5/14 Vital Conversation: DISSENT! - Occupy Cafe2024-03-28T13:46:03Zhttp://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/5-14-vital-conversation-dissent?commentId=6451976%3AComment%3A25126&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThanks, Anna. I think the cre…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-26:6451976:Comment:253522012-05-26T17:09:57.191ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p>Thanks, Anna. I think the credit goes to Ben. As long as I felt (rightly or wrongly) that I was being silenced or attacked, I was very defensive. Being silenced or attacked was my experience on liberal and progressive forums for over twenty-five years, so that's what I'd come to expect. Once Ben made it clear that there would be no silencing or attacks, I felt less insecure.</p>
<p>Being attacked and marginalized was my experience at my local Occupy also. I wasn't silenced, but my teach-ins…</p>
<p>Thanks, Anna. I think the credit goes to Ben. As long as I felt (rightly or wrongly) that I was being silenced or attacked, I was very defensive. Being silenced or attacked was my experience on liberal and progressive forums for over twenty-five years, so that's what I'd come to expect. Once Ben made it clear that there would be no silencing or attacks, I felt less insecure.</p>
<p>Being attacked and marginalized was my experience at my local Occupy also. I wasn't silenced, but my teach-ins were scheduled for inconvenient times where few people would attend and weren't video-taped like other teach-ins. Yet whenever I run into people who attended, they tell me how much they took away with them and how my words changed their actions and attitudes. As some of them are activist community leaders, I think there is the potential that someday, probably after the November elections when people become disillusioned once again, I might be allowed a voice. In the meantime, those who were intent on co-opting my local Occupy away from change and into politics as usual, have succeeded, so I stay away. Even the local Occupy events that appear to be most promising, are nothing more than excuses to register voters and direct energies toward government and away from self-governance. For example, recent anti-nuclear protests are aimed at trying to convince government to shut down unsafe reactors, rather than at removing from government the power to make such decisions and vesting that power in the people who are most at risk from the unthinkable consequences (Chernobyl, Fukushima) of bad decisions.</p>
<p>It is obvious to me that if we delegate decision-making authority to capitalists, decisions will be made on the basis of profitability rather than on on the basis of safety. But liberals and progressives, for the most part, don't seem to "get it." They're looking for less greedy capitalists rather than opposing capitalism. They're afraid of radical solutions when only radical solutions can bring about real change. So they're hoping for change, but not ready to be the change they want. Derrick Jensen, someone I don't really admire for unrelated reasons, did an excellent explanation of hope. He said that when he's hungry, he doesn't hope for food, he makes himself something to eat, because he has control over the situation. But when he's on an airplane, he hopes that it won't crash because he doesn't have control. We need to avoid situations where we don't have control, stop delegating decisions to systems over which we have no control, and create situations where we can stop hoping and start taking control. </p>
<p></p>
<p> </p> Wow Mark, Bravo. Yes to every…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-26:6451976:Comment:251862012-05-26T16:03:20.820ZAnna Harrishttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/AnnaHarris
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Wow Mark, Bravo. Yes to everything you say. Your clarity is breathtaking - civic instead of civil. Give them a taste and they won't return to slavery. Anarchy - no rulers. Build the alternative instead of wasting energy on trying to bring it down.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">I feel something has changed for you, you are no longer attacking everyone for not caring, dragging things down into despair. You are…</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Wow Mark, Bravo. Yes to everything you say. Your clarity is breathtaking - civic instead of civil. Give them a taste and they won't return to slavery. Anarchy - no rulers. Build the alternative instead of wasting energy on trying to bring it down.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">I feel something has changed for you, you are no longer attacking everyone for not caring, dragging things down into despair. You are <span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>leading</b></span> with a confidence that people can and will respond. And it's not difficult. It is just below the surface. May be we can't see it but it is already happening.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">May be I'm misreading this but that's what it feels like.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Anna</p> Anarchy does not mean chaos.…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-26:6451976:Comment:250922012-05-26T15:27:06.213ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p>Anarchy does not mean chaos. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. </p>
<p>Numbers alone cannot bring about change. The US capitalist imperialist system has killed millions of people and has never had a qualm about killing millions of innocent people. Homeland Security recently bought 450 million rounds of hollow point ammunition, and there are only 300 million US Americans. If people rise up in a fascist system, they get shot down. The only way to bring down the system is to stop…</p>
