Grass-roots Economic Power

Dear Readers!

 If public services cutbacks have not hit where you live, or if they have, consider this somewhat detailed description of what is proposed, is happening, in Colorado Springs, titled: Colorado Springs Cuts Into Services Considered Basic By Many: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

 The following is my response:

 **************

Very interesting, and likely in progress elsewhere, or in the pipeline to develop.

 Hmm … one wonders …

 A very real danger in focus on an “enemy” to be extremely angry at.  Civil servants seem first in line if one projects what is expressed in this article, and may or may not be a focus specific to Colorado Springs situation.  In this case, it behooves civil servants to have several emergency meetings and discuss/decide what they can give up, or back off on, to contribute to a solution. 

 Elected city council members should lead the way in their personal-life expectations to demonstrate a shift in “attitude”.

 But the entire culture has a strong bent toward “me and my camp should not yield — the common weal be damned”. 

 The entire culture (not only in the US) has neglected to keep in mind: gooses who lay golden eggs eventually wear out, even expire — as do cash cows, they cannot be milked into infinity! 

 Odd, very odd.  Lots seems ‘askew’.  Collectively of course, we walked ourselves into a trap of our own making.  And a large part of the trap we built was to replace modesty with dollar signs in our minds, and to convert the dollar signs to very large piles of stuff to own.

 We headed into this trap a long time ago.  I still remember the 2 bedroom, 1 bath, modest but very very pleasant homes of friend’s parents in the early 1960’s.  Parents who ran successful retail and construction businesses.

 We followed the dream that the next generation would “do better than” the generation it came from.  We interpreted that dream to mean “own bigger and better stuff, and more of it.”

 Ownership of stuff – very big and very shiny stuff – became our mark of “success as a result of a university education”. As many as could sent children for post-secondary schooling.

 We viewed anyone who had big piles of big shiny stuff as “successful” and began to try to imitate them.  We began to worship this “success”; we even began to trash-speak sets of the population who either did not follow the same path, had limited access to it, or seemed not to “get it”. 

 There was a kind of innocence about what we did, at least when we first stepped onto the path.  One can look back on it with tenderness of heart.  The intent was well-meant. 

 Then we became enslaved to the way we interpreted our dream. 

 Then we became downright mean about our right to stay on the path, (common weal be damned.)

 In a very bizarre irony, we held significant “power” in our hands/hearts the whole time.  The entire culture could not have become so off-kilter if the “grass-roots” had maintained a determination to not be swept into a frenzy of materialistic feeding.

 We were the “anchor”, the “foundation” of, the entire culture – the huge population of ordinary people, engaged in ordinary life choices.  Whatever we did, the choices we made, the way we thought about “life”, including all human life, and all earthly life, made a difference, and still does.  From “the bottom up”, we led the way by our choices.  

 Back ‘then’, we had other choices but were not fully “awake”.  We could have made a point to maintain a little modesty, even kindness of heart, in our economic pursuits.  We could have maintained some interest in common weal.

 A question arises:  Can we shift to some modesty and kindness of heart,  in the new direction we are bound to need to go? Have we learned, do we begin to understand, the essential, foundational, value of common weal?

 Whom to blame?  How much blame should we/they bear?  Whom can we string up?  Whom can we “forgive?”  Who deserves to suffer the most? Who shall become “collateral loss”?

 Coming out of this dream is a huge challenge to all of us!

 … One wonders what we will do next.  If we’ve reached the tipping point, which way will we choose to topple? Into what future? 

We still have tremendous “mass movement power”.  Our choices matter, carry immeasureable weight — the way we choose to think about “life”, including all human life, and all earthly life, has always made a difference.  How we think is how we act. How we act determines the outcome.

 … One wonders…

 **************

… As always! I do wish you the best! – MaggieAnn

New World Order Conspiracy 2: Who Are ‘They’, Who Are ‘We’?

Dear Readers!

Last evening I searched YouTube for a video clip of Rockefeller’s thanks to the media.  The link, audio of his statement, was in my last post “New World Order Conspiracy? What’s Going On?”.

Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7K8iQAReXQ

 In my previous post on this topic, my full range of thoughts, where they took me, was something of a surprise, even to me. In the end I did not declare these folks villains, but mused on “who they think they are” — and added that if we had been born into their lives, and lived those lives, we’d be right where they are. 

 It really does not matter whether or not they are out-and-out villains.  What matters is what we can learn from this situation. What matters is that the rest of us decide whether or not we like what’s developing, and if not, what we are prepared to do about it.

 In my opinion, we must begin by respecting one another “here at ground level”!  We must genuinely behave as if we value every citizen’s worth, even if the way they appear to behave is “problematic” to us.  We must practice not only the most intelligent, thoughtful, questioning and voting that we can, we must do so without belief that “we” somehow have greater intelligence than whomever we may decide is “beneath” us!

 I speak here – as you might guess – of anyone we are willing to disenfranchise. Now that we “know” the experience of disenfranchisement by a “ruling elite”, do we believe “sometimes” it can be used against “some” people?

 The US development against genuine equitable access to affordable health care is a prime example that we, ourselves, believe “some” are “less significant” than others.  That we accept individuals without HC access as “collateral loses” to our “bottom line”, is us practicing what we say is outrageous when we experience it.  We say “some people have to suffer so our national bottom line will be strongly positive.”  We treat flesh and blood people as statistics; precisely what we also experience (being statistics) from the elite “above” us.  (The consequences to some of us with development of NAFTA is a prime example of ourselves treated as ’statistics’.)

 We said “equitable health care access can’t be done” because the elite (in this case the for-profit corporations involved) running our show told us it can’t. They smiled and relaxed when we took up their mantra. (Soalso, ”the persuaders” smiled and relaxed when they argued, successfully in the end,  that NAFTA would be good for us – good for ‘bottom line measure’.)

 (Non-profit health care delivery systems, with decent incomes for all who deliver it, is possible, and easily affordable.  Overall, the $$ reaped by everyone grabbing investment profit out of the status quo in American HC — from Big Pharma to the insurance companies, to everyone else — if shunted instead to delivery to all, would cover the cost.

 Universal HC access is not yet a dead horse, for me at any rate. It is not about boats, cars, and fancy homes – it is about life, human vulnerability, debilitation, bankruptcy, and death.  It’s about human wellness to participate and contribute.)

 Back to the “Big Secret Planners” and more we can do about them.  Speak out.  Don’t believe campaign statements about anything – HC, need for war, any promises or explanations offered by individuals running for office.  Question everyone.  Some will have good thinking, but learn that no one, not even Ron Paul, is a “God” who can be trusted to “save” us.  The best among our candidates will reject “worship” from voters. They will view their role similarly to the way Harry Truman viewed his presidency: genuine service.

 Power corrupts, whether one is born into a powerful family, or acquires power by boot-strap approach. Having power “over” another brings out the shadow side of the human psyche.  Having power relative to another lets us perceive ourselves as worthy to make decisions that affect “them” without above-board discussion, without asking for wisdom and advice from the “under powered.”  Much like parents may relate to power over their children.  Belief in, and practice of, hierarchy of authority. 

 When we begin to behave with the intelligence we already have, more who seem “problematic” among us will find increased ways to contribute.  (Many already do – the very poor statistically give a significantly higher proportion of their money resources to charity than even the ‘ordinary middle class’.)

 What we “allowed” with HC reform, shows us something about ourselves. It shows us our willingness to practice “elitism”, even as we cry out at elitism being practiced upon ourselves.

 We’d best take a good, honest, look at what we’ve allowed with HC reform, at ourselves treating other flesh and blood people as “statistics”. Bail outs, warring, HC reform, … we are told “the facts” and told to trust the “truth” of these facts. We had better assume the presenters are operating from “power over” as well as practicing elitism – relative to us.

 We had better learn to recognize the potential to elitism and “power over” in ourselves while we are at it. Whom are we willing to shove around? Whose poverty are we willing to accept? Whose homelessness, lack of access to decent food, quality education, lack of access to outright encouragement? Whom do we treat as “collateral” to be pushed aside, or lost? What comes out of our minds and mouths about these, whom we are willing to disenfranchise?

 Armed with deeper honesty about ourselves, about human nature, we are better ready to deal with a “secret ruling elite”. I say deeper honesty because I believe the required honesty is deeper than we have gone before as a citizen body. It has been our practice to object to our own ox being gored, but to not object overly much when it’s someone else’s ox. Not that different from traditional descriptions of sibling rivalry – where the siblings endowed with special favor seek to maintain it, those less endowed seek to gain it, and neither set is very interested if a third sibling loses out completely.

 If we are not deeply honest, we can easily, as has been the case throughout history, trade one “dictator” (or group functioning as dictator) for another.  We can even become the new dictator, or dictating “class”. In the sibling rivalry scenario, those who seek power may eventually gain it. They then either “dismiss” or “join forces with” the previously empowered. In either case, they convince themselves “justice” is at work. And in either case, the third, thoroughly disenfranchised, “family member” experiences no change or worse – experiences a larger set willing to treat them as “collateral loss”.

 Ah – a cheery morning here, despite all the above! I hope yours is similar!

