Comment

Comment by David Eggleton on December 2, 2011 at 6:21pm

I'm sorry. "Put on" reminded me of fashions, masks and pranks.

I mean that we cannot have a world that works for all if we don't know each unique person as a unique person.  Of course, no one can know everyone, but each can be known by some.

Imagine economies built on and responding to such dynamic knowledge.

Comment by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 2, 2011 at 6:12pm

David,

 

I don't see that as unauthentic..I agree we are completely ineffecetive if we are not always speaking and acting from our own authenticity.

I don't see it as "being an actor"

( I am allowing that I may have missed your point here or that mine was not appreciated)

By "Putting on the mind of the 99%".iI meant standing in witness, solidarity, compassion with  others where they are.

 

Living and speaking  from "I as thou, thou as I "( Raimon Panikkar)

Comment by David Eggleton on December 2, 2011 at 5:49pm

"We need to learn how to "put on the mind of the 99%"..speak from our hearts in that language; stand in witness and solidarity on that ground, be in that moment as it presents itself to us moment by moment, build opportunities where we can live in such moments together."

I'm going with authenticity, Lindsay.  I'm not much of an actor.

Comment by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 2, 2011 at 5:36pm

How cool is that

I was too young, too "unlived" when Lewis Mumford was a key reference in my undergrad thesis  to grasp or notice  the beauty of his thought as it shines out from this quote..

The "Age of Reason" and the kind of science which we have embraced in the center of that has cut us off from our  other faculties , impaired our seeing, limited our understanding, narrowed what we allow as possible.

I love the collider because it is pure phenomenological science..seeing what is and in seeing that understanding how little we know, how much more there is to see and know.

But few of us in the 99% have the luxury of delving deeply into these ideas, as you & I and other membes of this and other communities do.  These are all useful and beautiful ideas for those of us who have that luxury but sharing these ideas is not going to create one voice in the 99%  .  I think that is what Jitendra was pointing to in his post this morning about the paradox of our missing  or un actualized "innerstructure " of politics and economics.

We need to learn how to "put on the mind of the 99%"..speak from our hearts in that language; stand in witness and solidarity on that ground, be in that moment as it presents itself to us moment by moment, build opportunities where we can live in such moments together.

 

(I'm only sayin')

Comment by David Eggleton on December 2, 2011 at 5:11pm

"And who is the liar?"

In the version of the story I'm working with the liar was a school of thought.  The source is Lewis Mumford, who wrote:

The very notion of a universe independent of man was itself a peculiarly human achievement, dependent upon human history and human consciousness.  Plainly, it was not the new truths that astronomy disclosed about the vastness of physical nature, but old truths man neglected about himself that diminished his stature and importance.  Those who looked upward and outward and forward, and were prepared to traverse astronomical distances, forgot to look downward and inward and backward:  the Sun God had dazzled and blinded them into conceiving scientific reality as a landscape without figures -- forgetting the artists who had spent countless generations painting it, and without whom the universe in its vastness was literally unthinkable.

The new world that astronomy and mechanics opened up was in fact based upon a dogmatic premise that excluded from the outset not only the presence of man but the phenomena of life.  On this new assumption the cosmos itself was primarily a mechanical system capable of being fully understood by reference solely to a mechanical model.  [H]ence the chief end of human existence was to confirm this system by utilizing and controlling the energies derived from the sun, reshaping every part of the environment in conformity to the Sun God's strict commands.

The Pentagon of Power, 1964 & 1970

I commend the book to you.  Members of the school of thought are identified and the Sun God is described, among much more.

Comment by Pawel Klewin on December 2, 2011 at 4:10pm

How can we occupy the thought?

My logic tells me it can be only by one common thought, mimicking oneness. On the other hand thinking is a process....

Comment by Pawel Klewin on December 2, 2011 at 3:55pm

Occupy Wall Street = unaware people believe the lie that we are separate from The Oneness, from One another, Earth, all Kingdoms.

And who is the liar?

We represent universal power of the oneness, but consciousness has been rising in us - individuals, experiencing themselves as separated from it!

50 000 years has passed and we are here (I mean planet Earth, 2011) with neither the signpost, nor one common model within conscious reach...

Comment by Jitendra Darling on November 30, 2011 at 8:47pm

I love models.  Circles, no circles. Borders, no borders. Triangles, squares, spirals, dynamic, static, moving, fixed...

Blank.....emptiness......

Perhaps the best model is the one that speaks to where you are with an appropriate signpost for where your heading next.

Comment by David Eggleton on November 30, 2011 at 11:12am

Yes, but why should we require one leap of everyone?  Are you advocating one-size-fits-all?  If so, is it because of perceived urgency (we're pushed), perceived attractiveness (we're pulled), some combination (in what proportions?) or something(s) else entirely?

I believe that if most can achieve voice, unique balance and integration of the four intelligences, the satisfactions will fade and disintegrate the circle.  Thank you for helping me articulate that, which had only been an encouraging sense.

Comment by David Eggleton on November 29, 2011 at 8:43pm

Some food for thought: the whole person paradigm

Note:  Simply a useful, ancient view, not a rejection of Gardner or any other modern identifier of intelligences.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page