An open space for global conversation
Please use this discussion to offer your suggestions for Core Conversations to be hosted here on the Cafe website and on our Cafe Calls. We suggest you consider framing a topic in terms of a "powerful question." This monograph by Eric Vogt, David Isaacs and Juanita Brown, courtesy of The World Cafe, provides some excellent guidelines.
NOTE!!! This discussion is intended to be about the range of topics we might want to focus on ONLY.
It is NOT intended to be the place where we actually HAVE those discussions. If something that is proposed here grabs you, by all means start a thread about it in Member-Initiated Discussions. Or, if it's a really big and juicy subject, perhaps you might even want to start a group to discuss it--each group has its own forum, as well as "pages" that can be created and edited together.
Thanks for helping us keep our discussions organized. And thanks for all the great energy and ideas that you have been posting here so far!
And I agree with all you say.we are on the same page..I think
..because we are thinking talking here as the 99%
..I didn't mean to convey dispair..only to say that it will take the whole 99%..every one of us to redirect our nations, to redirect the world
which is I think what you are also saying
Lindsey - I really like your emphasis oo the "whole" 99%. I am interested in conversation across party lines.
Well, actually yes and no. I don't believe it will take 99% to redirect the world - actually much less than that - though probably a good percentage of us keeping positive thoughts and making substantial efforts to change things.
For one we are never going to get anywhere close to 99% to agree to anything; but it is not needed. A relatively small group of people all meditating together can have a profound effect on the world. Similarly, maybe only 10 or 20% of the people within an economic sector can shift that sector towards much more sustainable practices. But it takes that 10 - 20 % all working somewhat supportively together in some way or other to make the changes.
The number of occupiers is actually quite minimal, but the amount of support and interest that this small group of people has created is truly amazing. So we do not all have to do the re-directing, many will just be followers and passive supporters. But that is good enough.
According to many like David Wilcocks, etc we may actually be entering an evolutionary phase where we leave behind those that just don't get it or try to maintain political and economic control for their own interests, etc. and that life will then significantly improve and become much more amazing for all of the rest of us. I like this idea and it will thus be interesting to see what unfolds in the years to come.
"The suggestion is that it's productive to focus energies on engaging the first two groups and a waste of time to try to "reason" with the third.
Not saying I totally buy this, but it's worth contemplating."
One has to start somewhere and end somewhere. I see no problem with setting priorities according to the noted suggestion, and not stopping at 2/3. Even today's 1% (let's not forget that it's a somewhat symbolic name) will be members of the reconfigured/renewed society.
I am sure we are all familar with and have experienced the trasnformational power of facilitated discussions among wide diverse persons who somehow find a cire a truth, a common wisdom. ( Tom does it and writes about it all the time as do many others)
Is that something we can do or model here at Occupy cafe? Can we give people both a demonstration and experience of finding core truthes, core wisdoms that trasncend our differences? After all that's what we have to learn to do if we are going to have a government of and by the 99%..the 100%.?
In response to Lindsay and Rob, whom I quote:
"we are never going to get anywhere close to 99% to agree to anything; but it is not needed"
I believe 99% wish now to become and live as individuals-with-individuality (whole persons), not mere adherents to individualism, which like so many isms, only divides unnecessarily (aka no thrival value). Most simply do not know how to approach it. In time, 100% will desire greater being.
Becoming a mere majority is also flawed, as it is a very fragile success.
(Not my quote, Robs..)
I think we are on the same page Dave..that governance is by and for the 100%..not by and for party majorities, I take that to be the core value of "we are the 99%"
I Like your distinction about being individals within that 100% without the whole or us being about any kind of "isms". I like your standard of "thrivability"..that is key
Ideology aside, that is the new reality..we are a widely diverse people, we the people' at the community level and non up. We have outgrown two party systems but we haven't yet found our way to engagement beyond party, identity as individuals co-responsble for the state and direction of the whole.
Craig, Ben and others on this thread.of "story, narratives and frsutrations" .have you seen what occuy.org itself is doing via story that says "who are we the 99% in a way that transcends party and partciulars..in a way that shows left, right, progressive, conservative ultimately are the 99%
The style of this is very moving as well: an image of the person holding up their story of how they are "the 99%" on scraps of paper in their own handwriting.. I don't think we can do better than that here at Occupy..but maybe we can spend some time going through these..looking for the commoiinalities.speaking about it pointing to it?
and here isa beuatiful acknowledgment of this good work by "we are the 99%" in main stream media..The Washington Post
His summary and commentary on the powerful stories and images really say it very well
He says,more or less..the 99% are fold who did everything they were supposed to do, responsible people who educated themselves ( and were left with insurmountable student debt); couldn't get suitable jobs or jobs which paid enough to live on and ended up taking on credit card debt not fore luxuries and consumables but to pay the light bill; got married and had kids but even with both parents working can't afford rent and mortgage and have no odea how they will educate their children; got sick and fell even further behind adding to debt, reducing access to jobs.
This is the 99% which transcends political party affiliation, ideology. These are the relaities that bind the 99%..that there are fewer and fewer jobs.increases in GDP so called economic recoveries are jobless; people who weren't reckless or irresponsible about debt but who kept thinking things would get better..that their reliance on credit was just temporary, that living at home with a parent was just temporary; the privatization of student loans send young peopl eoutinto the world with much bigger debt in relation to expected income than has ever existed before. ..what other options did they have?
This 99% includes almost an entire generation..the generation after mine and all of mine (we have to start a seniors who are the 99%)..we had no student debt, tons of jobs, big salaries, great pension and benefit plans but for most retirement is not as comfortable as they anticipated.
I'm part of the Liberty faction, and want to see that viewpoint represented here. I didn't have to scroll down too far to see someone (Rob Wheeler) say that "creating an economic system that reflects our values, hopes, and dreams, along with the kind of world we want to live in, will most likely require legislative action," and that's exactly what got us into this whole mess. Regardless of the cant chanted at us by government-operated schools, all legislation ends up with armed agents caging or killing those who do not wish to participate. Violent solutions are never acceptable. The challenge is to convince well-meaning people to see through the mists of mythology and recognize such proposals for what they are. Economic transactions made outside the purview of authority come together in a manner that looks like a system; systems imposed from some putative "top" downward can never produce any result that doesn't involve bloodshed.
I generally agree with you Richard. And thanks for posting here.
I see the original, hence the oldest, occupation as an experiment in a different economy. It is more highly developed, more complex than perhaps many other occupations. What is going on there is a microcosm of the kind of econnomic transactions we should be examining, piloting, inhabiting, modifying. At the same time, this location may also be a bellweather for other locations in some ways.
Ultimately, though, I don't see legislation as the path to transformation. In fact, that's sort of oxymoronic. A true grass roots broad, mentored, collaborative evolutionary process of building a new economy from the ground up is, in my opinion, the true path. And the sooner the better, since by the time enough "elected" reps get it, legislation will likely be too late. The deconstruction of money as we know it will already be underway.
I'm figuring that we need to put our heads together and share all the information we can get on starting up new enterprises outside of the regulatory restrictions that are keeping us down. I know there are some experiments going on to that effect in New Hampshire,and I know of a few elsewhere as well (though as you might expect, I can't be entirely open about them).
But first, we have to be open and honest with ourselves and one another about our goals and intentions, to consider constructive criticism about unintended consequences. I don't want to see the design of a new system--it's more important just to have "folks doin' stuff" in an atmosphere of peaceful cooperation (which includes honest competition!).