A New Political Consciousness

Seeing so many unproductive political and social conversations in the media and on message boards - discussions that betray our collective distrusts and resentments - I wonder if and how we might initiate a massive awakening to a new political consciousness, one where we stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated into pinning the blame on the provided scapegoats, victimizing ourselves and others in the process.

Blame is little more than misdirection, and is always unproductive. When we point at another person or group, we're usually pointing away from the root of the problem. Story is this root, and story exists in us, individually and collectively. So we can address an important source of our problems.

But we do not formulate these stories entirely on our own. The winners write history, and there are groups that have maintained power for a very long periods of time. If we consider this reality, we might then begin to recognize that some of our foundational stories, our foundational myths, serve these who sit in positions of power and not the general populous.

Social and political structures are designed to maintain power dynamics. Though these structures are little more than story, it is story that informs perception, and perception that informs reality. Thus reality is contingent on story. This is why it is crucial to be actively involved in shaping story.

Our reliance on social and political institutions is perpetuated by the stories we tell ourselves. So, we need to begin to tell ourselves, and others, a different kind of story.

Once we learn to cast aside the myths we've been sold, to look for similarities where we're trained to see difference; to claim personal responsibility in those areas where we've been encouraged to rely on institutions; to concern ourselves with the governance of self and the care of others - instead of the governance of others and care of self - then, and only then, will we see great change.

NIX! So much here to comment upon. I am glad you re-opened this thread. I used to have many exchanges of thoughts and opinions/conclusions with a colleague of mine who still comments (and calls me on the phone) about these ideas of utmost importance to those who are willing to be ACTIVE about changes coming, changes needed.... Un fortunately, she has moved on to other issues, mostly personal.

This is how we used to dialogue. We would begin with quote, paragraph by paragraph, respond (or not) with either delete (......) find resolve WITHIN the quote, and then add comment by number or change in color/font.

I mention this because I feel THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: TO RE-EXAMINE EVERY THOUGHT PRESENTED, TAKING TIME TO THOUGHTFULLY "DIGEST" EVERY PART OF AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.

Part of the problem is that even thoughtful persons don't seem to "have enough time" to "help". In THE INTENDER'S BRIDGE (did you, or MID give us this link?) I can see that we all CAN change the "structure" in bringing these issues out in the open.

A good way to start, is to tell others about twohawks nest and mention other forums like ours where thoughtful, like-minded people are discussing issues such as the need for positive social/political change. It (networking) is already happening, but I believe it can be guided by continually focusing (after comment) on other links. Here are your quotes (portions deleted) and my comments IN BLUE:

'nixfan wrote:

... so many unproductive political and social conversations... discussions that betray our collective distrusts and resentments ..... pinning the blame on the provided scapegoats, victimizing ourselves and others in the process.

Most "enlightened-or claim to be enlightened" individuals are afraid of

Honing up to intellectual dishonesty in themselves. ("I don't have any resentments left etc., etc.")

Blame is... always unproductive. When we point at another person or group, we're usually pointing away from the root of the problem. Story is this root,....

Gjurdieff often spoke of a man going 'round the world in search of the root of his problem and finds after going 'round and 'round he eventually returns to self to find he is both the problem AND the solution to the problem. THIS IS TOO HARD FOR MOST PEOPLE TO PONY UP TO!

..But we do not formulate these stories entirely on our own.... there are groups that have maintained power for...very long periods of time.....

THEIR (these groups) period of power control appears ready to collapse...[/color]

.....some of our foundational stories... serve these who sit in positions of power and not the general populous.

I don't agree. Their stories (persons now in power) AREN'T FOUNDATIONAL. That is why the populous currently has become as active as it has. Not because "they" are out to confuse us by pushing us into contentious thinking/chattering/babbling, but that we are allowing it. FOUNDATIONALLY SPEAKING, the calm,orderly, well-defined stories of WHO WE (as a massive group force, not necessarily a "national" one) COULD BE, needs to be addressed.re-defined and then addressed with the follow-up of HOW can we do this....

..... maintain power dynamics...... these structures are little more than story,..... it is crucial to be actively involved in shaping story.

