- Oct 8, 2005
- 1,599
- 65
uplift19 said:I think unity does require us to think alike. We have to think alike on whatever principle we are organizing around.
If we differ on something and there is not consensus, how can we possibly unite around that goal/issue/understanding/etc.?
When we try to unite and ignore our differences, we often get stagnant because we end up passively fighting for our points of view by being non-responsive to the points that we don't agree on. Stagnation to me is not unity, because I see no value in being unified to do nothing.
At some point we are going to have to pretend we are a jury and have a closed door session to argue all the valid points. Ultimately there must be agreement, and everyone has to agree on one thing. Sure, there are different ways of getting the same thing accomplished, but there must be a uniting principle otherwise we'll continue to be disjointed (hung jury).
Sister uplift it's good to read you again.
I agree with your post in that we must have unity in whatever principle we are organizing around.
What are your thoughts about organizing around identity?
It is one of the key points from Metasaience's recent threads.
Can we @least establish a unifying concept of identity enabling a substantial group of us to build together?