MMMark's Whycandoo Room: 2002.1.9: Manners & Methods    
 2002.1.9: Manners & Methods8 comments
9 Jan 2002 @ 18:41, by Mark Smollin

Please review my previous log on "Negative Energy" as a preface to this post. We are here to fashion a success. NCN is by no means an optimum vehicle to assist in this task, but it is the beginning of what we do have as an asset. I am prompted to write this because of some dialog that transpired in the Social Systems Design group. Social Systems Design is probably the key subject of the future, and yet many of the responses did not move us closer to an agreement on how to build a success. Is it of any value to say something will not work before it is tried? Does it accomplish anything to say you disagree without providing the alternative? Perhaps we should write a members guide to keep our heads on the same wave length?

This brings us to the present, where we ponder and plot a course of corrective consciousness. How is that done? It begins with enough humility to look at things from the ground up, from scratch, without our reflexive egos, and ignoring the stereotypical meanings attached to words that have been abused in our language. Instead of relying on our socialized understanding of things, we will be well served to define a firsthand version of truth. That takes effort and energy. This lies at the heart of what pioneers do – they start from a position assuming ignorance of a subject, giving respect for the divine nature of diversity, and then proceed to create a new, better, or more accurate truth. We have little or no direct experience to make the unknown, so I emplore you to search deep into your soul to the openness that requires.

Manners:
I suggest that we drop our egos at the door when we click to logon to NCN. If we confine our input to constructive offerings, then contest will be avoided and we will stay focused on contribution, not criticism. At the same time we often rush to write without supporting our position clearly and that makes us vulnerable to being disrespected for a marginal effort. I have yet to place my dissertation on "Relationships", but will list some of the basic principles here.

Relationships are all about relating! Personal relationships are not predestined to be adversarial and cannot survive on an adversarial basis! There is no contest, for there are only things to be lost in that type of process. Without being trustworthy neither party or parties will have any confidence in that association. It is always our duty to maintain our integrity. Given our self-professed consciousness to the principles of love, we must always try to employ loving techniques through acts of kindness unconditionally. It is not loving or fair to impose personal preference, SOP, or other pre-conceived methods on your partner(s). When it concerns the mechanics of keeping the kitchen, paying the bills, or designing social systems, harmony will be reached through mutual agreement and logic for the common ground. If you are angered by someone’s post, or their response to a post, it is a misplaced and inappropriate state-of-mind, based on a false conclusion you made – no malice was intended. We must address these automatic responses with compassion and curiosity and to forge a stronger relationship. I have imposed the following rules on my behavior:

1] I will never assume malice in my relationships or take offense personally.
2] I will not engage in the futile and wasteful exercise of being critical.
3] I will take responsibility for my education and knowledge before giving of myself.
4] I will not give anything of myself to others that is not loving, constructive, supportive and enabling.
5] I will strive at all costs to be responsible.

Methods:
The "Subjects" section of NCN is new like much of the site. I have been trying to use it as a workspace and would like to see the software enhanced to function as a progressive tool that nurtures ideas to their maturity. We must use discipline to contribute quality and not quantity. I don’t see this part of the site as a resource tool for research, because we already have many portals for that purpose and FCE is pioneering the collection innovative technologies. Instead, I have been trying to fill it with distilled wisdom that we can use to direct ourselves and others. We might call it a rule book, or social guide to success, but the label for it is not important, it is the information we place there that counts. It is not a chat room. For instance, if we know how crime comes into being we can avoid engaging in that behavior; if we know why America is rotting, we can avoid that behavior and make a solution.

One technique for concept development right now would be to edit the previous post with the idea of refining it, and thereby passing it along in the evolutionary process If that is a larger task than writing a fresh proposal, then a new one should be started.

The Earth Charter is one such project where many people stayed with the project to forge an internationally viable code of conduct and human rights and they can now present the completed document.

We must contribute to perfecting an efficient way of relating and communicating. We need your input and labor to do that. When we are irresponsible, freedom is compromised and privilege lost. The remarkable thing about freedom is the opportunity to make either a poor decision, or a healthy decision. The first step in the creative process, where one has total freedom to do anything, is to clearly decide that which is out-of-bounds and undesirable. Let us act honorably and constructively here.

[< Back] [MMMark's Whycandoo Room]

Category:  

8 comments

10 Jan 2002 @ 14:35 by maxtobin : Relating
Having refered to your previous posting, the following thought springs to mind. Here (newciv.org) we have a chance to 'grow up in public', what an opportunity to share and embrace ever more unifying concepts from divergent aspects of our collective one self. You have my vote and full support in your activities, the facilitator of todays needs will enjoy the relaxing life as a beach-comber when that phase/task is complete, together then we move on to the next phase and there we will see others e-merge to carry the focus. I think the idea of trying to leave ego-agenda to the side is an excellent guiding principle as we refine the steps and moves of our dance e-volving a meta agenda which will be ALL embracing and empowering of the total planetary phenomena. In cosmic terms (my belief) we are not indipensible and have the freedom to coolectivly and unwitingly destroy the environment for our species, and life will go on, a new form will evolve to suit the changed ecosystem and a new balance will manifest just as it seems it did for the dinosaurs. BUT I do sense that we are an eternal pattern of the creation, self observing and divinely creative.  

10 Jan 2002 @ 15:19 by kay : Thought
I am used to entering a turf where I know what is expected of me. I know what the rules are. The chat rooms often seem to be without rules, at least I don't always know what is being asked or expected of me. I feel a bit lost and that helps me to feel defensive. I made a prosmise to myself not to engage in hostilities. I also feel that much of what goes on is ineffective as far as resolving world needs and issues. Work groups appeal to me. I group that not only knows what the problem areas are but also knows what the positive tools of overcoming and problem solving are. What do those tools look like and how to we use them. I would like to see a problem solving group evolve. I am listening. I am thinking.  