Power dynamics, are just that! They are not embedded in stone. Dynamic means ACTIVE and ACTIVELY CHANGING AS WE SPEAK.....for the re-creation of?, destruction of?, or both? Those in power now seem to believe they've "made it", their position of control is "firmly cimented in our (the masses) brain. IT'S NOT! REAL POWER IS STILL IN THE HEART/PASSION/SPIRIT. MANY OF US SAY THIS, BUT DON'T BELIEVE OURSELVES. WE MUST RE-CONFIRM OUR OWN FAITH/BELIEF IN OUR CONNECTION TO SUPREME BEING and that we REALLY ARE ambassadors and promotors of Highest Good for all. BROTHERHOOD, REAL BROTHERHOOD has been adopted by entire nations before! The Greek civilization reigned for several centuries of brotherhood and peace. Take a serious look at "historical realities, real collective stories, NOT mythicial stories of how we actually once lived with our differences.[/color]

Our reliance on social and political institutions is perpetuated by the stories we tell ourselves. So, we need to begin to tell ourselves, and others, a different kind of story.

ONE OF HOW THE GOOD MEDICINE LODGE IN THE CENTER OF OUR CAMPGROUND WAS PLANNED, HOW THAT WITH OUR HELP, THE LODGE WILL BECOME WHAT THE GODS WANT FOR US, AND WHAT WE ALL HOPE FOR. (The lodge is always in the process of being built, rebuilt, re-structured, though many fundamental religious dogmatic belief systems still try to impress us with "this is the way it was planned for us, you're idea is out of line if you don't agre[/color]e with me...."

....... claim personal responsibility in those areas where we've been encouraged to rely on institutions......

Besides personal responsibility, we must ALSO join together with like-minded persons willing to "do" something about instigating desired changes, as in LOCAL COMMUNITY groups.

...governance of self and the care of others - instead of the governance of others and care of self - then, and only then, will we see great change.

FINALLY, GOVERNANCE OF SELF AND CARE OF OTHERS NEEDS TO BE SENT ACROSS THE SKY IN JET STREAM VAPOR FORM EVERY TIME WE LOOK TO THE SKY, REMINDING OURSELVES OF THE IMMENSE POWER AT OUR DISPOSAL, IN SUPPORT OF CARING FOR PEOPLE WHO CROSS OUR PATHS EVERY DAY.

AHO! (Can't you just see one day, a person with wealth having a plane cross the US every day with the banner/vapor words "CARE FOR EACH OTHER' WRITTEN ACROSS THE SKY !!!!!!!!

Wild Dove wrote:

THEIR (these groups) period of power control appears ready to collapse...[/color]

.....some of our foundational stories... serve these who sit in positions of power and not the general populous.

I don't agree. Their stories (persons now in power) AREN'T FOUNDATIONAL. That is why the populous currently has become as active as it has. Not because "they" are out to confuse us by pushing us into contentious thinking/chattering/babbling, but that we are allowing it. FOUNDATIONALLY SPEAKING, the calm,orderly, well-defined stories of WHO WE (as a massive group force, not necessarily a "national" one) COULD BE, needs to be addressed.re-defined and then addressed with the follow-up of HOW can we do this....

Hi, Wild Dove! Thanks for your response. I'll have to spend additional time with it. However, on the point you contend above - and I realize that we are dealing with semantics, given that your objection seems to be with my choice of the word foundational - I want to point out that I qualify this statement with the phase "Some of our ... stories ... " meaning popularly and as a society. However, I see the limitations of this statement, and both some and our can be vague and slippery words to deal with.

Still, I have to stand by my assertion that there are many foundational stories that serve the few, and not the many - the elite and not the majority. If these were not foundational, from a social perspective, we would not see such structural inequalities of wealth and influence. I think you read VITAL, INTEGRAL, or TRUE where I intended more literally, the basic concepts on which our current social structures are 'built.'

I may be interpreting your response incorrectly, forgive me if this is the case.

