5,715
edits
Planetary Dialogue Agora of Philanthropolis: Difference between revisions
From Future Worlds Center Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Planetary Dialogue Agora of Philanthropolis (view source)
Revision as of 23:34, 26 July 2023
, 26 July 2023Added alternative TQ proposed by Schreibman
No edit summary |
(Added alternative TQ proposed by Schreibman) |
||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
* Idea 20: Language over passing cultural differences (Vaida) | * Idea 20: Language over passing cultural differences (Vaida) | ||
* Idea 33: Extra-linguistic Cultural Understanding (Esenbek) | * Idea 33: Extra-linguistic Cultural Understanding (Esenbek) | ||
==Alternative options for the Triggering Question== | |||
Before the above Triggering Question was selected, Vigdor Schreibman, proposed as alternative: | |||
What are the theories of action which, if adopted and used to guide decision-making will produce the ideal image of the New Agora of Philanthropolis? | |||
His reasoning was grounded in a previous communication in which Jacqueline Howell Wasilewski wrote “I keep thinking of the Cook Island Maori woman | |||
who stood up in a meeting in Vanuatu in 1991 and said that | |||
her idea of an appropriate global order was one "where the voice | |||
of a hummingbird was listened to with as much respect as the voice of an eagle". According to Schreibman, his proposed TQ also encourages the adoption of the optimum set of theories of action that control decision-making within the Setting for decisions of the Information-age. It would thus enable participants to define the location of power in the current situation, as a basis for designing a new system, which is the best practice, on Synergy, according to Warfield (1998), following Argyris (1978) and satisfies the requirements of critical systems thinking | |||
Schreibman argued that the latter goals are particularly significant on the path to realizing The Transformative Paradigm, as he has also committed to them from the initiation of the Lovers of Democracy enterprise. | |||
“Freedom of choice and the guarantee of access for the voice of a hummingbird need little further explanation but in an environment in which choice is increasingly shaped in a context driven by an overpowering technological civilization citizens can realize their valued freedoms only to the extent they become masters of the theories of action by which they can coherently manage decision-making powers. As free choice becomes more problematical, however, the need of citizens for an understanding and grasp of the theories of action governing decision-making, most likely becomes indispensable. | |||
It is necessary to accept our responsibilities in Knowledge Management by preparing participants for the unique normative style of the Planetary Dialogue, to deal effectively with such conditions. Normative planning opens an unusually large and, somewhat, intimidating space for futures creative planning, which requires special powers of analytical visioning. This may benefit by a greater level of theoretical knowledge about decision-making. | |||
Free choice without that understanding of reality in normative planning simply throws the citizen deeper into the grip of uncertainty when addressing the instrumental powers of big government and big business. Better preparation to understand the decision-making process can optimize the citizen’s psychic powers and our collective capacity to listen to each other, even to the voice of a hummingbird." | |||