 My Best! – MaggieAnn

New World Order Conspiracy? What’s Going On?

Dear Readers,

 New World Order Conspiracy?  What’s going on?

 This piece began as a quick email to a friend and blossomed.  It now reveals thinking I meant to share with my friend (information of interest, plus a caution against our human inclination to leap to conclusions), with a lot of added musings, in which I give my personal working definitions of communism, socialism, democracy and finally anarchy.)

 Before I go any further I confess:  I have made little in-depth study of various forms of government. My definitions are suggestive rather than academic.  I am guilty for instance of using the terms “republic” and “democracy” as synonyms — while finding it annoying that others do the same with “socialism” and “communism”!  As I said, I describe  personal working definitions.  Anyone who wants to clarify may do so!

 ****************

 See YouTube: David Rockefeller on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8&feature=related.

 This YouTube submission – this specific one – has a big problem — the person who submitted it adds their own spin at the end “I’m sure … population control …”  and does not offer any research source to support the “alarm”.

 As thinking people, the one thing we must watch for in ourselves is “going off-half cocked” with imagined threats.

 I DO think there is a strata of wealth/power so completely disconnected from ordinary life that it’s likely to them we are just statistics – to be “managed” from the point of view of their “wisdom”.  Further, I suspect they are busy developing “management systems”.

 BUT I DO NOT think this specific YouTube clip offers even a tiny bit of evidence to support the statement made: “Rockefeller is evil” .

 On the other hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7K8iQAReXQ  (Rockefeller thanks the media for their “discretion” on behind the scenes global planning by a few. At the end, one learns the video is a Ron Paul promotion. Bush Sr., Gordon Brown of Britain, and Cheney are featured.) This second YouTube video is more informative, and may raise questions that need answering about who is manipulating whom, to accomplish what, on behalf of humanity.

 Asking questions, and sorting through the facts, takes time.  I seem forever in a state of “gathering more information before I think I know”.  It’s my attempt to prevent another inclination I have – to leap to conclusions.   Heres’a a related ‘for instance’ I have to half-cocked thinking.  There is a lot of hype calling “manipulation toward a bleak new world order” “communistic and socialistic”.  This shows of lack of information and knowledge.  The kind of manipulation that seems possibly developing seems far closer to fascism.

 To my knowledge, the distinctions are:

 Communism results when a deeply distressed and angry general population rises up, usually following a charismatic and effective leader, and the population is so committed to “throwing the bastards out” that they give their power to that leader, who then goes far beyond anything representing “for the people.”  Communism has citizen voting, but candidates are restricted to members of the party. Chavez may have turned the corner and be headed that way.  He began as an effective leader for a general population that had very real “big economic enemies”.  In the last year Chavez seems to me to be turning “dictator” — I’m waiting to see if the people notice!  To my knowledge, communism never comes about except in countries where a ruling elite or monarchy has ignored or supressed economic, and at least modestly comfortable well-being, for a large population. 

 A further note: Chinese communism, Cuban communism, and Russian communism are not each the same in how the population fares.  China has developed a government that has moved toward greater responsibility to general population welfare and opportunity.  Although it has serious flaws, it appears responsive when population dissatisfaction grows wide-spread enough.  The difference between Tienem Square (communist country) and Kent State (democratic republic) is huge, but the two events are all too similar – citizen voice stilled by armed government intervention.

 Socialism need not be a dictatorship.  It is not to be equated with communism.  Socialism is government focused on “the people” sharing resources in a way that gives the maximum number of citizens some of the “pie”.  Most forms of socialist government are full-fledged democracies, with multi-party systems, with individual citizens of all races and religions casting votes in orderly elections.  Most democratic socialist countries are extremely modern, with most citizens pleased at general outcome. Citizens generally feel they have created their social and economic structures by their own voice/vote.  (Their version of “of, by, for the people”, and it’s a valid version.) I am personally weary of hearing socialism equated with communism.

 Fascism is the same thing to a general population as is communism. Limited participation in policy development by ordinary citizens. Conditions leading to fascism are different from those leading to communism. We witness communism developing out of citizen revolution, “fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system” (Wikipedia).  In other words, fascism arises when a population goes along with 2 key developments: 1-extreme nationalism, 2-corporate led economic policy. 

 A population that is fiercely nationalistic in its outlook, eager to blame ‘outsiders’ for its woes, and also supports extreme “capitalism” as found in “extreme corporate power”, is ripe for becoming fascist.  

 If one puts communism on one end of a line of possibilities and fascism at the other, and pulls the line into a circle shape, the similarity “can be seen” and makes sense.

 Mixed economies: every modern country in the world, our republic, other republics, and democratic socialist countries, even communist countries operate mixed economies.  Mixed economies contain the following:  individual enterprises, small companies, medium-sized to larger corporate companies (all privately owned and profit-oriented); government regulation of these; and government-owned non-profit public enterprises (armies, police, social services, health care, education, …).  (I do not mention private non-profits, although we know they exist as well, to my knowledge in at least republics and in social democracies – don’t know about communism and fascism, assume private non-profits may be present there.)

 In the end, all countries vary in ratios of “free” and “public” enterprises.

 Ideally, a well-educated, thinking population, knows how to ask critical questions, keeps self and “other” (common weal) in mind. Such a population can “run itself” by electing its government to serve its wishes.  BUT, voting is not very effective if it is not coming from a high percentage of voters with thinking minds – which also, of necessity, must be guided by caring hearts. 

 Voters who are seriously unhappy, willing to believe anything they are told, willing to believe a “not-me-but-other enemy” prevents them from comfort (the lazy, the ‘other’ party, that other country, etc.) have very real potential to vote themselves into some form of dictatorship, probably fascism. 

 Maybe it’s fair to say communism develops when a revolution arises out of a huge population living in true misery. They attempt to find equity by following a single charismatic leader or set of leaders.  ‘Peasant level’ citizens support a leader who promises radical revision of economic circumstances because they live in grinding poverty while an elite among them lives very well.  Communism seeks shift power from a few elite to the general population.  Fascism develops when a less miserable, even comfortable, large percentage of a population wants to solve degraded circumstances by following a single charismatic leader or set of leaders!  It’s very close to the same thing – but “citizen distress” is quite different in the beginning.  

 Many ordinary, German citizens experienced degraded circumstances from what they had come to expect.  They supported Hitler because he helped them “see” whom to blame, and promised to “fix the problem and its causes”.  I don’t have a thorough understanding of the history of German fascism and Hitler.  “The other” grand fascist scheme usually mentioned is Italy, and I know even less about Mussolini!  I remind readers: my discussion grows out of my “personal working definitions”.

Even if I’m correct – that communism and fascism develop from different types of citizen distress, the two are nevertheless akin.  Both communism and fascism are set up with little to no respect for intelligent self-management by ordinary citizens, of themselves and of their government. An overpowering assumption is that ordinary citizens “don’t know what’s good for them and must be manipulated to support government, or forced to do so by control measures”. Both go awry because leaders either have, or develop, justification for the authority of their “vision,” even if the people did not mean to give unopposed authority.  Communism goes awry because leaders become greedy and self-important after the revolution is successful.  Fascism goes awry because leaders are greedy and self-important before the success of the regime is established!  Any pretense that ordinary citizens can be self-governing, or want to be,  is abandoned by both.

Republican and democratic systems** are based on the premise that ordinary citizens not only can manage themselves, but that they are intelligent in how they go about it.  Theoretically, in republican and democratic systems, leaders are servants who take direction from a well-educated and thoughtful public.

 Back to the YouTube videos referenced above.  The problem I hear in the second more informative one is what I don’t hear!  – a problem of omission.  No one mentions individual or general citizen comfort, freedom, richness of life experience.  The only “goals” mentioned (spelled out especially by Gordon Brown’s remarks) are purely numbers – economics.  The question seems to be:  “How can our country’s bottom line economic indicators stay strong or gain strength?”  These folks are single-focused. They seem to assume  ”conventional economic indicators” gives true and accurate measurement of “overall human progress and comfort”. 

 Conventional economic indicators are not a reliable sole measure of humanity’s progress. Consider an empire.  At best, empires view portions of an affected population as “human so above draft animals” but may go no further!   The British Empire was built on the backs of many, many who not only did not experience “wealth of the empire” but who were deemed “not of a class requiring great comfort” – nor did they require or merit land or property they could know as their own. An empire’s “success” might be measured in conventional economic bottom lines, and might look excellent by such measure, but “collateral suffering” might also be quite significant.  

 The single missing perspective in national or global achievement, has been a call to “uplift each and every” (by creating best conditions for basic essentials to be available, freeing individuals to thrive and contribute talent by choice, rather than dire economic necessity.) The blindness of movers/shakers, from their position of power (and usually some wealth), is stunning.  The blindness results in callous disregard for “humanity”, despite what they may believe of themselves and their leadership.

 These folks do not question their privilege.  Many are not elected by anyone, but are selected, or self-selected.  They function as if they have “entitlement” to leadership. They believe their role is to “direct” others, rather than to promote autonomy of every unique individual.  They are “top down” rather than “bottom up” leaders.  They are prepared to “use” individuals within their populations as “fodder” to build giant “successes”. 

