[Campaignforrealdemocracy] Fwd: Picnic Trust, Ritual & the Encouragement of Voice

[Mark Barrett]

Hi Everyone

I hope this finds you all well.

Here below's an interesting response to my earlier question as per subject
heading. This is also just a quick reminder that the next democracy picnic
will be on Sunday 27th September, from 1pm at Alexandra Palace. There will
be some posters done soon for people to print out (assistance in putting
them up in the local Ally Pally area much appreciated) and hopefully Anna
will be able to get the www.peopleincommon.org website updated soon with all
the details but in the meantime please join the Facebook group at
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=119225921935 and invite all your
friends to the picnic!

Plan is to have a series of events at high points in London before going to
the Greater London Assembly in May 2010.

Please tell everyone you know who's interested in a renaissance of
real democracy and community to come along, invite others and bring their
friends

Cheers!
Mark

re "One member of Project 2012 mentioned to me at Sat's picnic his concern
that some on this list may feel they want to speak, but get put off.
Reasons (we thought) could be shyness, busyness, or any number of
other reasons; including the fear that they will get shot down for
asking a silly question or making a bold, coontroversial assertion,
which is the last thing we want."
-----------------------------------forwarded
response---------------------------------------
that we deal with the problem of moral judgement is a necessity to acheive
the ambitions of the first paragraph, no amount of procedure can make it so
people wont feel like they're gonna get shot down... people need to be not
scared of getting shot down as well to an extent, situations are clearly so
urgent it would be ridiculous to think we didn't act/couldn't organise
because of fear of a little mild social scorn... but that whole judgement
thing people have does make speaking out 'dangerous'... is it dangerous? i
always used to say, in most countries in the world if you wanna fight the
new world order you're facing rubber bullets or real bullets, water cannons,
beatings in basements and/or broken bones/death... here, the main thing that
holds us in place is english social form (and maybe a night in a police cell
but its pretty cushy being a member of 'the resistance' here compared to
almost any country you could care to think of, well at least it is for now)

but judgement... moral jugement... there lies the gun from which we are
afraid of getting shot down... remember the fairy tale; adam and eve got
kicked out of the garden of eden for inventing morality, and its no wonder
the africans kicked them out, because it makes it impossible to think
straight under this moral haze... i dunno if its this country or this city
or the music business or 'the activists' or a global feature of humanity but
one thing really bothering me specifically on this is people's tendency to
hold onto their judgements of other people for years, until proven
otherwise, they hold their judgement, often based on no more than a single
sentence, until proven otherwise they will also tend to think they are
'right' about this judgement, precisely BECAUSE it is filed under "moral" in
the brain, and will take any dispute on the point as a MORAL attack on their
own MORAL judgement which makes it very difficult to shift... it is long
very tedious and stops things happening and is the 'danger' people are
scared of when they are afraid of being 'shot down' cos these kind of
judgements can really affect your life and how things turn out for you

unfortunately, if you are trying to organise 'activists', there are several
problems of type you are likely to come across, all the rebels are
independantly ready for revolution, the big change, transition, whatever...
but you get them all together and they are often compelled to rebel against
each other... for example... but more relevant to this moral "shooting down"
business, you are likely to attract people with a heightened moral sense,
probably what DROVE them to activism in the first place, and then a
misunderstanding about what morality means and how it is to be USED (for if
we we're to abandon all moral sense we would probably do well to forget all
about it and concentrate on making as much money as possible) we need to
individually examine the PURPOSE of morality and also beware of the
situations in which it is not constructive to have the moral antenna tuned
too sensitively

too many people take morality for being right about what is wrong

these people often end up holding each other to too high standards and are
prone to judge one another just as surely as they have made their judgement
on george bush or tony blair...

too often one cannot express a simple factual error noticed in a speakers
presentation because the dispute is taken morally, or is taken of an
implication of the stupidity of the speaker or an under-cover assertion of
superiority of the respondee (which it often is)

To discuss the issues we want to raise the moral section of the brain has to
be fired up... a whole set of neural pathways... pathways often associated
with bad memories... When one is in the business of fixing moral problems,
the whole set of thinking involved with moral 'badness' is brought up and
for some people more than others that can be particularly uncomfortable...
should we try thinking about the problems more practically than morally?
...but then is fixing problems really the way to present what where doing?
what about the positive ideas of creating a new world or calling for the
creation of a new direction for humanity? would this be prone to the same
sort of problems with regards to fear of speaking out/having ideas? to an
extent i guess... as long as you are working with people who are prone to
judge (which is all people really) because there is the question of what
SHOULD be, which is morral, COULD be is more interesting and allows for many
correct answers as opposed to a fighting search for the one correct and
final answer for the whole of humanity (the marxist mistake) this approach
aptly summed up by an old rainbow tribe banner...

"OTHER WORLDS ARE POSSIBLE"

NOTE the difference between that and the world social forum banner

ANOTHER world is possible

but both at least look to the future instead of gripe about the past,
looking back and holding moral judgements are minimised the rainbow way,
because if we cant forgive none of us will be forgiven, as you judge, so
shall you be judged, i wish people would remember this as they look upon
each other in horror...

it is part of the 'spiritual change' category of the transition, i'm sure
there are organisational and conversational tactics that can also be
employed to acheive the aim of stopping people from being scared to speak
out (because of the mild threat of social discomfort) ...and to a certain
extent just a simple encouragement to be brave and just take it if they are
ridiculed or judged or whatever... but what i'm on about really is to the
listener at a meeting, learn to suspend judgement...


On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mark Barrett
<marknbarrett at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Dear All
>
> One member of Project 2012 mentioned to me at Sat's picnic his concern
> that some on this list may feel they want to speak, but get put off.
> Reasons (we thought) could be shyness, busyness, or any number of
> other reasons; including the fear that they will get shot down for
> asking a silly question or making a bold, coontroversial assertion,
> which is the last thing we want.
>
> With this in mind, I thought it might be an idea to start a thread on
> what makes for a trustful, supportive community spirit, something in
> which everyone,  even the shyest can feel safe enough to speak. What
> do people think on this?
>
> For me, linked to this is the question of ritual. On Saturday, at the
> picnic, there were - spontaneously - at least three main strands to
> the ritual: (1) the social part (2) the performance part and (3) the
> political meeting part.
>
> I thought it worked quite well as an unplanned process, but some
> (especially those unaccustomed to such meetings) may have felt that
> the latter part, ie the demcratic meeting bit, was a bit strained.
> Even WITH the talking broad bean pod / singing / poetic & relatively
> light hearted, humorous approach.. :-)
>
> As a basic starting point on this, I would say that politics is like
> that, at least until one has a sense of collective shared aim; it is
> as some descibe it "agonic" being necessarily about passion, belief
> and sometimes (often / usually) a battle of ideas. Question is, how to
> make that process as welcoming and enjoyable for everyone as possible,
> especially newcomers, without losing sight of the purpose. This seems
> to me an important question, in that it links  to wider, mainstream
> society's cultural direction. Perhaps in these days of consumerism,
> health and safety regs, society of spectacle, corporate provision and
> worship of pleasure (sorry, long list) we are extra sensitive to this
> in our culture where we try to avoid discomfort, including especially
> the political variety, at all costs. And, thanks to science, we've
> became exceptionally successful at this!  Also, as a society we appear
> to all hang out with people who think alike, the very opposite of what
> is needed in our local communities if we are to move out of our
> cultural ghettoes and into a local, multicultural sovereignty.
> Perhaps we as a society are also subject to what might be called a
> 'political infantilisation' due to eg state centralisation and the
> telling of history through the lens of triumphant neo-liberalism. All
> of these, and much more, are barriers to participation which i would
> like to see our meetings online and in person, tackle.
>
> Presumably, in time, whenever a group forms, if it is to last and grow
> it eventually becomes easier. Good ways of working together - not to
> mention points of disagreement and the enormity of our common ground -
> becomes clearer and trust happens?
>
> So my question is, what ideas can we come up with to ensure that this
> happens, both on-line and at picnics and more formal meetings, as
> quickly and as painlessly,  but without losing focus and momentum, as
> is possible..?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Mark
>
>





-- 
"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no
man speaketh as we speak in the street.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/campaignforrealdemocracy/attachments/20090903/8e2bc82f/attachment.htm>