Posts
-
The below article resonates with how we, via our volunteer group Create Clearwater, are attempting to respond to the economic, environmental and social mess this country is facing- with joy, aesthetics and community, not fear and desperation. I find the current economic crisis (or whatever label one wants to put on it) a huge opportunity to return to a more sane way of life - an open door to freedom if we only can cooperate with one another. It has brought people to a need of change in many cases and is getting them to question the way we do things which is always an opportunity.
The author brings up an important point: We have lost sight of the whole purpose of money - to facilitate our quality of life, not to enslave us within its out of control machinations which have taken on a life of their own. What would it take to bring money back under our control and have it serve us and our truest needs, instead of us serving it?
I found parts of this article beautiful and profound.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization
Excerpt: In the face of the impending crisis, people often ask what they can do to protect themselves. "Buy gold? Stockpile canned goods? Build a fortified compound in a remote area? What should I do?" I would like to suggest a different kind of question: "What is the most beautiful thing I can do?" You see, the gathering crisis presents a tremendous opportunity. Deflation, the destruction of money, is only a categorical evil if the creation of money is a categorical good. However, you can see from the examples I have given that the creation of money has in many ways impoverished us all. Conversely, the destruction of money has the potential to enrich us. It offers the opportunity to reclaim parts of the lost commonwealth from the realm of money and property.
-
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
-
Communication is a good thing. Without it, people can misinterpret each other forever. If you communicate long enough and sincerely enough, it can solve almost anything. It is only useful if it results in a better understanding though. To achieve that, you really have to listen to each other and have the intention to understand the other person. That’s more important than being understood yourself. Maybe that’s because most of us care more about being understood than in understanding the other person’s view so that other side needs some conscious focus to achieve balance.
To truly effectively communicate can take a lot of virtue – things like compassion, honesty, responsibility, patience, courage, humility, unselfishness, and willingness to genuinely consider the other person’s point of view, even if different from one’s own, can be crucial to achieving real communication.
In hindsight, where I’ve had the most trouble communicating is when I expected something, or was trying to get something, rather than being there and listening and seeing what there was to see. There is no real starting point to communication without that action being there .
I recall a particularly difficult relationship I had with someone and looking at it now, can see that my expectations – the way I wanted things to be, my vested interests - made it impossible for me to see almost anything of what was really going on. Perhaps I would have gotten more of what I was seeking if I had been less concerned with getting it. Communication can be most difficult when it is most important, where there is passion and real caring. There seems to be so much at stake, and it’s true, there is. But stepping back and looking at the whole thing as an outsider might view it can be extremely helpful, even necessary, to resolving things in any sort of positive fashion.
Some people don’t really want to communicate. They’ve had failures at it, they don’t think it will go anywhere, or they are simply afraid. I have seen very unnecessary tragedies and destruction occur because of lack of communication, and miracles happen with real understanding – you may be able to think of some examples, too. It is really worth it to make that happen.
Communication can be very healing. Sometimes it is the only thing that will really heal a situation. Regardless of the risk, regardless of what might occur as a result, when that is the case, one may have no other ethical choice but to communicate and to ensure that understanding is really occurring. Sometimes that means clearly spelling something out for a person, especially if there has been misunderstandings and miscommunication in the past. A mystery can stick someone's attention quite severely and is worth clearing up.
You know, any problem, no matter how tough or impossible it may seem, can be solved with communication. Anything, if one wants it badly enough, can be resolved. That is something that one may need to experience to believe but it is worth trying.
Good communication can take practice and conscious effort and lots of thoughtful observation. It's a necessity on any road to real sustainability of a culture, and in relations with other living things.
-
Communication is a good thing. Without it, people can misinterpret each other forever. If you communicate long enough and sincerely enough, it can solve almost anything. It is only useful if it results in a better understanding though. To achieve that, you really have to listen to each other and have the intention to understand the other person. That’s more important than being understood yourself. Maybe that’s because most of us care more about being understood than in understanding the other person’s view so that other side needs some conscious focus to achieve balance.
To truly effectively communicate can take a lot of virtue – things like compassion, honesty, responsibility, patience, courage, humility, unselfishness, and willingness to genuinely consider the other person’s point of view, even if different from one’s own, can be crucial to achieving real communication.
In hindsight, where I’ve had the most trouble communicating is when I expected something, or was trying to get something, rather than being there and listening and seeing what there was to see. There is no real starting point to communication without that action being there .
I recall a particularly difficult relationship I had with someone and looking at it now, can see that my expectations – the way I wanted things to be, my vested interests - made it impossible for me to see almost anything of what was really going on. Perhaps I would have gotten more of what I was seeking if I had been less concerned with getting it. Communication can be most difficult when it is most important, where there is passion and real caring. There seems to be so much at stake, and it’s true, there is. But stepping back and looking at the whole thing as an outsider might view it can be extremely helpful, even necessary, to resolving things in any sort of positive fashion.
Some people don’t really want to communicate. They’ve had failures at it, they don’t think it will go anywhere, or they are simply afraid. I have seen very unnecessary tragedies and destruction occur because of lack of communication, and miracles happen with real understanding – you may be able to think of some examples, too. It is really worth it to make that happen.
Communication can be very healing. Sometimes it is the only thing that will really heal a situation. Regardless of the risk, regardless of what might occur as a result, when that is the case, one may have no other ethical choice but to communicate and to ensure that understanding is really occurring. Sometimes that means clearly spelling something out for a person, especially if there has been misunderstandings and miscommunication in the past. A mystery can stick someone's attention quite severely and is worth clearing up.
