Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 17, 2011 at 11:50pm

Except for those among them who manage to ignore all the dross and rampant insanity surrounding the beautiful teachings one may find if one looks for them in these systems and still wishes to call oneself by the name, whatever it is. Then you get actually very self sacrificing and heroic people. I'm Jewish, btw. But let's not get into that puhleeze . . . . We've got enough on our plate without digging up the 5000 year old bones in this forum. Thanks in advance. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 18, 2011 at 2:24am

Mazel tov, Victoria. I was born and raised Jewish myself, but I found that there are beautiful teachings in many systems and that one can look for that beauty in all systems without having to adhere to just one of them.

I know that there are those who applaud the self-sacrificing and heroic young men and women in the US armed forces today (not 5,000 years ago). I happen to oppose war so I do not, and I won't glorify those who obey illegal orders as noble or heroic. I agree with the teachings of Annie Besant and Krishnamurti that religions, nationalities, etc., are divisive rather than unifying, and inevitably lead to wars.

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 18, 2011 at 3:36am

Thnaks so much..excellent!!! chock a block with great insights..change never comes from the majority; intense agitation by a few mobilizes the majority into action when they get to stage three of the shift..strats with fera, then villian identification then a strategy to defeeat the villian that offers hope. a model that makes perfect sense to me.  translating that to occupy occupy 2.0 as I have been saying is identifying the villain..the witness andsolidarity with the conditions that secribe our plight..pointingto how those conidtions arose, how that happened who or what was responsble for that so that we can get to part 3.o..hope through a strategic plan of action to defeat the villain.

I was fascinated by the tipping pointfro change being 10%..that when the tiny intense minority has influebed 10% of the population the balalnce will tip and the intensity at the outer bounds will become the commitment and shared value of the entire middle.the entire middle will take on/adsorb the values of what had been the instense fringe.  That is the 100monkey's thing and even  a process of change and evolution in nature at the cellular level.

 

Of course, a the cellular level and at the political level that change can be forthe health of the organism or for its disease and death.  Evolution doesn't work at the cellular level to adopt only what is healthy and useful, thriveable.  It "tips" at a certain critical mass and that tipping either leads to extinction or is a chnage that becomes   the most viable change at that moment.At the cellular level it happens even though each cell has its whole reason for being to serve the whole.  A cell will destroy itself commit cell cide for te sake of the whole.  And yet that 100 monkeys thing, that 10% tipping point is still there where a shift can destroy the whole.(witness the popularity of eugenics and the rise of the nazi regime which had huge public support..not just in Germany)

Jitendra pointed to "innerstructure" some time ago and that to me is the key to a shift which does serve life, does serve himanity, does serve future earth, future generations of earthlings that is about longterm survival, long term thrivability for all at a point of eco-balalnce that can be maintained indefinitely.

Actions alone cannot bring this about.  Only a common vision, common values, common commmitments to core principles can bring this about.  That's work .  The intense extremes seeding that vision for a 10% shift that is based not just on agreed actions but on the core values from which actions will emerge generation to generation.

Our "experiment Amerca" didn;t build in those values even though they were there in the consitution of the Iroquois confederacy.  Our founding fathers erroneously took only the procedures, the process for actions and choices.  And that model has failed, predictably because it had no inner gyroscope to keep it pointed in the right direction.  That's why the Ecuadorian Consitution struck me as so right for our times.

I think the real work we need to do now isn't just a laundry list of immediate measures..copprtaions aren't people, corpoate miney and influence out of electiral and legislataive process etc. etc. it is reconcening a consitutional congress and starting over with a contsitution that has its central guiding principle not just a list of rights & freedoms but a heart that expresses the core values of stewardship for one another, stewardship for earth, stewards ship for future earth and peoples.

I love iceland's crowd sourced approach to that task.In response to the same crisis we now face, they took 25 ordinary citizens working online in a completely transparent process in which all coud particpate as it went along and in response to the same crisis we now face in a national collaboration they re wrote their constitution. That crowd sourcing process would alreday accomplish the shift , have already formed the middle around the core values in the process of indetifying what those shared values are or need to be to survive and thrive.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 18, 2011 at 4:12am

Perhaps the reason I'm so horrified at attempts to engage people at whatever level and in whatever way seems most effective, Lindsay, is because without that inner gyroscope and that central guiding principle, people are just as likely to become engaged in destructive activities as in constructive activities. 

