on negotiation

a very brief ‘playful’ ¹ sketch of negotiation between party $a$ and $b$, in terms of:

• alignment
• the improbable yet elementary case

note: commonly negotiation is an imperfect game; what i point to initially, is an extensible ideal

1. negotiation implies discontinuity/ non-equality/ non-equivalence between the circumstances/concerns of two or more parties (here i focus on two) ²
2. negotiation is scoped/ contextual
   1. between parties $a, b$ focus on a contextually relevant subset of each parties’ set-of-all circumstances
      1. $A \subset a$
      2. $B \subset b$
      3. negotiation implies $A \neq B$
   2. consider the intersect between $A, B$ as the general-case between respective concerns:
      1. $A \cap B = \mathcal{Gc}$
   3. and difference to $\mathcal{Gc}$ as respective special-case
      1. $A \setminus \mathcal{Gc} = {A}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$
      2. $B \setminus \mathcal{Gc} = {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$
   4. note: there is no need to negotiate continuous, equal, sufficiently equivalent maps (no beneficial mutation required/ possible)
      1. where $A = B \;|\; A \approx B$
         1. ${A}^{\mathcal{Sc}} = \varnothing, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}} = \varnothing \;|\; {A}^{\mathcal{Sc}} \approx \varnothing, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}} \approx \varnothing$
3. as each party will emphasise respective $\mathcal{Sc}$, the ideal is to:
   1. eliminate ${A}^{\mathcal{Sc}}, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$, by moving elements to:
      1. $\mathcal{Gc}$
         1. by translation, into common terms
      2. $a, b$
         1. by de-emphasis, to outside of the scope/ context of negotiation
            1. there are two ways to achieve this
               1. de-emphasising elemental significance
               2. redefining contextual boundary
   2. rule: all special-case concerns ought to be framed (or re-contextualised) by the general-case (typically by recasting individual or familial homeostatic/ allostatic concerns in terms of groups common to both parties: both/all individuals, both/all families)
   3. so step one is to relate ${A}^{\mathcal{Sc}}, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$ to $\mathcal{Gc}$ (such that remaining $\mathcal{Sc}$ are explicitly discontinuous/ unequal/ non-equivalent) ³
4. note: to explore intuitions further, we will translate ⁴ from set-theoretic concerns to graph, and geometry, as necessary
   1. consider elements as a graph of composition
      1. translation (re-framing or re-contextualisation) to $\mathcal{Gc}$, in-effect, extends (or re-originates) each graph to a common origin
         1. consider, where the general-special relation over time resembles a tree, we might think of special-case concerns as loose branches, which must be aligned with appropriate trunk ($\mathcal{Gc}$)

i think that for this ideal model (for common IRL negotiations), that it is impossible to fairly isolate some elements of otherwise extrinsic scopes of concern $(a, b)$ from negotiation $(A, B)$:

1. which relate to specific life-circumstances of individuals (or respective families, etc), when: 1. elements pertain to a certain threshold of survival (including some beliefs), and 2. when those elements, or threshold, are not shared

in reality, every element is inherently plurally related/ aspectually relatable to arbitrarily many fundamental or consequential circumstances/ concerns

belief is something i’ll cover separately ⁵

one problem with adopting/ operationalising un-grounded beliefs is that we de-emphasise consistency constraints on interpreted representations, which past thresholds are ‘decommissioned’. this saves compute, but more, we no longer spend time concerning ourselves or pursuing related matters tactically/ circumstantially, this can be useful mechanism to manage worry/ anxiety/ etc strategically/ overly-broadly (say religions), we can, in-effect, become more dependent upon secondary material support structures, as we no-longer critically solve the same problems for ourselves ⁶

notes:

• i believe this account incorporates:

• “I think the union part is interesting”

  • the union is implicit by $\mathcal{Sc}$ (i emphasise relation to $\mathcal{Gc}$, which is reconciliation/ unification/ etc)
  • and totally essential for correctness, fairness, etc, agree

• “union represents everything that either side believes”

  • beliefs alone cannot override material circumstances, and ought to be partially recast to $\mathcal{Gc}$, to at-minimum, partially frame significance

• “helps you empathise”

  • empathising comes from identifying (and temporarily adopting if necessary) how individuals relate respective $\mathcal{Sc}$ to $\mathcal{Gc}$

• “analogies and allyship between parties”

  • elemental pattern matching (often graph/ tree/ geometry/ etc. see de-duplication)

• agree re breadth of application

  • alignment is everything that matters, really (pun intended ;) )
  • observations re plural/ aspectual perspectives, with caveat that not all are equal, and to verify, we must ground (frame by general-case/ which is to plurally, aspectually align)
  • significance of difference between operational and non-operational state

an almost-stream-of-consciousness application of this project to your applied insights re negotiation!

#tbc