the propeace community - activism - Comments

Jeff Chapman-Crane poem and his "Agony of Gaia" sculpture

michael firewalker — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:58:14 -0400

maybe they fixed it since last you looked, silent lotus, because the sculpture is viewable now, and is a scene involving a barren hillside, with several tall, sculpted figures standing on it, who evoke the same sense of death and devastation that the "altar" at Golgotha does...as does the poem...

very well done,
michael firewalker

Jeff's sculpture

silent lotus — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:22:48 -0400

Hi Susan

Unfortunately i do not see the sculpture in these slides.
is there perhaps a better link ?

summer smile
silent lotus

" May your voice be loving enough to silence your own fears." ..... silent lotus
www.silentlotus.net

Meet in Boston

Andre Sheldon — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:42:53 -0400

Hello Susan,

Yes, it would be wonderful to meet with you in August! We have much to share. I would love to compare our spiritual paths, its interaction with reality, and how diversity makes the world special.

I look forward to your call.

Peace and Love,
Andre

With full-body chills...

Susan Livingston — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:32:15 -0400

...and a lump in my throat, I promise that I will investigate the movement you describe and respond to you in more detail. For now, I have a point I'd like you to ponder and a request for you to consider.

I'm not calling for a unified movement. On the contrary, I am calling on my inner resources to stretch and encompass diversity and beyond - conflict, chaos. I am asking myself to put my head together with racists, junk food junkies, libertarians - all kinds of people that violate my most cherished values.

When I saw your MA address and checked the google map, I was moved to ask for a meeting later this summer to explore our potential for collaboration. I'll be spending a week in metro Boston in mid-August, and I'm hoping to connect with a couple of other major contributors to this movement. Interested? I'll contact you directly within the week.

Editor, propeace.net

Women and Nonviolence

Andre Sheldon — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:41:52 -0400

Dear Susan,

I enjoyed your blog entry “Building a New World.” The positions you discussed are very progressive and intriguing. You wrote at the end that you wanted feedback to hash out some ideas.

The overall picture I received from your entry was a desire for unity. The second element was a need for a new political system. The third was the inclusion of spirituality and nonviolence. You finalized by stating you are still contemplating all these elements. For me, all the good work that is being done is not changing the core of the problems and if a major altercation happens in the world, people are not prepared to react nonviolently. Perhaps, a catalyst is required – something outside of the box, that will illustrate a new course of action and captures the world’s attention.

I would like to propose an initiative that gives meets the above criteria and gives credibility to the women’s agenda. The initiative itself would be the empowerment of women, specifically focused on peace and nonviolence. The initiative addresses unity, politics, spirituality and nonviolence.

Unity and Politics

On May 19th, in an AlterNet article Kathambi Kinoti, of AWID, wrote the following about a Srilatha Batliwala paper, “The challenge is in creating an overarching and shared political agenda so that on at least some set of issues feminist movements are speaking with a unified voice.”

The world is not focusing on the women’s agenda. What the world doesn’t realize is that the women’s agenda is not for themselves, but for others. Throughout time, it has been “for the children.” Herein lies the answer – a shared political agenda. The hypothesis is that if the world, women and men, mandates work for the children, a commonality, it would solve other problems. Are women able to direct the focus of society to prioritize working for the children? The end result, the goal, is elusive and subjective, but the road is what is important. The effort would be led by women, but not exclusive to women. Does the effort by women exemplify equality?

A mobilization of women around the world, for the children, would create unity. The unity would enable new political entities, such as the Earth Federation, you alerted me to. It sounds like a wonderful comprehensive plan. There are many supportive, visionary initiatives. Ex: Citizens Without Borders http://citizenswithoutborders.org/index.htm, Sophia Circles http://www.sophiacircles.org/, Tikun www.tikun.org, and the Open Society http://www.soros.org/.

What they don’t have is political clout! Part of the theory is that a people movement is required. Howard Zinn, author and activist, stated he would only follow a people movement. The director of the Boston Research Center, Virginia Benson, told me a study confirmed that for the U.N. to be more effective, it needs to be empowered by a people movement.

What will stimulate a people’s movement? Will women take on the role of peacemakers and change the world? On the Earth Federation website, I read the Manifesto, By Dr. Glen T. Martin. Part Eight, where do we go from here?, stated, “If many citizens of the Earth were to stand up on behalf of a decent world order at this crossroads of history, a world of sanity, peace, and prosperity would be just around the corner.” A catalyst is required to have the people stand up together.

Martin Luther King stated, in the Riverside Church speech, “Beyond Vietnam”, April 4th, 1967, “Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.”

Spirituality and Nonviolence

The next major element is nonviolence. Mahatma Gandhi said, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”

What if women and nonviolence are promoted as the catalyst? There are exceptions to every rule, but women are socialized to be less violent than men, therefore must have an advantage as promoters of peace.

Nonviolence works! The sages told us it works. How do we use it in the modern era?

What if a plan states it is time for “Nonviolence” to be the doctrine of all societies and countries. It is time for women to rise up, proactively, around the world, in every village, town and city to stop war, as a symbol of nonviolence, to “illustrate” unity, and to set in motion the development of a new political system of gender equality.

My theory is we, the people, have to DISPLAY nonviolence overtly. We, the people, must CREATE A MANDATE (political).