You know, any problem, no matter how tough or impossible it may seem, can be solved with communication. Anything, if one wants it badly enough, can be resolved. That is something that one may need to experience to believe but it is worth trying.
Good communication can take practice and conscious effort and lots of thoughtful observation. It's a necessity on any road to real sustainability of a culture, and in relations with other living things.
-
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Heart of the Matter
-
The times I’ve gotten in the most trouble in my life, the times I’ve been the most victimized, upset, confused or oppressed are those times when I have lost sight of compassion.
I’ve been having conversations about compassion lately with friends, looking at it from various angles and it's sparked some thought. For instance, why is compassion so hard sometimes? We’ve been told a lot of things about why it’s hard:
“Nice people get hurt.”
“You’ll get taken advantage of.”
“People will just take and take from you if you let them, and not give anything back.”
“People will never learn if you let them get away with it.”
“You have to keep people in line.”
You can probably think of a dozen more examples. The strange truth is, that the more compassion you have, the less possible it is to hurt you or take advantage of you. If you get hurt by showing compassion, then it is not really compassion – it is something else. But bear with me because I am redefining compassion here.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines compassion as:
“A suffering with another; painful sympathy; a sensation of sorrow excited by the distress or misfortunes of another; pity; commiseration. Compassion is a mixed passion, compounded of love and sorrow; at least some portion of love generally attends the pain or regret, or is excited by it. Extreme distress of an enemy even changes enmity into at least temporary affection.”
Though it can be really nice to be understood so deeply when one is experiencing suffering and to know that someone else cares, this type of compassion can sometimes end up making two people feel bad, instead of just one.
We all know of stories of effective demonstration of compassion that have touched us – something that was done, not just felt. A recent YouTube video has been circulating about a dog that risked its life to pull another dog off a freeway after it was hit by a car. Some might argue the dog was operating from some animal instinct that had nothing to do with sorrow or love, but I don’t think that anyone would argue that the act itself could be described as compassionate in its results (per the video, the rescued dog lived).
We could redefine compassion as an action word – a conscious decision and resultant action that creates effective, positive change for both giver and receiver alike. Though feelings of compassion often inspire such actions, it can also work the other way around. A decision to act compassionately can give rise to any number of positive feelings from everyone involved.
Compassion could be described as responsibility – the willingness to take responsibility for what the other person does as well as what you do. It could also be described as knowledge. If you’re willing to experience anything – because you understand why it is happening and you take responsibility for your choices that led up to that, there is nothing in this universe that can harm you.
To the degree you are truly able to face something, you can be compassionate about it. It is a viewpoint and a decision – a discipline and practice that one can get better at. We all know people who are just “naturally” compassionate, and we tend to admire those people a lot for being able to do that, but the only difference between them and anybody else is that somehow, they made the decision to be compassionate at some point. Sometimes it was a conscious decision, more often it was not. They were given reasons to be that way that made sense to them, while people who find it difficult to show compassion were given reasons they shouldn’t be, like those listed above.
We’ve all been betrayed and screwed over, in some fashion or another. In many cases, we can look at those incidents and recognize some point where we knew better, where we could have turned the tide and avoided being a victim. Sometimes it’s really hard to see it - sometimes it’s really, really hard, especially when one is stuck in the middle of the hurt. But that point is there, where one had a choice to become the adverse effect, or not. That point does not necessarily have anything to do with whether one chooses an emotional feeling of compassion or decides instead to harden their heart. It can have something to do with right action, right speech, and correct assessment of the situation so that one is not taken by surprise. Compassion is not necessarily a feeling, though feelings can certainly go along with it. It is a viewpoint and a decision, a discipline and a practice.
Compassion is a natural state of being. We teach ourselves to hide and suppress compassion, because we have been blindsided and tricked. It is not because we showed compassion that we were blindsided though. That is the big lie. It is because we did not look at what was in front of us that we were injured. We were careless. Our prediction of what might happen was inadequate. And because we did not fully see the shortcomings of the person, their capability to be imperfect, and therefore became upset when it manifested, we were not showing true compassion. Do you see how it is not compassion that hurts us, but the opposite?
Real compassion makes a being strong and powerful, not weak. If you are practicing true compassion, you cannot be victimized. Bullets, hate, treachery, none of it can touch you. This fact goes beyond physical universe appearances into the metaphysical. It is not something that is necessarily real unless you have experienced it for yourself. Try it, and see if it works for you! But keep in mind that it is a gradient thing, there are many levels of compassion, as there are levels of awareness.
We can all think of examples of highly compassionate people who have been cut down because of it – Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. But were they really hurt, in the larger scheme of things? Their legacy lives on far more powerfully than those that attacked them, who are remembered only because of the greatness of the men they tried to harm. There is a strength of soul that comes from being compassionate that makes life far more rich and beautiful than living in fear or defense against potential harm. That quality may very well be more valuable than anything one may be protecting by suppressing a compassionate viewpoint.
I am far from being able to be compassionate at all times – I consider myself a baby on the subject. But I’ve experienced enough of it from multiple angles to know that it is truly one of the most powerful weapons and healing antidotes that exist.
There have been many beautiful things expressed about compassion throughout the ages. Here is one of my favorite essays on the subject, a classic written by L. Ron Hubbard, who, by all evidence, is a man who practiced what he preached quite thoroughly - "What is Greatness?":
http://www.freedominla.org/issue07/page18.htm
A community is a great place to practice effective compassion, and how much stronger is a community that practices such things?...
-
The times I’ve gotten in the most trouble in my life, the times I’ve been the most victimized, upset, confused or oppressed are those times when I have lost sight of compassion.
