CLICK HERE FOR THE COLLABORATIVE TABLECLOTH FOR THIS CALL
Welcome Conversation Starter Marco Morelli, a poet, activist, and spiritual practitioner. A philosophy student in college, he left the academic path in his early 20s to do volunteer work and writing in Central America. Marco's first book of poetry was a series of translations of Nicaraguan poetry called *Ruben's Orphans: Anthology of Contemporary Nicaraguan Poetry*. It featured the work of the generation of young poets writing after the end of the Sandinista Revolution in the 1990s.
Returning to the states, he discovered Ken Wilber's integral philosophy and became a close student, working with Wilber's Integral Institute from 2003-2007 where he co-authored, with Ken Wilber, Terry Patten, and Adam Leonard, the book *Integral Life Practice: A 21st Century Blueprint for Physical Health, Emotional Balance, Mental Clarity, and Spiritual Awakening*
Marco is currently working with Terry Patten on a book entitled *The Integral Revolution: The Future of Consciousness, Culture, and Society in the Planetary Age*. The Integral Revolution aims to bring together the worlds of integral philosophy, evolutionary spirituality, and progressive activism to further the movement for global justice, sustainability, and peace.
Marco lives in Longmont, Colorado with his wife and 2 1/2 year-old daughter.
=======================================================================
Monday's Vital Conversation is sparked by this Occupy Cafe blog post from Stephen M. Demetriou "On Blacklisted Conversations." While the specific context of Stephen's inquiry is the "Truther" theory that 9-11 was a "false flag operation," it touched on a broader set of concerns that bear exploration.
Whether it is the events of 9-11, the "true nature" of our monetary system, climate change or the degree to which we hold or eschew various religious and spiritual beliefs, there are a number of volatile issues that potentially divide us from one another both within the Occupy movement and in the wider world. For the most part, we avoid debating these questions because our experience is that such conversations take up lots of time and energy, rarely resolve anything and often become contentious and divisive. Instead, we either cluster with those that agree with us or try to set the issue aside by "agreeing to disagree."
However even when we don't have these conversations openly, the divergences often show up in subtle ways that create friction, such as a disparaging tone that we might use when referring to people who hold beliefs we deem irrational or naive, or an air of certainty in the way we express what we hold to be the truth that is experienced by those who disagree with us as arrogance or dismissal. These unspoken assumptions can also inform strategic thinking, since the plans we each advocate have everything to do with the way we believe "the system" works.
Naomi Klein talks about how this shows up in the climate debate in a recent interview with Solutions:
The Yale cultural cognition project has looked at cultural worldview and climate change, and what’s clear is that ideology is the main factor in whether we believe in climate change. If you have an egalitarian and communitarian worldview, and you tend toward a belief system of pooling resources and helping the less advantaged, then you believe in climate change. And the stronger your belief system tends toward a hierarchical or individual worldview, the greater the chances are that you deny climate change and the stronger your denial will be. The reason is clear: it’s because people protect their worldviews. We all do this. We develop intellectual antibodies. Climate change confirms what people on the left already believe. But the Left must take this confirmation responsibly. It means that if you are on the left of the spectrum, you need to guard against exaggeration and your own tendency to unquestioningly accept the data because it confirms your worldview.
So, given how potent these world views are and how difficult--perhaps even impossible-- it is to get people to change them, what are the implications for those who would help to build a mass movement to bring about systemic transformation? Here are a number of questions to consider as we begin this conversation here on the Occupy Cafe forum:
- What is your experience with the ways that our divergent beliefs affect our ability to communicate and work together when we choose to articulate them? Even when we don't?
- What core beliefs or worldviews underlie, consciously or unconsciously, the issues, strategies and tactics about which you are most passionate? What core beliefs and worldviews do you find to be incompatible with yours?
- "To what extent can we "agree to disagree?" On the other hand, what core beliefs about the way the world works do you believe we need to align on in order to strategize and collaborate effectively?
- What kinds of strategies and collaboration might allow us to sidestep, transcend or integrate the differences in our worldviews?