 They likely do not percieve themselves as “conspirators.”  In this sense they are “innocents”; but they are also gravely and profoundly ignorant of the beauty, intelligence, potential, and grace that is unique to human individual life – profoundly ignorant of “who we are” as humans.

 Yet, they demonstrate an aspect of “being human” contained within each of us.  Had we been born into their lives, and lived them, we would be right where they are, acting as they do.   Our task  is to know this about them, but also to know this potential within ourselves.  It is only through finally coming to terms with “who we are as humans” that we can hope to find truly new solutions.

One final definition:

 Anarchy is the most extreme form of “government of, by and for the people”.  It is based on the premise that a high percentage of the population is so intelligent, so well-informed, and so dedicated to self and other care, that institutionalized, organized government is scarcely necessary – might develop for various needs as they arise, and fade when those are met.  But any parental role by government to “divvy up family responsibilities and resources” is unnecessary. There is no bottom, no top.  Everyone is free, everyone thrives.  A Utopian dream.  Anarchy is a disastrous concept unless/until humanity is in a mood to function with full cooperation toward everyone’s talents and needs.  In this sense, in its requirement for cooperation, anarchy is “socialistic”.  But it transcends anything so “rough and rudimentary” as any form of “government” yet to be known. 

 I have long said it will take us a good 300 years beyond now to be mature enough to manage ourselves in this hypothetical anarchy.  I recently heard an interviewee say 700 years, so I probably need to revise my estimate!

 **Republics and democracies represent two forms of representative government out of many found in the world today. The rights of the individual are always protected, no matter how they are represented.” excerpt from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-republic-and-a-democracy.htm

 My Best! – MaggieAnn

American Spirit Celebrated, Voice of The People, Voice of Howard Zinn

Dear Readers,

IN MEMORIAM: HOWARD ZINN

I encourage you to follow through and view the linked interview. 

As I suggest in closing below:  Those among us who find our spirit of “rebellion” rising, our greater understanding blossoming, need to arm ourselves with information, with historical understanding, with knowledge of who we are, what we are “all about” – individually, and collectively – nationally, and globally. 

Specific to the United States, we could do not better than to explore Howard Zinn’s work.

 Howard Zinn died Jan 27th, 2010, at age 87.  An American social/political historian after his young adult WWII pilot’s service.  His most famous book:  A People’s History of The United States  is the foundation for the History Channel’s The People Speak   program, premiered December 13, 2009.

“My last thought is that Zinn’s actions and words can be a lesson to us to be like him, to never give up fighting for our ideals. “Small actions, when multiplied by millions of people, can change the world.”  excerpt, Chomsky on Zinn; Dave Semple’s blog “When Cowards Flinch”.

 To “meet” Zinn, to hear a bit about his work from Zinn himself, and to catch glimpses of the History Channel program, see this late December 2009 interview with Zinn : http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12112009/watch2.html .  (15-20 min?)

 This man’s voice is now stilled.  His unending celebration of the American spirit as found in ordinary Americans, his relentless encouragement to ordinary Americans to remember, and follow, this spirit, is perfect for us to know and realize at this very time.

 Informed citizens, presently “growing” a populist uprising, should know Zinn’s voice, should know of ordinary citizen wisdom and courage in our history. 

 My Best! –MaggieAnn

Authentic Goodwill : Seeking, Finding, Practicing

A Broad Version of GoodWill Hunting  

http://personalgrowthcourses.net/video/every_one_of_us (five minutes.)

Video: “It’s in Every One of Us”. Linked page has sidebar with long strip of equally inspiring/challenging video uplifters/reminders. 

My only, only, ‘complaint’ of this lovely, lovely, video is that it perhaps does not frequently enough feature adults, the elderly, and the clearly impoverished, to remind us that “middle class children” are not the only holders of spontaneous experience of goodwill. (Many of the photos seem of children, many of the children of a certain ‘economic status’, although of course, I have no way of knowing. Other ‘categories’ are included, but perhaps not in an accurate proportion to human reality.)  Similarly, it does not “reach out and grab” opportunity to feature photos from perceived “enemy” countries and cultures. 

But then – how does one make a “universal truth” reminder that runs a full gamut and still reach the end of the production! After all, we humans are still “in process” and such a totally comprehensive study would never reach completion! 

The point of the video, the theme, the truth offered up, is to re-mind we viewers of an important truth about the full package of “who we are”. Re-mind, re-mind, re-mind!  The word suggests there is something we may have forgotten, something we may have parked in the nether-reaches of our awareness, something valuable, something to bring forward and carry in day to day consciousness. 

My title, “A Broad Version of GoodWill Hunting”, obviously borrows its wording from the film, Good Will Hunting, starring Matt Damon, Robin Williams, and Ben Affleck, directed by Gus Van Sant. I come at use of the film title via a back door. First I began to take walks on a local community walking path along a river, a path with many southern and eastern exposures to the sun. Second, my times of this walking are usually in the morning, so the sun is especially experienced, both in its daily newness and in it’s effect on people I meet along the path. Third, the community has its share of disenfranchised and deeply impoverished adults, sometimes referred to as “derelict”. Fourth, these adults have a habit of sitting at one or more of the tables along the way – tables permanently established for places to stop, rest, perhaps picnic, and enjoy the sun. Fifth, these adults are invariably, invariably, (say again!), cheerful and cordial. Sixth, in experiencing these adults as a “fixture” of the walk, I have come to rely on their cheery cordiality as the human face of the sunshine walk experience. Seventh, after the third time I came across them, I began to think of them, to mentally refer to these brothers and sisters, as “GoodWill Keepers”. (Eighth – it was not until much later I realized my discovery of “Goodwill Keepers” could be related to the film title: Good Will Hunting.) 

Bodies and faces of the Goodwill Keepers show details of the difficulties of their lives. I am not a blind romantic on how some may behave at other moments, on the choices they may have made which have contributed to their disenfranchised lives – disenfranchised not from the human story, but from socially deemed “success”. But the point remains: they are among the most reliable “goodwill sharers” to be found. No agendas beyond expression and exchange of goodwill. It might also be noted that “how they might behave or choose at other moments” is true of you and me, each and every one of us! 

“No agendas” is most important in the moments of goodwill exchange centered in these folks! They are not caught by time-consuming errands pursued by the rest of the social structure – not caught to any similar degree. If there is a group of people who practice, perhaps have been driven to practice, “field-lily lifestyles”, it may be these treasurable models of “no longer driven by agenda”. 

Wakefulness? I have found these Goodwill Keepers knowledgeable of assorted topics; cordially  willing to share a few comments, to display interest and curiosity about life generally, and about nature. They do not share from the point of view of “sages”, but simply, with simple – well, with simple and basic good will! 

Humility mixed with compassion? Yes, and remarkably natural, spontaneous, absolutely no frills. 

Plain, unadorned, goodwill. Goodwill delivered in such a way that it can only be described as “an exchange”. Neither offered nor received from a “must do” socialization process that serves as “external authority”, mine or theirs. These Goodwill Keepers abandoned attempts to meet demands of “external authority” sometime in their past histories. 

I re-mind: I did say for all I know this same goodwill, which seems so natural during these sun walks as to be simultaneously remarkable and without need of remarks, may not be the 24-hour life-approach of these Keepers. Their role is sufficient during the times that I witness their delivery. It serves. An exchange of goodwill occurs, and during its “now moment” is very, very, real. 

Back to re-minding. The video linked above serves to re-mind us of human natural expression of Goodwill, of human natural, in-the-now-moment sharing of Goodwill. (A note on the link – it is found a level or two within a much larger collected set of sites which all intend to offer inspiration, encouragement, mindfulness, …, of human potential to be the best we can be. If you find yourself ‘lost’ among these sites and want the video page, keep clicking toward anything that seems to promise videos! So there you are – an opportunity to go a’hunting for Goodwill!) 

I, of course, DO have an agenda! I cannot help but think, I even say KNOW, that we humans have yet to understand deep-level caring for ourselves, for one another. We have yet to use our innate urge toward Goodwill to attend to sharing resources, including access to shelter, food, water, education, and health care. We have yet to allow our innate urge toward Goodwill to greatly and deeply influence our economic/social policy, especially at national and global levels. We have yet to ask, even demand, that our policy makers exhibit this innate urge as a primary guide and motivating factor. We have yet to insist that “success agendas” be toned down, set aside, toward genuine support of ourselves and one another within our human family. 

Finally, if I were to add a single image to the set used by Wernher Krutein in his production of David Pomeranz’s performance of Pomeranz’s lyrical piece, “It is In All of Us”, it would be the widely circulated photo of Irena Sendler. For details of her story, including a caution about some widely circulated details, see http://www.irenasendler.org/facts.asp. 

Irena was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for her remarkable courage and action that saved Jewish children during WWII. A web search will yield many many hits, many blogs and articles. There is one photo especially widely circulated – I do not know the copyright but it is so beautiful an image of ultimate Goodwill in a human face, I post it. (No I do not! Attempts did not work, and caused me to re-begin editing this post. In the facial image photo she is quite elderly, is looking up and to her right, is smiling, with the brightest eyes and most shining countenance I have seen in a photo of a human face.)

