An open space for global conversation
"Make Yourself A Cooking Pot" from the Pacific Women's Circle Association Camp (www.pwcacamp.org)
BRAVA!!!!! Thank you, mom! I love you.
Here are my comments on Community Readiness as per Helen Roberts request:
If we are serious about improving communities, we must be aware of the local community context and the readiness of that context for change. Even the best strategies will not be successful unless the community environment has a culture of acceptance for new ideas. Conversely, if we have a context of readiness then anything we do will have a higher probability of success. The correlation between the probability of success and the readiness of the community cannot be over stressed.
In order to access the readiness of a community we must determine its ability to confront the conditions that inhibit growth and development. Are individuals open to the possibilities of change? What is the relational trust within the community between individuals and its institutions? Do people treat each other with dignity and respect? Where are the opportunities for open, safe and civil dialogue? Can we accept each other’s differences and build upon what we share in common? These answers begin to determine the readiness level of the community. Understanding the concept of readiness is the first step in increasing the collective capital of the community.
Before we start we must internalize the importance of why we are entering into this complex area of work? Why must we commit to working together differently? Are things really that much different than in the past? Why can’t we just go our separate ways and still be members of the same community? If can’t write on our hearts the answers to these why questions we will never succeed. Understanding the why is more important than figuring out the how. The need to commit to this effort is paramount to the future of the community.
If we want people and organizations behavior to change then we must change the context and the readiness level of the community. When the contextual culture of the community does not change then nothing really will change. Often we want to implement our ideas and we don’t recognize the level of readiness for the concept. When our ideas fail we are discouraged and lose energy. There was nothing wrong with idea; the community’s level of readiness was not strong enough to support the initiative. As we begin to work together differently we must recognize the present context and correlate or efforts to fit the degree of readiness. You don’t teach a child to run before they can walk. The same building principles apply as we start our collective journey in making our communities better places to live, learn, work, play and pray.
Well, Cheryl Honey, I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that THIS Occupy Cafe community's degree of readiness is STRONG! So grateful that you are showing up, with your wisdom, experience and tools for weaving social fabric and the new gift economy, which are already beginning to manifest here at NatGat.
Loved this from above in particular:
Before we start we must internalize the importance of why we are entering into this complex area of work?
If can’t write on our hearts the answers to these why questions we will never succeed. Understanding the why is more important than figuring out the how.
- Why must we commit to working together differently?
- Are things really that much different than in the past?
- Why can’t we just go our separate ways and still be members of the same community?
NGA 2012 Visions Forward
We ask that the Occupy Movement work toward the following visions:
* We will have representatives who represent the values of equality, justice and sustainability. For example, we will see that we elect a Congress that votes to give the citizens of the U.S. the same health insurance benefits that they vote for themselves. This goal can only be met when we have a Feminist Occupy with equality and compassion for all sentient beings. We will continue in the Occupy movement to represent all those who have not been heard and who have been oppressed, including men and women, including the many individuals and groups who are not labeled by gender. The movement will lead in teaching how much can be achieved through group work and cooperation instead of ego and competition.
* There will be listening and compassion for all, including those who are angry, frustrated, and in dire need of change, but we will conduct our affairs with a language of respect for all, including police and others who may claim authority. We will teach that the problem is not about “us and them”.
* Take the bribery out of the electoral process. Costs of running for office are paid for by the people, not the corporations.
* Leadership will flourish at the grass roots level !!!!
* We will teach the truth about our history of genocide and colonialism and militarism as well as teaching about the gifts of generosity and human rights that are part of our history.
* We will commit to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
* Our government will promote research and science and provide the money for them.
* Social networking and the Internet will be understood and used to discover truth and counteract fearmongering. People will be educated to be able to seek truth and challenge fearmongering.
* We will give authority to governments to implement healing and social change because the governments will represent the 100%.
* The people of the U.S. will honor our interdependence with all people of the world.
*The Occupy Movement will be evolving toward dialogue and deliberation, as exemplified so well in the processes that are being learned in Occupy Cafe.
* We will learn more about planning for the well being of future generations and dedicate ourselves to the future of the planet.
* We will bring music and the arts to the foreground of our work to communicate, celebrate and grow.
* We will address inequality and scarcity with concrete actions to restore balance.
* We will learn teach and experience gratitude and kindness.
from Helen Roberts (Austin TX) and Anita Orlikoff (Chicago, IL) of the Occupy Cafe
What does it mean, to create...like a cure for cancer, like a new way of thinking or relating to others, like a new system of self governance? Is it something totally original? Is it something that makes use of what we already know, in different ways? Is it being industrius by using what exists, in new or different ways? Does our experience (or knowing) help or hinder? Does what we've been taught or how we're conditioned by society help or hinder creation.
