Good reply here - It seems to me that the point of this inner circle is more about accomplishing goals in a practical and efficient way - without stepping on someone's toes, or turning anyone off to the group. We will reject a hundred ways of doing this before we find one that is compatible with our ethics. The only thing I am sure about is that some level of organization is usually beneficial in accomplishing any task. We are all somewhat anti authoritarian to different degrees, so we will generally reject any measure that gives a person authority - even simple "lets take a vote" authority. My guess is that some people here would starve to death before taking and order to eat - so our dilemma exists. I agree you Eric, and Dan, volunteers for everything - and if you suggest a "bill" then you are the one responsible for its implementation. (I am a believer in responsibility and accountability).
Bill Roh
Eric Boyd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> psypher <overload@fastmail.ca> writes:
> <<
> ...I contend that reliance on this sort of structure is a form of
> UTism and builds destructive influences into the organization of
> Virus. One of the strengths of this forum is the open interaction
> between people with varying levels of understanding.
> >>
>
> You're right -- and why would we change that?
>
> <<
> ...each person has a purpose which is unique to them [if I'm
> understanding level 3 correctly]. Thus it is of best value to the
> collective if we allow each person to participate with the memetic
> program of Virus in a way which is consonant with their purpose.
>
> ...providing a broad field for the development of individual
> apacity - within an organized structure of meaning - provides for a
> more flexible response than adherence to a structure of arbitrary
> constraints.
> >>
>
> 'structure with arbitrary constraints'? Hmmm. You know, I think this
> discussion is too abstract... I certainly don't see the proposed
> 'Inner Circle' the same way that you do! I think of the circle as
> your 'organized structure of meaning (=effect)'. Like I said in the
> previous post, the largest benefit of an inner circle would be the
> extra responsibility that members of it would take on. And since
> membership is entirely voluntary, it's not like we're roping people
> into doing extra work!
>
> <<
> if people are interested in organizing something of the sort, let 'em.
> That way the people most committed self-select for level of
> involvement.
> >>
>
> This is how I envision it working anyway. There are no 'hoops' to
> jump through other than those you set for yourself -- like other
> aspects of Virus, you determine the meaning of "member of the Inner
> Circle". And, when you feel ready, simply step across the line and
> unto the ground.
>
> But like I said, this is still very abstract. Perhaps if I sat down
> and thought about 'structure' some more, I could clarify what I'm
> thinking. I'll get back to you.
>
> ERiC