real meeting dynamics

In order to enable a wow in the new economic paradigm exercised through tuttle, a game can be played with a compare or referee to ensure the following rules are followed:

• no! oppositional state, from A-or-B to A-and-B, encourage the yes
• no pulling, into the past, ideas, definitions, or self, avoid distraction through dissapation, ego spiral, pastwise into old ideas and becoming a waste of time, in order to encourage the return of attention, convergence, futurewise and fluid dynamics
• no grouping, no pairing, triples, splitting, or delaying conclusions for later, no compacts, encourage shared attention
• not creative, not determined creativity like brainstorming and outlandish ideas, but simple observation and emergence of cross-mind pollination

The idea is that the referee will show an orange card if someone breaks the rules and they must stop. If it continues, then the ref shows a red card and everyone stops for 30 seconds to remind themselves of the self-disciplined acceptance of the rules of the game before they began. If people continue, the referee needs to leave, to get up and go, despite how interesting it may appear to be, wishing them the best of luck.

These bare some relevance to the RealtimeOS of the confluence model.

new strategy

So, seems like collective strategy is ahead of its time. My respectful engagement with people at the bottom doesn't seem to work either. Presenting a link between buddhism and maths hasn't piqued anyone interest. Was hoping that respect, attention, gentleness, non-ego, would realise a result, but credibility seems to be the big problem. So, under the nudging of Sofia and Tav, looks like time to make a big change.

Playing the genius card.

I've been giving people an interactive value from 0-10 or buddha-genius, from silent observer detached to active participant using will rather forcefully and loudly. The low approach hasn't worked. The ante needs to be raised, so here's the genius card.

Approach the big players, those with money, the stage, the decision makers. If I get a positive feedback loop from them, an audience of a few strategists, or well-monied individuals, or an audience from a stage, then this might make the whole thing move a lot more smoothly. That is, making an appointment at the bottom, with the backing of someone from the top, or getting some social credability from large numbers of people. I had hoped to get it from family, and now from entrepreneurs.... looks like I need to do what most people do, which is to connect to the "powerful". I suspect that my challenge at the top level is exactly what they want. Challenge lower down the system, at the horizontal plane of self-organisation, seems to be too threatening. So, let's see what the big boys are playing at.

What's the game plan?

The usual, 2020worldpeace, tron, alpha and 2p2 social security as part of the wave, transitional economics, XQ, pulse and Realtime OS, mathematising collaboration, educare, strateg_os. The objective is to get enough money to fund proper engagement with people, perhaps fund a project or two, and more importantly to get the backing of certain organisations.

Acertain a number of organisations who are trying to work on these problems and present them with these solutions. How about creating a video of my presentations? Walking from one to another, hoping to see people, talking to them, and then writing up things on windows etc. Ie, make a bit of a spectacle of it. Listing the problems, and throughout the presentation ticking off those problems that should be prevented as a result.

What are the Problems?

There are a lot of these, from lack of collaboration skills, the catch-22 with adults v kids, captialism attractor, scalibility, too much everything (info, network, ideas), grouping (selfish, competitive, bounds network, mid-top engagement pulling bottom thus top-down effect again), unpredictability (though determined), inefficient methodology of funding, encouraging bottom up growth from above. They should be outlined specific to the institutions that are engaged. Imagine writing up a list on the window outside eg NESTA the problems that face the individuals in this building; here I am outside, outside because my solutions are at a different level to theirs, I can't even get in.

What are the Solutions?

These are at a level lower than the problems, such as culture change (vertical movement together, biggest being 2020worldpeace), ethicising western practice (XQ), nerd mentality (convergence with eg tron), one non-group network eg tuttle (unity, not monopoly), ths (using the transitive economic model), . Hence, outlining these, and even describing these precisely, should show how the problems faced are resolved, or pre-solved, actually. Also generate a list of principles as a result that seem to inform most of the solutions, that define the parameters of the new paradigm.

failing that

If I can't get backing from organisations, what can I get out of a few rich backers? An iphone, free travel, place to stay (preferably in a warm country, eg cabo verde), investment in books in terms of getting publisher, pulse, hotel?, funding tron in schools.

video

I like the idea of a funky video. Recording how I get on at these places, showing my explanations drawn on glass, perhaps getting some people to help draw some graffiti in the background while explaining concepts. Could be a lot of fun, and no matter what happens, there is plenty of material which shows the ideas for all to see, if anyone is interested of course :)

confluence consultancy

OK, so how do the principles of the new economic model work in real life? Let's use tuttle since it was Lloyd who helped formulate it.

We perform a kind of free tuttle within a client's office comprising of a unique collection of individuals, vertically from company, and horizontally from tuttle collective. Because this is not a us v them situation, the ideas people come up with are positive and spontaneous based on genuinely interesting responsed to each other's ideas, just like in a standard tuttle meet up. The difference is, this unique group arrive at a decision, by consensus, to realise the best idea. And what is the best idea?

• ellicits a wow from all participants
• beyond the capacity for any individual to achieve alone
• minimal effort investment so as to produce a social result WITHIN THE WEEK
• the highest level of participant within the company simply allows the attempt to be made

If people make the decision to go for it, and they all do whatever they do within the company and with whatever network and resources they have at their disposal, then there is a chance that the idea is realised that week.

The quality of the manifest idea in the real world is that it benefits the individuals in the company and as a consequence the company itself. This might be indexed by how many people watch a video, say, or how much sales increase etc. The idea is, participants in the meeting might wish to come up with an idea that actually manifests as money flow.

If money flows, then the representatives of the company may wish to pay the tuttle collective a fee for their efforts. THIS IS NOT TO BE ACCEPTED! The tuttlers did what they did free. It is the nature of the kind of work that people are wishing to do. It is not money motivated. It is results based for sure. This allows an ethical dimension to enter into the equation. What the tuttlers may accept is a gift so that they can offer their services free ELSEWHERE.

Tuttlers are then free to contribute their skills and resources ad hoc to organisations. Clearly, we need to start clever, with the highest chance that the first consultancy results in a high potential return within a week. Hence, It's generally self-selecting as tuttlers choose those who they believe will be able to spark off the best ideas in themselves, as well as approaching the most open-minded clients. Once the positive cycle begins, tuttlers will be able to give a week, a month, a year of their time for free to realising a potential. It all depends on how successful their contributions are.

Hannah pointed out a disorder in thinking which might occur to you as you read this. Why would a company pay for something that was offered free? This is a mistake in order of thinking. If looked at in the right way, there is no organisational discussion or exchange. There are individuals within an organisation, normally aligned hierarchically, and individuals from a collective eg called tuttle. The honour of the payment is moral, and so must be conducted at the individual level.

Think blood and the circulatory system. This is a reasonable "model" for social media, since the medium of the social IS more fluid than solid.

With this model, there is only need for one tuttle, as it were. Since it is not really an organisation, but the closest to a formalised network there is. After all, we are all networked anyway, in the same way we are all self-organised. This model allows for a dissolution of the traditional structures, as people in companies experience the benefit of working in this way, they may add themselves to the tuttle pool, as it were, and find themselves in another company's office offering their services free.