Steps to the future: comparing the different ways forward

[Michael Allan]

I just discovered something neat that I want to share.  I now feel
pretty sure that this trick of revealing the plans is the key to
starting things in a big way.  I recall telling Christian last year
that if we found the right start practice, then it would be a
sure-fire thing; probably just one person could walk in and start it
single-handedly.  So when I realized (just now) how easy this plan-
revealing start would be (even if nobody else understood or helped or
cared at first) then I figured it was probably *the* start key.

But the neatest thing is how it's like a keystone between practice and
theory, as though the two joined here in an arch.  To explain, see the
material end (M0, "forever retelling the myth") in this table:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.html#moral

Well, never mind *end*, it's clear that we can't even *start* without
telling a myth.  Myth is what each of these plans (e.g. your own)
aspires to be, because its steps tell the story of where we're all
going, which makes it a myth by definition.  And clearly we can't move
a finger, or bat an eye without it.  So all our practical frustrations
in this little group (field, society, etc) are tied to what theory
here reveals as the ultimate and eternal solution.  We can apply that
solution now (i.e. tell our plans), or stay frozen and frustrated
until we do.  Those are the alternatives.  I think it's neat how
something so eye-poppingly big (in theory) meets us here in a small
practice.  It's this meeting I call the "keystone".

I'm happy too, because this brings the design I've been working on
with others (notably Thomas and Christian) to a kind of completion.
You might not see it, but (for whatever it's worth) it hangs together.
I worked almost 7 years on it.  Parts of the theory are older, dating
back to 1988.  So it's been a long haul for me.

Mike


(cc Votorola) original thread:
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2014-June/006807.html

I wrote:
> > Suppose I told you there are 3 basic plans for moving forward in this
> > field, and they look like this:
> > 
> >     Plan A           Plan B           Plan C
> >    ----------       ----------       ----------
> >    1. Do this       1. Do this       1. Do this
> >    2. Do that       2. Do that       2. Do that
> >    3. Do this       3. Do this       3. Do this
> >     ... etc          ... etc          ... etc
> > 
> > Imagine those are real plans with all the steps filled in.  Would this
> > information be useful to you?  Or could you easily do without it?
> > 
> > If it would be useful, then I want to suggest a simple thing we can do
> > in the context of Metagov that would help us not only in regard to the
> > immediate problems of Metagov, but the entire field.  It hinges on the
> > fact that Metagov is uniquely neutral ground; all other groups, tool
> > makers, projects, companies and organizations are more-or-less locked
> > into particular plans for moving forward.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Michael Allan
> > 
> > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> > http://zelea.com/