The photo I describe of Irena is well known.  There are countless additional photos of Irena on the web. My reason for describing this photo is to single it out. I find her countenance, in this specific photo, clearly shows “the human heart of Goodwill”, in all its radiance, and without agenda. This could be a photo of anyone.  It could be of anyone, of any time, race, gender, age. It could be a photo of one of the Goodwill Keepers I meet during my walks. 

 As Pomeranz’s song says, in title and in lyrics: It’s in all of us. 

The compassionate portion of innate human spontaneous heart-knowing:  Goodwill: known, practiced, sought, found, shared, experienced.  

(Note – the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore and the Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change; a choice was made, a weighing of priorities. The core impulse lying at the heart of care (and action) for all life, and the globe on which it thrives, was side-stepped.) 

My best! 

–MaggieAnn 

Martin Luther King, Health Care, Mountain Climbing

Good Morning!

To anyone noticing, I’ve obviously been on a long break from posting! Just before Thanksgiving, I believe was my last post.

Reasons, several – range from intrusion of holidays, ordinary human daily affairs neglected and in need of attention, to a temporary health flare-up. Out of the three, because of the three, further shifting of my perspectives slowed down my willingness to post “statements”.

The shifting was of my own “knowing” of meaning/purpose/function around the questions of “what does it mean to be human, why are we here, and so on. I do not hold myself to unchanged “wakeful awareness”. I have worked long on the questions. From time to time, my relationship to them, and my conclusions, shift and morph toward something ‘different’ (although always with the same underlying “deeply felt sense – if incomplete – “truth”.)

Fundamental primary questions that emerge from our human consciousness are never settled, fully, for anyone who asks them across time.

It may be that my post style will change somewhat. Whether or not earlier style returns in part is as unknown to me as to anyone! I can’t say what will happen with frequency or regularity of posts. I do have much poetry long neglected as post material, and want to get back to those. (My poetry posts are complicated as they are not basic paragraph in structure – so sometimes I put off posting them for that reason alone!)

***************************************************

Martin Luther King Day. Today. I wonder how many will take time to find an archive on-line of his more powerful and well known speeches. Democracy.org is one site on which these are found.

Powerful. MLK’s view, his teaching to all of us, reached far beyond “only” civil rights, a powerful cause itself! But so far beyond! He spoke to “the essence of our being”, our “essential potential” to deliver to ourselves experience in ordinary life that would be, if we delivered it, extraordinary.

I perhaps find myself more at peace, now than previously, with our resistance to practicing unconditional regard and care for one another. But I cannot rid myself of a knowing that it is so – we resist.

Above I suggested, by word choice, that what MLK had to say was his view. This is a common way we “frame” one another’s ideas or spoken wisdom when it does not agree with our own. We say: “It is so and so’s view, and by this we mean opinion. By declaring someone’s ideas as “opinion”, we give ourselves psychological permission to set aside ideas we may not understand, or agree with. When we declare a statement as “opinion” we free ourselves of asking real and serious questions about what has been said .

We like to equate “opinions”. “That is his/her opinion, and everyone has a right to his/her opinion. I don’t agree with him/her”. We seldom say: I don’t find the same truth in my heart and why is that? We do not ask probing questions of conventional human belief, opinion, and “truth”.

We seldom declare ideas of another as teaching. This is especially true in matters of the heart/mind, which is what MLK addressed. Those of us well into “adult life experience” assume ourselves “mature” and beyond need to seek heart awakening, heart/mind learning, that might challenge us. Rather, we seek confirmation of our mature beliefs, opinions and truths.

And so – we miss, turn away from, opportunity to more closely know ourselves, our personal humanity, our shared humanity.

Without more closely knowing the nature of humanity as we carry it within ourselves, we are unable to bring about a world that differs significantly from the world of the last some thousands of years. In our presumed maturity, we create a “knowledge stopping place” about human affairs, and remain willing to accept “it will always be thus”.

We do not, even gently, ask many questions about human potential as it might emerge, if guided by heart/mind intelligence.

When Health Care reform was thickly, hotly, frequently, debated, a dear friend observed to me: “Health Care reform questions are a trial exercise, for the American people. Whatever emerges will show their level of humanitarian understanding. The depth of compassion practiced in American culture generally will be measurable by what develops.”

The statement was, and is, so close to one I might make myself that I suppose my paraphrase is in fact me quoting myself. But I remember my friend’s statement because it was so remarkably close to my own thoughts. That our work with HC reform could be, was, a “measure” of our capacity to be the wonderfully compassionate caring folk we claim to be, is not an idea I have heard often expressed.

The point of understanding HC reform as a “measure” of who we actually are (by our actions), is that HC policy and practice is not a discrete, isolated, package of social policy. No social, economic, and political policies are discrete and isolated from one another. Collected, they show who we are, who we want to be, “where” we are in “heart/mind knowledge” of humanity.

Social, economic, and political policies reveal our majority individual and our collective national place in the context of global humanity. Failure of HC reform is not due to “them”, “those guys”. Failure of HC reform to result in basic, full, non-profit, coverage for each and every individual across this land says we do not have it in our heart/minds to make it so.

We do not have will to find the way. Simple as that.

My statement that we lack will is not ‘mere’ opinion – it is the way it is. Hearing it, and not agreeing, but describing my statement as “opinion” is not the response of an “open mind/heart”. It is the response of a protective, perhaps at some level fearful, or perhaps merely dis-interested, mind/heart. An open response would be to say: “I don’t find the same truth in my heart, wonder why?”

A teaching remark. A challenging remark. A knowing remark. A remark best met with reflective examination of self and human condition.

Wikipedia offers the following among its discussion of the phrase: He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother: “… associated with Father Edward J. Flanagan, the founder of Boys Town. … a line drawing of a young boy carrying his brother in the Christmas 1941 edition of the Louis Allis Messenger. The caption read “He ain’t heavy Mister — he’s m’ brother!” It was created by Mr. Van B. Hooper who later became the editor of Ideals magazine. … Flanagan felt that the drawing illustrated the work done at Boys Town and received permission from the company … to recreate the drawing in color with the caption “He ain’t heavy, Father . . . he’s m’ brother.” The phrase became the motto of Boys Town (now Girls and Boys Town).”

When I was a child, the Boys Town organization published packets of stamps as fund raisers to use with Christmas cards. Each stamp had the drawing described above, and carried the quote. I was impressed with the stamps, with their meaning. I believed then, and believe now — no – I believed then and after a lifetime’s study, I now know the truth expressed by the slogan.

At least three truths, actually: (1) There is something joyful in the heart of the brother who carries the other – the truth is, practice of compassion in a culture of compassion brings a quality of pleasure unknowable when one is busy rationalizing resistance. Such pleasure is experienced culturally as well as individually. (2) Compassion is not “conditional” and cannot be rationally withheld; it is universal in heart-knowing. If not, it is diminished greatly, again, both culturally and individually. (3) We are keepers of one another’s well-ness, of one-another’s experience of belonging as brothers (and sisters.)

These truths are national, also global. They are within the essence of being human, our humanity.

I say this: If you do not agree, you have not sufficiently challenged yourself to know yourself thoroughly. You have not studied psychology to know your beliefs, biases, and the origins of your “truths”. You stand as novice, as learner, in matters of heart/mind human wholeness. As novice, you are incapable of realizing your sameness with your brother/sister within your own borders, or beyond.

There is nothing wrong with novice standing! My point is not to shame or blame. But, at least for now, I seem incapable of making any statement about human capacity for compassion, about American forms of resistance and/or practice of compassion, except to make fairly blunt statement.

I do not suggest American behavior is unique, although our resistance as focused in this one matter of HC is unique compared to many other worthy cultures. I’ve lived in two countries for some decades each. I have also met many individuals of first or second generation from yet many more countries. I have discussed social, economic, regulatory policy with all these on many issues. Humanity is humanity. Potential and capacity for compassion and resistance is the same everywhere.

Nor do I suggest my own “perfection”. Far from it. I, too, am human; I share potentials and capacities for heart/mind intelligence and resistance. (I may be more aware than some, but certainly not as aware as others. I may understand my capacity for “resistance” more thoroughly than some.)

Today is our day to honor a teacher whose primary gift was to awaken belief in us – belief in our capacity for compassion; belief in the benefit to each/all of us if we structure our social, economic, and cultural policy to support brother/sisterhood; belief in how unacknowledged fear and insecurity prevents us; belief in where we can go, what we can show ourselves about ourselves. Belief in climbing the mountain, regardless of its craggy peaks.

Dr. King said he had been to the Mountain Top. He did not say “a” mountain top. Metaphorically, there is but one mountain. We all climb it, or we mill about its base and resist the trek.

In our individual and cultural climb, we may learn to carry one another. We may also learn the burden is not so heavy as we imagine, or as we fear. (If we believe we do not fear, but we rationalize HC denial – or any other policy that ignores collateral suffering – by “common sense”, what is such a concern but a type of “fear” of consequence of practicing shared generosity? Universal HC, and other forms of compassion, are nothing more than shared generosity based on recognition of shared, inherent, vulnerability.)