<p>Anarchy does not mean chaos. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. </p>
<p>Numbers alone cannot bring about change. The US capitalist imperialist system has killed millions of people and has never had a qualm about killing millions of innocent people. Homeland Security recently bought 450 million rounds of hollow point ammunition, and there are only 300 million US Americans. If people rise up in a fascist system, they get shot down. The only way to bring down the system is to stop supporting it and to, as Buckminster Fuller suggested, create better systems to replace it. .</p>
<p>Much of what has been done and is being discussed in reconomy is anarchist. Reclaiming the commons, worker-owned collectives, all these are anarchist concepts. When I joined Occupy Cafe I was not an anarchist. Only after meeting anarchists and studying the literature did I become an anarchist. In a sense I always was an anarchist, as I've always opposed hierarchy and always supported equality. But I'd been brainwashed and I didn't know that's what anarchy is about.</p>
<p>Liberals and progressives aren't mad as hell and they're never going to get mad as hell. Civil disobedience is an oxymoron. If you are civil, you are courteous and polite and you respect authority. In a capitalist imperialist system, that means respecting property more than freedom. Disobedience to the system means respecting people more than property. That's not civil, that's civic. Liberals and progressives are dutiful citizens, bound to working within the system rather than opposing the system. Their loyalty is to the state, the civil order, not to the civicus, the people. They respect the state more than they respect themselves. They've been divided and conquered and fear their neighbors more than they fear the state which has taken away their rights and considers them expendable resources rather than full citizens. They vote for representatives who aren't bound to represent them, and no matter how badly those representatives betray them, they don't feel themselves competent to make their own decisions. Of course they don't--they've never been allowed to. Where workers have taken ownership and ousted capitalist management, there is always more productivity, not less, more efficiency, not less, and more personal satisfaction, not less. There's even more prosperity, since the bulk of their labor is not siphoned off by the ruling class, the slave-owners. The motto of anarchy is "No masters, no slaves."</p>
<p>The function of the state is to frighten people, to terrify them into submission, and to kill them if they don't submit. The state usurps the sole legitimate use of violence and is violent. Liberals and progressives believe that the state is necessary in order to keep the scary right wing from taking over, and they are incapable of recognizing that the state and the scary right wing are one and the same--that they are supporting exactly what they fear, and that the right wing has already taken over and will not and cannot prevent itself from taking over. Not even wars of aggression based on lies opened the eyes of liberals and progressives to reality. They want to believe that the innocent civilians the government kills abroad are terrorists and cannot understand that it is our government that is the terrorist.</p>
<p>LOVE is the answer, but love of people, not love of property. Love of freedom, not love of law and order. </p>
<p>It is, in my opinion, a mistake to think of Occupy as a marketing scheme that has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to grow its numbers. That's what political parties do, and that's why they're losing public support. If it is to be successful, Occupy has to create inspirational alternatives that appeal to people's highest aspirations, not to their basest selfish interests. And it doesn't have to have the greatest numbers, it needs only what Margaret Mead and now Peter Block advocate--a small group of committed people. As the merger of government and industry outsources jobs, reconomy creates alternative livelihoods. As government has nothing to offer them but the military or prison, people will turn to alternative economies simply to survive. And once people get a taste of self-governance, of decision-making, of responsibility, they won't return to slavery or wage-slavery. Once people experience genuine freedom, the kind that money can't buy, they won't continue to worship hierarchy and inequality. Once people have the opportunity to take pride in their competence, they won't continue to see themselves as incompetent.</p>
<p>It isn't a question of calling for change, it is a matter of being the change we want to see.</p>
<p>In Canada, students are protesting tuition hikes and the general public is protesting laws against protests. In Brazil, some students have taken over their schools and proved that they can run them better than the government can. Seeing that, their parents and teachers sided with the students against the government.</p>
<p>Why waste energy complaining about, yelling at, or trying to tear down institutions that are failing of their own accord? Build alternative systems to replace them and just let the old systems fall.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> And here is the response I po…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-26:6451976:Comment:251842012-05-26T13:17:04.215ZBen Robertshttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/BenRoberts
<p><em>And here is the response I posted back:</em></p>
<p><span class="comment-body"><span class="text">Hmmm... I guess there's something in the air! At Occupy Cafe, we hosted a "Dissent conversation" two Monday's ago and guess what graphic image I chose for our posts about it? …</span></span></p>