I’ve been having conversations about compassion lately with friends, looking at it from various angles and it's sparked some thought. For instance, why is compassion so hard sometimes? We’ve been told a lot of things about why it’s hard:
“Nice people get hurt.”
“You’ll get taken advantage of.”
“People will just take and take from you if you let them, and not give anything back.”
“People will never learn if you let them get away with it.”
“You have to keep people in line.”
You can probably think of a dozen more examples. The strange truth is, that the more compassion you have, the less possible it is to hurt you or take advantage of you. If you get hurt by showing compassion, then it is not really compassion – it is something else. But bear with me because I am redefining compassion here.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines compassion as:
“A suffering with another; painful sympathy; a sensation of sorrow excited by the distress or misfortunes of another; pity; commiseration. Compassion is a mixed passion, compounded of love and sorrow; at least some portion of love generally attends the pain or regret, or is excited by it. Extreme distress of an enemy even changes enmity into at least temporary affection.”
Though it can be really nice to be understood so deeply when one is experiencing suffering and to know that someone else cares, this type of compassion can sometimes end up making two people feel bad, instead of just one.
We all know of stories of effective demonstration of compassion that have touched us – something that was done, not just felt. A recent YouTube video has been circulating about a dog that risked its life to pull another dog off a freeway after it was hit by a car. Some might argue the dog was operating from some animal instinct that had nothing to do with sorrow or love, but I don’t think that anyone would argue that the act itself could be described as compassionate in its results (per the video, the rescued dog lived).
We could redefine compassion as an action word – a conscious decision and resultant action that creates effective, positive change for both giver and receiver alike. Though feelings of compassion often inspire such actions, it can also work the other way around. A decision to act compassionately can give rise to any number of positive feelings from everyone involved.
Compassion could be described as responsibility – the willingness to take responsibility for what the other person does as well as what you do. It could also be described as knowledge. If you’re willing to experience anything – because you understand why it is happening and you take responsibility for your choices that led up to that, there is nothing in this universe that can harm you.
To the degree you are truly able to face something, you can be compassionate about it. It is a viewpoint and a decision – a discipline and practice that one can get better at. We all know people who are just “naturally” compassionate, and we tend to admire those people a lot for being able to do that, but the only difference between them and anybody else is that somehow, they made the decision to be compassionate at some point. Sometimes it was a conscious decision, more often it was not. They were given reasons to be that way that made sense to them, while people who find it difficult to show compassion were given reasons they shouldn’t be, like those listed above.
We’ve all been betrayed and screwed over, in some fashion or another. In many cases, we can look at those incidents and recognize some point where we knew better, where we could have turned the tide and avoided being a victim. Sometimes it’s really hard to see it - sometimes it’s really, really hard, especially when one is stuck in the middle of the hurt. But that point is there, where one had a choice to become the adverse effect, or not. That point does not necessarily have anything to do with whether one chooses an emotional feeling of compassion or decides instead to harden their heart. It can have something to do with right action, right speech, and correct assessment of the situation so that one is not taken by surprise. Compassion is not necessarily a feeling, though feelings can certainly go along with it. It is a viewpoint and a decision, a discipline and a practice.
Compassion is a natural state of being. We teach ourselves to hide and suppress compassion, because we have been blindsided and tricked. It is not because we showed compassion that we were blindsided though. That is the big lie. It is because we did not look at what was in front of us that we were injured. We were careless. Our prediction of what might happen was inadequate. And because we did not fully see the shortcomings of the person, their capability to be imperfect, and therefore became upset when it manifested, we were not showing true compassion. Do you see how it is not compassion that hurts us, but the opposite?
Real compassion makes a being strong and powerful, not weak. If you are practicing true compassion, you cannot be victimized. Bullets, hate, treachery, none of it can touch you. This fact goes beyond physical universe appearances into the metaphysical. It is not something that is necessarily real unless you have experienced it for yourself. Try it, and see if it works for you! But keep in mind that it is a gradient thing, there are many levels of compassion, as there are levels of awareness.
We can all think of examples of highly compassionate people who have been cut down because of it – Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. But were they really hurt, in the larger scheme of things? Their legacy lives on far more powerfully than those that attacked them, who are remembered only because of the greatness of the men they tried to harm. There is a strength of soul that comes from being compassionate that makes life far more rich and beautiful than living in fear or defense against potential harm. That quality may very well be more valuable than anything one may be protecting by suppressing a compassionate viewpoint.
I am far from being able to be compassionate at all times – I consider myself a baby on the subject. But I’ve experienced enough of it from multiple angles to know that it is truly one of the most powerful weapons and healing antidotes that exist.
There have been many beautiful things expressed about compassion throughout the ages. Here is one of my favorite essays on the subject, a classic written by L. Ron Hubbard, who, by all evidence, is a man who practiced what he preached quite thoroughly - "What is Greatness?":
http://www.freedominla.org/issue07/page18.htm
A community is a great place to practice effective compassion, and how much stronger is a community that practices such things?...
-
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Coyote
-
Get Into The Forests Again
When we get out of the glass bottles of our ego,
When we escape like squirrels
Turning in the cages of our personality
And get into the forests again,
We shall shiver with
cold and fright
But things will happen to us
So that we don't know ourselves.
Cool, unlying life will rush in,
And, passion will make our bodies taut with power,
We shall stamp our feet
with new power
And old things will fall down,
We shall laugh, and institution
will curl up like burnt paper.
D.H. Lawrence
What role does nature play in community? It is a great teacher, perhaps the best one to teach us about how life works through simple observation. Permaculture is one science that has learned from this teacher. Natural sciences have compiled vast information about that world, but the information too often stops at the edges of the subject, and doesn't translate to our daily lives.
