[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00247: Re: lozenge...

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 03:49:31 +0200
Subject: Re: lozenge...

At 14:01 +0100 16-05-2005, richard(at)cyberjournal.org wrote:
If people are ready for some dialog, I'd welcome some comments
on my WikiPage, which has sitting in the corner ignored...

[HarmonizationAndLocalism]

Richard,

as for myself, I tried to comment on what you write, as you
can see in my post appended below.

For some reason, the post bounced back - nor I've read any
reply of yours to it in your later posting.

Regards, antonio

==================== appended post ===================

Mailing-List: contact newslog-help(at)cyberjournal.org; run by ezmlm
Date: 16 May 2005 07:22:30 -0000
From: newslog-help(at)cyberjournal.org
Subject: Returned post for newslog(at)cyberjournal.org
To: rossin(at)tin.it

Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
newslog(at)cyberjournal.org mailing list.

I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at newslog-owner(at)cyberjournal.org.

I'm sorry, the list moderators for the newslog list
have failed to act on your post. Thus, I'm returning it to you.
If you feel that this is in error, please repost the message
or contact a list moderator directly.

--- Enclosed, please find the message you sent.


Return-Path: <rossin(at)tin.it>
Delivered-To: moderator for newslog(at)cyberjournal.org
Received: (qmail 29858 invoked from network); 11 May 2005 06:16:09 -0000
Received: from vsmtp3alice.tin.it (HELO vsmtp3.tin.it) (212.216.176.143)
by thomas.if.net with SMTP; 11 May 2005 06:16:09 -0000
Received: from [212.216.220.252] (212.216.220.4) by vsmtp3.tin.it
(7.0.027) (authenticated as rossin(at)tin.it)
id 42805E340007C7FA; Wed, 11 May 2005 07:21:12 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rossin(at)tin.it@box.tin.it
Message-Id: <a06002000bea7097662c3@[212.216.218.227]>
In-Reply-To: <p06002001bea55aca035e@[192.168.1.1]>
References: <p06002001bea55aca035e@[192.168.1.1]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 03:49:32 +0200
To: richard(at)cyberjournal.org
From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Cc: cj(at)cyberjournal.org, renaissance-network(at)cyberjournal.org,
newslog(at)cyberjournal.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

At 21:07 +0100 9-05-2005, richard(at)cyberjournal.org wrote:
Friends,

Those of us who have "something to say", and I include
myself, have lots of outlets for our ideas these days.
Besides the usual magazines and books, by which means
we can publish, we can construct websites, create or join
online forums, etc. There are many ways for us to express
ourselves, and get "the word out" to significant audiences.
What we tend to do, and again I include myself, is to "hone
our message", become more persuasive, more educated,
and proclaim our insights to audiences that more or less
agree with us.

I see a paradox here. Not in what you say, Richard, but
in the communication context that results from one's wish
to change -- myself perhaps -- and the audience.

The audience want to follow a leader in order to change,
say, their social arrangement: in short, the whole society.
I want to get the audience into changing their way to follow
a leader -- maybe the more persuasive and educated, honey
one -- in order to make changes, and get 'hem to think for
themselves, to be autonomous and independent.

How to solve this paradox?


I happened to ask myself, in an idle moment, regarding
these traits of ours, "What game are we playing?".
We must admit, at least I admit it to myself, that we
are playing the game of "faction building". That is, we
are trying to "spread the word" to a hopefully increasing
circle of readers, and eventually we hope that everyone
will "see things clearly", wake up, and things will change.

But the reality, perhaps sad, is that people in a pluralistic
society never settle on one viewpoint.

The fact that people "never settle on one viewpoint" is
one viewpoint" which I agree with. . How can we spread
this viewpoint?

They always divide
themselves into factions. Partly this is due to upbringing,
partly religion, partly psychology and personality types,
partly government propaganda - but whatever it is, history
shows us that people are never going to wake up, en mass,
to a particular perspective on the truth. The only times this
has happened have been under coercive theocratic regimes,
and I don't think that's what any of us are after.

See above. I am after this "wake up" not as the result
of their gregarious relationship with coercive theocratic
regimes, as well as their gregarious relationship with the
more persuasive and educated, honey leader. I want to
change their way to build up social relationships, towards
a non-gregarious, thus non-hierarchic, social arrangement.


In today's world,
it is the fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim, who
are winning the game of "faction building", if anyone is -
certainly it isn't liberals and progressives.

The thought I would like to share - and I'm not sure how
many ears this will be useful to - is that we consider a
different approach. And again I admit that for me this
advice will be as difficult to act on as for anyone. The
approach I am referring to is this: instead of "giving out"
(a colorful Irish expression for "expressing") our
viewpoints to "the choir", why don't we seek out people
we disagree with and listen to them?

I do not think of this approach that it may be useful to
my "changing society" purpose, because it would lead me
to listen to their more persuasive and educated, honey
leaders or top-speakers. In the case of fundamentalist
Muslims, whom I disagree with, to their muezzins. In the
case of home fundamentalists, whom I disagree with,
to their media opinion-makers in office, including church
priests.

That is, it is just this approach what I want to change.


Shouting hasn't converted them; they don't subscribe
to your email list, and they aren't going to agree with
your "giving out". You know; you've tried. Why not
try to find out where they're really coming from?

All of them -- and all of us -- come from a mother's
womb and are first modelled by family feed-back. As
you may know as so late, Richard, I am searching for
the family feed-back variant that might be more suitable
to model the audience towards the more autonomous and
independent, less gregarious and hierarchic, approach and
sharing-in to society.

Why not try to understand why what they believe
makes sense to them? I don't mean this as prying,
to better argue against them, but rather as a means
to understand why everyone doesn't think the way
you do. The answer is not that they are stupid, or
that they don't care about humanity. The answer
is not even that they have different deep values. In
most cases the answer is that they perceive things
differently, or have had different life experiences.
Such things are not character defects.

The answer IMHO is, they do simply perceive things
in the way their persuasive leaders tell them to do.
It is just this way, what I want to change.


To the extent we pursue faction building, we are
playing into the game of adversarial politics. What
are our chances of victory, realistically, in that
rigged game? Look at the other players at the table:
not only the mainstream parties, totally corrupt, but
the mass media, the voting machines, etc. To the
extent we learn to listen to and understand our
brothers and sisters who don't agree with us, we
are undermining the game of adversarial politics.

What I am suggesting is an approach to our "audience"
based on listening rather than giving out. If we start by
giving out, our audience is limited to those who already
agree with us. If we start by listening, our audience, in
some sense, is limited only by our ability to communicate.

for whomever these words are meaningful,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org

And what about, if we change the current family
feed-back model ? Perhaps in the dialectic way shown
at http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm ?

Regards, antonio

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]