<p><em>And here is the response I posted back:</em></p>
<p><span class="comment-body"><span class="text">Hmmm... I guess there's something in the air! At Occupy Cafe, we hosted a "Dissent conversation" two Monday's ago and guess what graphic image I chose for our posts about it? <a target="blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eoccupycafe%2Eorg%2Fforum%2Ftopics%2F5-14-vital-conversation-dissent&urlhash=vAU4&_t=tracking_disc" rel="nofollow">http://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/5-14-vital-conversation-dissent</a><br/><br/>The question for me is, now that we're all mad as a hell, what ARE we going to do about the depression and the air and the fears about inflation that are causing politicians to impose austerity when DEflation and unemployment are the real danger, or the fact that our whole money system is deeply, perhaps fatally flawed, never mind the absurd yet widely accepted idea that perpetual exponential growth is not only a good thing, but an essential one?<br/><br/>Anger is useful up to a point. But creative energy and positive solutions need to come from a deeper emotion, it seems to me. I vote for LOVE. And I suggest that the Occupy movement will stay limited in numbers and impact as long as its message is primarily one of anger and opposition to what is. People need to understand what might be possible in a different future from the one they now expect. Otherwise, even if they don't like what the banks or the government or Monsanto is doing, they are not going to rise up in sufficient numbers to call for a change. They will be scared that, as bad as things are now, tearing down the deeply flawed institutions we have now will only leave chaos and something worse (anarchy!) in their place.</span></span></p> Synchronicity is everywhere t…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-26:6451976:Comment:251832012-05-26T13:15:31.594ZBen Robertshttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/BenRoberts
<p>Synchronicity is everywhere these days! This video was just posted to <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4122540&trk=anet_ug_hm" target="_blank">the Occupy Everywhere LinkedIn group</a>:</p>
<p> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rNxoLJy3m3s?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p>Synchronicity is everywhere these days! This video was just posted to <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4122540&trk=anet_ug_hm" target="_blank">the Occupy Everywhere LinkedIn group</a>:</p>
<p> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rNxoLJy3m3s?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p> Thank you, Mark. I appreciat…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-22:6451976:Comment:250482012-05-22T12:07:13.363ZBen Robertshttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/BenRoberts
<p>Thank you, Mark. I appreciate your clarifying your views on feelings, and also sharing some of your own in answer to my questions. I had to laugh when you copped to a tendency to not hold any of your resentments in! And the forgiveness piece touched me. Both for the depth of commitment and feeling it showed, and also perhaps for the pain I imagine might accompany being in that place of not forgiving.</p>
<p>In terms of our dialogue on dissent as a process, what I'm getting now is that…</p>
<p>Thank you, Mark. I appreciate your clarifying your views on feelings, and also sharing some of your own in answer to my questions. I had to laugh when you copped to a tendency to not hold any of your resentments in! And the forgiveness piece touched me. Both for the depth of commitment and feeling it showed, and also perhaps for the pain I imagine might accompany being in that place of not forgiving.</p>
<p>In terms of our dialogue on dissent as a process, what I'm getting now is that it's DENIAL that you find unacceptable--that's the point of the door-knocking analogy. And perhaps RESIGNATION is also something you are fighting, i.e. the sense that there's nothing we can do about the awful state of things, so why bother trying, or even talking about it except in a way that reinforces hopelessness.</p>
<p>I'm right there with you on those two concerns, as is Mr. Block. Indeed, they are among the the key forms of "inauthentic dissent" that he highlights. He suggests that resignation, in particular, is "the ultimate act of powerlessness" and that "none of us is strong enough to carry the dead weight of others' resignation or even our own."</p>
<p>Finally, I want to support what I am hearing as a resistance to rules and restrictions on your freedom to show up as you choose. It is a common purpose that can unite us, not some committee that tells everyone exactly what conversations they can and can't have. As Meg Wheatley says, we face a paradox as living beings, in that both our individual freedom and our belonging to community are essential to life's continuity. Too often, as you point out, our communities are not places where our life energy is supported and our individual autonomy is respected and encouraged.</p> I like that, Elaine. OF cours…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-22:6451976:Comment:253232012-05-22T06:15:11.892ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p>I like that, Elaine. OF course I can't change how a person feels. In fact, I feel very strongly that everyone is entitled to their feelings. I don't tell people who are depressed to cheer up, I tell them that they have a right to feel depressed, that it is a normal reaction to whatever caused them to feel depressed, and that it isn't a mental or emotional illness, it is a natural feeling when bad things happen. And simply by honoring and respecting their feelings, I've helped several people…</p>