Permaculture takes the laws of the natural world and plunks them down in the midst of our square houses and square asphalt streets, our frantic plastic creations. What happens is surprising to many - working with nature instead of against her always results in more abundance, more choice, more freedoms.
There is great power in nature, great healing, great peace. Even people who are oblivious to the intricate dance of the natural world will show up at a camp grounds with their fully loaded RVs and their TV set blaring. Somehow, on some level, they know they are better off doing that stuff in the midst of trees. They are healthier for it, even if they can't be there without props.
We have created a reality where nature has no part in it. One can conduct one's life without ever setting foot in it, without ever having to deal with it, really. We even insulate ourselves from the weather, with our automatic car starters and parking garages and buildings heated by cutting down mountains for coal. But yet, we cannot live without the natural world - everything that surrounds us comes from it ultimately, in some form or other, as altered and unrecognizable as it may be. We pay for our ignorance of the abundance amidst which we live - not only the personal price of being disconnected from its power and grace, but a group price - what other culture has been so willing to poison itself and its lifeblood in the name of a game that involves exchanging pieces of paper or electronic bits in order to see who can hoard or acquire the most?
Historically, a community that doesn't understand and embrace the natural world is doomed. Every civilization that has ignored nature has sooner or later been buried by it. The jury is out as to what this culture is going to decide to do - there are many discouraging elements, but also signs of change.
The exploding trend toward organics has made it off the grocery shelves and into our backyards, with record interest in growing our own food. A garden is a gesture toward the natural world - a controlled edge between nature and our square constructs. A food forest is a better edge. But somewhere both within and surrounding a community, there must be wild things, left to their own devices, left to create themselves in concert with their wild world. A place where we can go and be our wild selves and learn from our wild cousins.
How do we return to a true understanding of this world? Each of us has our own path, our own affinities and dreams that lead us there.
Coyote is often the one who leads me. Standing patiently, energetic alert being, he looks at me nonchalantly, with wind eyes. They tell me he will take me into magic realms, far from silly rules and square boxes. He knows what I need, and taunts me to reach for it.
He is an edge creature, one who can live in many worlds. He always returns to the deep wild though, where his cries blend best. He looks over his shoulder, and waits for me.
I think it's time to go for a walk in the woods...
_
Get Into The Forests Again
When we get out of the glass bottles of our ego,
When we escape like squirrels
Turning in the cages of our personality
And get into the forests again,
We shall shiver with
cold and fright
But things will happen to us
So that we don't know ourselves.
Cool, unlying life will rush in,
And, passion will make our bodies taut with power,
We shall stamp our feet
with new power
And old things will fall down,
We shall laugh, and institution
will curl up like burnt paper.
D.H. Lawrence
What role does nature play in community? It is a great teacher, perhaps the best one to teach us about how life works through simple observation. Permaculture is one science that has learned from this teacher. Natural sciences have compiled vast information about that world, but the information too often stops at the edges of the subject, and doesn't translate to our daily lives.
Permaculture takes the laws of the natural world and plunks them down in the midst of our square houses and square asphalt streets, our frantic plastic creations. What happens is surprising to many - working with nature instead of against her always results in more abundance, more choice, more freedoms.
There is great power in nature, great healing, great peace. Even people who are oblivious to the intricate dance of the natural world will show up at a camp grounds with their fully loaded RVs and their TV set blaring. Somehow, on some level, they know they are better off doing that stuff in the midst of trees. They are healthier for it, even if they can't be there without props.
We have created a reality where nature has no part in it. One can conduct one's life without ever setting foot in it, without ever having to deal with it, really. We even insulate ourselves from the weather, with our automatic car starters and parking garages and buildings heated by cutting down mountains for coal. But yet, we cannot live without the natural world - everything that surrounds us comes from it ultimately, in some form or other, as altered and unrecognizable as it may be. We pay for our ignorance of the abundance amidst which we live - not only the personal price of being disconnected from its power and grace, but a group price - what other culture has been so willing to poison itself and its lifeblood in the name of a game that involves exchanging pieces of paper or electronic bits in order to see who can hoard or acquire the most?
Historically, a community that doesn't understand and embrace the natural world is doomed. Every civilization that has ignored nature has sooner or later been buried by it. The jury is out as to what this culture is going to decide to do - there are many discouraging elements, but also signs of change.
The exploding trend toward organics has made it off the grocery shelves and into our backyards, with record interest in growing our own food. A garden is a gesture toward the natural world - a controlled edge between nature and our square constructs. A food forest is a better edge. But somewhere both within and surrounding a community, there must be wild things, left to their own devices, left to create themselves in concert with their wild world. A place where we can go and be our wild selves and learn from our wild cousins.
How do we return to a true understanding of this world? Each of us has our own path, our own affinities and dreams that lead us there.
Coyote is often the one who leads me. Standing patiently, energetic alert being, he looks at me nonchalantly, with wind eyes. They tell me he will take me into magic realms, far from silly rules and square boxes. He knows what I need, and taunts me to reach for it.
He is an edge creature, one who can live in many worlds. He always returns to the deep wild though, where his cries blend best. He looks over his shoulder, and waits for me.
I think it's time to go for a walk in the woods...
