* Faith, Humanity, and Power *

2003-08-11

Richard Moore

Bcc: contributors and recent correspondents

Friends,

In recent postings we've been engaging in dialog with other
online communities, or at least with their moderators. 
Folks like Tom Atlee, Dave Paulsen, John Bunzl, Arthur
Topham,  and Jay Fenello.  Sometimes  email lists feel like
isolated islands, and it's good to get messages-in-a-bottle
once in while from other shores.

To a certain extent, we moderators are crusaders for a
certain point of view.  Therefore it is not surprising that
our exchanges and debates do not lead to any of us switching
our point of view.  In some sense, we end up where we
started, and sometimes that can feel like a waste of time. 
But the exchanges aren't a waste of time.

For one thing, if we share the exchanges with our lists, you
folks get to see some ideas outside the normal fare on your
list.   Also, even though we don't switch our point of view,
each of us moderators does learn and evolve their ideas over
time.   We may not even be aware of a shift, but might find
ourselves taking a broader view in our later material.  In
particular, as these recent exchanges have slowed down, I
find myself inspired to do some thinking from a somewhat new
focus...


Faith, Humanity, and Power
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We humans seem to have an innate need for a faith. Even the
earliest societies had myths to explain where the world came
from, what humanity's role in that world is, how the
particular tribe came to be, and how people are supposed to
behave in that tribe.  Perhaps this 'need to understand the
world and our place in it' is what most distinguishes us
from our fellow mammals.  We can conceive of the questions,
and once that happens we worry until we have answers we can
have faith in.

From what I've read, it seems that these early myths were
accepted by most tribal members as being Absolute Truth.  On
the other hand, at the level of Shaman or Medicine
Man/Woman, there seems to have been more understanding that
myths were not always literally true -- but that they served
an important function in society nonetheless.  A placebo
brew could cure someone's headache because the person
believed it would, if the Shaman didn't have the genuine
ingredients on hand that day.   From the earliest days,
there appears to have been some element of "Don't tell the
kids there's no Santa Clause" involved with popular faiths.

Nonetheless, these early mythologies were important for the
livelihood of the tribe, even essential to their very
survival.  With a common understanding of the world and how
to behave, it was possible for people to collaborate
effectively in their hunting, food sharing, child raising,
etc.  Even if we dismiss their beliefs as primitive
superstition, we can recognize that the mythologies were an
invaluable collective asset.  Faith delivered collective
empowerment.

And it is probably fair to say that each individual tribal
member benefited more or less equally from the existence of
these shared beliefs.  There might have been gender
injustices in some cases, but at least there weren't class
injustices.  The societies weren't big enough or wealthy
enough to afford class distinctions.  We can say that the
benefits of faith were for the most part egalitarian.

After agriculture, with more complex societies, myths and
personalized nature gods evolved into more formal religions.
 When writing came along, it became possible to elaborate
these religions still further, accreting detailed history
into them over time, as in the Old Testament.  Religions
co-evolved with their societies, imposing an evolving belief
system that served the stability of the evolving society. 
As a result of this process, the benefits of faith grew away
from egalitarianism.

We can see from preserved ancient texts that editing and
deleting occurred in these religions over time, showing that
the evolution of religion was sometimes a conscious,
intentional process -- a process that served the interests
of elites more than it did the interests of common people. 
The element of "Don't tell the kids there's no Santa Claus"
was becoming sinister, whereas in the beginning it had been
only a benign exaggeration.

The development of civilization has been facilitated by the
evolution of power hierarchies. Religions evolved so as to
support these hierarchies, and to justify the power of the
ruling elites.  To the extent religion stabilized society,
we can say everyone received a benefit.  To the extent
religion gave some people power over others, we can say the
religion gave elites a tool of mass subjugation.  To that
extent, faith delivered enslavement rather than empowerment.

We date our Western calendar from the beginning of the
Christian religion.  The first version of this calendar was
adopted soon after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as
its State Religion.  Christianity -- with its arrogance, its
monotheism, and its promise of the afterlife -- was a
perfect tool in the hands of ruling elites. Faith in
Christianity led to acceptance of hierarchical authority,
and it focused hope on the afterlife.  Elites had the
authority to impose unjust systems, while the socially
privileged priests counselled their flocks to seek their
relief in the afterlife.  The arrogant intolerance of
Christianity toward other faiths (and sects) served the
interests of elites who wanted to expand their realms
through conquest.  Islam when it came along later had these
same characteristics.

