The Occupy Wall Street  movement maintains momentum without focus. We bring together some common core issues that may facilitate social change using technology, our collective skills, and a knowing that we can do better than what our elected officials are telling us as supported by a dysfunctional media perspective.

 The basic premise is that Turtle Island is being mismanaged by a polarized and frozen system of governance - more driven by fear and greed rather than a desire to achieve the goals of the Two Row Wampum Treaty recognized as the governing Treaty by Supreme Courts in Canada and the US.

 This reality combines well with the recent publication of two documents - each with their own particular role to play  - UNDRIP  and the ISO 26000 Standard

 

United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The ISO 26000 Standards – guidance principles for society (golden rule for business)


These form the basic umbrellas for social change.


A common entry point is PO – being a unique word that invites conversation and exchange of information – meaning neither yes nor no, but says:  I think I know what you are saying but can you say it in another way that I may more fully understand you?

Developed by Edward de Bono before he came up with the Six Hats Process of teaching values.

To be used as a questioning TOOL for implementing the ISO 26000 Standard.

The  TEN TRANSPOSERS are:

 

1.               Will the idea, good, service, issue serve my highest purpose and is it relevant?
2.               Do I have enough information to make a decision? And how do we involve other stakeholders? 

3.               Am I being Wise? 

4.               What Judgments or Bias's exist?

5.               Have I used compassion and mercy in my decision?

6.               Is my heart making the decision on its own? Or is it something that can be leveraged within the environment of our corporation?

7.               Does this allow myself and others to be involved to reach peak performance levels?
8.               Will something of lasting endurance be created? And is it within the current legal framework? 

9.               What is the ultimate impact and will this build a strong foundation? 

10.           Does the idea, good service, issue help heal the planet?  

 

Views: 152

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Great discussion, poforpeace. I agree with everything you've said. Thank you for posting it. In response to your request in "Feedback" that I engage in discussion with you, since you do not wish to discuss the topic I've been trying to host, I'm happy to put it to the above tests.

Voting vs. nonvoting:

1. Does voting serve our highest purpose and is it relevant?

I don't believe so, because in a system of government that serves the interests of the 1%, voting is irrelevant to the interests of the 99% and certainly does not and cannot serve our highest purposes.

2. Do we have enough information to make a decision about voting and how do we involve other stakeholders?

During the past decade, since the stolen election of 2000, the election integrity movement has expanded considerably and there is more than sufficient documentation to prove that our elections are rigged, unverifiable, controlled by corporate money, and that, as the Supreme Court stated in Bush v. Gore 2000, we have no Constitutional right to have our votes counted at all. Involving other stakeholders in voting is so difficult that despite spending billions of dollars getting out the vote, the corporate-owned political parties usually fail to get more than a 50% turnout. Involving other stakeholders in refusing to vote until and unless we have the right for our votes to actually be counted should be easier, but in practice is not, as most US voters fail to distinguish between an uncounted vote and an actual voice in government.

3. Is voting wise?

Do you think that delegating your power and authority to people you can't hold accountable during the time they're in power is wise?

4. Are judgments or biases involved in voting?

I think that voting relies on the judgment that the system is fair and equitable enough to ensure that whoever wins will serve the interests of the people. I think this is a false judgment based on a bias in favor of an historically and presently inequitable status quo.

5. Can compassion and mercy be used in making the decision to vote?

Electing people to a government that is dominated by corporations and a military-industrial complex engaged in global genocide to enhance the private profits of those corporations, doesn't seem compassionate or merciful to me--not even to the best possible people who might be elected, because, as John Perkins describes in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, such people will be attempting to work within a merciless system totally lacking in compassion and will come under extraordinary pressures to "play the game," and, as history shows, are likely to be assassinated if they refuse.

6. Is the decision to vote made from the heart or leveraged within the environment of corporate government?

The elections in which people vote for candidates in government are elections held and controlled by corporate government, so the decision to vote in such elections does not come from within.

7. Does voting allow everyone involved to reach peak performance levels?

No, because voting delegates power and authority to a hierarchical system of government which can then determine what levels of education, employment, and freedoms will be allowed to individuals.