Today is not a holiday — it is a call to reflection on teachings delivered. The learning is not completed with Dr. King’s passing. As with other profound “human essence” teacher offerings over time, the learning only begins when the lesson is offered.

My wish for you is that for a fleeting moment, daily, this week and beyond, you experience a “surprise flash” of “universal family” with someone you do not know well, who is not of your same social/economic “tribe”.

My wish for all of us is that such experiences become increasingly common, until a great many more of us discover the lightness and power available when we allow ourselves to carry and be carried, by one another, up that mountain.

–MaggieAnn

Compassion and Gift by Butterfly Effect

Humanity’s Gifts Arrive from Compassion and Active Support of Need

 Dear Readers,

 This morning I received an email from a friend linking to a post by Nicholas Kristof, opinion columnist at the NYTimes. “Triumph of a Dreamer”, 11/14/09. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html?inline=nyt-per

 Kristof’s piece tells the story of Tererai Trent, born in rural Zimbabwe, without means, yet who in December of this year will achieve a PhD at Western Michigan University. I urge you to follow the link and read this story in detail.

 I began a reply to my friend who forwarded the story to me; as is common for me, my reply became a ‘blog post’. I offer my thoughts here:

 *********

 Wonderful!  And I’m so glad for the writer’s statement: talent is universal, and also for his giving enough detail about Tererai’s journey to make clear that along the way she received a range of kinds of support, from her village and strangers – people who had no ‘real reason’ to help, but who learned of her circumstances and took action. 

 I believe with all my heart that millions we see about us everywhere who appear ”failures” are very often “Tererai’s” whose dreams were set aside or internally silenced, and will die with them.  Many of these people bring their gifts to the table, as they can, in the context of their socially deemed “failure”. They practice (choose) compassion and generosity to people, to animals, and to plants, from their own impoverished pockets in situations that come up in constricted lives.  We seldom know.

 The “marriage” of “bent of personality at birth” and “early years of family/social influence” is peculiar and powerful to individual outcome.  Too many , far too early, learn to “back off” private dreams, to swallow them.  Tererai’s birth personality and early experience did not have this effect on her.  All humanity benefits from start to finish when the spark of gift within a single individual is nurtured and allowed to develop.

 As a consequence of her uniqueness, and surrounding supports, Tererai demonstrates the remarkable power of private dreams, (as does William Kamkwamba, “The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind”, and doubtless countless millions whose stories we will not learn.)  This type of dream, and humanity’s support of them, benefit all.

 We would do well to keep this in mind and practice (choose) accordingly – to believe in the gift of each – adult or child.  (We have inclination to ‘dismiss’ adult potential as ‘past value of intervention.   If we “cannot see” an adult as “already successful”, we are inclined to judge them “less worthy”. of social policy, for example, that might be of help, cannot “see” the benefit that might come to all humanity.  (Who is each of us to judge another’s potential as “deserving” our help or not?  Who is each of us to judge a “failed” adult as “beyond help” based on cost/benefit analysis of their being “past useful time to be of benefit to the rest of us”?)  (I side-track here on our inclination to judge adult ‘value’ . It does not really fit the story.  But it applies as a consideration in our constant run of ‘judgement’ against one another – our inclination to cast ‘value’ in terms of “recognizeable, nameable pay-off” -  without considering what is meant by “unconditional regard of value of Life”.)

 The story of Tererai – from start to where it is today – is rich with detail to be examined. 

 At the individual level we see potential within each at birth; individuals not “broken”, but supported, bring strong gifts to the table (Tererai). Individuals can choose to practice support of another’s gifts (notice need and interrupt their own lives to help.) 

 Also to be noticed is social policy and regulation.  She was able to bring her family with her; she was able to say “enough” when spousal beatings were a reality and send her husband home. She was later able to bring her husband back into her life. Each of these steps could have been thwarted by institutionalized social policy and regulation. We can monitor social policy and regulation for its support (or not) of human well-being.  (Non-profit health care for instance!)

 Tererai held to a larger (“not just me”) vision throughout. She linked her path to benefit, behalf, of other women. She held to the needs of her children. She practiced deep compassion when her husband was at his most vulnerable and in great need.  The butterfly effect of her practices moves throughout humanity like a silent gift that flows, touching every space like air, like breath.

 Unknown, indescribable, is the internal experience of each who helped along the way: ”Heart-rewards” of each villager, and each who helped in Oklahoma, including the “stand-alone” WalMart employee who made groceries available.  Every time each of us opens our heart, our personal load becomes lighter – a private experience that benefits all humanity.  A key here is that each actually took action so that “real and tangible” support was offered.

 This entire story is full of “butterfly effect” activity of the most heart-driven type.  How wonderful!

 When you check out the link, you will find Kristof writes of misery and triumph across this globe. A second story that caught my attention, equally rich with “butterfly effect” consequences of heart-driven compassionate real and tangible action, is “The Illiterate Surgeon”, 06/12/2005. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E1DF1E38F931A25755C0A9639C8B63.

 If EVER we required human life stories to teach us to value each and every contributor – from these remarkable women to those of lesser “success” who have helped them on their way, we now have it. These stories teach us the blessedness of every single life on this planet.

 All Humanity benefits when we choose real and tangible helpful response that honors and supports the sacred in all life, everywhere, and treat as “sacred dream-holders” each and every human.

 My Very Best To Each of You! – MaggieAnn

(Post script: I don’t want to ‘taint’ the tone of my today’s post with blatent political ‘argument’ but would ask Libertarian’s to consider what is written above!)

Who Are “We” And Where Do We Want To Go?

WHO ARE “WE” – CONFRONTING OURSELVES

 Good Morning Readers!

I have been called to task over my statements that “we” are responsible for the state of human affairs, including misery in the lives of many.

I understand the call.  I stand by my statements.  The part of my first title (“where do we want to go?”) is not directly addressed here.  But the question underlies nearly all my posts.

When I refer to our “we-ness” I refer of course to our universal family. To humanity. To our natural inclination to “do good” or “do harm” in many ways, in a constant stream of choices we make all the time. From the most ‘harmless’ single tiny choice to larger choices such as fighting unnecessary wars.

I grant and agree, with no qualifiers, that many among us intend no harm in our choices, whether or not we consciously make mental note of harm vs good in moment to moment choosing.

I believe moment to moment tiny choice has effect. Within our personal spheres of social experience, any of us, all of us, “witness” moments of abuse, selfishness, inappropriate power play, malicious humor, unfair manipulation, and so on. Mean spirited email ‘humor’ opinion forwards from friends, often close friends whom we treasure, are a prime example.

Those who intend no harm have several choices when “confronted” with these forwards. One is to delete them, send them no further. One is to pass them along – we may personally object to the “mean spiritedness” but at the same time “appreciate the humor” or “understand the motivation.” A third choice is to hit ‘reply all’ (if a set of email addresses arrives with the forward) and post a statement of our objection. Such a statement can be written with genuine respect to recipients. It is opportunity to speak to brothers/sisters whom we know as good-hearted people – to re-mind them. Yet another choice is for you or me to write to the friend who forwarded the ‘humor’, and lay out why the post is not really funny, choosing words of genuinely felt respect for both the sender and the ‘target’ of the humor.

I have done the last two, hit ‘reply all’, and also replied only to the person who sent me the forward. Results are mixed. Sometimes I’ve had no response, sometimes I’ve had someone else hit ‘reply all’ and post agreement with me, sometimes I’ve had the person who sent it write me back that they understand my objection and agree with me. Curiously, oddly, this does not change sender habits of forwarding the next offensive, malicious “batch send”! I persevere – not writing back in every case so as not to seem a complete nag – but never do I forward these offensive batch sends to others.

 

This gives me two assurances: I know myself as “one who will speak up”, which is important to me. Secondly I address an ethical/moral issue to one or more brothers/sisters and over time may help reduce these grossly unkind, non-compassionate, often illogical and uniformed points of view, also important to me (to sew seeds of other ways to understand a matter).

 I have written plenty to brother and sister policy makers on some political matters! I have written media with questions on their editorial policy. (And I have sent notes of appreciation for editorial policy that seems thoughtful, respectful, and meant to inform .)

 Rarely but occasionally I email organizations, even at international level, to object to displays and attitudes I find based on questionable logic and/or ethics. When I do this, I make a point not to get into “you brute!” language – but to point out why I find whatever it is “off target”. (An example is media enthusiasm for video of “running of the bulls.” I know cattle very well, know the circumstances behind the behavior of those bulls, and find nothing admirable in enthusiasm among my brothers/sisters to “enjoy” the challenge of mixing it up with these animals. The entire ‘event’ would not happen if we did not think we had the ‘right’ to treat animals as ‘objects’ for our entertainment and amusement or to prove something about bravery in this case.)

 Practices of silence, and/or of ‘omission’ are perhaps the largest ways we, by our very normal human psychology, “miss” opportunity to make “small, tiny” differences. I assure readers, I do not “live and breathe” in a state of looking for such opportunity. They are common enough I need not “look” for them. If moved by my own thoughts to speak up, I often ‘measure’ the situation before speaking. I assess whether or not my doing so will “at least be heard” or instead may break a relationship and result in opportunity lost.

