8/13 VC: Invitation as a Way of Being - Occupy Cafe2024-03-29T08:42:04Zhttp://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/8-13-vc-invitation-as-a-way-of-being?commentId=6451976%3AComment%3A29742&feed=yes&xn_auth=noIt's complex to talk about th…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:299402012-08-16T19:03:18.800ZDyck Dewidhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/DyckDewid
<p>It's complex to talk about this, and I suspect I'm not very good at explaining my thoughts using only words. </p>
<p>No matter what it sounds like, it isn't my intention to exclude anyone who doesn't want to be excluded... and even then its hard to imaging how anyone can be truly excluded because, by proximity and utility, we are all included on this shared earth. </p>
<p>I guess the incongruity alludes to those not wanting to live among others (or those who can't live among others without…</p>
<p>It's complex to talk about this, and I suspect I'm not very good at explaining my thoughts using only words. </p>
<p>No matter what it sounds like, it isn't my intention to exclude anyone who doesn't want to be excluded... and even then its hard to imaging how anyone can be truly excluded because, by proximity and utility, we are all included on this shared earth. </p>
<p>I guess the incongruity alludes to those not wanting to live among others (or those who can't live among others without being harmful to them) but still sharing in products and resources. And besides, even if they are harmful we must still find ways to coexist.</p>
<p>Questions are the best reaction to have, when in a situation that has plenty of problems. My sense of inquiry is that it works best in an atmosphere of friendship, and when being tentative about what I know, and <em>seeking</em> the right question.</p> This sounds more like a recip…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:299382012-08-16T15:55:33.368ZAnna Harrishttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/AnnaHarris
<p>This sounds more like a recipe for excluding rather than including. I have to say that such a society would have no appeal for me. It sounds very much like the one we are living in right now, - incarcerating the ones that don't fit in, (may be arranging to dispose of others when it is too expensive to keep them?)</p>
<p>There is still the question of who decides who is unfit.</p>
<p>Anna</p>
<p>Anna</p>
<p>This sounds more like a recipe for excluding rather than including. I have to say that such a society would have no appeal for me. It sounds very much like the one we are living in right now, - incarcerating the ones that don't fit in, (may be arranging to dispose of others when it is too expensive to keep them?)</p>
<p>There is still the question of who decides who is unfit.</p>
<p>Anna</p>
<p>Anna</p> Anna, my vision of this focus…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:297632012-08-16T15:37:17.945ZDyck Dewidhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/DyckDewid
<p>Anna, my vision of this focus on inclusion is that either people are capable of self selecting (if they want to behave in a way that's acceptable to society/humanity) or not capable to make this decision because they are diseased or insane (that's another topic to define).</p>
<p>If people are to self-select, accepting the invitation to 'belong' to a society AND if our highest selves see inclusiveness as the 'natural' way, then we must be wise enough to specify the correct invitation AND its…</p>
<p>Anna, my vision of this focus on inclusion is that either people are capable of self selecting (if they want to behave in a way that's acceptable to society/humanity) or not capable to make this decision because they are diseased or insane (that's another topic to define).</p>
<p>If people are to self-select, accepting the invitation to 'belong' to a society AND if our highest selves see inclusiveness as the 'natural' way, then we must be wise enough to specify the correct invitation AND its conditions. Perhaps one would view these as moral rules that can span a diverse humanity. </p>
<p>So, inclusiveness can be defined as responsibility for all (which necessarily includes ones individual responsibility) yet acknowledging there will be some who will not or can not take that responsibility. We must provide for them (live with them therapeutically or incarcerate them) even when they do not fit (but rather harm) humanity.</p> I wonder how you would decide…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:298832012-08-16T15:23:14.224ZAnna Harrishttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/AnnaHarris
<p>I wonder how you would decide, or rather <em>who</em> would decide which were the 'deviants, diseased, wayward, or otherwise socially unfit humans'. It seems to me that a wholely inclusive society would have to accept the premise that everyone is different, and the work would be to accept people as far as possible as they are. Similar to the approach described by Eric above.</p>
<p>Anna</p>
<p>I wonder how you would decide, or rather <em>who</em> would decide which were the 'deviants, diseased, wayward, or otherwise socially unfit humans'. It seems to me that a wholely inclusive society would have to accept the premise that everyone is different, and the work would be to accept people as far as possible as they are. Similar to the approach described by Eric above.</p>