The word 'flock' is significant.  To a certain extent, these
religions succeed in reducing people to sheep at the mercy
of their elite herders.  Or when expansion through warfare
is desired by elites, the flock of sheep can be converted to
a pack of wolves, as their priests tell them that the faith
must be defended and that God or Allah is on their side.

Both of these religions were spread by the sword.  The
imposition of faith was as important to the expansion of
empires as was the deployment of troops and ships.  By
forcing more 'primitive' societies to abandon their belief
systems, those societies were destabilized and disempowered
-- their collective survival asset was stolen from them. 
They became inter-dependent with the empire for their
economic livelihood, reducing the scale of physical
enforcement required to ensure compliance with the needs of
empire.

With the Protestant Revolution, we can see a religion being
modified and adapted to suit realignments among elite power
elements.  In particular, we are seeing the power of kings
being increased relative to the power of religious elites. 
Church was becoming more a tool of State and less an
independent power in its own right.  And Protestantism
emphasized virtues (self-discipline, pride, hard work) which
better suited national expansion than did those of the Roman
Church.

And for all this time people retained their innate need to
have faith in something.  Although the modern religions
enslave, and are conscious tools in the hands of elites
(consider GW Bush's religious posturing) -- they do
nonetheless provide, for many, a necessary element of
psychological nutrition.  They give the faithful a feeling
of security and a hope for the future.  People have a need
for faith, just as they may have a need for occasional
relief from reality through intoxication.  Religion
dispenses its version of faith, just as a drug dealer
dispenses his brand of intoxication.  A metaphor from The
Matrix comes to mind... "Even though they're enslaved,
they'll fight to the death to defend the Matrix."

In the Western world up until about 1750, these religions
remained the dominant means of mass mind control used by
ruling elites.  And then once more, as in the Protestant
Revolution,  there began a process of power realignment
among elites.  And once more, this realignment was
accompanied by the propagation of a new more fitting faith
-- one that would support the new power structure while
continuing to enslave the masses.

The new power realignment was spurred by industrialization
and growing trade with colonies.  In an aristocratic
society, wealth distribution is relatively static.  Estates
and titles are inherited, and patterns of wealth tend to
persist from generation to generation.  "Everyone has their
own station in life" is a central part of the enslaving
belief structure.  Industrialization and growing trade
changed this wealth-distribution system -- it enabled
entrepreneurs to rapidly accumulate fortunes.  In an
aristocratic society wealth and power are aligned and
stable.  With industrialization and trade, wealth and power
began to shift out of alignment.  The nouveau riche had more
money than power.  This imbalance was unstable.  Wealth
always finds a way to power -- with the same inevitability
as water seeking its own level.

The leading industrialists and traders became a dynamic new
elite in society, with ever-growing influence and wealth.
But their influence and opportunities were being constrained
by the existing power elites and their economic system.  The
American colonies were prohibited from industrializing and
all of their trade with non-British ports was required to
pass through a British port before returning home. 
Meanwhile protectionist laws in Britain inhibited maximum
industrial growth there. The new commercial elite was
everywhere rankling under such restrictions and constraints.
 They yearned for more freedom to pursue opportunities, for
an economic and political system that wouldn't constrain
their enterprises.

The commercial elite was not alone in favoring the new
economic dynamism. Many thinking people in the colonies and
Britain envisioned a bright new future of progress and
economic expansion -- enabled by the liberation of the
entrepreneurial spirit.   The old order was supported by
faith in revealed religion, faith in the right of kings to
rule, and faith in an orderly society with everyone in their
place.   These faiths favored stability over dynamism, and
inherited power over power gained through successful
enterprise.   Thinkers who favored economic dynamism began
questioning these faiths, and searching for a new basis of
belief.

Their thinking was radical.  This new thinking --
Enlightenment thinking -- amounted to a direct assault on 
all the guiding faiths of the day.   They argued for reason
and against revealed dogma, for freedom and
self-determination and against royal rule and entrenched
aristocracies, for economic dynamism and against a
constrained economic order.  They were applying the notion
of dynamism and freedom to to all aspects of life.   They
envisioned prosperous democratic republics, enjoying freedom
and political equality, pursuing rational policies, not
constrained by dogma.  This vision was so appealing that it
eventually became -- and remains today -- the dominant faith
for most of us in the West.