You weren't. Us and they are also confusing ambiguous. *S* The words, "I don't agree" is probably the "semantic" error you are referring to (mine, not yours).Based on what I picked up from your post, my view on the importance of foundational themes/stories/myths, may be different than yours, but not by much.(Their vital nature-usefulness) Those that are self-made and self-serving by elites living in their own world may be less potent in my view

Being an ACTIVE part in revising ONE's OWN foundational stories-ideas instead of those the elite try so hard to impose upon us (and does often, including succeeding in convincing us they their stories are our own, which couldn't be any farther from the truth) IS SO IMPORTANT THAN EVER. Convinced they have us and our ideas under control may be their downfall. Yahoo!.

ps. My words "their stories AREN'T FOUNDATIONAL..." should have read AREN'T FOUNDATIONALLY TRUE. Yes they are definately a foundation of sorts, but on what are "they" founded. What ARE they promoting/imposing? Details, man. Name the ones not working, ones that need removal....difficult process, but necessary for real change.

Their's may have worked for them till now, but like the cornerstones of any foundational base, if they themselves are ill-made, become useless before their time, the whole building comes crumbling down real fast. What is the final straw that falls out of the sod before the hovel falls?

IF WE DON'T inform/revise, and then stand up for our OWN stories, we cannot say we have done our part in the removal of the false foundations of the elites and in the rebuilding, the securing of the vision we have for ourselves. We definately NEED to revise CIRCULATE THE IDEA OF OUR WORTH, be a major player, perhaps the ONLY shaper of OUR foundational base on which we must stand as we move into a new social behavior pattern that promotes unity and brotherhood (which I believe we will, eventually,hopefully). An administration that really DOES intend to address our social needs (or should I say bleeding--'cause that's what it has become...a real drain....) is the only answer, as I see it. In short I fully agree with all your premises. I just felt I needed to add something that might encourage us to believe a little less in their power, be less afraid of it,and develope more power fields, have more faith in our own. Be well.

If I may, I would like to interject a point in this conversation. First of all, I thank you both for bringing this subject to the table.

It gladens my heart to see those of you affecting change through, first, recognition of of the our ability to affect change and second to offer insight which leads back to "SELF IMPOWERMENT'. This site was founded on those very ideals.

It tickles me to read the word "story" in relation to our socialtal condition / conditioning. I feel it puts a rather comical twist on what so many people would deem a life shattering dilema.

To quote another word used by Gjurdief, "folly" comes to mind. The folly of the human sleep state. The walking, talking, eating, breathing sleep state. The place where our dreaming occurs and is played out in all forms of human ( and not so human ) endevors.

As we slumber through this dream state, it reminds me of my own dreams where I feel completly incombered in my ability to move, walking, running,etc... Quite analogious to waking/sleeping life where the serealalism of subjagation has played out in the anals of history and playing the role of the dream/dreamer does tend to hold one in place.

So to see a new dream taking shape within the birthing pains of becoming is a welcome experiance. One that I am all to happy to share in

I would be so bold as to say that we need to rethink our very ideas of government. Throughout history, we have worked with various forms of the same power structure - some versions more enlightened than others - but fundamentally the same system. This is the rule of many by few. A pyramid scheme. When we have been fortunate enough to have inspired leaders, societies have flourished. When we have been fortunate enough to have an active and well-informed citizenry, cultures have provided an influence for the ages.

However, ours is a time to begin the transition from rule over others to the rule of self. Responsible, active, spiritually-grounded and love motivated self-governance. [Too many recent leaders have demonstrated this need, the ones who govern the people demonstrating that cannot govern even their own behavior.] And self governance is that - governance of self. And care for others is just that - care for others. These are not easy tasks. But we have been given examples throughout history of great spiritual masters, none of which have chosen to rule, but to serve. They have chosen not to condemn, but to correct our mindset, to equip us to stand where we once knelt.

Ours is not a violent revolution, but it has potential to shake the foundations of this world. Ours is not a campaign against the elite, but against elitism. Ours is a movement that must be rooted in those spiritual traditions that emphasize love, compassion, action, service. So unless we embrace those we perceive as enemies as well as those we perceive as friends; until we see little distinction from person to person in terms of their worth and our responsibilities, we will only perpetuate the same power dynamics - instead of transforming them.

