Editing Game B
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 345: | Line 345: | ||
So, to play Game B is to eschew reductionism, prescription and strategizing, and instead embrace complexity, uncertainty, and emergence. It is to adopt epistemic humility and deep listening as a default mode of engagement to notice what is emerging that may be omni-win. It is to cultivate a different form of knowing that leans less heavily on the propositional forms of the past and more on relational coherence, intersubjectivity, and participation to support that which encourages the universal flourishing of life. | So, to play Game B is to eschew reductionism, prescription and strategizing, and instead embrace complexity, uncertainty, and emergence. It is to adopt epistemic humility and deep listening as a default mode of engagement to notice what is emerging that may be omni-win. It is to cultivate a different form of knowing that leans less heavily on the propositional forms of the past and more on relational coherence, intersubjectivity, and participation to support that which encourages the universal flourishing of life. | ||
=== How Would Game B | === How Would Game B bear Game A? === | ||
<blockquote>“The omni-win-win system actually outcompetes the win-lose system, while obsoleting win-lose dynamics itself.” - Daniel Schmachtenberger</blockquote>If we can create a social technology to hyper-coordinate with others, then Game B would be better at innovation than Game A. Then, the only way to beat it would be to coordinate even better, which is in and of itself a more Game B solution. | <blockquote>“The omni-win-win system actually outcompetes the win-lose system, while obsoleting win-lose dynamics itself.” - Daniel Schmachtenberger</blockquote>If we can create a social technology to hyper-coordinate with others, then Game B would be better at innovation than Game A. Then, the only way to beat it would be to coordinate even better, which is in and of itself a more Game B solution. | ||
Line 361: | Line 361: | ||
An omni-considerate civilization is one where the incentive of any actor (individual or group), must be rigorously aligned with the well-being of all other agents in the system and of the commons. | An omni-considerate civilization is one where the incentive of any actor (individual or group), must be rigorously aligned with the well-being of all other agents in the system and of the commons. | ||
==== The Emergence Model ==== | ==== The Emergence Model ==== | ||
Through the Emergence Project, a model was created. The model is derived from Ken | Through the Emergence Project, a model was created. The model is derived from Ken Wilbur's Integral Theory and draws upon the work of leading contemporary thinkers to: | ||
* Include a comprehensive taxonomy of necessary and sufficient “metastructures” that support human civilization | * Include a comprehensive taxonomy of necessary and sufficient “metastructures” that support human civilization |