 A few decades ago I was driving home on a route that took me through a small village. I was astonished to notice off to the side, on a vacant lot, a group of elementary school children attacking another child. The group kicking the downed child had potential to do serious harm whether or not they intended it. I could have driven on but stopped, approached the situation, asked what was going on, and with “parental authority” put a stop to it. What came of further action about the event? The school in which the children were students had no authority due to it being after school hours and off school grounds. I had no idea who the children were so could not take it farther myself (for example, contacting parents and asking them to review with me what seemed to be going on.) A single moment with little follow-up. I have no idea if shifts in behavior may have resulted – still, it was ‘a’ moment. A child’s health may have been protected, and awarenesses might have shifted.

 When hearing loud, angry, calls from small gatherings on a street I have walked out of my home to at least “view” what was going on (after not being able to assess the event from a window view.). The question to ask is simple enough: “Is everyone all right here?” And take it from there. (I of course will not take myself into a situation that looks like serious weapons are involved, but will contact authorities or call on others to join me in some kind of help.)

 The point with these “moment by moment” choices is not to play “thought/action police”, but to assume those involved are, like me, of one family. I want to live in a family where members are thoughtful and respect one another.  Where joy is genuine, heart-based, and shared in the presence of one another.

 A guidance principle I use is “become the least involved as may be helpful or necessary”. The point is not to interfere with possible “necessary” conflict, such as two of equal power loudly sorting out a difference. Conflict may have its own reasons that are none of my business. But if I am aware by the public nature of an event, choice of action (or not) is mine to consider.

 Now that I think about my times of ’speaking up’ among ’strangers’, I think I am inclined to do so when there appears very real “power imbalance”. Five kids against one; a large person appearing to manipulate or overpower a small person, or when some of my ‘family’ are gleefully scapegoating others of my family.  I can’t write out an extended description of possibilities due to time for both reader and myself. I hope my general description makes my point.

 Do I make mistakes? Of course! Sometimes I mis-read an event. I am perfectly willing to apologize and back off. I am also perfectly willing to realize (post involvement) that my own state of mind at the time may prompt me to get quite carried away. (I refer to a time when a disabled ’stray’ dog appeared at my door and I had not one ounce of extra emotional or psychic energy to take on its needs and could not locate the dog’s owner. My tears at the vet’s office created quite a bit of wonderment! All was well in the end when the dog’s owner appeared at my door after learning via grapevine news that the dog was at my place.)

 Even without email we find many moments of choice that are “harm/good” opportunity. Family and social gatherings when malicious humor is used to entertain; or when we notice someone is scapegoated (a child, an adult, or an entire group of a nation or of the world).

 WITH email, with internet, opportunity abounds! Some weeks ago I linked a website whose point of view is valuable. The link led easily to a second website of similar point of view. The secondary site was “adolescent” in tone, with large amounts of f** this and f** that sprinkled throughout. I used the ‘contact us’ link to write the secondary site and suggest they were not making their valuable insights available due to the tone of their site. They never did reply; I have no idea if I had any influence on them. But I did speak up – I let them know I valued their perspective, but was concerned about their effectiveness. Will I ‘hound’ them? Of course not!  Sewing seed.

 Due to our globalness, we are literally “of one family” in ways we could never have been to this time in our history. We have been reminded many times, in many ways, of our “one family” reality. From concepts of “All is One”, to Walt Kelly’s famous Pogo strip in which the ants go to battle and it is eventually declared: “It may be, with tiny flags and tiny blasts from tiny trumpets, that we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.”

 This is the “we” I experience and intend when I say “we” are the cause of war. I do not separate out myself from this “we”. Nor do I separate out any other, anywhere on this earth. I do not separate out the power players at highest levels, but I am aware of “relative powe.r” I am aware of those among us whose experience is basic struggle, sometimes in violence-ridden environments. I appreciate these may have least capacity to “speak truth to power”.  It is on behalf of brothers/sisters in such environments that I speak, and ultimately on behalf of all of us, myself included.

 I hold to my perspective: each and every one of us is very often in position to at least “speak up”, and to the extent we remain silent in the face of abusive and cruel power, we contribute to its continued practice. Abuse and cruelty may stem from ignorance; when we speak up, we help to erode ignorance; we sew seeds of alternative and more open points of view. In tiny moments we take stands against beliefs and practices which support war with “an enemy”.

 If, in my ‘family’, I witness inappropriate practice of power, or effort to sustain a sense of ‘felt power’ by ‘trashing’ others locally or at some other part of this earth, I am likely to speak up. If, as in the case of the disabled stray dog, I have simply no capacity I may remain silent. The capacity will return and I will resume.

 To turn aside, as if “separating ourselves out,” is no longer as easy as it may have been when we could gate ourselves off, or push into a new geographical frontier.

 I believe in the best potential of universal family. I believe in our underlying “good intent.” I do not believe any of us “arrived on this earth” meaning to wreak havoc wherever possible. I believe in our capacity to understand ourselves, our psychology, the ‘drivers’ that influence choice.

 I also believe those of us who know we are in positions of “less power” relative to those “very powerful movers/shakers” can relate to them as “mere” brothers/sisters who may need to hear from us. The same psychology that lets us understand ourselves, and those close to us (friends, family) can be used to understand that very powerful movers/shakers “act out roles” of “most entitled sibling”. They do not need to be considered a “big deal”. If we treat them as “big deal”, we either spend energy worshiping them (they do not deserve worship) or making them “separate and enemy” which uses a lot of our energy. By holding them as “a big deal” we simultaneously increase their false power and decrease our own real power.  I believe in our capacity to “tame the wild ox”, which includes awareness of our psychology, base and higher motivations.

 It is not “mandated” of course, that we shift into self-empowerment that lets us speak up. We fear some consequences that are normal and understandable. We may fear we might “not get it right”, that we might find ourselves “out of control” and become part of the problem. These fears will not be overcome unless we practice, hone, our skill at speaking up. The “rule” to follow is to remember we speak to family members whom we cherish at least as “fellow living beings”. The ‘rule’ is to acknowledge divinity in life itself.

 Fear that our personal lives will be less comfortable if we speak up is normal and understandable; as is fear that we risk being ’shut out’ of valued relationship. Speaking up teaches through experience that we have effect here and there, not many will ’shut us out’, and “comfort” may arrive differently than assumed. The rule is to genuinely find an internal felt respect for the person/s whose behavior we want to address, and to speak from that felt respect. Someone may “shut us out” but we can continue to hold the person/s in a place of respect.  We need not feel we have “lost” a valued relationship, even if they ’shun’ us.

 I realize I speak here of “confrontation”. This includes ’soft’ confrontation in small matters and moments, and includes private confrontation of brother or sister in our human family. Most of us already practice confrontation, but have levels of comfort with it. We are not comfortable to ‘confront’ in all circumstances, including some small moments. We don’t want to find ourselves “judgmental” so are inclined to explain away confrontation moments among family and close friends. The language, the heart of confrontation, is a very large topic and I will post separately on it. For it to work to brighten and lighten our human load, confrontation needs to be be sincere, to the point, but also to have a quality of light heartedness, a quality of ‘no fear’ of human mis-take, something more like non-self-righteous observation.

 There is, I believe, no getting around the we-ness of our human experience or our human ‘culpability’ in present misery of both human and animal.

 The burdens of choice to confront can and may and will be experienced when we take on the practice of “speaking up”. As the practice spreads, however, it can become “normalized”. We can find our skill increases, we experience somehow it works out.  By example, more may begin to do the same. Courage is often easier when we model it for one another.

 How much burden is lifted, when speaking up becomes a familiar, respectful, even cheerful practice! (As it can become, when we learn to do so with genuinely felt good will toward one another.)

 My Very Best Wishes to All – MaggieAnn

The Value of Conspiracy Theories

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – OUR SUBTLE PRACTICE

 Good Morning!

 Since I introduced two resources in my post on “cause of war” that touch on “conspiracy thinking”, I want to state my position on “conspiracy thinking”. I want also to suggest why I know elements of these theories are valid.

 My position on several of the larger, popular, conspiracy themes is this: It does not matter whether or not these theories are in fact true. What matters is the nature of human beings, and the reality of complex dynamics in matters of social/political power.

 Begin with the premise that human nature includes motivations that can include “sneaky manipulation of situations to achieve power”. The potential exists, and is in operation all over the place in human relationships. From co-dependent personal relationships, to advertising that tugs consumer heart-strings to increase sales, manipulation for the sake of gain is in place. The macrocosm reflects the microcosm – the microcosm reflects the macrocosm.

 Manipulation is practiced in different ways. Common ploys appeal to the target’s “wishes” rather than to tell the truth. Ploys include uttering half-truths, making promises not intended to be kept, telling outright lies, and staying silent about important details.

 Very high level power plays can be very real, and can have serious negative impact on those being manipulated. Cigna’s public relations department practices, detailed by Wendell Potter, cannot be dismissed by a thinking person. Manipulation of public opinion is the practice, the goal is maximizing corporate institutional “economic strength”.  Thousands of lives were/are at stake, millions of lives by extension of these practices to other companies.