In their time, however, these ideas were very radical.  They
challenged the legitimacy of the existing order and they
promised freedom to the masses.   They were dangerous to
ruling elites.   But the ideas were appealing to the masses
and also to the up-and-coming commercial elite.  Not only
did the ideas favor economic freedom and growth, but their
popular appeal presented a tremendous political opportunity
to the new elite.   If the masses could be roused to
revolution carrying the Enlightenment banner of freedom, the
ruling elites might be ousted from power.   The problem for
the commercial elite, in such an eventuality, would be to
ensure that they emerged in power after the dust had
settled.

And in fact revolutionary fervor began to spread. 
Leadership and inspiration came from many camps.  There were
those like Tom Paine and Wolfe Tone -- genuine campaigners
for popular sovereignty and genuine democracy -- whose ideas
were pivotal in spreading Enlightenment thinking to the
masses.  And there were those who adopted the rhetoric but
had other agendas.   In the end, the leadership of the
American Revolution came to be dominated by the colonial
commercial elite. And it was they who ended up in a position
to translate Enlightenment thinking into concrete systems of
government.

The rhetoric of the revolution had become a new faith, a
faith that had sustained the masses in fighting the 'tyrant'
in the hope of achieving freedom and democracy.  The new
leadership had every reason to encourage this new faith and
to adopt its rhetoric.  Indeed that  was necessary in order
hold the support of the people, a people who were still
fired up about their right to change governments whenever
they felt it necessary.  But the new leadership also had
every reason to interpret that rhetoric to their own
benefit.  And quite naturally, that is just what they did.

Writers like Chomsky, Zinn, and Fresia have examined the
Constitution and the attitudes of those who framed it.  From
reading their cogent and well-researched material, I think
it is clear that the system of representative government
established by the Constitution was designed specifically to
promote economic freedom while at the same time enabling
commercial elites to to guide government policy--  instead
of being guided by what the framers referred to dismissively
as 'the mob'.  It is a document which claims to outline a
democracy, but whose provisions actually imply a plutocracy.

And in fact, if you look at American history, you see a
story of continual economic expansion, elite-sponsored wars
and government programs, massive accumulation of wealth and
power by commercial elites, and the domination of government
agencies by business interests.

So once again, with our new Enlightenment faith, we find a
decisive element of "Don't tell the children there's no
Santa Claus."  But it's the truth kids, there ain't no
democracy and there never was any -- the idea of 'restoring
democracy' makes no sense.   Our faith once again enslaves
us rather than empowers us.  But most of us, for one reason
or another, still cling to our faith in signing our power
away to so-called representatives and experts.  And most of
the world still looks to American democracy as a model to
emulate, even if particular American policies and leaders
are looked on with disfavor.

Nonetheless, we are seeing a flowering of radical thinking
these days that reminds one of the time of the Enlightenment
-- thinking that challenges many of the core faiths of our
day.  In Korten's writing about market economies we see a
radical critique of capitalism, one such core faith.  We
also see with Korten a reprise of Adam Smith's Enlightenment
thinking, along with an echo of Smith's effort to promulgate
radical economic thinking at a politically critical moment
in history.   In the literature on sustainability, we find
radical critiques of economic growth and of man's domination
of nature -- both core Enlightenment faiths.   We also find
there radical new economic models, and suggestions for new
faiths -- bordering on religions -- oriented around nature
and its systems.  People like Daniel Quinn and Riane Eisler
dig back deep into our historically inherited beliefs, and
come up with radical new perspectives on the world and our
place in it.  In the political arena we find radical
critiques about how the system isn't working -- but we find
very little that challenges the core faith in the basic
system: power delegated to represenatives in hierarchical
governments.  People seem to hold onto that one with the same
tenaciousness that Fundamentalists have for their literal
interpretation of the Bible.

I suppose the reason is that most people haven't thought to
question this particular faith.  The political system is so
obviously corrupt that it is easy to think it is the
corruption that needs to be addressed, not the underlying
system.    We continue to be so entranced by the flowery
rhetoric of the Enlightenment that we imagine a paradise
lost that needs only to be restored.  Besides, what models
do we have of governance that are better than what the
Enlightenment came up with?  In our hearts we believe that
we live in a near-approximation to democracy and that throws
us seriously off balance as we start thinking about how
change can be brought about.

In tracing through man's historical relationship with faith,
I pointed out that shifts in faith have been accompanied by
shifts in power relationships.  Change was brought about
partly by the promulgation of the new faith, and partly by
the struggle for power by some social element.   Without the
new faith, the power seekers are unable to disturb the
existing regime.  Without the power seekers, the new faith
has no hands to bring it into practical application.

