Occupy London for me was a lesson in waking up to reality. That even the most noble causes are not yet ready to go further in terms of the truth.
At least in the reform movement there are some who are asking:
"so what do we do now?"
Among these friends I remain confident. We're all asking the same question for the same reason. We realise its no longer a technical or political question. Its a moral one.
This is good because the only way to build and maintain a mass popular movement is to appeal to the moral sense of the people. What is right from wrong.
Occupy has proven this, succeeding at the start by pointing out the morally corrupt social system and failing no sooner than it got political and intellectual about it.
At St Paul's I persistently asked to the point of being annoying, that we talk about "what is the problem at the root" and be bold about that. Not what is our political solution. And was reluctant to form the economics working groups because I knew we would fast drift into the ignorant and selfish politics of punishment, blame and jealousy.
At the founding meeting of the economics working group I proposed that:
"We do not offer any solutions until we have investigated and agreed on the deeper causes of the issues we are here to protest about"
We reached consensus immediately on this. We have not reached such a fast consensus on anything else since. Ever since we have ignored this founding principle. The Occupier momentum is almost entirely in opposition to this approach. Its bitterly disappointing. But a learning.
So we know more fully now what works and what does not.
Yet we "Friends" are still asking: "What now?". We don't really have a clue short of converting the people to metaphysics of some kind.
Yup, you guessed right. That will be a part of my approach.
At least in the reform movement there are some who are asking:
"so what do we do now?"
Among these friends I remain confident. We're all asking the same question for the same reason. We realise its no longer a technical or political question. Its a moral one.
This is good because the only way to build and maintain a mass popular movement is to appeal to the moral sense of the people. What is right from wrong.
Occupy has proven this, succeeding at the start by pointing out the morally corrupt social system and failing no sooner than it got political and intellectual about it.
At St Paul's I persistently asked to the point of being annoying, that we talk about "what is the problem at the root" and be bold about that. Not what is our political solution. And was reluctant to form the economics working groups because I knew we would fast drift into the ignorant and selfish politics of punishment, blame and jealousy.
At the founding meeting of the economics working group I proposed that:
"We do not offer any solutions until we have investigated and agreed on the deeper causes of the issues we are here to protest about"
We reached consensus immediately on this. We have not reached such a fast consensus on anything else since. Ever since we have ignored this founding principle. The Occupier momentum is almost entirely in opposition to this approach. Its bitterly disappointing. But a learning.
So we know more fully now what works and what does not.
Yet we "Friends" are still asking: "What now?". We don't really have a clue short of converting the people to metaphysics of some kind.
Yup, you guessed right. That will be a part of my approach.
1 comments:
Hi Robin,
Yes, converting people to a new metaphysical understanding is an absolutely essential part of the solution.
I'm glad if this realization has been the result of your time at St Pauls.
I did make this perspective clear early on in our conversation when I felt you were displaying a terrible anger against whoever you were perceiving as the 1% - which you were adamant would need to be met by great violence. I hope, perhaps, that you have now got this feeling out of your system, rather...and are ready to look at more sophisticated ways of addressing the problem.
I enclose this post from way back in the Autumn when I was pretty annoyed at your completely inane rebuttal about needing to "look in my own heart...etc".
You never did answer it, so maybe you will be able to contemplate it now.
Blogger Woodman59 said...
Get over WHAT, exactly - the idea that massive violence is inevitable in order to achieve our aims??
This...then followed by a load of "spiritual" gobbledy-gook?
No, brother, get down from your pulpit - and listen to some real spiritual wisdom, with us, down in the pews.
ALL of us are victims...including all in the 1%. We are all one, whether we realise it or not. Who did Jesus say his mission was for...the 99...,or the 1 who has gone astray?
We (many of us in the 99% - especially those of us at the bottom of the pile) often find it so hard to find love, in this materialistic society, because of our poverty...whereas they (i.e. those in the 1%) ironically often find it JUST as hard to find love - because they have so MUCH money.
For you, the essence, you say...is freedom. Well, living in a gilded cage, or a wooden one...it is all the same, essentially we are all trapped.
The only answer is to help each other out of our cages...the poor, and the rich...working together - and we ain't gonna do that with any violence whatsoever.
So time to beat your sword into a ploughshare, and roll up your sleeves...and join 'The Real Revolution' - the Love Revolution.
We've had enough of violence, man...that road leads nowhere fast. A bit of creative thinking on all our parts...that's all it takes...and we will get the 1% to join us - we will be 100%.
Are you up for the challenge?
P.S. I'm not a follower of Christ...and not suggesting that as a solution, in case anyone is worried about that...from my NT reference...but I do nonetheless believe there is relevance from that particular reform movement - which has in fact inspired so many other people over so many generations.
Post a Comment