In 2008, we can begin to renew our mindset once again, to offer hope to the hopeless, to empower the powerless, and to reclaim personal responsibility. Here's one expression of that idea:

http://everyonepresident.blogspot.com/2008/02/you-for-president.html

Love,
'Nix

ABSOLUTELY, NIX!!! EVERY POINT YOU MADE, PARTICULARLY THIS ONE RESONATES WITH ME:

"...we have been given examples throughout history of great spiritual masters, none of which have chosen to rule, but to serve. They have chosen not to condemn, but to correct our mindset, to equip us to stand where we once knelt.

Ours is not a violent revolution, but it has potential to shake the foundations of this world. Ours is not a campaign against the elite, but against elitism..."

AND, thank you for blogspot link (you for president). I have been through different phases of the journey I call a dialogue (Conversations with Wild Dove could be re-phrased "Dialogue With The Teaching Spirits".

At one point, people offered the suggestion that I need to provide more details(a more open platform for discussion) when expressing my viewpoints rather than simply using a word or two (or a phrase) the other party used as a starting point of reference, assuming those who read my comments already "know" where I want to take them. I don't really want to "take anyone anywhere". I would be happy if I simply inspire people to "walk through the door" rather than walk with me for awhile.

I also went through a period of expressing my viewpoints with TOO many words. As a result, for a long time I chose to "hide" myself behind a keyboard, an easel, and a poem (poetic licence/between the lines-a wandering of the mind for the purpose of exploring possibilities rather than defining them). Coming to a place such as twohawks nest to discuss issues once again with the written word that other thoughtful people can use, indicates I don't need to "hide" anymore (thinking I'm better off making inspiring images, poetry and music rather than"words of wisdom(doorways) to get my viewpoint "out there"). Any form of education requires (in my opinion) that the "educator" must first learn the language of the listener he/she hopes really does want to learn/listen and learn.

Platforms are also floors upon which we stand and "spread the word". But they should be temporary, not foundational (as in long-standing buildings with immovable blocks holding it all together). Even platforms need "cornerstones" solid and strong enough to hold up the speaker while speaking. Sound bites and clever phrasings aren't strong enough....our culture seems to be fixated/mesmerized by them. Maybe its always been that way....One thing is sure: There's too much of it going around right now.

For example: Religion CAN be an awesome cornerstone that is foundation worthy. But when we bicker about whether Supreme Being should be called Allah, Jehovah, Great Mystery or none of the above, it DEfINATELY should not be used as a cornerstone......

Another example: Blowing whistles is valid, but loses strength when it vilifies the other "foundation stones" being used. When rebuilding (replacing an important pillar/beam/stone) we must first put a temporary scaffold around the old beam before we put in the new one, or else the building may crumble.......

Wild Dove wrote:

Any form of education requires (in my opinion) that the "educator" must first learn the language of the listener he/she hopes really does want to learn/listen and learn.

Thank you for your insight. This particularly resonates with me.

I just had a three-hour conversation with my soulsister/lover from London last night. We always go to differences between the politics of the US and those floating around these days in GB. The two-party system in the US is so "old". European parliaments have ALWAYS had at least three, even more than that. All have at least a voice. We need to revise our political system so badly. We MUST allow for diversity IN CONGRESS, not "outside" Congress. We are still a long ways from being "democratic". We are still a monarchy, more so than our european counterparts when we only have "two voices". That may have worked when the populace was "in the dark" in previous centuries. This is definately not the case now.....when people like Hillary are still calling us "folks" instead of people only shows the length of her distance from us, an arrogance that Washington seems hard fought to maintain. We the people are fed up with this. Hopefully this will change, starting with this 2008 moment in our political consciousness. It really is about the framework, isn't it?

Wild Dove wrote:

As a result, for a long time I chose to "hide" myself behind a keyboard, an easel, and a poem (poetic licence/between the lines-a wandering of the mind for the purpose of exploring possibilities rather than defining them).

...

Platforms are also floors upon which we stand and "spread the word". But they should be temporary, not foundational (as in long-standing buildings with immovable blocks holding it all together). Even platforms need "cornerstones" solid and strong enough to hold up the speaker while speaking. Sound bites and clever phrasings aren't strong enough....our culture seems to be fixated/mesmerized by them. Maybe its always been that way....One thing is sure: There's too much of it going around right now.

