"The systems we seek to transform are held in place by something vast and powerful below our awareness, our own individual and collective subconscious.

Take, for example, the current failed economic system which disregards the value of the majority of its members. To what degree does that failed system reflect a society of individuals that bases their internal value on the goods and devices (i.e.-credit) in which it is now entrapped?"

That's from the group description/orientation.  It does not define the problem well enough.  Here's more.  Will you add?

The situation is worse, and much older, than suggested!  Reduction of human beings to things began about four hundred years ago, far ahead of the post WW1 emergence of our failed economic system.  Internal value was flushed out and away.  Internal became irrelevant, except as a hole to be filled, a center of appetites awaiting satiation.*

The failed economic system, increasingly disinterested in the well-being of humans, is another product of reductionism, brought into being by a sad whole system of people already diminished.  Goods and devices are substitutes for being and becoming, which are more satisfying and health-maintaining.  They fill the hole; lifeless things replace living things.  Corporate logos are better known than birds, plants and watershed divides.  Now we (overall) are the living dead and the planet is coming along.

Reductionism must be demoted and its process countered.  The reversal recommended in occupy yourself very nicely overlaps Adbusters' pre-OWS inspirational "No more dead time!"  All are called to life, to be and become.  Our great potential is to recover wholeness, rediscover human scale and finally become nature working.**

* A remarkable assortment of deviants and dreamers who were producers found a sort of recovery in emigration to the New World and managed to institutionalize otherwise fading principles (recall what happened to all men are created equal in less than ten years) in the document that became the Constitution of the United States.

** "We are nature working" has been attributed to Penny Livingston-Stark.

Views: 411

Replies to This Discussion

"Are we the power external to all systems around us, or are we/species and we/individuals the element of the planetary subsystem and through it interdependent with the universal system?" 

I would say simply, "Yes."  One of the most fascinating of dual human dynamics in play is our "urge to merge", our yearning to recover the experience of our Oneness while we simultaneously remain devoted to our archetypal evolutionary urge to individuate.

"Or' leaves us on one shore of the river or the other with, of course, two completely valid experiences.  However, the stream of Life runs between the two.

"Do we discuss the source of our power, or systemic mechanism which has created the problem?"

I take it that you see two possible ways to proceed together (all in this group, if not all on this site):

  • discuss the source of our power
  • discuss the systemic mechanism which has created the problem

Am I correct?  Are these mutually exclusive, so that we must choose, or can some pursue one inquiry while others pursue the other one?

"Can we believe/hope the solution will 'emerge' without our conscious and collective effort? Can it 'emerge' from somewhere else than the proper definition of the source of the problem? Can the problem be simplified by reduction to the present moment (of universal evolution)?"

Those seem to be rhetorical questions.  Are they?

"If 'the thought is a liar' [Doreen] – can we change the way we think? Wouldn’t it be more realistic than the change of our systemic identity? What should be the role of our personal beliefs in the discussion?"

Focusing on the last part, I say yes.  I believe we can change the way we think from reactive to responsible, from narrow to comprehensive, from routine to non-routine, from analytic to synthetic.  We can choose to use different assumptions and different visions, for different beginnings and conclusions.  I believe it is more realistic than going all the way with building an alternate life support system on planet earth, which is the logical conclusion of changing our systemic identity.  That is why I offer two paradigms as most promising; they support a lot of change of thinking, enabling us to continue as earthlings.

We certainly will begin dialog with our beliefs.  We may change or exchange them for others as we continue conversation, possibly having more and more of them in common as we proceed together.


I take it that you see two possible ways to proceed together (all in this group, if not all on this site):

  • discuss the source of our power
  • discuss the systemic mechanism which has created the problem

 IMHO there is a substantial difference – the source of our power is (and will be in predictable future) unknown, can be only a subject of beliefs. Contrary the systemic mechanism which has created the problem - it can be identified, described and modeled upon objective knowledge.

I believe we can change the way we think from reactive to responsible, from narrow to comprehensive, from routine to non-routine, from analytic to synthetic.  We can choose to use different assumptions….

 I share your belief, but experience of last 50 years (including social network web discussions – last 10 years) demonstrates clearly it is not as easy as Covey presents it. The way we think, the fundamental assumptions, are determined by our systemic identity and have been co-evolving with our culture and tribal social structure since the rise of consciousness. The freedom of choice does not concern one’s identity. We should also consider the inertia of the culture development process.

Those seem to be rhetorical questions.  Are they?

Yes, they all are. My intention has been to put a stick into the ant-hill. The thought is a liar – I agree with Doreen. We should start the process of change – instead I observe that thinking is a kind of taboo as subject of café discussions.  

This again is clearly demonstrated by Jittendra comment, addressing locality, action, globalization, but confusing information flows with thinking and avoiding this way the issue of thought and thinking.

I do not know the answers; I did not expect anybody can immediately answer. I propose the discussion oriented at modeling the way we are motivated, the way we use our consciousness, the way we decide.

To avoid misunderstanding: the value of beliefs can’t be underestimated as the source of inspirations, intuitions and visionary thinking feeding into the potential discussion. The only limitation is that they must remain personal, while the “model of thinking” can address the core of global problem only if collectively created and becoming common.

"The freedom of choice does not concern one’s identity."

I agree (with you?) that identity is a given.  In this culture, identity is something to discover, as socialization in almost all cases succeeds in making it a mystery.  I believe it can be further developed, also.

To explore/seek is the choice.

"This again is clearly demonstrated by Jittendra comment, addressing locality, action, globalization, but confusing information flows with thinking and avoiding this way the issue of thought and thinking."

Fascinating assumption.  I find that the confluence of two uniquely assembled thought streams can enjoy quite a bit of turbulence before they settle into a deep running pool capable of actual reflection without distortion.

Amusing is noticing how two perspectives can hold the same assessment on one another.  Herein lies the rub of consensual process.  How many arguments do you suppose have run their course whilst unwittingly butting and defending similar stands?

First order of business, had I excess time on my hands, would be to create a glossary so as to define my terms and attendant perspective—and I'd have yours, of course. 

There was no meaningful assumption to my post.

In the context of this discussion I have just seen the opportunity to put a stick into the anthill (now I would rather say to stir the pool.) - that was all.

The result exceeds by far my expectations. Never before in my over 3 years old history of social networking I succeeded to provoke an answer so in line with my thinking.

It certainly deserves appropriate and meaningful reply, including my real assumptions in coherent form. For the time being you must not waste your time to create a glossary - as a non native speaker I consulted wiktionary to be sure of correct understanding and every concept in your post fits.

I think what we need is definition of the problem <-> appropriate context -> problem understanding = solution. May such vision justify my intention?

I can't put velocity over quality :-) composing my answer, neither, like you, have I excess time on my hands. I nevertheless hope it will not take more than 48 hours.

I'd like to suggest the following be incorporated into the problem definition:

"The system which binds people economically looks to the concrete rather than the intangible, and to the physical rather than to the intent."

This binding can be expressed through the misuse of language: words like "person" and "allow" have been twisted in meaning to such an extent that that they now represent entirely different things from those with which they were originally associated. The word "person" originally meant mask; a person was a physical representation and had nothing to do with the intangible nature of the individual who "wore" the person. This meaning is still evident in English when someone refers to their person as being their body and clothing. Likewise, the meaning of the word "allow" has been expanded from meaning "to give permission" to include "to cause" and "to enable".

The binding is an aspect of civil law, which is based on Roman law (as will-to-power), which in turn is based on the law of the hunter.

RSS

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT


Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group
Thumbnail

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2021   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service