_
Friday, January 16, 2009
Conversation with God
_
One of my favorites
A conversation between GOD and St. Francis about Suburbanites
GOD: St. Francis, you know all about gardens and nature. What in the World is going on down there in the USA? What happened to the dandelions, violets, thistle and stuff I started eons ago? I had a perfect, no-maintenance garden plan. Those plants grow in any type of soil, withstand drought and multiply with abandon. The nectar from the long lasting blossoms attracts butterflies, honeybees and flocks of songbirds. I expected to see a vast garden of colors by now. But all I see are these green rectangles.
ST. FRANCIS: It's the tribes that settled there, Lord. The Suburbanites. They started calling your flowers weeds and went to great lengths to kill them and replace them with grass.
GOD: Grass? But it's so boring. It's not colorful. It doesn't attract butterflies, birds and bees, only grubs and sod worms. It's temperamental with temperatures. Do these Suburbanites really want all that grass growing there?
ST. FRANCIS: Apparently so, Lord. They go to great pains to grow it and keep it green. They begin each spring by fertilizing grass and poisoning any other plant that crops up in the lawn.
GOD: The spring rains and warm weather probably make grass grow really fast. That must make the Suburbanites happy.
ST. FRANCIS: Apparently not, Lord. As soon as it grows a little, they cut it, sometimes twice a week.
GOD: They cut it? Do they then bale it like hay?
ST. FRANCIS: Not exactly Lord. Most of them rake it up and put it in bags.
GOD: They bag it? Why? Is it a cash crop? Do they sell it?
ST. FRANCIS: No, sir -- just the opposite. They pay to throw it away.
GOD: Now, let me get this straight. They fertilize grass so it will grow. And when it does grow, they cut it off and pay to throw it away?
ST. FRANCIS: Yes, sir.
GOD: These Suburbanites must be relieved in the summer when we cut back On the rain and turn up the heat. That surely slows the gro wth and saves Them a lot of work.
ST. FRANCIS: You aren't going to believe this, Lord. When the grass stops growing so fast, they drag out hoses and pay more money to water it so they can continue to mow it and pay to get rid of it.
GOD: What nonsense. At least they kept some of the trees. That was a Sheer stoke of genius, if I do say so myself. The trees grow leaves in the spring to provide beauty and shade in the summer. In the autumn they fall to the ground and form a natural blanket to keep moisture in the soil and protect the trees and bushes. Plus, as they rot, the leaves form compost to enhance the soil. It's a natural circle of life.
ST. FRANCIS: You'd better sit down, Lord. The Suburbanites have drawn a new circle. As soon as the leaves fall, they rake them into great piles and pay to have them hauled away.
GOD: No. What do they do to protect the shrub and tree roots in the Winter and to keep the soil moist and loose?
ST. FRANCIS: After throwing away the leaves, they go out and buy Something which they call mulch. They haul it home and spread it around in place of the leaves.
GOD: And where do they get this mulch?
ST. FRANCIS: They cut down trees and grind them up to make the mulch.
GOD: Enough! I don't want to think about this anymore. St. Catherine, you're in charge of the arts. What movie have you scheduled for us tonight?
ST. CATHERINE: Dumb and Dumber, Lord. It's a real stupid movie about.............
GOD: Never mind, I think I just heard the whole story from St. Francis.
_
One of my favorites
A conversation between GOD and St. Francis about Suburbanites
GOD: St. Francis, you know all about gardens and nature. What in the World is going on down there in the USA? What happened to the dandelions, violets, thistle and stuff I started eons ago? I had a perfect, no-maintenance garden plan. Those plants grow in any type of soil, withstand drought and multiply with abandon. The nectar from the long lasting blossoms attracts butterflies, honeybees and flocks of songbirds. I expected to see a vast garden of colors by now. But all I see are these green rectangles.
ST. FRANCIS: It's the tribes that settled there, Lord. The Suburbanites. They started calling your flowers weeds and went to great lengths to kill them and replace them with grass.
GOD: Grass? But it's so boring. It's not colorful. It doesn't attract butterflies, birds and bees, only grubs and sod worms. It's temperamental with temperatures. Do these Suburbanites really want all that grass growing there?
ST. FRANCIS: Apparently so, Lord. They go to great pains to grow it and keep it green. They begin each spring by fertilizing grass and poisoning any other plant that crops up in the lawn.
GOD: The spring rains and warm weather probably make grass grow really fast. That must make the Suburbanites happy.
ST. FRANCIS: Apparently not, Lord. As soon as it grows a little, they cut it, sometimes twice a week.
GOD: They cut it? Do they then bale it like hay?
ST. FRANCIS: Not exactly Lord. Most of them rake it up and put it in bags.
GOD: They bag it? Why? Is it a cash crop? Do they sell it?
ST. FRANCIS: No, sir -- just the opposite. They pay to throw it away.
GOD: Now, let me get this straight. They fertilize grass so it will grow. And when it does grow, they cut it off and pay to throw it away?
ST. FRANCIS: Yes, sir.
GOD: These Suburbanites must be relieved in the summer when we cut back On the rain and turn up the heat. That surely slows the gro wth and saves Them a lot of work.
ST. FRANCIS: You aren't going to believe this, Lord. When the grass stops growing so fast, they drag out hoses and pay more money to water it so they can continue to mow it and pay to get rid of it.
GOD: What nonsense. At least they kept some of the trees. That was a Sheer stoke of genius, if I do say so myself. The trees grow leaves in the spring to provide beauty and shade in the summer. In the autumn they fall to the ground and form a natural blanket to keep moisture in the soil and protect the trees and bushes. Plus, as they rot, the leaves form compost to enhance the soil. It's a natural circle of life.
ST. FRANCIS: You'd better sit down, Lord. The Suburbanites have drawn a new circle. As soon as the leaves fall, they rake them into great piles and pay to have them hauled away.