Maybe the right question is, can creation be anywhere else but in the present? If creation is exclusively in the present isn't it necessarily all new and without rival, without evolution?
If our (yes you and me too) thinking is wrong, unside down, delusional, how can we produce anything except more of the same? For example, doesn't our society thinks 'knowing' is a virtue and and not knowing is a weakness? If so, one must have an image of knowing to be a leader. Can you extend this to covering our ignorance everywhere? Even just this single thing produces deceit and ignorance in all facets of life, business, government, and personal. It promulgates ignorance which covers the truth like a wet blanket. Forget solutions. How can we even see and understand our problems without truth?
It seems the start of this exporation is very close to home.
If our (yes you and me too) thinking is wrong, upside down, delusional, how can we produce anything except more of the same?
My vision is we can:
The realm of knowledge is big enough to do it, provided that the realm of ignorance would not interfere upon false truths.
I'll gladly yield to you. What you propose in response to the line you pull out from my context seems optimistic or wishful. And I have no desire to argue, having no credentials for knowing truth. I would rather explore than trade opinions anyway. I notice in my own inquiries, opinions are of little use, although granted they are difficult to avoid.
Dyck, you ask further:
Do we understand how the world as an organism learns?
No, we do not even understand how the world is an organism. “To understand” and “to learn”, framing your question, imply processes. To understand the process one should use dynamic, process oriented context.
Is world the process? Is organism the process? Is biological evolution part of world evolution? Does spirit evolve or did “He” invent evolution (or ignite the process)? Is social evolution part of biological evolution?....
I am sorry to mix threads/discussions, but if there is one question to be commonly asked (as I believe) strict observance of segmentation is counter effective.
Our thinking and our experience (knowledge, science) are delusional. There is logical reason they are – the principle of our perception. No one can teach beyond the delusion. So you cannot yield to me to get any answer, but you can answer positively to my proposal to formulate appropriate common question.
Sea, you say:
logic is sometimes the same as reason
I am afraid your statement symbolizes our delusion. Would you be ready to ponder with inversion of common definition: Logic is not an invention of our mind/reason , but contrary, our mind is the most recent invention of logical evolution of the Universe.
In Raleigh I'm seeing problems in going past the values and the visioning process. What many people seem to want is to get to the goals. It isn't clear what people are looking for to me, perhaps direct actions, campaigns, strategy, something to explain themselves with...?
At first goals seemed to be 'action-able' targets that can be measured to determine progress. But, that lacks a clear path of completeness and connectedness to the vision. So, next might be statements that on a high level show 'every condition it takes to make' the vision possible (nouns). But, that's not quite the same as 'what we have to do' to accomplish it (verbs), so this might be needed too.
Indeed, this will be an arduous process. This is an old (favored corporate) process and yet it has a fatal deficiency... First there is no consideration of how the product (goals, strategy, tactics, etc..) will be used. And most importantly, if only some people will make use of this product and others not... what good is it to the 'movement'? Its divisive, no?
It's my theory that there are people who like or even need, to have a structure, strategy, goals, etc., laid out so they can construct something 'sensible' in their minds. But, to others this is antithetical to live action and real solutions, and they might have an affinity to 'float' with seeming chaos. The two extremes need to be welcomed, honored, supported.
To 'work together' with mutual care and respect in having such fundamental diversity and differences IS what our product will be. It will be a plan that accommodates and supports all well-intended plans, constructs, ideas, campaigns, even individual goals and limitations. Maybe it can be a manifesto of allowing.
It will not be what our fickle press and politicians say we must do. Forget the deceptively ignorant cliche saying "if you don't have a goal, you can't know where your going." This McCarthyism tries to stop the inquiry. We seem to be creating something new.
To 'work together' with mutual care and respect in having such fundamental diversity and differences IS what our product will be. It will be a plan that accommodates and supports all well-intended plans, constructs, ideas, campaigns, even individual goals and limitations.
When you use simple future tense do you mean the emergence – the process of automatic, somehow guaranteed act of arising? After 4 years of exploration of US centered social networking I can’t afford not to ask the question. My presence at OC is reasonable in case of creation, but not in case of awaiting emergence.
Same question other way round: do we ‘seem to be creating something new’ awaiting inner voice to tell us what/how to do it (or inner light to illuminate the profound sense of meaning)?
Or are we responsible to invent “something new” to be created?
Another issue you touch is relation between goals/targets on one side and visions/motivations (or motivating visions) on the other. It is the psychology: within our genetic programming we are ready to be the followers needing goals and the leaders following visions. The social environment, upbringing and education decide which path is (unconsciously) chosen. I assume OC is the place for the leaders understanding crisis of classical, evolutionary developed leadership principle. IMHO they are responsible to locally lead the followers and, simultaneously, develop new global vision aligned with our profound sense of meaning.