I continue to be mystified as to why virtually none of the major current events show up for discussion on the Alliance.
One person (Barry Spector) occasionally incorporates something into his fairly regular blog posts, and a group of people regularly debate (bash) some version of politics, but why don't things like
- the Papal Encyclical on the climate,
- terrorist attacks,
- the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage,
- the racial tensions in Ferguson/Baltimore/Charleston,
etc. show up?
I was wondering if we could each take a turn to post a paragraph in the Forum each time something that seems socially charged or relevant occurs, and then we follow up by sending out a short notification and invitation to all members to come comment on it.
What do you think?
Replies
If nothing else, Bonnie, it would be worth an attempt at inviting dialogue. I agree with Donna that group agreements would be important to utilize. One of my friends just listened to our last webinar and she said that what she was excited about was that it was not theory or old myth but directly about what is going on today.
I also understand Michael's point that many people live in either/or world views where grey does not exist. For many the point of dialogue is to demonize the other, shout one's point the loudest, or destroy the other. Similar to what I experienced in the classroom as instructor and student, a person only wants to be taught what they already know or from the view point that they hold and if one strays then the teacher is a bad teacher, offensive, triggering, and etc. Even at Pacifica I experienced this!
I want to give it a go and will try to not be polarizing in my own speech as I can be very over the top in my world views.
Bonnie, rather than in written form, perhaps we could have an online/audio conversation on current topics (run somewhat like the last panel discussion); people could chat, too. There could be moderators, people who can talk about how they feel, what they think and/or their personal stories, about the topic.
Michael brings up important points for consideration and, if this forum/conversation were to happen, I think there should be some well thought-out protocols that would create a container for the conversations that allowed for/insisted upon respect, diversity of thought and opinion, and specific guidelines in which the discussions happen (for instance, when I do any type of class, group, or event, I have my "Group Agreements" - which focus on respect and safety considerations. Some of the agreements include, keeping confidentiality, no cross-talk, speaking in "I" messages/no rescuing or lecturing to another, allowing for feedback, but asking for permission first, etc.).
I have moved from mystification to a kind of reluctant acceptance, a condition that seems to be very American these days. I found this at PGI while I was there—lots of talk about ancient myth, but little about modern myth—the modern myths of the left and the right, and others. In our Islamic Traditions class the phenomenon of terrorism and all related issues never came up once. In the Christian Traditions class the prof. began the class by apologizing for the Christian religion, but the reasons were never given nor given space for debate as whether the apology even made sense.
I suspect that this prevalent attitude of public politeness (and private scorn) is partly because the socio-political issues have become so partisan and emotionally attached to the two prominent collective psyches (left and right) that it has gone beyond respectful debate or reasonable dialogue. I personally work with and among mostly left leaning folks, and sometimes have a difference of opinion on the issues you mentioned. But then I also have differing opinions with the right leaning folks. I find that I have no stable "home" and tend to irritate both "sides"--not intentionally. I have found the personal attachments to dogma on both sides so deeply held that I save my debates for those who make it clear that they really want to understand before casting aspersions and labeling someone as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, heretic, relativist, etc. Such epithets effectively shut down the conversation; I suspect that is the goal, conscious or unconscious. There aren't many folks I have found who are genuinely curious about the "other's" reasons for holding radically differing positions. Most of the major changes in my own soul have come through such conversations, often discussions that are deeply emotional and charged with passion—from which I leave offended, distraught and even defensive. But the emotional archetypal images and ideas implant themselves in the field of my psychic consciousness where they agitate, gestate and take on a life of their own. Over time some of the ideas change me, or formerly held ideas deepen with greater maturation. But such conversations seldom occur—especially on impersonal forums.
It is my view that the nation is at a dialogical impasse. The dam of open minded dialogue will break only when we are all so broken by tragedy and lost in the rubble of chaos, that we are forced to come together in order to listen to others with broken hearts and spirits. That grieves and horrifies me, but it seems to be the case. I hope not…I am willing to change my ideas…or at least willing to be willing. =-}
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Michael. Shall we (both) repost this in the Forum and ask the rest of the board to "tend" the conversation over the coming week?...