GOD: No. What do they do to protect the shrub and tree roots in the Winter and to keep the soil moist and loose?
ST. FRANCIS: After throwing away the leaves, they go out and buy Something which they call mulch. They haul it home and spread it around in place of the leaves.
GOD: And where do they get this mulch?
ST. FRANCIS: They cut down trees and grind them up to make the mulch.
GOD: Enough! I don't want to think about this anymore. St. Catherine, you're in charge of the arts. What movie have you scheduled for us tonight?
ST. CATHERINE: Dumb and Dumber, Lord. It's a real stupid movie about.............
GOD: Never mind, I think I just heard the whole story from St. Francis.
_
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Is community actually more exciting than being an economic hit man?
_____
Yes, someone actually asked me that.
Some people really love the largeness of the game of corporatocracy. They subscribe to the Ayn Rand philosophy that a small handful of individuals are just bigger and better than everybody else and they therefore have the right to play the game however they want to. Joe Sixpack is content to go to work and then drink beer and watch TV on the weekend. That's why it's ok to sell him toxic food, shelter, water and energy (and everything else). Those little guys are not really as important as the game we're playing, us big boys.
I'm not going to question the merits of Ayn Rand's philosophy. What I will question is - "If ya'll are so big and so smart and superior, why can't you come up with a better game?" Poisoning the earth and your fellow human beings is a pretty sorry excuse for one, really, because you're trying to destroy the playing field!
Can you imagine Shaq going out on the court with cleats that ripped up that beautiful wood flooring so everybody was tripping over it? Or maybe a spike in his hand that deflated the ball? What is exciting about that? If he did that, you would think he was crazy, right? Maybe you would want to forcibly remove him from the court, even.
Well, anybody who is observing what is going on thinks that the big boys and what they're doing is crazy too, because it is.
Some of the guys who are creating the most damage are getting genuinely scared, with the growing evidence about climate change and the degraded state of key aspects of our environment (like soils, water supply, etc). But they want to keep their unworkable game intact, somehow. They are just trying to slow down the destruction, so the game lasts longer. Which of them is saying, "No guys, sorry, we have to change the whole structure of the game, because it's a losing game, and everybody including us loses." Nobody wants to make that call, nobody wants to be the one that points that out. Nobody wants to confront what would actually have to happen to make the game last long enough for the next dozen or one hundred or more generations to enjoy it. If I'm wrong about that, and there is a member of the powers that be who is actually suggesting we scrap our failing cultural design and substitute a better one, I would truly love to hear about it!
Only when those people in real positions of power become willing to change the rules of the game so that life can truly prosper on this planet, will they become an asset instead of a liability. It really doesn't matter how great your abilities are, if you are using them to destroy the game for the rest of us, you are a party-pooper, a petty tyrant, a wet blanket. It is an illusion that you will lose by doing the right thing - you have everything to gain.
Some of the radical changes that are needed (minimally) would be:
1. Regulations that enforce true costs of doing business on those who are profiting from that business instead of passing those costs covertly to others (like our children). An example would be charging big agriculture to clean up dead zones in the Gulf caused by chemical run off from their fields. There is nothing that would motivate business faster to get clever about finding sustainable solutions.
2. Laws that effectively penalize those who destroy or compromise natural resources that all of us depend on (like water resources)
3. A change in economic statistical measurements - a GDP that shows a country is "doing well" when it is going broke from fighting wars and raping its future resources, and profiting from the sickness of its citizens is not a workable way to measure economic progress.
There are many more points, but this gives an idea.
Some people just don't see how they could play the game any other way. They are so stuck in it, they can't get outside and look. The first step to getting out is to consider that there may actually be ways to play the game without destroying the playing field. These are things you haven't necessarily thought of yet, but those possibilities exist, nonetheless, and can be discovered with enough intention and willingness to explore those realms.
It may involve changing some structures and activities pretty radically. That could involve some chaotic moments, a willingness to experience change, a willingness to reach beyond one's comfort level and to confront things none of us wants to confront. It doesn't mean, however, that you have to give up the size of game you want to play. If anything, you could have an even more rewarding and challenging game by making it more of an ethical game. There is no need to feel that you are going to lose your ability to play an utterly engrossing and fulfilling game by keeping the playing field there for the rest of us!
OK?
It may seem like there is a lot to lose by truly and honestly looking at what it would take to play a game that doesn't mess up the playing field. But there is far more to gain.
***
Yes, someone actually asked me that.
Some people really love the largeness of the game of corporatocracy. They subscribe to the Ayn Rand philosophy that a small handful of individuals are just bigger and better than everybody else and they therefore have the right to play the game however they want to. Joe Sixpack is content to go to work and then drink beer and watch TV on the weekend. That's why it's ok to sell him toxic food, shelter, water and energy (and everything else). Those little guys are not really as important as the game we're playing, us big boys.
I'm not going to question the merits of Ayn Rand's philosophy. What I will question is - "If ya'll are so big and so smart and superior, why can't you come up with a better game?" Poisoning the earth and your fellow human beings is a pretty sorry excuse for one, really, because you're trying to destroy the playing field!
Can you imagine Shaq going out on the court with cleats that ripped up that beautiful wood flooring so everybody was tripping over it? Or maybe a spike in his hand that deflated the ball? What is exciting about that? If he did that, you would think he was crazy, right? Maybe you would want to forcibly remove him from the court, even.
Well, anybody who is observing what is going on thinks that the big boys and what they're doing is crazy too, because it is.
