The Transformation Project – part 1
The Transformation Project – part 2
Bob Ocegueda wrote:
This seems like a good project. I so happens that I just uploaded a video that touches on this subject of transformation.
Another related audio track…
Living in the Real World
Let me know what you think.
Please feel free to use them if you think they may be helpful.
The ‘Changing’ video is interesting, with its use of the caterpillar, butterfly, and phoenix images. I don’t resonate with its theme, that we will, or need to, turn into some kind of new, more highly-evolved kind of being. I like better the notion in the ‘Living in the Real World’ track, that we need to become what we really are, what we are meant to be – liberated, awake human beings, in charge of our own destiny. We need to change the context around us, so that we can become who we really are.
Greetings and Well Wishes:
an excellent piece…..I totally agree with the majority of what is stated…will forward to others…..keep up the good work…..the world is in dire need of such projects and endeavors….the old system is thru, it just wont fit into the new demands and conditions that are forming in the human and natural environment….
always it seems to give birth to the new requires effort and sacrifice…..but the rewards are a new platform so to speak from which Life can continue its evolution…..hopefully towards the ” Good” and ” Happiness” as Aristotle pointed out long ago….
best wishes and please keep me informed…..
If by the ‘old system’ you mean capitalism and growth, then yes it is through, we can see it collapsing. But if by the ‘old system’ we mean rule by wealthy elites, then we are seeing the reorganization of a system, not the end of a system. Nonetheless our task remains the same: to create and install a better system.
As regards the evolution of life, I’d say you’re really talking about the evolution of culture, and its ability to facilitate the manifestation of ‘the good’ and ‘happiness’, and may I add ‘fulfillment’. As regards cultures, I think our cultures were much more evolved and advanced before civilization, in some fundamental and important ways, and that civilization gives us domesticated cultures, making us like animals in a zoo, whose basic needs are taken care of, but who have forgotten their true free nature.
Janet Hicks King wrote:
Thank you for all the wonderful ideas coming together in your Transformation Project series.
I watched and really enjoyed the inspiring video of Manfred Hellrigl, “From Consumers to Citizens.” (http://tinyurl.com/6vxf8mc). One of the things that has stuck with me from his presentation is his repeated emphasis on “the importance of random selection – to make this process work… in order to have an open discussion.”
So I’m a little confused and concerned about the apparent reliance on “people with specialist knowledge” (in Transformation Project, part 1) and ‘special-knowledge’ people (in part 2), who seem to play a central role in the makeup of the vision-development councils. Am I mis-reading it somehow? (I guess I am one of those who have become rather leery of so-called experts with their tunnel vision and often hidden agendas!)
Would your Project not work if the the entire processwere to becomprised of (invited, more or less randomly selected) so-called “ordinary people” (calling on specialists/experts when the need is identified)…?? Just wondering.
Thanks again for sharing your inspiring ideas,
I appreciate your concern about the emphasis I have put on the role of those with special knowledge. We do need to be informed about what-is-known in various areas, so that we can talk intelligently about how that knowledge might be put to use in a better world. After considering various scenarios for introducing such knowledge, I hit upon the current proposal as being a very efficient way to get well-informed and creative conversation going, right at the start of the vision-development process.
Experts, academics, and others with ‘special knowledge’ tend to cluster together with others who see things the same way they do. The knowledge they would offer you, if asked, would be their old-system way of doing things. By bringing a diverse group of specialists together, covering the scope of a field, and engaging them in a DF session, we’ve created a situation where they will need to re-examine their assumptions, and listen to ideas they usually ignore, and where they will end up working together to develop a creative synthesis that is likely to be very interesting.
The framing of the problem helps, to come up with an ‘ideal proposal’, to become part of an ‘ideal world’. And I think the context works, where a creative conversation in the council merges into a larger conversation for an evening, a natural continuation of the process, with new concerns and ideas being brought into consideration. It’s a microcosm dialog between those with special knowledge and the rest of us, and the specialists are required to iron out their trivial differences in advance.
Yes, that would be great of course, the butterfly thing. However, there are always going to be power mongers and wimps, there will always be parasites and those with over activated amygdalas who will believe in superstition (gods), etc. if humans were a less populated species and could live in herds ( tribes) with agreed upon rules determining their territories, maybe some sensible cooperation could occur but that was 10,000 yrs ago and not perfect then. We have a growing “local movement” in upstate NY and VT but very local. These are growing in spots but people will always want $1 gas, cheap food and many just a free lunch who are willing to steal from the hand that feeds them as well. We have it all—not just corporate greed. And now we have drones…….
How people behave depends largely on the culture they live in. If the culture rewards parasites and power-mongers then such behaviors will emerge. Other cultures are possible, and social transformation will bring with it cultural transformation. You mention living in groups that agree on their own rules for their territory ( / community / region). Why couldn’t the world work like that? We don’t need to go back to tribes in order to decentralize decision-making.