Occupy San Diego has now "progressed" from registering voters to making demands on government (recognizing the authority of government and petitioning it to reform itself at the request of those it governs who have no power over it and can offer it no incentive to reform). I don't know how many weeks or months it will take before they start recruiting youngsters for the police force and military as a way to engage them politically in a manner likely to appeal to them, a means of demonstrating to the cops and army that they're really on the same side, and an opportunity to change the system from within. While I don't expect them to "progress" to supporting eugenics, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they consense that a good way to get attention while marching would be to goose-step.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 18, 2011 at 12:18pm

There are good people who are police and good people who are in the military. They also attract people who relish in violence. We better hope the good ones out-weigh the bad. Success lies in keeping the military rank and file on the side of the public.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 18, 2011 at 12:53pm

No, Gisele, success is when the people understand that the cops and the military are protecting the 1% and are not on the side of the 99%. Good or bad, cops and military troops who want to keep their jobs will obey orders to kill protesters. The Egyptian government is obeying the US government's orders to kill protesters because the US government writes their paychecks, not because they are bad people. Our troops have committed atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya not because they're bad people, but because that's what the government that writes their paychecks ordered them to do.

The Egyptians made that same mistake. They thought that because the rank and file military were ordinary Egyptians, they were also the 99% and would be on the side of the people. The chant in Tahrir used to be, "The army and the people are one hand!"

That's not the chant any more. The army has imprisoned 15,000 of them, most of whom have been tortured, and has killed over a thousand. 

Read the link, Gisele: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/rizk171211.html

Do not vote for any government that is doing unto others, what you would not want that government to do unto you, because if it is doing it unto others, sooner or later it will get around to doing it unto you. Occupiers matter less to the US government than the protesters in Tahrir matter to Occupiers, and Occupiers who vote for the government that pays the Egyptian government to kills Egyptians, are NOT acting in the spirit of Tahrir and don't care about anybody except their own damned selfish selves.

And by the way, because the Egyptian military has been particularly brutal to women protesters, it is now women who are on the front lines in Tahrir. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 18, 2011 at 1:29pm

In other countries the military has refused to attack the public. The reason this latest bill is so shocking because it allows the US military to act on US soil even though it is in a very limited way and it's not ordinary soldiers. In a democratic country soldiers are told they are protecting their country, their families. They believe themselves to be noble. When they act on US soil it is to rescue people. Riot squad police are chosen for their personal characteristics. They aren't traffic cops. Riot squad are trained to control the public through violence and intimidation.

That is not the case with the Egyptian army. There is no history of democracy. The military is the ruling party. They are there to control the public, guard pipelines, etc., not to invade other lands.The chant "The army and the people are one hand!" was to convince the military to be on their side. It is no different than Occupiers chanting to the police that they are the 99%. It isn't an expression of confidence.

US military is brainwashed to believe they are delivering freedom to oppressed people even if they do have to kill a few along the way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 17, 2011 at 7:31pm

mark and vcitoria here isa link to a closed TED Conversation on our topic here

http://www.ted.com/conversations/6423/when_political_parties_are_in...

 

there are many others we have already had there on evoting and direct democracy but I would say none have brought th edepth you have Victoria or you Mark

In general at TED

 

(1) everyone thinks voting and engagement are important. Few could be convinced no magter what was presented that a vote boycott is a positive productive act, especialy on tge kind of crisis we have now.and at a time whene evryone wants something beyond party politics, everyone is in a "throw the bums out "mood. ..

(2) everyone believes he internet can do anything and that evoting is possible and achievable. the information you refer to Victoria. has not been brought into any converstaion I am aware of so far. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 17, 2011 at 7:43pm

Lindsay, might it not be better to say, "most people" rather than "everyone?"

People who don't agree with the majority often simply remain silent, but with as many people as TED Conversations have, I'd think there would have to be a few who disagree with the majority, whether they're willing to speak out or not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 17, 2011 at 8:18pm

yes, of course.  I stand corrected!!! "most" the prevailing opinion at " much better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 17, 2011 at 8:22pm

please excuse use of everyone in baove post..bad form..of course I meant "the prevailing sentiment is that"and for #2 "I would say  the overwhelming majority.." thnaks for the heads up mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 17, 2011 at 8:45pm

Thank you, Lindsay. Top respect!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 37
• 38
• 39
• 40
• 41
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page