Some of the guys who are creating the most damage are getting genuinely scared, with the growing evidence about climate change and the degraded state of key aspects of our environment (like soils, water supply, etc). But they want to keep their unworkable game intact, somehow. They are just trying to slow down the destruction, so the game lasts longer. Which of them is saying, "No guys, sorry, we have to change the whole structure of the game, because it's a losing game, and everybody including us loses." Nobody wants to make that call, nobody wants to be the one that points that out. Nobody wants to confront what would actually have to happen to make the game last long enough for the next dozen or one hundred or more generations to enjoy it. If I'm wrong about that, and there is a member of the powers that be who is actually suggesting we scrap our failing cultural design and substitute a better one, I would truly love to hear about it!
Only when those people in real positions of power become willing to change the rules of the game so that life can truly prosper on this planet, will they become an asset instead of a liability. It really doesn't matter how great your abilities are, if you are using them to destroy the game for the rest of us, you are a party-pooper, a petty tyrant, a wet blanket. It is an illusion that you will lose by doing the right thing - you have everything to gain.
Some of the radical changes that are needed (minimally) would be:
1. Regulations that enforce true costs of doing business on those who are profiting from that business instead of passing those costs covertly to others (like our children). An example would be charging big agriculture to clean up dead zones in the Gulf caused by chemical run off from their fields. There is nothing that would motivate business faster to get clever about finding sustainable solutions.
2. Laws that effectively penalize those who destroy or compromise natural resources that all of us depend on (like water resources)
3. A change in economic statistical measurements - a GDP that shows a country is "doing well" when it is going broke from fighting wars and raping its future resources, and profiting from the sickness of its citizens is not a workable way to measure economic progress.
There are many more points, but this gives an idea.
Some people just don't see how they could play the game any other way. They are so stuck in it, they can't get outside and look. The first step to getting out is to consider that there may actually be ways to play the game without destroying the playing field. These are things you haven't necessarily thought of yet, but those possibilities exist, nonetheless, and can be discovered with enough intention and willingness to explore those realms.
It may involve changing some structures and activities pretty radically. That could involve some chaotic moments, a willingness to experience change, a willingness to reach beyond one's comfort level and to confront things none of us wants to confront. It doesn't mean, however, that you have to give up the size of game you want to play. If anything, you could have an even more rewarding and challenging game by making it more of an ethical game. There is no need to feel that you are going to lose your ability to play an utterly engrossing and fulfilling game by keeping the playing field there for the rest of us!
OK?
It may seem like there is a lot to lose by truly and honestly looking at what it would take to play a game that doesn't mess up the playing field. But there is far more to gain.
***
And Big Mistakes
_
I just read about how British Petroleum wants to create some genetically modified prairie grass to make biofuels. Well of course! The fact that prairie grass is a perfectly fine solution all on its own is just not good enough. You can't patent weeds!
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5583
The problem with corporate solutions to sustainability is that people who are in decision making capacities in these places unfortunately usually have a really hard time confronting an actual ecosystem. It is all a bunch of figures on a piece of paper, or in an offshore bank account, or in a power point presentation.
My suggested program for corporate executives who want to make their activities in life sustainable would be to spend a month or two 'vacation' time at Tom Brown's school:
www.trackerschool.com
If they did that, they might walk away with some real knowledge about how ecosystems work - about how life itself works - and what their personal relationship is to other forms of life. Otherwise, discussion about sustainability is all just an intellectual exercise.
I feel it's important to find some point of reality with the industrial/corporate/consumer world, if we are to bring it to sustainability. It's hard sometimes though. Here is why:
For a few hundred dollars or less, you can convert a gasoline engine so that it can run on prairie grass ethanol. And you could make your own still in the backyard to create the fuel from weeds (lots of people did that during Prohibition...). But wait, that means anybody who can grow or find some weeds could...provide their own fuel! Oh, no, no, we musn't let that happen! We need multimillions, even billions of dollars of investment by multinational emperors in order to solve this problem. It shall not be given to the common man to do - he would no longer be dependent on us and our ultra complicated, patented and expensive monster weed fuel!
http://www.permaculture.com/
As long as corporations have a vested interest in "controlling resources" and patenting what should be available to anybody who can actually be responsible for it, they are not going to pick the solution that actually makes the most sense and is the greatest good for the vast majority of us (and all other life, as well as future generations).
Let me repeat that - we are never going to get an optimum solution to sustainability from multinational corporations or big governments. It's not that they do not have the resources. They do not have the motivation, because the optimum solution too often means putting them out of existence or cutting off their money teat - making them irrelevant. At the very least it would mean a serious restructuring and reevaluation of virtually all of their activities. To find a truly ethical solution - the most optimum solution, one must be willing to change one's position in life, one's occupation, one's daily habits, or perhaps even give up some of one's favorite beholden beliefs.
It is impossible, in most cases (maybe every case), for corporate decisions makers, because of the very nature of corporations, to choose the most sustainable model of behavior and production available. It is simply not "competitive" or so it seems. This is always an illusion because sustainability is the ONLY thing that actually is always competitive - the artificiality of the game we're playing is what makes that seem not true. Think about it - in nature, the only things that survive for any length of time are things with the most sustainable qualities. Then think about all the civilizations that no longer exist, like Rome, that didn't have those qualities.
There has been a lot of discussion about the legal problems with corporations gaining personhood status. Perhaps a more insidious problem is that the people who work for corporations grant this abstract legal concept more personhood than they grant to themselves! Why else would they think it's ok to work for and support an organization that is destroying their own playing field?
This is a problem that is sooner or later going to come home to roost on all of our doorsteps, to the degree each one of us does not take responsibility for it.