 Large corporations, and other organized power structures, do not “willingly go off stage” when their function no longer serves common need. (Neither do small ones – try closing a popular school for economic reasons, even if it seems to make better educational sense.  Not a best example.  I am not meaning to speak of community passionate support for schools here!  My point is protection of a favorite organized system, due to emotional loyalty and perceived pay-off, is normal human response when an organization is threatened.) 

By common understanding of the “criminal mind”  we willing accept individuals and groups can conspire to wreak havoc. We like to restrict this acceptance to certain sets of “bad guys” – the “real” criminals.  We may agree that real criminals are motivated to power and wealth but are disinclined to believe these same behaviors can be found at very high levels of organization – corporate or governments that we believe are founded on democratic principles.

 We “wish” this to be a safe distinction. We are willing to mistrust government and large corporate practice at a “non-criminal” level. Emotionally, it is not the least comfortable to look at the functioning of our comfortable world and wonder if the people in power are up to truly criminal practices, or to wonder if they are actually as mean and tough as conspiracy theory usually suggests.

 Using psychology to examine human motivation becomes very complicated very quickly. Our own emotional (very normal, very human) inclination is to avoid having a “suspicious mentality”. The good news is we have some practice in protecting ourselves in ordinary day to day affairs. Most of us continue to operate on “wishfulness”, (also very normal, and very human), in some matters, but we are “OK” with “buyer beware” when purchasing consumer items. Because we have learned to be comfortable with day to day “buyer beware” mentality, we do not experience this as “suspicious mentality”.

 We do not apply our common sense “buyer beware” mentality toward human affairs beyond a certain point. We stop short when approaching proposals of “conspiracy theorists” remain beyond our ken. We prefer to pick apart the excesses of the theories, to brand the believers as wacky, and stay in our psychological place of comfort.

 I suggest the same “common sense caution” mentality that is used when we practice “buyer beware” can be used when “buying” trust in corporate and government practice. Especially when “the emperor’s nakedness is called”. John Perkins (“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”) is not a conspiratist. He was on location, carrying out sneaky manipulative actions toward foreign governments for the sake of US corporate and governmental power/wealth interest and says so. Wendell Potter is not a conspiratist. He was on the spit, carrying out sneaky manipulative action on behalf of Cigna’s corporate wealth/power interests and says so. The Stewart brothers film, Kymatica, explores operations of an international elite. Why, in the name of intelligent common sense understanding of human motivation to power and wealth would we not consider there may be truth to their claim?

 Especially in America we like Horatio Alger stories. We like to tell and re-tell of the person born to misery and poverty who is now powerful. For us, such stories dis-prove possibility that there could be small but powerful groups manipulating much of what effects the rest of us: social policy, international relations, economic affairs.  That individuals here and there “slip above the cracks” is not believed as it weakens the “truth” of Horatio Alger.

 But consider “human psychology”! Apply human psychology to everyone, anywhere! There is no need to isolate use of psychological understanding to local, familiar, patterns in human behavior. There is no need to feel uncomfortable, as if we are ‘breaking some rule,’ in applying it to all humans, no matter their level of power or success. If we feel we are breaking some rule using common sense to tell us those in “high” places can be harshly manipulative, we need to examine ourselves for source of such a rule. (Two likely sources: one, we were taught to ’show respect’ for those who have ‘achieved’; and two, we want to be “well thought of” by those around us and don’t want to risk being labeled a kook.)

 We prefer to “presume innocence”.

 Innocence: from answers.com:    The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:    1.Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil;  2. Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense;  3. Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness;  4. Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté;  5. Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance;  6. Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.

We presume innocence ’subtly’, without “calling out ourselves” for this presumption. WE are the ‘innocent’ in our own subtle practice: unaware, simple, lacking in worldliness, knowledge or understanding.

 Imagine a huge monopoly game about to begin. Imagine some of the players were born already owning key properties. Imagine these wealthy players also know one another. Imagine they know nothing of starting “from scratch’. Imagine that all the players, the ones starting from scratch, and the ones born of wealth and property, have a mix of personalities. Some are so oriented toward “kindness” they will barely be able to stay in the game and may not thrive. Some are so oriented toward “achievement” that they, even if starting from scratch, will grasp how the game is played and do pretty well. (They may even end up being photographed with the born wealthy group.) A very rare few of those born into wealth and property may wonder about those starting from scratch and feel some need to “get to know the struggle”. Very rare. Buddha perhaps! (At a more ordinary level: there are more than we know of these – Wendell Potter and John Perkins are only two.)

 The players enter the game from their starting positions and either muddle along, or become aggressively manipulative in some of their practices. All players may experience deep human connection within their familiar “social set” but may not transfer what they learn of devotion, tenderness, and love to players outside their set.

 Using psychology, one can even witness ’social strata’ at work within families. Rivalry does not only happen around the Monopoly board.

 My point is this: psychology is “normal”. We all “have” it, and we all “use” it. Psychology is not a “big deal”. Psychology does let us understand human motivation. It lets us “normalize” behaviors for the sake of understanding any human behavior anywhere on earth.

 Psychology does not give us “easy” answers, “easy” categories with which to separate ourselves from others as “good/bad”, “them/us”. At the very same time, by the very same insights, it gives us knowledge of rascally behavior that any of our brothers or sisters, at any level of economic, political, social, wealth, or power may be inclined to practice. (A major contribution of Kymatica is that it promotes clarity of mind to recognize rascally potential without condition of “us/them”.)

 The day many more of us look at ourselves, and many others of us, and understand potential to rascally action, and not feel embarrassed at ourselves for calling out the naked emperor moments, is the day we begin to enjoy practices of compassion and honesty among ourselves.  I predict we will smile more, within ourselves, and at one another.

 It will also be a genuinely New Day. Thousands of years of ’same old, same old’ is not getting us where we think we can go to demonstrate our best. “Honesty” (presumed) in the statement: “It is ever thus, there can be no change in humanity.”, is cynical.

 A favorite song tidbit from an early Taj Mahal album: “Rise up children, shake the devil out of your soul”! (Shake the sleep from your eyes?, Wake up?, even “Wake up and be cheery about it? … the TM song is pretty energetic and cheery.)

 My Best to You – MaggieAnn

The Cause of War and Where Do We Go From Here?

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF WAR?

 Dear Readers,

 Once again, I have been “on retreat”. Reasons are several. My efforts to lay out explanation of “what is wrong” both nationally and globally, along with proposing what we need to do to address our humanity, is psychologically exhausting. I needed to free myself from constant ‘talking’; to take a break from my drumming. (As a child I actually took snare drum lessons for a time – wonder if there is a metaphor in that!)

 More practically, other needs of ‘home front’ nature – ranging from paper shuffling to shovel wielding – have needed attention. These are not completely addressed. I am likely to be somewhat inconsistent for a while in posting.

 Part 1:

 I am one who tends to be aware of a global reality. I sometimes find it difficult to sort out a narrow enough line of thought to make concise and focused statements. There are others who have similar awareness, who perhaps more easily focus. In my internet radio listening and website explorations I come across these. I am always grateful when I find these people speaking out!

 I do not always agree with their analyses and description detail. Sometimes I would shift or downplay examples they use. But what I do notice is intent. What is the underlying motivation of the writer/speaker? How deeply does she/he seem to have explored what for me remain essential questions: “Who are we – really -- who are we?”, and “How close or far have we managed to get to our highest potential as human beings?”

 The farther a thinker seems to travel along a path toward answering these two questions, the more I feel “in sync” with their exploration.

 One thing I notice is how many, once engaged, are unwilling to let these questions go. Their work reveals relentless effort. From experience I know that once one begins to tackle these questions, they cannot be released. Life activity that leads elsewhere always has a feel of “not as important” and one returns to the underlying questions.

 A second thing I’ve noticed is the integrity, sincerity, and effort that accompanies these explorations. Again: intent is the key. A shared intent in this kind of thinking and searching is belief that there exists some depth of understanding generally ignored in more common pursuits. There is an associated belief that “we”, as a species with remarkable qualities of ’self-awareness’, cannot “find our way” to our highest potential until we get past ignorant, unexamined, more common, perspectives and pursuits.

 It is not enough to say: “Sure, we know we are excessive in X and Y as a species” and then resume common pursuit as if we have settled questions of humanity. This is a superficial “answer”.

 The superficial answer, however, reveals to us something of our nature! To accept superficial analysis is to behave as if what we really want is to find the next sparkly form of possession or entertainment! It is very normal, and is also a huge clue to our adolescent approach to life and its meaning!

 A third shared outcome I find among those focused on the questions: “Who are we, where are we going, where do we want to be going?” is that all these thinkers, from the most ancient to the most current, spend a lot of time exploring “consciousness”.

 They also study effect of language and symbols on ordinary thought patterns, and on ordinary commonly held beliefs of individuals and groups.

 They also speak of socialization as the primary source of unexamined, commonly held beliefs.

 Many of them delve into science measurements of brain activity. Many explore science measurement of neuro-chemical activity inside the body but not in the brain. There is an entire body of literature and “answers” known as HeartMath that pays a lot of attention to electrochemical influences between the heart organ and thought.

 Part 2:

 Now that I’ve mentioned HeartMath, I’ll shift toward a close to this post by describing and giving links to a few resources readers might want to explore.