...

When rebuilding (replacing an important pillar/beam/stone) we must first put a temporary scaffold around the old beam before we put in the new one, or else the building may crumble.......

Three points I'd love to expand upon:

It's interesting that you used the word 'hide' to describe your view of your utilization of artistic expression. I find that the evocative, whether the written word or the abstract image [and in the end all words and images are abstract, whether we initially understand that or not] - I find that the evocative is far more raw, far more personal, far more revealing & far more effective than those forms of discourse we've designated as direct.

Sound bites and clever phrasing should never replace substance, BUT to express an idea in a novel way, to catch another person's ear, their eye, their mind, in such a data-saturated society, is an awe-inspiring challenge. So if a clever hook can implore individuals to explore a popularly-held notion, to turn that idea on its head, to ask new questions of themselves and of others - if cleverness can evoke any response, if only within the individual - then it is a worthy endeavor, in my opinion.

I agree, old buildings may crumble, so we work with care and compassion and by the safest measure. But every building eventually succumbs to nature, which is the beauty of the organic. [Tangentially, I love those architects that incorporate the natural into their design. There is real beauty in this fusion.]

Love,
Nix

Quote :

NIX wrote:
Sound bites and clever phrasing should never replace substance, BUT to express an idea in a novel way, to catch another person's ear, their eye, their mind, in such a data-saturated society, is an awe-inspiring challenge. So if a clever hook can implore individuals to explore a popularly-held notion, to turn that idea on its head, to ask new questions of themselves and of others - if cleverness can evoke any response, if only within the individual - then it is a worthy endeavor, in my opinion.
here is real beauty in this fusion.]

I agree. Even images that are used in that way. The viewer becomes engaged. We are left with source material without judgement other than "this I respond to, therefore it is worth my consideration, worth storing...." The human brain does not judge. It is a storage bin. It is in retrieving we have a "foundation" to build upon. "They" know this, and "We" need to pay more attention to HOW (what room, what door shall I open, where did I put THAT key ) we retrieve the necessary info that CAN LEAD us to the change we desire, ie., evoking others, prodding others into responding. I created a little anagram (I think that's the correct word): B R I N G L O V E B A C K H O M E. (Being, Responding, Invoking, Nuturing, Giving, Loving, Ourselves, Verifying Experience Befriending, Admonishing, Caring, Kindly Helping to Heal Our Mother Earth).

Now, make the music, image, and wording of this so evocative, the message behind this little
"artpiece" is remembered/stored. The context, the artist and the "correctness" of remembering it all becomes secondary, or irrelevant.

That is the hardest part: Letting the authorship/ego serving part up to history/the fates to determine the "correctness"......

AND, statistics/polls confirm this idea of remembered images/names/words. When asked what oil company comes to mind, what fast-food company, etc., etc. do you recall, the majority (by far) always name Shell Oil Co. (the golden yellow seashell which has never changed one iota, and Texaco (the big T and the star) or McDonald's (the golden arches).

(And in presidential politics questioning, the KENNEDY name, whether repub or demo.) OK, if republican probably NIXON or REAGAN)

I also want to re-insert the idea about sound bites. Two examples: Blunt and to the point (You are very blunt with your words/attitude) How can you be so "to the point, ie. sharp-tongued" and blunt at the same time?

The other example: Transparency. On the one hand transparancy is supposed to mean able to see clearer than before (hidden intention/behavior,little or no access), OR, Everything now out on the table there for your scrutiny. Yet by being more transparent you have so much more on your plate to examine. Focus on the visual aspect means the substance of same easily can through the cracks, ie., superficialty/surface stuff is seen clearly, but substance(layers underneath) are ignored.

Our communication system is oxy-moron/double-talk. The more "transparent" we become, the risk at "letting it slip by" is even greater.....