There are growing numbers of towns and communities who are taking responsibility for this and taking back their natural resources and their sovereignty and trying to do something that is sustainable with these things. Here's an example:
http://www.bouldercountygoinglocal.com/campaign.html
More and more people are starting to realize that if they take responsibility for their existence (which means food, water, energy and shelter minimally), they can actually be in control of it. They do not have to be slaves to the "system" or be effect of what wealthy money manipulators do behind closed doors in foreign locales.
http://fora.tv/2008/05/09/John_Perkins_on_Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
The only way we can be slaves or adverse effect of anything is if we agree to be.
This is a difficult concept, until you see it demonstrated in your life. Every one of us can think of an example where this is true. Sometimes it is hard to see how one could have done anything but agree, in certain situations.
If a person can't see it, then they simply do not have the technology or knowledge of how to avoid slavery in that area. That know-how does exist however! The answers are there.
We continue to experiment with getting these answers implemented - currently focusing in on Clearwater, FL, and in Los Angeles. Our latest efforts can be viewed at:
CreateClearwater.ning.com
It is a gradient process, because we are trying to take a culture in which almost nothing about it is sustainable, to one where just about everything about it is. If nothing else, it is quite a challenging and interesting adventure. And it is quite a bit more fun than being a slave and not even trying to do anything about it.
-
I just read about how British Petroleum wants to create some genetically modified prairie grass to make biofuels. Well of course! The fact that prairie grass is a perfectly fine solution all on its own is just not good enough. You can't patent weeds!
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5583
The problem with corporate solutions to sustainability is that people who are in decision making capacities in these places unfortunately usually have a really hard time confronting an actual ecosystem. It is all a bunch of figures on a piece of paper, or in an offshore bank account, or in a power point presentation.
My suggested program for corporate executives who want to make their activities in life sustainable would be to spend a month or two 'vacation' time at Tom Brown's school:
www.trackerschool.com
If they did that, they might walk away with some real knowledge about how ecosystems work - about how life itself works - and what their personal relationship is to other forms of life. Otherwise, discussion about sustainability is all just an intellectual exercise.
I feel it's important to find some point of reality with the industrial/corporate/consumer world, if we are to bring it to sustainability. It's hard sometimes though. Here is why:
For a few hundred dollars or less, you can convert a gasoline engine so that it can run on prairie grass ethanol. And you could make your own still in the backyard to create the fuel from weeds (lots of people did that during Prohibition...). But wait, that means anybody who can grow or find some weeds could...provide their own fuel! Oh, no, no, we musn't let that happen! We need multimillions, even billions of dollars of investment by multinational emperors in order to solve this problem. It shall not be given to the common man to do - he would no longer be dependent on us and our ultra complicated, patented and expensive monster weed fuel!
http://www.permaculture.com/
As long as corporations have a vested interest in "controlling resources" and patenting what should be available to anybody who can actually be responsible for it, they are not going to pick the solution that actually makes the most sense and is the greatest good for the vast majority of us (and all other life, as well as future generations).
Let me repeat that - we are never going to get an optimum solution to sustainability from multinational corporations or big governments. It's not that they do not have the resources. They do not have the motivation, because the optimum solution too often means putting them out of existence or cutting off their money teat - making them irrelevant. At the very least it would mean a serious restructuring and reevaluation of virtually all of their activities. To find a truly ethical solution - the most optimum solution, one must be willing to change one's position in life, one's occupation, one's daily habits, or perhaps even give up some of one's favorite beholden beliefs.
It is impossible, in most cases (maybe every case), for corporate decisions makers, because of the very nature of corporations, to choose the most sustainable model of behavior and production available. It is simply not "competitive" or so it seems. This is always an illusion because sustainability is the ONLY thing that actually is always competitive - the artificiality of the game we're playing is what makes that seem not true. Think about it - in nature, the only things that survive for any length of time are things with the most sustainable qualities. Then think about all the civilizations that no longer exist, like Rome, that didn't have those qualities.
There has been a lot of discussion about the legal problems with corporations gaining personhood status. Perhaps a more insidious problem is that the people who work for corporations grant this abstract legal concept more personhood than they grant to themselves! Why else would they think it's ok to work for and support an organization that is destroying their own playing field?
This is a problem that is sooner or later going to come home to roost on all of our doorsteps, to the degree each one of us does not take responsibility for it.
There are growing numbers of towns and communities who are taking responsibility for this and taking back their natural resources and their sovereignty and trying to do something that is sustainable with these things. Here's an example:
http://www.bouldercountygoinglocal.com/campaign.html
More and more people are starting to realize that if they take responsibility for their existence (which means food, water, energy and shelter minimally), they can actually be in control of it. They do not have to be slaves to the "system" or be effect of what wealthy money manipulators do behind closed doors in foreign locales.
http://fora.tv/2008/05/09/John_Perkins_on_Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
The only way we can be slaves or adverse effect of anything is if we agree to be.
This is a difficult concept, until you see it demonstrated in your life. Every one of us can think of an example where this is true. Sometimes it is hard to see how one could have done anything but agree, in certain situations.
If a person can't see it, then they simply do not have the technology or knowledge of how to avoid slavery in that area. That know-how does exist however! The answers are there.
We continue to experiment with getting these answers implemented - currently focusing in on Clearwater, FL, and in Los Angeles. Our latest efforts can be viewed at:
CreateClearwater.ning.com
It is a gradient process, because we are trying to take a culture in which almost nothing about it is sustainable, to one where just about everything about it is. If nothing else, it is quite a challenging and interesting adventure. And it is quite a bit more fun than being a slave and not even trying to do anything about it.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)