<p>I like that, Elaine. OF course I can't change how a person feels. In fact, I feel very strongly that everyone is entitled to their feelings. I don't tell people who are depressed to cheer up, I tell them that they have a right to feel depressed, that it is a normal reaction to whatever caused them to feel depressed, and that it isn't a mental or emotional illness, it is a natural feeling when bad things happen. And simply by honoring and respecting their feelings, I've helped several people through bouts of severe depression. I've been through it myself, and I know how absurd I thought people were who tried to tell me how I should feel.</p>
<p>I agree about raising a person's self-awareness, but I also think it is important to raise their social consciousness as well. In other words, not to just examine how I feel, and what beliefs and thoughts are behind my feelings, but also to examine how society manipulates our thoughts and feelings deliberately, so as to convince people to support or at least not resist wars, environmental destruction, catastrophic economic policies, etc. If the beliefs and thoughts behind my feelings didn't originate with me, or with people who care about me, but with people who mean me no good, I'm much more apt to allow my feelings to change than if I believe that the feelings came from my heart.</p>
<p>I'm very glad you clarified your meaning, Elaine. If having different thoughts and beliefs leads to different feelings, which in turn can lead to different actions, then introducing different thoughts and beliefs is not a complete waste of time. </p> Ben, the analogy of knocking…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-22:6451976:Comment:253222012-05-22T04:44:13.423ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p>Ben, the analogy of knocking on a door when you know nobody is home, is an example of acting irrationally. Elaine said, "<span>I've been known to tell people who are trying to convince me I'm wrong - that I can see the logic of what they are saying and I accept that my point of view is coming from an irrational place - but that does not change how 'I feel,'" so I think it is a valid analogy. It is an example of somebody doing something based on a feeling, knocking on the door because they…</span></p>
<p>Ben, the analogy of knocking on a door when you know nobody is home, is an example of acting irrationally. Elaine said, "<span>I've been known to tell people who are trying to convince me I'm wrong - that I can see the logic of what they are saying and I accept that my point of view is coming from an irrational place - but that does not change how 'I feel,'" so I think it is a valid analogy. It is an example of somebody doing something based on a feeling, knocking on the door because they want to see their friend, without letting the fact that the person isn't home change how they feel or change how they act. </span></p>
<p><span>While it might not be representative of what Elaine was trying to communicate, it is representative of my peace activist friend who votes for pro-war candidates. It is acting irrationally, without regard to facts or reason, and it is not acting from the gut or the heart, because it disregards those feelings also. My friend is fully aware that voting for pro-war candidates will not do anything to bring about peace, and simply refuses to discuss the issue with me. It is my personal observation that people who know they are acting irrationally don't want to talk about it. If they're determined to continue to act irrationally, reasoned arguments are an irrelevant nuisance.</span></p>
<p><span>Of course we cannot reason without using our emotions. I don't know how people who act against their own emotions, manage it. I can't. </span></p>
<p><span>I don't think that just because something is heart-centered, it must be irrational and conformist. What I'm trying to say is that just because an action is irrational, does <em>not</em> mean that it is heart-centered. </span></p>
<p><span>What forgiveness am I withholding? I'm not forgiving people for hurting others, particularly people who claim that they don't want to hurt others and care deeply about others. If a person's heart is good, how does it excuse them if they act in ways that are not from their good heart, and claim that the reason their acts appear irrational is because they're from their heart? If somebody has a good heart and doesn't want to hurt others, but acts in ways that hurt others, those actions cannot be coming from their heart. </span></p>
<p><span>I'm not all that big on forgiveness. Even Bishop Tutu said that the Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa wasn't successful. Some people confessed to atrocities, were forgiven, and went right out and committed more atrocities. That wasn't how it was supposed to work. I find it difficult to forgive people for hurting me or hurting others until they stop doing it. </span></p>
<p><span>As for what resentment I hold that nobody knows about, I'm not sure there is one. I usually speak out about things I resent. I've done things that I didn't want to do because I felt at the time that I had no choice, and I resented being put in that position, but I complained loud and long about it every time, and tried to avoid it happening again. </span></p>
<p><span>Michael Bakunin said, "I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible." Thinking of some of the politicians and businessmen who are now possible, and who seem to delight in hurting others, I also, like Bakunin, feel fully justified in remaining impossible. If people can tolerate a Jamie Dimon, a Barack Obama, and an Anthony Scalia, it shouldn't be that difficult for them to tolerate me. </span></p>