<p>Anna</p> Another good question Eric. I…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:298822012-08-16T15:07:50.336ZAnna Harrishttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/AnnaHarris
<p>Another good question Eric. I understand the way you are using 'price' as something you have to give up in order to have something else. In this case giving up certainty. I prefer not to use price in this context because I see the approach you are suggesting as a more natural way to be when we are not afraid to be vulnerable and to admit we don't know. I think you are asking people to be more honest with themselves and with you. So you could say what they would be giving up is their…</p>
<p>Another good question Eric. I understand the way you are using 'price' as something you have to give up in order to have something else. In this case giving up certainty. I prefer not to use price in this context because I see the approach you are suggesting as a more natural way to be when we are not afraid to be vulnerable and to admit we don't know. I think you are asking people to be more honest with themselves and with you. So you could say what they would be giving up is their dishonesty. They are not really giving up anything of value.</p>
<p>If you had to give up your freedom that would be a price to pay. Even then it is unlikely it would be a voluntary act, not like an exchange between equals. Moreover freedom is priceless. This whole analogy is based on the premise that when you pay for something you have a choice. Money gives you power. I don't believe that to be true. It is the illusion of a consumer society that consumers have power because they can choose. And that validates the competetive society we call capitalism.</p>
<p>Price assumes scarcity, you have to give up something in order to have something else. You can't have both. What we are taught as children. you can't have your cake and eat it. Price is used to decide what we can afford. If 'care' was substituted for 'price' we would find we could afford many things which are now too expensive. The article about money which Sea recommended <a href="http://burningissuesforum.com/2012/08/10/designing-money-to-serve-people/#more-392" target="_blank">here</a> explains this thoroughly. So I would prefer to keep the word price for things we have to buy in a capitalist economy in which an artificial scarcity is manufactured so that some people can make a profit.</p>
<p>Anna</p> Speaking about time... it's s…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:296742012-08-16T13:08:59.100ZDyck Dewidhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/DyckDewid
<p>Speaking about time... it's so more relevant for me to think in terms of the present, "What am I doing.... " That way I'm hoping to interfere with my monkey mind doing antics.</p>
<p>Also Block's phrasing "... very thing I complain about..." it seems loaded, maybe challenging like it wants to ask for justification of apparent inaction, rather than "Where are you at in terms of solving the problem you define?" I've got some bias around this myself, yet know there is also reason for…</p>
<p>Speaking about time... it's so more relevant for me to think in terms of the present, "What am I doing.... " That way I'm hoping to interfere with my monkey mind doing antics.</p>
<p>Also Block's phrasing "... very thing I complain about..." it seems loaded, maybe challenging like it wants to ask for justification of apparent inaction, rather than "Where are you at in terms of solving the problem you define?" I've got some bias around this myself, yet know there is also reason for inaction that can be deep and not immediately obvious.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> I had no -- or perhaps better…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:297612012-08-16T12:58:07.511ZEric Hansenhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/EricHansen
<p>I had no -- or perhaps better said, I <em>think</em> I had no -- expectations for the answer. At any rate, your answer works for me. There is a difference between objective/clock time and subjective time/awareness. I have pursed that difference more in the past than I am at this time in my life. Mabye your answer will serve as a remider.</p>
<p>And the answer that Ben gave as well works for a way to shift how I look at time as being more than my individual experience of clock…</p>
<p>I had no -- or perhaps better said, I <em>think</em> I had no -- expectations for the answer. At any rate, your answer works for me. There is a difference between objective/clock time and subjective time/awareness. I have pursed that difference more in the past than I am at this time in my life. Mabye your answer will serve as a remider.</p>
<p>And the answer that Ben gave as well works for a way to shift how I look at time as being more than my individual experience of clock time.</p>