Furthermore, each new faith typically contained explicitly
political ideas supportive of the new power regime. 
Enlightenment thinking directly challenged the power of
church and royalty, and asserted a natural right of popular
self determination.   The earlier Protestant thinking
challenged the authority of the established Catholic Church,
which had the direct political consequence of bolstering the
relative power of kings.

If we want to be realistic about changing our diabolical
system, I suggest that we need to think in terms of a shift
in power relationships as much as we need to think about a
change in our faiths and world views.   And our faith, our
vision, needs to include explicit political elements
appropriate to the kind of world we want to see.  If we
don't think through our politics with as much care as we
devote to sustainability and our other visions then we are
ignoring the elephant in the kitchen.  We must understand
that SOME societal element will always end up running
society.   Nature abhors a power vacuum as much as it does
any other kind of vacuum.  It is naive utopianism to think
that wonderful visions and ideas can so magically change the
world  that power no longer matters. People, like other
mammals, are opportunistic creatures and always will be.

If we begin thinking in terms of a change in power
relationships, then I suggest that certain questions assume
a central importance in that thinking:  Who is it that is
seeking power?  What social element is prepared to assert
itself as a replacement for the current elite regime?  What
social element would we find acceptable to play that role? 
Who do we trust to remain true to the principles of our new
faith, of our new world view, our vision of peace, justice,
and sustainability?

I personally believe that those questions were adequately
answered by the more idealistic of the Enlightenment
thinkers (eg. Paine), and were well expressed in the
rhetoric of the American Declaration of Independence.  That
vision -- sovereignty firmly rooted in We The People -- was
betrayed later by those who claimed to be implementing the
vision.  But the vision itself I believe remains
untarnished.

If We The People are to assert our sovereignty, our power
over our own destiny, then we need to think about what kind
of politics could enable us to realize that power, maintain
it, and use it to fulfill our visions.    The Founding
Fathers told us they had found that politics, and we
believed them.   Events have proven that to be a mistake.  I
suggest that we visit the question anew.   Let us look at
the question from a clean slate.  In the same way we have
looked at economics from a clean slate.

In the past I have argued against hierarchical political
structures, and claimed that they inevitably  lead to
usurpation of power by elites.    In this current
discussion, I would put my critique more softly, in the form
of a few questions: Is hierarchy the best way to achieve
popular sovereignty?  Is it supportive of people controlling
their own lives down at the grass-roots level of We The
People?  Is there any reason why hierarchy has to be the
basis of our political thinking?

Korten and Ray, with their Cultural Creatives, are
envisioning a shift in power relationships -- but they are
assuming that can occur within the existing political
structures.  Not only does this underestimate the ability of
elites to trump the political process by manipulating events
(as with 9-11 and its aftermath), but it presumes without
examination that the paradigm of power delegated to
representative hierarchies is a sound basis for genuine
democracy.

There are other thinkers in this modern wave who have a more
radical political perspective, who appreciate that power and
politics need equal attention to the rest of the radical
vision.  But many of these, including some in these recent
exchanges, end up envisioning hierarchical structures.  From
what I've been able to gather, the preference for
hierarchical structures seems to be rooted in a lack of
trust in We The People.  Such a lack of trust was natural to
the commercial elites who took over the our previous
revolution, but I suggest we need not follow their
precedent, I suggest that we must make a leap of faith and
trust.

And I suggest that leap of faith need not be a blind leap --
there is good reason to believe that We The People can
indeed be trusted to run our own affairs wisely.  The final
part of this posting -- soon to come I promise -- was
recently sent in to me by Rosa Zubizarreta.  She is
responding to someone who questioned the legitimacy of the
consensus processes, and in her response managed to create
one of the most persuasive and accessible presentations of
the power and meaning of consensus that I have seen.  She
explains how ordinary people can not only reach agreement,
but can also reach surprisingly wise decisions about how to
deal with problems that face them.   More about such
processes can be found on Tom Atlee's website
(http://www.democracyinnovations.org).