8. Can voting create something of lating endurance within the current legal framework?

Voting for a genocidal empire cannot create anything of lasting value because empires, like cancer, expand as much as they possibly can, destroying everything healthy they encounter, until they overexpand and fall. Alternative systems are sometimes possible within the current legal framework of the US government, such as organic food cooperatives and organic farms, but they are subject to being made illegal by the government at any time the corporations wish.

9. What is the ultimate impact of voting and will it build a strong foundation?

The ultimate impact of voting is to perpetuate an inequitable status quo and genocide is not a strong foundation for a better system. A new, separate and different system must be created upon a new, separate and different foundation.

10. Is voting a good idea, good service, and can it help to heal the planet?

Voting to allow a capitalist, imperialist government to make foreign policy decisions, such as those regarding war and trade,  can only serve to further destroy the planet, not to heal it.

If we agree with "The basic premise is that Turtle Island is being mismanaged by a polarized and frozen system of governance," voting within that frozen and polarized system does not appear to be a step toward better management. For example, suppose there is a frozen and mismanaged slave plantation, prison labor system, or sweatshop. Even if it were possible to get a few more humane, compassionate, and merciful overseers, wardens, or supervisors into those systems, any good they achieved would cut into the profits of the shareholders and they'd soon be fired. Changing the personnel does not change the system.

I agree that, "knowing that we can do better than what our elected officials are telling us as supported by a dysfunctional media perspective," is essential, and I would also assert that knowing that we can do better than what our elected officials are doing is essential. I think we are capable of self-governance and that the least among us could do a better job than the best in the current government, if not bound within the current system. I think we have to recognize and honor our individual and collective wisdom, and stop delegating our power and authority to oligarchs who do not and can not have our best interests at heart.

I don't think that electing good people to office within a system "driven by fear and greed" can change the system or its basic motivations. I think we need a new system driven by courage and altruism, and that in order to get one, we have to withdraw our support and withhold our consent from the old system because the old system is the primary obstacle in the way of a new system.

I hope this is a constructive contribution to this discussion and I'll be happy to try to clarify or further discuss anything you wish.

I appreciate your use of the Ten Transposers and the non intentional not using of PO.

Perhaps if PO were part of your vocabulary you would not find yourself polarized with so many people - it leaves some room for learning.

It might be helpful if you were familiar with the Great Law of the Iroquois.  this is a driver for social democracy and is contained in the Two Row Wampum Treaty - the governing Treaty for Turtle Island.

This too has been ignored by the people.  So if your  ignoring of PO is acceptable there must be some conclusions that might flow from that.  In essence I think your logic is good - it is your starting point that we have difficulty with.

Peace

Since you are apparently in Canada, your system may still differ from that here in the US.

The Constitution of the US has some claim to have been derived in part from the Great Law of the Iroquois, however it appears to have been extremely corrupted in translation.

I don't mind being polarized with many people. I don't make treaties with people who have violated every treaty they've ever signed. I consider them my enemy. They have violated every trust that anyone ever put in them, and have proven themselves unworthy of being taken into my heart. I do not and will not embrace their civilization, their diseases, their fear, or their greed. I do not say po to them, I say no.

As for po not being part of my vocabulary, and your claim that I am ignoring po, would you mind being more specific and clarifying what it is that you base your judgment on? I have not said po to your introduction to this discussion, I've said that I agree fully with everything in it. What is it that you think I should say po to, and why?

Learning happens to be one of my greatest motivators. If there is anything that I could possibly learn from saying po to something, I beg you to please tell me what it is. There are some things not specifically related to this topic or to my own topic to which I believe I am saying po. For example, I am saying po, that is neither yes nor no, and requesting clarification with regard to transition towns and other movements that I believe seem promising and that may have much to teach me. But when something is wholly good and worthy, such as the introduction you posted to this topic, I say yes to it, and when something is wholly evil and unworthy, like genocidal imperialism, I say no.

as for the Great Law of the Iroquois - as Russell mentions the US only took part of the Great Laew - if you read the Constitution of the Iroquois and their process - you may come to a different conclusion on the process of voting.   we both should not assume that the other is ignorant - just uninformed.  I am uninformed - and I think you may be too.

go over your first exercise with the Ten Transposers and use PO there please.

you ought to use it wherever you do not speak from knowing.   opinions or intuitions are just that.

that may be helpful.

Mitch

Okay, I'll try.