<p>An idea that this brings to mind for me is to shift the idea of price and value A price I have learned to pay for the value of better understanding is to replace certainty and advice and answers with curiosity and questions. I think this sense of price is important because my hope is that people will pay the price (give up their own certainty) in order to develop a better understanding of others -- of me. I think of it as deep listening -- listening to understand, not persuade. And this is important to me because I want to be seen, heard and valued for who I am, not who you (someone else, not you specifically) think I am or interpret me to be.</p>
<p>So, let me ask you: What does this idea of price mean to you? And then (to ask the next question) Why is that idea of price important to you?</p> Block asks us all to consider…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:299352012-08-16T12:25:03.576ZBen Robertshttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/BenRoberts
<p>Block asks us all to consider the following question, as part of the "ownership conversation:"</p>
<blockquote><p>What have I done to contribute to the very thing I complain about or want to change?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Block asks us all to consider the following question, as part of the "ownership conversation:"</p>
<blockquote><p>What have I done to contribute to the very thing I complain about or want to change?</p>
</blockquote> Here's another, more mundane…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:298792012-08-16T12:14:25.217ZBen Robertshttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/BenRoberts
<p>Here's another, more mundane perspective on the relative scarcity/abundance of time, via Clay Shirky's book <em>Cognitive Surplus</em>... Globally we watch over <em>1 trillion hours of TV</em> per year. A 1% reduction would free up enough time, he estimates, to create the equivalent of 100 new Wikipedias per year. As individuals, we may or may not be short on time. As a collective, we have a huge surplus (that we have thus far for the most part devoted to watching TV!).</p>
<p>Shirky…</p>
<p>Here's another, more mundane perspective on the relative scarcity/abundance of time, via Clay Shirky's book <em>Cognitive Surplus</em>... Globally we watch over <em>1 trillion hours of TV</em> per year. A 1% reduction would free up enough time, he estimates, to create the equivalent of 100 new Wikipedias per year. As individuals, we may or may not be short on time. As a collective, we have a huge surplus (that we have thus far for the most part devoted to watching TV!).</p>
<p>Shirky suggests, by the way, that this might be shifting as a result of our new media, and that this phenomenon of our choosing to be a passive audience is an anomaly in human history. He uses the phrase "the people formerly known as the audience" to refer to a growing trend for participation rather than passive consumption. Much of that is also arguably rather banal in nature (sharing what I ate for breakfast on Facebook), but not all of it is like that, as evidenced by what we are doing here (one hopes!). </p>
<p>AND... even the trivial stuff is about creating human connection in a way that is fundamentally different from sitting mutely in front of the TV. Perhaps we are all like kittens, thinking we are merely playing when in fact we are developing the skills needed to "hunt!"</p> This is a really challenging…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-08-16:6451976:Comment:299342012-08-16T10:51:46.964ZAnna Harrishttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/AnnaHarris
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">This is a really challenging question Eric, it makes me stop and realise how difficult it is to step from one dimension to another. What you say is totally true - a day is 24hours etc. At the same time 'Awareness is boundless and infinitely available in every moment.' They do not conflict with each other. They exist side by side. The clock time is the basis for concepts of causality, past and future, doing, objectivity, scientific enquiry. And my subjective…</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">This is a really challenging question Eric, it makes me stop and realise how difficult it is to step from one dimension to another. What you say is totally true - a day is 24hours etc. At the same time 'Awareness is boundless and infinitely available in every moment.' They do not conflict with each other. They exist side by side. The clock time is the basis for concepts of causality, past and future, doing, objectivity, scientific enquiry. And my subjective experience in this moment called NOW is ungraspable, has no form, is undefinable, and is the only place where I can know reality. Past is gone, future has not arrived yet.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">This is not easy to feel, it is what meditation is trying to reach, or rather it is the experience that exists beneath all the doing on which we focus during our day. So when we stop doing we can taste a little of this reality.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">This may not be the sort of answer you were wanting and it may raise a query about what this has to do with the new society we want to build. I can only say that the experience of this dimension can put us in touch with a deeper experience of being alive, a deeper understanding of what life is about, and who I am.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Love anna</p>