10 Jan 2002 @ 15:22 by kay : added note
I am very aware that NCN has many other plases to go besides the chat rooms but it is often the first place a newbie lands. It should be user friendly to everyone.  

10 Jan 2002 @ 16:11 by finny : Manners and Methods
It's a tall order mmmark. I admire your commitment to the common good and the ideals that promote that. I will continue to observe your space with interest. I especially like the way you have communicated your ideas as rules or methods you find useful.

Myself, I still want to get dirty from time to time. Whilst I don't invite conflict I won't run from it. I enjoy getting through it and because of the intensity it seems to shift stuff quickly. Mostly I think we don't handle confIict well and we need to be albe to if we want to be effective people. I am aware that not everybody views it as I do and accomadate that.

Similiarily, I find negativity in itself is OK, especially viewed as a release, or a call for connection. I don't mind negativity, in fact after an overdose of love and light I look forward to it.

 

11 Jan 2002 @ 00:09 by mmmark : Wow Finny!
I appreciate your larger scale picture. Healthy disagreement is one thing, argument another, and war yet another version, but my writing here is designed expressly to lubricate our ability to network. We have all spent hours in debates, but I have never seen the fruit of common interest come out of a process that does not look for it. Variety and diversity are splendors of the Universe, and I have yet to work with an open, cooperative and effective group of people who are truly interested in the public welfare.  

14 Jan 2002 @ 00:57 by ming : Dialogue
Yes, by all means, let's figure out how to relate and communicate effectively. For me, what I come back to is always what I recognize as *dialogue*. Dialogues as defined by, for example, David Bohm. Where we're sort of sitting in a circle and all examining something in the middle of our circle. Where we each in turn will talk honestly about what we experience. Or where we'll be quiet if there is nothing to say. And where we won't see any need to argue for or against what others are saying, where we don't need to answer and refute and qualify what others in the circle are saying. We are affected by what they say, but we always return to talking about what we perceive in the middle of the circle. To me there's a certain feeling to that experience, one I've experienced many times in dialogue groups, or spontaneously emerging in certain kinds of groups. And I notice it is rather difficult to create that feeling, that style of dialogue, without everybody being very clear on the principles to start with. I also notice that it is very difficult to create in an online forum. I've seen a number of groups online that tried to dedicate themselves to dialogue, and that instead ended up in an adversarial argument about what dialogue really is. But, by all means, let's not give up. Let's find out how to exist together in a creative, supportive, non-judgemental space of exploration and growth. It is possible, it exists, it can be done.  

14 Jan 2002 @ 01:25 by ming : Criticism
Now, I agree that it isn't going to work if we continously engage in adversarial relations, if we're trying to win arguments, and if the other people have to end up being wrong for us to end up being right. But I'm not particularly ready to give up everything that looks like criticism or being critical. I don't mean the criticism of a person. I see little need in a constructive environment for being critical and judgmental of other people. Judging and criticising others is usually a destructive activity. But I'm talking about the license to have something to say about specific plans that are on the table. I've gotten into trouble with people many times because of this, I must admit. To me the game changes when we move from just general encouragement of everything good and positive into a specific collaboration with a specific focus and specific aims. E.g. if I meet you on the street or in a chat room and you say you're working on a car that runs on water, I'll say "Great, that's wonderful! Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes". But if you and I decide to get together to actually create such a car together, I will be a lot more particular about what I go along with and what I won't. I won't just give you all my time and money for the next couple of years, unless I have some idea that the plan is going to work. I would want to go over the project plans and the mechanics of this invention very, very carefully, and I would want to tell you which parts I think are weak and that we need to work on. I'm afraid we wouldn't get very far if I could only be "positive" about everything you come up with, unless your plan happened to already be perfect. If a coordinated plan is necessary in a collaboration (and it isn't always), then some kind of negotiation of facts and viewpoints and hunches needs to take place. I can't just tell everybody "Yeah, I'm sure you're right!", particularly if I have a hunch or the knowledge to see that what they plan on doing would jeopardize the whole project. Doesn't mean there's any reason for putting anybody down, but I would find it vital that I am able to share what I know, or what I see. But, what possibly makes this difficult is that many people identify themselves with their ideas. So, any disagreeing comment with their idea is taken as a negative judgment on their person. We need to find ways of relating where we can engage in productive collaborations with everything we've got, without anybody getting hurt.  

20 Jan 2002 @ 13:08 by peazritr : ::thick skinned for the isms::
^nice reads^ & my two cents (in the collective paradigm or what i call our "pair or dimes") is related to you (mmmark) saying: "Relationships are all about relating! Personal relationships are not predestined to be adversarial and cannot survive on an adversarial basis! There is no contest, for there are only things to be lost in that type of process. Without being trustworthy neither party or parties will have any confidence in that association. It is always our duty to maintain our integrity." my two cents being communities of trust by necessity rely on individuals who trust themselves.  

Other entries in
3 Oct 2008 @ 02:43: What 4
31 May 2004 @ 00:13: Memorial For America
24 Dec 2003 @ 18:22: Seasons Greetings
2 Dec 2003 @ 15:12: Shared Purpose
8 Jun 2003 @ 00:27: Namasté = Respect
22 Jan 2003 @ 20:59: Doers & Democracy
10 Jan 2003 @ 14:47: NEW STYLE THINKING
22 Dec 2002 @ 13:22: Wonderful Winter Holidays To You
4 Jun 2002 @ 02:13: Relationships
16 May 2002 @ 04:02: Thanks For Telling Me

[< Back] [MMMark's Whycandoo Room] [PermaLink]?