Voting vs. nonvoting:

1. Does voting serve our highest purpose and is it relevant?

Po. My personal experience and research has convinced me that voting does not serve our highest purpose and is not relevant, but if you have information that I'm lacking, please teach me so that I'll learn something.

2. Do we have enough information to make a decision about voting and how do we involve other stakeholders?

Po. I only have about a decade of activist work within the election integrity movement, a couple of bookshelves of books about election problems in the US, many links to relevant articles and websites, and a few dozen election integrity specialists and legal or Constitutional scholars I can consult, so I may not have as much information as you have. If you would be so kind as to provide me with information I don't have, I'd be grateful to learn from it.

3. Is voting wise?

Po. I did not say yes or no here, I used an indirect po, by asking what you thought, so I'll repeat it. Do you think that delegating your power and authority to people you can't hold accountable during the time they're in power is wise?

4. Are judgments or biases involved in voting?

Po. I think that voting relies on the judgment that the system is fair and equitable enough to ensure that whoever wins will serve the interests of the people. I think this is a false judgment based on a bias in favor of an historically and presently inequitable status quo. But I could be wrong, so if you have any knowledge or information that would clarify my thoughts, I hope you will provide it.

5. Can compassion and mercy be used in making the decision to vote?

Po. I don't think that voting for a genocidal empire can be done with compassion and mercy, but perhaps I'm lacking sufficient information. If you have information that you can share, please clarify how voting for a genocidal empire can be done with compassion and mercy.

6. Is the decision to vote made from the heart or leveraged within the environment of corporate government?

Po. I don't think that the decision to vote in elections held by a genocidal empire and funded by billions of dollars in corporate donations is made from the heart, but is made in response to the environment of corporate government. But as usual, I may be lacking knowledge and information, so if you have any knowledge and information that has led you to a different conclusion, please share it with me.

7. Does voting allow everyone involved to reach peak performance levels?

Sorry, I can't change this one. Please demonstrate to me how you would use po to answer this question. My answer is still no, because voting delegates power and authority to a hierarchical system of government which can then determine what levels of education, employment, and freedoms will be allowed to individuals.

8. Can voting create something of lasting endurance within the current legal framework?

Po. If voting can create something of lasting endurance withing the current legal framework in the US where votes do not have to be counted, are unverifiable, and the electoral and political systems are controlled by corporate money, I am unaware of how this could come about and would like very much to learn about it.

9. What is the ultimate impact of voting and will it build a strong foundation?

Po. I don't know the ultimate impact of voting, only what it has accomplished in the past 217 years in the US, and I am unaware of how it could build a strong foundation within the current roitten, moldy, corrupt, and crumbling foundation, so please clarify.

10. Is voting a good idea, good service, and can it help to heal the planet?

Po. I only know about the current electoral system in the US on the planet earth. If you know of some other system or some other planet where voting is a good idea, a good service, or can help to heal the planet, please clarify.

And now, Mitch, I have some questions for you.

Do you think that voting for known war criminals, or for people who have aided, abetted, and/or funded war criminals, can bring about peace?

Do you think that electing people who want peace to high level office within a system of government based on war in an economy based on arms sales, can bring about peace?

Hi poforpeace,

The problem I have with using UN declarations as an umbrella for change is that the UN runs on Roman law (they even have a laurel wreath in the logo), and Roman law is based on will-to-power, which is inconflict with the law of nature (which forms the basis of common law).

your argument is like saying - my tomatoes are no good because they were packaged by someone you do not like.

NDT does not stand for New Decision Therapy - does it?

 

and where do you get the notion of UN declarations any how - in case you are not familiar with our challenges the UN is sitting on it  having delayed us two years -  by the way my name is Mitch and I guess I did not understand how these fora worked - lets talk about what we are talking about and not red herrings.

Peace

Mitch

Hi Mitch.

Law isn't like packaging, it's more like a skeleton, with the application (here your ten transposers) being the flesh on the bones. Your application has an ethical base which has no place in Roman law, consequently there's little value to be found for it from the UN. Common law looks to the intent and considers the greater good, in other words it speaks the same language as your ten transposers.

NDT stands for Nelson Dock Trouble - http://solder.ath.cx/dock.html

I'm not that familiar with the challeges you face, what do think that the central issue is?

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

© 2019   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service