OOPS! Another p.s., this one must be p.p.p.s. Between posts I have had dinner, watched PBS Jim Lehner hour and Gwen Ifell's Washington Week and have to add two more "sound-bites, words that double-talk or dismiss substance. They are CONSTRUCT and DYNAMICS. Construct is a new word, construction is an oxy-moron by the ion ending to the word, meaning its a noun. A construction is an on-going thing (when using it in a building something context) and a construction company is always constructing or re-constructing something. There is no such thing as a construct during construction when referring to building a new foundation/framework. The proper word should be set of instruct(ions)/blueprints or methods NEEDED FOR constructing something. To say "your construct" means nothing. No one wants to admit they aren't sure of their set of instructions validity, or that they actually have "a framework or set of instructions to rely/stand on, or something they use all the time".

The same with dynamics. Neither construct or dynamics are "things" they are organic sets of methods (as different from methodology) that almost always need adjustment, a return to the drawing table, a resubmission and resent/redistribution. The dynamics like fuel that makes things run are volatile, REALLY volitile, not static, built-in or "embedded into" ciment/framework structures meant to be used for holding things up. They are as (and should be) as flexible as are the creative forces (freedom to be creative) that are left to EVENTUALLY create valid construction methods/set of instructions for "the next project" future generations will be able to use, etc., etc.)......

[quote="Wild Dove"]

Quote :

The context, the artist and the "correctness" of remembering it all becomes secondary, or irrelevant. That is the hardest part: Letting the authorship/ego serving part up to history/the fates to determine the "correctness"......

Thank God its not to the Fates to determine the correctness of any endeavor, but simply the outcome. I've glad these ideas have provoked such a response from you, Wild D. I can feel the world shaking as we speak. Hold on tight!

Wild Dove wrote:

Construct is a new word, construction is an oxy-moron by the ion ending to the word, meaning its a noun. A construction is an on-going thing (when using it in a building something context) and a construction company is always constructing or re-constructing something. There is no such thing as a construct during construction when referring to building a new foundation/framework. The proper word should be set of instruct(ions)/blueprints or methods NEEDED FOR constructing something. To say "your construct" means nothing.

The same with dynamics. Neither construct or dynamics are "things," they are organic sets of methods (as different from methodology) that almost always need adjustment, a return to the drawing table, a resubmission and resent/redistribution.

Language is so fascinating, so slippery, so dangerous, so vital. I'm not much of prescriptivist when it comes to language. I do not see myself arriving at a place where I could embrace the idea "To say X means nothing ... ." X may mean different things to different people - and no matter how much effort an individual makes X will probably never represent the same idea to every person [which can be a deflating realization] - but that does not mean that X is meaningless altogether.

So we can either throw our hands up in the air in exasperation, take our vows of silence and live in spiritual retreat [and believe me, this is a sirens call], or we can work with language to the best of our ability, be mindful of its limitations, even embracing these limitations. We can strive to communicate the extraordinary - to communicate that which lies at, and beyond, the periphery of language - with ordinary speech, to offer what we have to offer, and let individuals explore the meaning of these utterances.

Finally, though, if I may return to the original thought: unless we re-examine our most foundational stories, individually and collectively; until we scrutinize those beliefs that we are certain contain no error [and what do we have to fear from such scrutiny?]; until we begin to adopt, and to abide in, only the most productive of stories - we will see no lasting change. New ages never arrive on their own accord, they must be chosen, embraced, by the whole of humanity.

These foundational stories re-examined and re-written, re-told:
Possible outcome: Same campground, new medicine tent, new nurses and doctors (healers/helpers of highest order/priority) who embrace native tradition, modern western version of logic/priority, eastern philosophy of compassion regardless combined, all these are foundational. Which one will you embrace? Have you others to share/discourse upon?

Language! Ah! so slippery, as you so perfectly expressed, 'NIX, combine the two areas of discussion and we have a real platform!

Quick, clever words/images the hook, words to ponder because its fun, engaging, new thing to do: this thing called thinking, popular game, new dialogue. Who are we talking about? Where is this going on? What am I talking about?

You answer! (my answer is only three words, that apply to all questions. OK, I'll spill the secret: YOU AND ME!!!!!) (The more you and me's, the more exciting THE THINKING GAME becomes. One day HEADLINES! ATTENTION! LOOK! SEE:

Satellites of Thoughtful Engage Lined Up in Squadron Shape Today at Universal Celebration Scheduled For This Galaxy This Year, Mothership Earth Leading the Way! Yahoo!

[more to come!]