 First I’ll answer my title question: “What is the source of war?”. The answer is that we are. You and me. Your lifestyle and my lifestyle. Your families and my family. Your friends and my friends. Your politicians and my politicians. Your economists and my economists. We – all of us – all of humanity as we now practice our humanity – are the source of war.

 We are for the most part socially and self-programmed, for psychological reasons that can be understood, to separate personal belief and choice from universal implication.

 As you begin searching, (or follow this deep questioning path you may already be on), you will notice intent. You will find some ’searchers’ who settle on accusation of ‘other’ as ‘root cause’ of human misery. When you come across these, you will eventually feel a restriction in thinking that points away from the “all of us” perspective.

 You will find other searchers who include themselves in the entire human set of weaknesses and beauties. These are the thinkers I describe below.

The resources I list here are a tiny representation to all that is offered. They are in no particular order. All are current, presently active. One may appeal to you, another not. One may seem “on sound footing” to you, another not. I find common ground in all of them. None of them have the sole focus of individual career and material success; all remind of our shared humanity.

 Their areas of interest address social, political, economic, and civil affairs. They articulate, give speech to, common worries on the minds of nearly every person across this globe. They describe what they have examined; they cite wisdom and knowledge both ancient and current; they celebrate individual capacity. They remind that the individual is thoroughly entangled with group and civic practice. They offer insight and vision. Because each has taken a different part of “the elephant” to examine, and each has approached examination by his/her unique interests and talents, each has something to contribute.

 While many of them bring in ancient teachings, none promote “spiritual answers” as a solution. Each takes aim at our down to earth human dilemma, rooted as it is in issues of food, housing, health, and prosperity.

 I doubt any of them would take time or bother to seriously argue with one another over differences. They would, I think, all agree that we are not only the youth witnessing the naked emperor, we are also the emperor himself, as we are also the crowd watching the parade, as we are also the tailors who fashioned the emperor’s new clothes.

 Part 3: Resources

 http://www.heartmath.org/ ”Expanding areas interest at the Institute of HeartMath include furthering scientific understanding of the human biofield, intuition and the emotional energetic system”. This site is quite focused on individual wellness, always a fair place to begin!  See also YouTube HeartMath posts.

 http://www.yesmagazine.org/ David Kortel, writes and speaks largely on economics with strong involvement of New Testament teachings as guidance, not as ‘religion’. “The work of the Positive Futures Network and YES! Magazine is to give visibility and momentum to these signs of an emerging society in which life, not money, is what counts; in which everyone matters; and in which vibrant, inclusive communities offer prosperity, security, and meaningful ways of life.” Video lectures by David Kortel found by browser search.

 http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, British researchers on social economic policy, social economic effect of poverty, human experience of wellness in societies of lesser or greater basic economic security. (International research with some unexpected findings.) Book: “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better” is statistical and does not play up the “Spirit Level” part of its title. Video lectures by authors found by browser search.

 http://www.johnperkins.org/ John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit man”, “Hoodwinked, Why the World Financial Markets Imploded and What We Need to Do To Re-make Them.” The author had very real career for decades on the “dark side” of political/economic activity at international level. His work involved “persuading” national leaders to accomodate corporate interests. He offers views of behind the scenes reality we can only guess at, or perhaps have previously dismissed as ‘conspiracy’ thinking. Video lectures by author found by browser search.

 http://charterforcompassion.org/ Karen Armstrong, internationally recognized religious scholar and author (whose past includes an early exploration to become a nun) is launching an international compassion awareness/practice project on November 12, 2009. Video lectures by author found by browser search.

 http://www.justiceharvard.org/ Michael Sandel, internationally recognized Harvard philosophy professor’s site invites interactive exploration of philosophical question: “What is the right thing to do?” Site visitors can hear lectures, student responses, read and post their own thoughts, as well as take on other course-related reading. Outcome of the course, for campus students and site visitors, is a deepened, expanded, understanding of personal values and motivations, by examination topical, present-day, ethical social, economic, political questions. Video lectures by author found by browser search.

 http://www.jeffersonhour.org/ “Humanities scholar and author, Clay S. Jenkinson, adopts the persona of Jefferson each week to comment on current events and answer questions you may have about Jefferson’s thoughts on any and all topics”. (See left hand sidebar, “Listen to the show” to access one hour, weekly programs). Opportunity to better understand Jefferson, Adams, and other founders, “warts and all”. It’s the “warts” that we need to help balance our “commonly held superficial” understandings. Our founders, it turns out, were visionaries, also flawed in very ordinary human ways.

 http://www.talismanicidols.org/ Benjamin and Daniel Stewart, documentary film makers. Each of the above named thinkers is ‘chronologically mature.’ Each presents thought and conclusion from decades of experience and study. (An exception is Kate Pickett, but her collaborator and mentor, Richard Wilkinson is recently retired from his career as a professor.) At this time the Stewart brothers have not, to my knowledge, published any writing beyond what is found at their website. Film making is their forte.

 Part 4: Benjamin and Daniel Stewart:

 I set this resource aside as I find them difficult to “sum up” quickly.

 The Stewart brothers, however young they may be in chronological years, (under 30?), are well ahead of an imagined peer curve in depth and breadth of inquiry into the human condition. Their work is comprehensive in scope to say the least, with considerations ranging from ancient civilizations, mythology, language and symbolism, fetal development, current astronomy and neuroscience and economic history. It would take several years to property study the range of concepts they to film. Without getting lost in what could be considered ‘conspiracy’ theory, based on Burke’s Peerage, they veer into long time historical connections among world leaders. (Bloodline links among US presidents and historical European, especially British, royal lines is astonishing if it is even half-accurate. One can also consider the “6-degree” phenomenon — perhaps many more of us are so-linked than we know!)

 What the Stewart brothers ask, however, is that you and I consider who we are, our individual role. They ask we consider individual inalienable, inborn, natural intelligence and capacities and acknowledge these in each, every, conscious human anywhere on earth. They ask us to release ourselves from self-accepted and unrecognized suppression by shifting to creative consciousness found within. (They did not mention Zen, but well might have!)

 From my point of view, they raise legitimate and ignored questions of our most fundamental weaknesses and also fundamental capacities. How do we unknowingly suppress our divinity, (another word for amazing consciousness) and how do we bring ‘liberation’ to ourselves across the globe? They tackle the most ignored and pervasive aspects of human ignorance, coming closer to the ‘root’ of these than many.

 It will be interesting to note where they take their explorations in years to come. So far, they demonstrate willingness to unify principles from a range of fields of study, and demonstrate qualities of transcendent understanding. I don’t find their work ‘academic’ but they cite many references and include numerous quotes and some interview clips with leading investigators of human history and attributes. On one or two specific conclusions I would disagree, but with quiet passion, they state their findings. And their findings are driven by underlying questions “Who are we; what is our purpose, what inborn qualities within us are available to us as we shape our present and future worlds?” In the course of this investigation, they address “Where does war come from?”

 They present their findings without preaching, with acceptance of their own ‘flawed’ humanity. Their intent is to further awaken us. Quite simply – there is nowhere for us to “go”, to “look for” answers to human misery, other than to explore the primary questions: “What is our nature, and how does it play a role in a social political world?”

 The underlying principle of “Thoughts from the Well”, that “everything is a model for everything else”, is supported in their work. Individual experience and development is mirrored in the universe’s unfolding; social political economic invention and policy reveal the best and the worst within each of us. Who ‘they’ are is who ‘we’ are; you and I reflect and reveal humanity shared to one another.

 Here is a link to a 1.5 hr video presentation, Kymatica. The version has qualities of a “draft” but is very worth the watch. I hope it holds as a viable link. I believe their work is available in published quality but have not found a quick link. An earlier film by the Stewart brothers, “Esoteric Agenda,” is more ‘conspiracy’ in theme. “Kymatica”, moves beyond the us/them perspective that goes with conspiracy thinking. It explores necessity and gift of personal capacity and responsibility, while it offers insight into individual “inherent flaws” that are barriers to freedom of thought.  (We claim we want ‘freedom’ but are so unwittingly socialized that we scarcely know who we are.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6736722752013377089# A caution: near the end the film explores cruelty, including cruelty to animals. With mis-giving I allowed myself to view some of this. I wish I had fast forwarded through that part, even though it was very brief. As critical as any other point the Stewart brothers make is their point on reaction to animal cruelty:  The moment we experience horror at another’s extreme cruelty is the moment we deny the humanity of the perpetrator and deny our potential for the same.  This is one of the toughest sticking spots for me even though I know it’s truth. 

 Part 5:

 As said above, the cause of war is us – you and me, our inherent weaknesses, our unexamined acquired beliefs, and these same qualities amplified in the groups to which we claim allegiance, from family to nation.

 We can continue hand-wringing mystification on the cause of war. We can continue comfortable blame of villains, and continue war as means to peace.

 Or we can move past adolescence and come to know ourselves better. In the first practices, already in place, there is nothing to be gained.

 In the last there is true and deep frontier adventure, also perhaps a new age of humanity and honoring life.

 My deeply felt best to each of you – MaggieAnn