I suggest that those of you who are working on this vision
thing -- this shift in faith that our world sorely needs --
look seriously at what Rosa has to say.   Consider her
vision as the core paradigm of a new political order -- an
order firmly rooted directly in We The People.   Think about
how different scales of problems could be addressed by such
processes, without introducing hierarchical power structures
and authorities who exercise (and might abuse) discretionary
power.  Imagine with as much radical courage as you are
willing to bring to the rest of your vision.  Consider
making a leap of faith -- faith in humanity.  Most of you
already express a faith in natural systems, and the inherent
wisdom embodied in biological co-evolution.   Why not have
faith that nature's most highly evolved creature --
ourselves -- also embodies the wisdom of evolution?

But before we get to Rosa's inspiring piece, there are two
questions that I believe need to be brought out and briefly
examined.   For one: Who are We The People?  Is it it just
us self-appointed cultural creatives and progressives?  Are
we in our wisdom to guide the less enlightened, and make
sure our own visions are implemented?  I suggest that our
leap of faith needs to go beyond that.  We The People is all
of humanity, including those who will stick stubbornly to
Fundamentalist beliefs and those who harbor racist or sexist
attitudes.  They too are part of the human family.   Rosa's
consensus vision also offers us courage to make this further
leap of faith, to trust all of We and not just the
PC-correct We.  In the processes she describes, these
ideological difference that seem so important to us now turn
out to be irrelevant abstract distractions.  Processes such
as Rosa describes get beyond those differences, and enable
people to learn respect for one others values and to work
collaboratively and creatively together.  Racism and sexism
are naturally undermined by these processes, through
gradually greater understanding -- but there is no need for
people to be 'purified in thought' before they can
participate as equals in the processes.

The second question turns out to be closely related to the
first, but is a distinct question and is also of central
importance in our understanding of how we should be
proceeding to help bring about change: Is it necessary for
us to achieve comprehensive agreement on a policy manifesto,
as a precondition to pursuing a course of revolutionary
action?  I've taken the position, in agreement with others,
that a change of faith and vision will indeed be an
important part of social transformation, as it has been in
the past.  But that is quite different from insisting on a
specific manifesto, and quite different from saying that the
new faith must be adopted by everyone before real change can
begin.

Most of those I've been dialoging with have reached the
conclusion that a new world view must be adopted by people
generally as a pre-condition to change.  Many of them insist
that the new faith must be penned down in a manifesto that
will ensure one or another pet principle, such as
sustainability, bioregionalism, a new basis for the monetary
system, a stakeholder model for corporation management, an
end to fossil fuel use, an end to racism, etc.    In
response to this attitude I'd like to point out that in the
revolutionary transitions we have examined, the process of
promulgating and defining the new faith was tied up with the
revolutionary process itself.  The mass shift in vision
occurred as much from the action of bringing about change,
as it did from the new thinking and ideas that prepared the
way in the preceding years.

My own conclusion is that there is absolutely nothing else
we need to do before turning our attention the actual
business of pursuing revolutionary transformation.  We don't
need to elaborate our understanding of sustainability beyond
the remarkable work that has already been done and
published.  We don't need to spread an awareness of ecology
beyond the millions who already know about global warming,
ozone depletion, species extinction, industrial pollution
and rain-forest devastation.  We don't need to get everyone
to sign up in advance to give up their non-PC prejudices. 
We don't need to reach consensus among our progressive
selves on an enlightened agenda for humanity.    And most
certainly we do not need to wait for the next election to
find a way to start making waves.

The new Enlightenment vision, the new faith, is already out
there in the public consciousness.   It's already been
defined to the extent it needs to be defined.   Its further
promulgation and refinement can only happen as part of a
process of revolutionary change.

There is only one thing that needs to happen to empower us
to begin taking action.  That one thing is to make a single
leap of faith, to a faith in humanity, a faith in We The
People -- All of We The People, in all of our colors, with
all of our personality faults, and with all of our degrees
of understanding and non-understanding.   If we can make
that leap of faith ourselves, then I suggest we are in a
position to begin making revolutionary waves of a new and
different kind.

Having made that leap myself -- and it is partly faith, not
conclusively provable by reason -- I have subsequently come
to see that this faith in humanity is actually the most
fundamental principle in what I perceive to be our emerging
new faith.   It comes prior to sustainability, world peace,
or any of the other obviously desirable qualities in our new
world visions.   These other things are after all common
sense.  With all the awareness and knowledge that is out
there in the culture, and with our own participation --
assuming we are in fact the most enlightened ones -- why
should we fear that the agenda will go astray if We The
People find a way to take control over own own affairs?  And
if we have faith in We The People then isn't it appropriate
that our manifestos and agendas be developed as part of We
The People finding our identity and learning to work
together?

