Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ron Czecholinski on November 8, 2011 at 4:16pm

Robert - you seem quite self assured of your perspective and have a very adversarial approach. I am not sure how that works in any conversation that is meant for dialogue and understanding.

 

Permalink Reply by Ron Czecholinski on November 8, 2011 at 4:47pm

I have watched all the Zeitgeist stuff - love the ending of that last one.

My reference to "elite" is based on my understanding of history and human nature. In revolution, the oppressed often become the new oppressor. Throughout history the elite just seems to change hands as money and power shifts from one to another.

Check out this perspective from the Occupy camp: http://fritztucker.blogspot.com/2011/11/american-autumn-pt-3.html

I am all for finding the solutions - and am loving your input Kimberly.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on November 8, 2011 at 10:57am

It has for millenia..

 

see Aerins Hablamos De La Communalidad

 

and at TED Conversations our exploration of "conviviocracy".a vision beyond democracy that includes all the things democarcy left out. or ignored

 

http://www.ted.com/conversations/6953/occupy_a_new_vocabulary_learn...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vic Desotelle on November 8, 2011 at 4:50pm

Hi Robert,

It's not that you or your comments and subjects have no place in the discussion, because they do. Rather it's your almost abusive comments and negative assumptions you make toward others. Your insights and your knowledge are very high and very interesting. But please stop assuming that others are 'lying' or 'misrepresenting', etc. Hec, we are all trying to understand and sometimes don't have a full picture, and even make statements that are not fully correct. Someone like you can help all of understand things better, even if others opinions and values are very different than yours.

Wishing you the best.

Vic

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Riversong on November 8, 2011 at 5:48pm

Nice try at backtracking, Vic, after politely demanding that I either "lighten up" or leave. Sounds a bit like the redneck/hardhat chant during the Vietnam era: "Love it or leave it". 

My comments were neither "almost abusive" nor based on "negative assumptions". They were reasonable conclusions based on Kimberly's unabashedly enthusiastic and uncritical support for the Zeitgeist movement (which changed her life = born again), her refusal to respond directly to criticism, and her self-contradictory statements such as: 

"…we realize that we need to manage our planet and manage our resources in the best way to keep us and the planet alive for as long as possible. Period." 

"I am not suggesting the planet needs our management, I am saying that we need to learn to manage ourselves with regard to the planet." 

Reply by Ron: 

"Robert - you seem quite self assured of your perspective and have a very adversarial approach. I am not sure how that works in any conversation that is meant for dialogue and understanding." 

Not "self-assured", since this is not about me or competing egos or about who is right, but about what is right. If it is "adversarial" to challenge ideas and behavior when they are clearly contradictory to our collective well-being, then yes I am adversarial to bad ideas and propaganda and dysfunctional (old paradigm) behavior. 

Reply by Lindsay: 

"I am sure Occupy stewards can can advise you on how to remove your personal attack on Kimberly and retain the rest of your comment." 

Again, there was no personal attack. I did not criticize Kimberly as a person, merely her statements, her thinking and her behavior (as offered to us on this forum). I did not, for instance, call her a liar, as I'm sure she believes she's being honest. And I gave her the benefit of the doubt, allowing for the possibility that she's either been deceived by others (e.g. charismatic former stock trader Peter Joseph, founder of Zeitgeist, or former Communist Party member Jacque Fresco, founder of the Venus Project) or is fooling herself (as do all true believers), rather than simply lying outright (though that seems also a possibility, given her denial of saying what she had just said). 

There is a dangerous and self-destructive trend in every facet of the New Age movement, that puts false politeness and uncritical inclusiveness above honesty and critical challenge. It is, in part, based on the belief that we (individually or collectively) can ascend into the light without dirtying ourselves in the earth. Most earth-based spiritual traditions are about being fully immersed in the earth's body and our own, and far more about descent into the lower worlds than ascent into the upper. There is also a native tradition of "thunder teaching" which – like the Zen master's smack in the back of the head – is meant to shock us out of our lethargy and habitual mind into a broader and more true-to-life framework. 

But even a hint of honest criticism brings out the thought-police and behavior-control freaks in these virtual communities. We'll see just how inclusive and open-space this forum really is.

Permalink Reply by Robert Riversong on November 8, 2011 at 6:53pm

If by "more of the same" Lindsay, you mean direct, honest and critical commentary - you betcha, that's my gift to the world.

Clearly you (and others here) will not abide that. You demand a restrictive political correctness, which is anything but inclusive, open, and diverse.

re Tom Atlee:

"Tom's social change vision is based on new understandings of wholeness which recognize the value of diversity, unity, relationship, context, uniqueness and the spirit inside each of us and the world." - http://www.co-intelligence.org/tomatleebio.html

But you wish to exclude the diversity of spirit that resides within wholeness by policing thought, word and deed - corralling it into a narrow space in which you (and others) can be affirmed but never challenged.

