Sorry if this has been asked before. So far I haven’t come across something that fully answers my question. Also not sure if this goes in this forum category or “Sociocracy Basics,” but this seemed like a more obscure question so I’m putting it here.
I understand that decisions in sociocracy are made when a proposal has no objections from all members of the circle which is responsible for the decisions, and that objections should be evaluated against the aim of the circle. However, when the proposal is to change the aim of the circle (I’m thinking at the highest level), there is no aim against which to evaluate the proposal. You can’t change the aim while using the old aim to evaluate the new aim. The “reference points” seem to then become the circle members themselves - their values, interests, desires, etc.
I know the SoFA article here talks about getting the mission circle and general circle to agree, but what if some people in those circles have differing ideas? What if they all agreed to the old aim (“aim A”), but the old aim has become irrelevant, and one group wants to change it to aim B while another group wants to change it to aim C? Are they then stuck with the old irrelevant aim? Should they split up?
Does this also mean that objections in this case can be arbitrary? Basically someone can object and just say they don’t think that should be the aim of the organization (they can also give stats as to why another aim deserves attention). And there’s not really any way to resolve that except by kicking them out or splitting up since there’s millions of problems in the world, and there’s not really an objective way to say one problem deserves the organization’s attention more than another one.