy of the interaction. It is the responsibility of each party to use his power appropriately, and to be aware of effects both intended and not, as much as is possible.
The concept of a shamanic healing (most obvious in self-healing) is precisely the same as my statement "you must accept the responsibility in order to have the power."
Stated in a much circumscribed form as "repent and you shall be forgiven" [circumscribed by the guilt implied by "repent", by the economic nature of the structure -- you do this and in exchange I will give you this -- and by the usurpation of your authority (to forgive yourself) by an outside agency]"The world is as you dream it"-- a statement of fact -- a unity -- Shuar, via John Perkins
"You must accept the responsibility in order to have the power" -- "how to" statement, of the same fact -- an analytic separation of that unity -- FRM
"Repent and you shall be forgiven" -- the same how to statement, but as a COMMAND transfers all the power away from you, but leaves you with the responsibility, and guilt -- a functional separation of that unity -- ChristianityFor The Time Being - Annie Dillard - Knopf 1999 -- Ch 6 p143
“Some Hasids, in a lost age, used to say that all our deeds give birth to angels -- good angels and bad angels. ‘From half-hearted and confused deeds which are without meaning or power,’ Martin Buber notes, ‘angels are born with twisted limbs or without a head or hands or feet’”The simple possession of information imparts both power and responsibility. A willful act of refusing to acquire information eliminates the possibility of power, but does not reduce responsibility. In fact, the act of refusal actively and immediately assigns responsibility to the refuser. “We did not know about the death camps.” -- twisted angels in-deed!
The discarding of possibly helpful information on the basis of an arrogant and uninformed pre-judgement founded in rumor and erroneous misconception seems to me to be a primary example of a “willful act of refusing to acquire information”.
It is required, as a matter of ethics, to offer solutions envisioned and possessed. It may, as a matter of immediate need, seem appropriate to ask or say something in a situation. In either case, a balance must be struck between the anticipated or required result, and any foreseen side effects. The extent of “foreseen side effects” is determined by the knowledge base available, and the amount of consideration that is given; as the extent grows, the balancing becomes more difficult and important.
“Ask for what you need.”
In the first asking, it is the task and the duty of the supplicant to communicate and clarify the need, and of the commander to listen, all in good faith. This is an honorable, if difficult, task, on both sides.
If a second asking is required, it is an indication of something gone wrong with the first. It falls to both parties to clarify.
The third asking is begging. This is, at the least, demeaning to both. It creates a condition which is not conducive to progress, and residual inhibitions. It is, as the French say, inutil.
These deeds too produce their respective angels.Cattle bar
A cattle bar is a hole with bars across it, such that a vehicle can drive over it, but a cow cannot walk on it because its feet fall between the bars. Placed in a road, it allows one to drive across without stopping to open a gate. It requires no effort or time to operate, little maintenance. It makes the owner richer. As a matter of reducing expense, the extent of these was reduced from the length of a cow, to the length of a cow step. Cows learned to step over. It was found that by painting lines on the road at the spacing of the bars, the cows would think the thing bigger than it is, and would not cross. Now they are made with a few bars -- half a cow step -- and a lot of lines. The cow sees/feels the first hole, and, perceiving more, stops. The first hole is true, but the cow is imprisoned only by its own perceptual illusion.
The cattle bar is essentially a matter of separation, control, ownership, property, wealth, convenience, security, laziness, artifice, and above all illusion.It is characteristic of insecure and embattled groups to allow no dissent, and no departure, and further, to acquire new members. They will attempt to “help”, or fix, those who deviate, not as a matter of the interests of the deviant, but so as to not loose the “power” of numbers. -- “Those are our cows, property, wealth.” They will distort the facts, the offerings of the deviant, their own basis for existence. They kill those who attempt to leave, symbolically or literally. -- Mafia, Hell’s Angels, dictatorships, The Church, social cliques, families.
It is inherent in the very concept of “group”, that a border, or separation, is created around the group; it includes the group, excludes all else. It is fundamentally a matter of disunity in the world, and of limits. It is sold to its’ members on the grounds that the interests of the group are identical to those of the individual members. When this ceases to be true (if it ever was), then the individual concerned suffers.
It is sometimes convenient, or necessary, to create borders for some functional purpose: in engineering, for analysis -- the “black box”; in accounting, for manipulation -- debits and credits; in administration, for convenience -- departments. Having done this, it is necessary to consider the implications of any action without regard to these artificial separations. To fail to do so is stupid and dangerous, for the angels (twisted or not) of our deeds act globally or universally, and without such regard.
It is possible to have a communal undertaking without creating the border of a group: a construct that is inclusive without being exclusive. The term for this is “association”.
The distortion of “common knowledge” is a serious source of trouble. As this becomes more deliberate in a progression from “The willful act of refusing to acquire information” to the active manipulation of information for the purpose of deception, so does it become more evil. The term “associate” is widely, if imperfectly, understood to represent a desirable condition for people who would otherwise be classified in some other way -- as partners, employees, serfs, or slaves. That this is true is well demonstrated by the malicious, malignant, and exploitative adoption of the term by such entities as Wal-Mart.
The common knowledge term “we” can be especially misleading; it seems to be often used with several different splits of responsibility/benefit in the same sentence, and several different degrees of inclusiveness as well. Further, the meaning shifts over time, particularly through the progression from proposal, through action, to division of benefits.
It is my belief that the honest application of these points to all transactions can result in: an increase in the power of each individual and association at relatively little cost to anyone; in the growth of harmony; in what is commonly termed efficiency. These can be measured in many ways: by an increase of social and personal peace; by increased productivity of time and resources; by increased production of real wealth for all members of the association.
Thoughts on Ethical and Effective Transactions -- Nov 99 FRM