I suspect the "stewards" will likely agree with you and implement normative "standards for engagement".

Permalink Reply by Ron Czecholinski on November 8, 2011 at 7:26pm

This has nothing to do with political correctness or policing thoughts - it is about condescending and self right-ous attitude. I have no idea how to separate who's right from what's right since most what comes through who.

I have all kinds of room for various thought - but not so much when it comes to accusation and lack of respect.

If you are truly into challenge and truth - well, consider what you have heard. I truly did appreciate your input.

Permalink Reply by Robert Riversong on November 8, 2011 at 7:35pm

Ron,

So apparently your judgments ("condescending and self right-ous") about my responses are OK but my judgements about other's responses are not?

What utter hypocrisy!

 

 

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on November 10, 2011 at 7:55pm

amen

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vic Desotelle on November 7, 2011 at 12:13pm

Hello All,

I shared a proposed outcome to the Occupy Movement and would love your feedback. http://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/a-proposed-outcome-of-the-oc... I'm hoping this can play into the conversation here.

Vic Desotelle

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on November 8, 2011 at 8:02am

"conviviocracy"...what Aerin Dunford pointed us to in the beginning..a way of life that replaces insitutional values and authority with personal values, humanity,neighborhood, inclusivity , technology that serve humanity not profit

"regenerative economy"  a Buckie Fuller term ..similar to our phrase "thrivable"..but which also points to a standard in the complete opposite directetion of our disposable economy, it implies a mindfulness of stewardship for future generations, it implies retoolig from the ground up and cleaning up..

Come and join us, cross pollinate this lively discussion with ours at TED Conversations "Occupy A New Vocabularyl Learning To Think and Act as the 99%."

http://www.ted.com/conversations/6953/occupy_a_new_vocabulary_learn...

I started that conversation with seeds from here..our discovery that "jobs" implied a continutaion of the plutocracy whereas "work" implied personal fulfillment, neighborhood, having a stake a share in the value of the work product an inclusivity that recognizes raising children and other dedication sthat serve humanity as equal in value; Tom's rethinking of what  the word "Occupy" means.  

TED is the perfect place to have this discussion because in so many ways its vision isn't connected to these ideas. 

Come. Let's at Buckie's 4D to Ted's idea of technology. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Riversong on November 8, 2011 at 2:33pm

I'll keep my response to your TED post at this site (no need to join yet another virtual conversation). 

"What are some words we use every day in habit that imply an acceptance and continuance of the staus quo..of the 1% controlling and directing?"

This entire #Occupy discussion (and the movement itself) is taking place within much too narrow a frame, because it's almost entirely anthropocentric. We see ourselves as the 99% of (American? Global?) humanity who are enslaved to the 1% elite. 

In the big picture, we are in numbers perhaps one sextillionth of the global living population of creatures, in biomass perhaps ½ a percent, and one among perhaps 10 million other living species. So we humans are, in truth, the 1% which dominate the planet, expropriating for our own needs perhaps 36% of the bio-productive surface of the planet, 20% to 40% of the available photosynthetic energy with up to 83% of the global terrestrial biosphere under our control. These are very similar proportions to those we ascribe to the wealthy elite. 

"We discovered that "sustainable" is not a high enough standard , a high enough goal. " Sustainable" implies getting by, not upsetting the apple cart. "Thriveable" is the standard for the 99%..that implies a culture that values humanity and serves life, it implies growth and flourishing." 

Sustainable is not accepted as "high enough" because it doesn't meet our species-centric and egotistical needs for comfort, luxury and domination, so we pretend that we can create a global economy in which 7-10 billion humans can "thrive", "grow" and "flourish". 

We're afraid of the idea of sustainability because it implies a steady-state economy for a human population that is in balance with the rest of the biosphere - in other words, it requires a drastic reduction of both human population and human consumption to something approaching pre-civilization levels. 

The reason we are witnessing (and causing) species extinctions at 1,000 times the normal evolutionary rate is that we are literally converting non-human biomass into human flesh and rendering our human presence on the planet obscenely obese. We need to go on an extreme crash diet. "Austerity" doesn't even come close to what is called for. 

In truth, we must follow the example of the 1% - the last remaining pre-civilized, earth-based peoples on the planet. They are the ones who can offer a living example of how to be in harmony with the Web-of-Life. The problem is not capitalism or consumerism - the problem is civilization, an experiment that was designed to fail, as we are now witnessing on a global scale.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page