I hope that Rosa's words can help give us courage to make
this leap of faith, by showing us how wisdom can be found in
ordinary people, and how that wisdom arises naturally when
the right kind of listening is encouraged.

rkm

--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:34:09 -0700
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
From: Rosa Zubizarreta <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: the Reaction to consensus

Dear Richard,

good to hear from you. here is a response... you are free to
forward it.

.........


Ah, words can get so confusing!

I am still often surprised and saddened to realize how few
people have ever had the opportunity to experience a
situation where, as a result of everyone being deeply heard,
their differences naturally became part of a larger,
synergistic, shared understanding, the kind that emerges
spontaneously whenever space is created for our inherent
human creativity to manifest....

If you have ever had this experience, you know that what I
am talking about is completely possible. At the same time,
since it is not a common experience in our culture, you
might think that it is inherently rare.

Yet some of us have had this experience on a fairly frequent
basis. As a result, we know that there are simple and
reliable paths we can use to get from "here" to "there" on a
fairly regular basis...

Most people have NOT had this experience, as the way that
most "meetings" are currently run does not make this kind of
outcome very likely. Instead, most of us have had a taste of
"facipulation", or facilitator as manipulator, which very
understandably can turn us off to the whole idea. Even more
common are experiences of "negotiated agreement", which tend
to lead us to settle for a very limited view of consensus as
"an agreement that everyone can 'live with, even if they are
not thrilled about it..."

Because of this, many of us who practice a different way, do
not like to speak of "consensus"... the word means something
very different to most people, than what we seek to evoke
and elicit. "Something everyone can 'live with'" does not
even remotely come close to the joy, the magic, and the
power of something that everyone is truly EXCITED ABOUT...

For the sake of clarity, many of us are choosing to use the
word "co-sensing", to differentiate what we do from the
regular "consensus" model. What we do has nothing to do with
negotiation or manipulation. Instead, our role is to allow a
"shared understanding" to emerge naturally, of its own
accord and in its own surprising ways...

Of course, to those who have not had this experience, this
will seem like madness, or like 'pie in the sky'... and, I
have not been able to figure out a way around this. After
all, why _should_ anyone who has not experienced it, believe
that anything else is possible?

I can see however how the language Richard used might be
confusing... when people read, "shape the situation so that
each comment contributes to the group", it can easily arouse
people's fears of 'facilitator as manipulator'... which, as
i've said before, is an all too common experience...

Instead, the truth of the matter is so simple that it could
easily be dismissed as absurd... the only way in which
someone practicing an emergent or transformational approach
to facilitation would "shape the situation" is by 1) serving
as a "designated listener", making sure that every single
person is fully and deeply heard; 2) "creating space" for
different perspectives to co-exist, by simply acknowledging
and honoring each one; 3) holding the space open for
creative possibility, by REFRAINING from leading, shaping,
nudging, the group in ANY particular direction.

If you have not experienced this process, I do not expect
you to understand HOW and WHY it works. Yet it allows for a
very different kind of experience... one i prefer to call "a
meeting of the minds and hearts".

The process is similar, in some ways, to Bush and Folger's
model of Transformational Mediation. They, too, have created
a system that REFRAINS FROM "leading" the parties involved
in any particular direction, and limits itself quite
consciously to SUPPORTING each of the participants.

Since this process has such enormous potential to make a
difference (and Jim Rough is quite an idealist!)  he has not
chosen to trademark the name "Dynamic Facilitation".
However, the downside of that, is that there are a lot of
folks running around now using those words, and meaning VERY
different things by it! For anyone who is interested, there
are a number of articles about the process on Jim's website,
at http://www.tobe.net. Some of them are more explicit than
others.

One caveat... I do not believe that it is possible to
practice Dynamic Facilitation as long as we are making
ANYONE out to be "the bad guy"... we have to truly live from
the perspective that EVERYONE has a "piece of the puzzle",
that everyone comes "bearing a gift", however hard that gift
may be to discern at first.... and that it is not until each
persons' concerns are deeply heard, that we will be able to
create a world that works for all...
-- 

============================================================

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in humanity, not gods or ideologies.


cyberjournal home page: 
    http://cyberjournal.org

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page: 
    http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/

QuayLargo discussion forum:
    http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads

cj list archives:
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj

newslog list archives:
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog

'Truthout' excellent news source:
    http://www.truthout.org

subscribe addresses for cj list:
    •••@••.•••
    •••@••.•••

============================================================

Share this: