============================================================================ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:35:49 -0700 (PDT) To: •••@••.••• From: John Lowry <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#1100,rn> Two outstanding revolutionaries: Korten & Fresia Other good reads along this line, and in line with your objective are, "The Second American Revolution," by John D. Rockfeller, III, (mid '70s), and "Dear America," by Karl Hess (chief speechwriter for Barry Goldwater in '68), Morrow, '75. A few words from the begining ... "I served capitalism very faithfully for very many years. And now, like most servants, I know a good deal about it in both its dress clothes and work clothes, and even without any clothes at all. ... What I have learned about corporate capitalism, roughly, is that it is an act of theft, by and large, through which a very few live very high off the work, invention and creativity of very many others. It is the Grand Larceny of our particular time in history, the Grand Larceny in which a future of freedom, which could have followed the collapse of feudalism, was stolen from under our noses by a new bunch of bosses doing the same old things." ========== Dear John, "The Grand Larceny of our particular time in history" -- we need phrases like this to express graphically the reality of capitalist tyranny. Many thanks for your ongoing contributions to the list. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:48:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Ferguson <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#1101,rn> re: traditonals, modernists, cultural creatives To: •••@••.••• Yo, I've always been generally impressed with David Korten's insight and his eloquence. I was particularly impressed with this quote: "This movement represents an epic struggle between humanity and its institutions, between life and money." ... OK, so now here's the 'but' 7/9/2000, David C. Korten wrote: While [traditionals] share some basic values with the Cultural Creatives, they tend to be substantially less committed on environmental issues. While I don't see specific results on this in Ray's report, I would guess they are also less interested in social and economic justice. I have a problem with the guesswork involved here and the use of the word 'they.' > ... they tend to > ... I would guess they > ... which I believe means they Without time to be thorough, it's about, I think, a Bhuddist-type of thing: we create the divisions between groups simply by defining groups as separate and 'other' (them, not us). David Korten is historically fallible. He started his career, I believe as an agent of institutional corporatism in Asia. To his credit, when he saw the light, he turned toward it. I'm reiterating an old theme that the bright members of the movement must be valued and learned from, but we should heed Bob Dylan's warning "don't follow leaders." We all need to take responsibility. Leaders are fallible and mortal, the human collective conscience is neither. I would like to see Korten, when he doesn't know, ask. I, myself, identify with all three of those groups. The traditionalist in me values the traditions of way back, before 'civilization' began losing its way, but I know we can't go back. The only way out is through. All of us people who are not card-carrying activists (like we have full-time jobs and kids that we aren't finished raising) have trouble getting in touch with what doesn't touch us, but the real traditionalists I know are the fiercest defenders of the environment and justice -- when it hits home. Any movement that thinks it knows who each member of a huge 'group' is, and thinks it can tell them what is right is doomed to failure. These masses know, in their heart what is right, but they have no more idea of how to "get there from here than does Richard Moore!" One thing we can say for Richard: he is sure as hell asking the right question!!! The only clue on strategy I have come up with so far, came to me while I was trying to explain to someone why you can't become a master potter until you become a master wedger. It's about the drive that makes one willing to do what it takes to become a master wedger, and about the experience of wedging and throwing, wedging and throwing, wedging and throwing, that, in the end, produces a true understanding of clay. Without wanting to be too hokey like some Jim Hightower wannabe, it strikes me that another clue to strategy is something I learned over forty years ago, about climbing trees: You don't let go your previous foot-or-handhold until you've firmly established your next. - Joe ========= Dear Joe, Many thanks for sharing your insights. You speak with eloquence and you tap your own inner wisdom. And you are the only person who has actually responded to the question: "How do we get from here to there?". You've looked to your own experience, and found lessons for success in pursuing challenging endeavors generally. In a hierarchical society, there is a relatively small decision- making community, and the rest of the society is coerced or seduced into dancing to the tune set down at the top. People generally are intentionally disempowered politically, lest their independent wills contradict the intentions of their betters. This was the _expressed intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Apart from the injustice of this situation, it represents an incredible waste of creative talent (such as Joe's). I'm sure Joe is doing marvellous things for Sun Microsystems, but how sad for society that his and others creative energies are, for the most part, so narrowly channeled. In a democratic society, the people generally are empowered -- empowered to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. Instead of 200 million people programmed into docility, democracy gives us 200 million people awake to their society and to their role in contributing to their own well being and that of their community, nation, world, and future generations. Such a democracatic society is in fact the most robust, stable, and strong form of society -- other things being equal. This strength is not enough to enable spears to defeat cannon, but on an equal playing field a democratic society is not one to be interfered with. A hierarchical society -- such as the Roman Empire, or the USA -- remains coherent only as long as coercive lines of command can be maintained. A democratic society exhibits its coherence whenever three citizens gather together. Which comes first, empowerment or democracy? This is very much like the chicken and egg question, and the answer is similar. In both cases, the one co-evolves with the other; neither comes first, they advance together, through stages of development. Seattle was such an identifiable stage of development: (1) People came to Seattle already with a sense of empowerment. (2) The Seattle events created a 'democratic space', which was celebrated as such in the streets. (3) That democratic space deepened the sense of empowerment and extended empowerment to additional people. (4) The media coverage, biased as it was, nonetheless empowered millions more by demonstrating that radical consciousness is alive and well, if still embryonic. Empowerment is partly an individual thing, and partly a community thing. The individual must find his or her own courage, but that is then expressed through participation with others. Unlike in a hierarchical system, this participation is not a surrender of will, but rather an expression of will. In a democracy each person has poltical eyes, ears, a brain, and a mouth. Under a hierarchy, these faculties are harnessed to the needs of the corporate regime, leaving a political vacuum to be filled by political 'campaigns' and other politio-tainment media fare. thanks again Joe, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Carolyn Ballard" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: RKM/Korten dialogue Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:17:39 -0400 Richard- Greetings, friend! I have been unable to do anything other than "lurk" on the lists for some time. I am in process of writing a 50-year history for a large credit union in the area, and I have a demanding and brutal deadline. So, not much time for "communicating." I have, btw, found this project to be very enlightening in many ways, foremost among them being how the structure/operation of a credit union is so perfectly democraticŠ.perhaps one of the only democratically functioning institutions around. It has struck me many times while writing that it presents a wonderful microcosm of what a democratic, free enterpise state would look like. Just something you may want to ponder. Re/the Korten dialogueŠ. I strongly support the statements you made in this last posting about overcoming the factional differences and thinking as one. The question you raise, "How do we get from here to there?" is an important one. But perhaps of more importance is: "Where is there?" You and I and thousands of others can and do point out the "problems" of the system to all who will listen. Raising awareness is an important first step. However, time and again I've heard from the skeptics and naysayers: "OK, so tell me what better system you have in mindŠ.plenty of criticism, but no viable answers." As I see it, one of the most critical next steps that this emerging grass-roots coalition must take is to develop some sort of united "future vision." We must begin to start addressing the question: Where is there? Just some hurried thoughts. And how are you? In friendship & solidarity, Carolyn "Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." -Flannery O'Connor-"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Shopenhauer - =========== Dear Carolyn, Nice to hear from you. Actually we have been talking about "future vision" quite a bit on this thread. There's been a lot of material and you may have missed some. David has now sent me his transparencies, showing the Capitalist Society and the Civil Society models, and I'll be putting those up on a re-vamped website in the next day or two. The civil-society model captures a lot of good stuff in a concise diagram, and the contrast with the Capitalist diagram adds additional meaning. The model resonates with many of my own observations, and experiences, and it resonates with visions expressed by Gandhi and others. It was the model the white man found when he invaded America, and the sense of empowerment was so profound that only extermination could overcome it. The culture-centered civil-society model describes in fact 'pre- civilized' societies generally, apart from some that were hierarchical. When we are taught the history of civilization in school, we are being told the story of the suppression of civil society by various hierarchical elites -- but we are being told the story from the perspective of the elites. In some sense, a movement toward civil society is a regression to a much earlier historical time, but that would be a partial perspective. To become enlightened, they say, is to become like a child again, but with the life-experience of an adult. The enlightened person does not actually become a child, and our new civil society will not actually be a regression. You might say we are reclaiming the Garden of Eden, after being matured by the experiences of Sodom and Gomorrah. toward a future vision, rkm ============================================================================ To: •••@••.••• Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:36:07 -0500 Subject: Re: cj#1100,rn> Two outstanding revolutionaries: Korten & Fresia From: Elizabeth Pfeiffer <•••@••.•••> From: Elizabeth Anne Pfeiffer Dear Mr. Moore, My husband and I watched the Matrix the other evening. It was quite exhilarating to interpret the metaphoric meaning behind the story on the screen. Your description of the three basic types of people in the U$ could all be good examples of persons who are hypnotized by the "Matrix". What is true and what is not true? What is real and what is not real? Yuppies usually "grow up" and become traditionalists, some traditionalists become culture creatives. But true traditionalists keep the lie alive and they stay lost in the maze of being told what to think and how to think, and most people on this earth are traditionalist in this sense. Not only are the traditionalists xenophobic and racist; they are--most importantly--sexist. They are the backbone of patriarchal thought that keeps dysfunction of families at the crisis level. Not only are the traditionalists the hypnotized, they are hypnotists as well. Most of us at sometime in our lives have been a part of the problem of dysfunction. It is a scarry thing to admit and most of us won't admit it. A basic principal of creativity is the cognizance that we create our own reality. How can an "enlightened" man even think about rebelling against the system and creating a democracy, when he must first realize that he is helping to create the reality of unequality among the sexes? How is he doing this? All you have to do is look around at the reality for men and the reality for women. Is "traditional" women's work valued by society? NO. Are females usually valued in and of themselves? NO. The statistics of domestic violence are getting more and more appalling. Do you see men getting on their soapbox about stopping this as they would if it were happening to other men? NO. We can only have a true revolution when we can all stand equal--male and female--unhypnotized by rules and regulations that are outdated and unfair. Traditionalist values tend to be patriarchal and dogmatic. People are so busy trying to live by these rules--most of which have a severe punishment such as hell--that their spirituality and creativity is totally stifled. In order to have true social change there must be a healing of the damage done by the dysfunction of the lies of patriarchy. My feeling was that you and the other men you mentioned weren't even speaking of women at all. Sometimes it is necessary for Shiva, "God of sweeping change, (to) sweep away the lesser and bring it out of range." Perhaps it is necessary for the Shiva power to destroy the evil of domination in order to create equality for all. Take Care, Elizabeth Anne Pfeiffer ================ Dear Elizabeth, Sometimes the only way out of a dilemma is to transend the system in which it operates. rkm ============================================================================ Richard K Moore Wexford, Ireland Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance email: •••@••.••• CDR website: http://cyberjournal.org cyberjournal archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/ book in progress: http://cyberjournal.org/cdr/gri.html A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, and notices - including this one. ============================================================================ .