<p><span><br/></span></p> Ben and Mark - thanks for the…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-22:6451976:Comment:251432012-05-22T04:00:26.677ZElaine Hansenhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/ElaineHansen
<p>Ben and Mark - thanks for the additions and continuing the conversation. Having followed your threads and re-read what I wrote this morning (which was perfectly clear and explicit to me - at the time) - I am once again confronted with the limitations of writing in a forum. I am so much more comfortable talking.</p>
<p>Mark -</p>
<p>#1 - Ben is correct in that I think you have taken my comments out of context. </p>
<p>When I talked about Einsteins' quote about using the same thinking to…</p>
<p>Ben and Mark - thanks for the additions and continuing the conversation. Having followed your threads and re-read what I wrote this morning (which was perfectly clear and explicit to me - at the time) - I am once again confronted with the limitations of writing in a forum. I am so much more comfortable talking.</p>
<p>Mark -</p>
<p>#1 - Ben is correct in that I think you have taken my comments out of context. </p>
<p>When I talked about Einsteins' quote about using the same thinking to solve the problem that that thinking created - it was to communicate to you that I have found the ASG conversations opens up a different way of thinking - it takes a different approach and invites an end run around how our brain is conditioned to re-act by past events. It takes us out of our ruts...limbic system.</p>
<p>The new brain science is fascinating.</p>
<p># 2 - On another aspect of my comment - I think I muddied the waters - so to speak - when I threw in the side note about "you can't argue anyone out of their opinion or their perceptions." And then my example of saying - you can't logic me out of how “I feel".</p>
<p>I'm going to try to clarify what I meant by that and I hope I don't make this more confusing...</p>
<p>Here is my hypothesis: we are all irrational in our thinking. :) We like to think we are rational, logical creatures but maybe we're not. (check Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational")</p>
<p>What I mean when I say you can't change how someone else feels is this - we feel what we feel. You can tell me I shouldn't be angry or sad or whatever - but I still feel that way. You have no control over my thoughts, beliefs, or feelings...and most of the time, even I am not aware of what is behind my feelings. </p>
<p>However, if a person’s self-awareness is raised they can decide to slow down their processes to explore what their beliefs and thoughts were behind their feelings and maybe begin practicing a new response. It will take time to re-program the brain to feel differently (limbic lag) – but awareness is the first step.</p>
<p>I know this works because I’ve used this process to change my own thinking and beliefs. Having different thoughts and beliefs leads to having different feelings.</p>
<p>Did I give you enough for this to be clear now? I could give you examples.</p> As is the case in a number of…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-05-22:6451976:Comment:254052012-05-22T02:27:59.397ZBen Robertshttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/BenRoberts
<p>As is the case in a number of your posts, Mark, the analogy you use doesn't work for me. You construct stories like the one about someone knocking on a door when they know no one is there, claim that that analogy is representative of what Elaine is trying to communicate and then wonder how "<span>how can that be the solution?</span>"</p>
<p>But is it possible you are misinterpreting Elaine with this story? What if you followed her suggestion and replaced certainty with curiosity? We…</p>
<p>As is the case in a number of your posts, Mark, the analogy you use doesn't work for me. You construct stories like the one about someone knocking on a door when they know no one is there, claim that that analogy is representative of what Elaine is trying to communicate and then wonder how "<span>how can that be the solution?</span>"</p>
<p>But is it possible you are misinterpreting Elaine with this story? What if you followed her suggestion and replaced certainty with curiosity? We would have some very different conversations, and I daresay they might be more useful and less exhausting for all involved.</p>
<p>For example, did you know that <a href="http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/emotion_decision.htm" target="_blank">scientific evidence based on brain studies</a> is now showing that we cannot reason effectively or make choices without using our emotions?</p>
<p>Here's another example. You write, quite accurately, that "a<span> lot of irrational behavior, in my opinion, stems from wanting to belong, to feel a part of a community, and to act in ways that express conformance rather than dissent, so as to fit in.</span>" You then conclude that heart-based thinking is what leads to such a pattern and therefore that what we are up to here is similar. </p>
<p>In fact, the culture we seek to create, and that we have demonstrated is entirely possible, works the opposite way. By welcoming dissent, we can create an authentic sense of belonging that does not exist when it is stifled. Does this possibility interest you, or is it more important to be "right" about the idea that something "heart-centered" is irrational and conformist?</p>
<p>Here's what I'm really curious about right now, Mark. What is your heart telling you? Two of the most challenging questions in the Dissent conversations are these:</p>
<ul>
<li>What forgiveness are you withholding?</li>
<li>What resentment do you hold that no one knows about?</li>
</ul>
<p>It's fine, as you know, to "pass!"</p>