First peace within: By illustrating nonviolence, people will exhibit inner peace. It will be empowering. I agree with Maura Ubinger, people must find inner peace. Mother Theresa stated, “Peace begins with a smile.” There are thousands of spiritual and religious organizations that already support nonviolence. Would they support a women’s movement?

Proclaim nonviolence and NO violence for defense. (As you and Kathy Kelly agree) (I met Kathy and Cindy Sheehan two weeks before Cindy became famous. They were speaking at a Cape Cod Peace organization rally. I receive VCNV emails)

This all leads to STOPPING WAR and or preventing war. Therefore, we start by stating we will not allow war anymore. Women will be taking a proactive stance, based on kindness, compassion, forgiveness, with no violence associated! The plan is to create an achievement to set in motion equality and understanding in the future. The political elements will follow.

There are risks. Millions die in war. Nonviolence is the resolve. Both are dangerous, but what will affect opinions and societies in the future more?

All groups are attempting to enlist followers and be as large as possible. The plan is to be the largest, spiritual, nonviolent movement the world has ever seen.

Over the past six years, I have developed a plan called for a Global Strategy of Nonviolence, For the Children (GS of NV) and an initiative called a “Call to Women, a World-Wide Unity Campaign.” It is a people movement – an Action Plan and an Awareness Campaign. A Call to Women will be the catalyst. It is designed to create change, not wait for it. Conferences are imperative but there also is a need for action. Many state they are action plans, but do not create political clout. Please see my website, www.globalstrategyofnonviolence.org. (Still in development)

I’m writing to request your collaboration. I have the research, theories, and plans. The plans are designed as guidelines and include administration, funding, marketing, implementation, and follow-up. Plans include the enlistment of leaders and advisors.

I’m a Johnny Appleseed, a facilitator. The plan is designed as steps to change the political focus of the world (priorities “for the children”), address the obstacles of the male ensconced corporate, economic, military mind set – a Behemoth, via nonviolent conflict resolution, and empower women around the world to mobilize for change.

In conclusion, according to Riane Eisler, in the Chalice and the Blade, people have the intellect to change from a male dominated society to a partnership society (cultural transformation theory). I am dedicated to this premise.

James Carroll, columnist at the Boston Globe, June 9, 2008 wrote there is an “atmosphere of a civilization rooted in male supremacy.” The “…structure of oppression will not easily be dismantled.” Men “should want help in leaving it behind.”

Recently, at the United Nations conference, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) there was prolific evidence that women are not listened to. Despite incredible programs by NGO’s, women’s situations are getting worse instead of getting better. Reports of violence against women throughout the world abound. Each day our world is becoming more violent and going in the wrong direction. The world needs a counter balance, a movement for world-wide unity and nonviolence, giving credence to the moderate voice and showing mutual respect.

Socialization is the basic answer but obstacles and problems exist. The plan is idealistic, but the world needs action and idealism. Let’s create an ideal! Create curiosity. Create an appeal. Create an opportunity.

In preparation for after the election year, please work with me on this people movement to influence the new government and every government.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Andre Sheldon
calltowomen@rcn.com
andre@gsofnv.org
Newton, MA
617-964-5267

Sister Joan Chittister stated, from a speech at the Omega/VDay Conference in New York City, September 11, 2004:

“there must be a universal call to women and an organized international voice for peace.”

“The lives of our children, the protection of millions, the hopes of all humankind, wait again now for women, from opposite cultures, opposite tradition, to step over the line of political hatred to save them.”

“…must take a voice until they are given a voice.”

To paraphrase Sister Chittister: Women must be in the forefront because being first brings “courage and hope to others”.

Al Gore agrees

Susan Livingston — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:13:48 -0400

Just in case it's cheating to blog only the people who support my views, I'll confess that I've had two dissenting opinions. But one was just an outraged reaction and the other was so ponderous that I couldn't get through it. This quick reaction comes from Dan "the man" Manweiler, another APEC colleague.

...the government is now not in service to the people, but to corporations. I agree with Mr. Gore's premise in Assault on Reason - that we have lost discourse with our government and therefore are loosing the fabric of freedom. I salute Susan's efforts to dive at the heart of the issue.

Editor, propeace.net

Rethinking states' rights

Susan Livingston — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:47:58 -0400

On May 3rd, a fellow Appalachian Peace Education Center activist and grandmother with the very fortunate name of Rachael Bliss published an entry in response to this post in her blog I'm sharing a significantly shortened version of her remarks with you.

To many of us progressives, the idea of secession runs against our grain. You know, some of those southern states had to be put in their place when they kept insisting on "states' rights." How I used to HATE those words! To me, they meant segregation, white supremacy, bigotry, and rule by the "good ole boys!"

When our country was forming, there was controversy whether it would be a federalist or a confederate type of government. Less than 100 years later, states that preferred a federalist type of government prevailed in a war that cost half a million lives. Although slavery was ended with the Emancipation Act, justice for the former slaves lasted for just a few years during Reconstruction before some states initiated Jim Crow laws that denied rights to Blacks. The '50s and 60s saw a groundswell among African-Americans and their white allies, and people hoped that at last there would be equal rights for all in this country. Yet even today, we are still working for equal rights and true justice for all our citizens.

While we were fighting these internal battles among the states and between the states and the federal government, our country was growing into an empire, threatening smaller countries, enriching itself by spreading its influence throughout the world. Thus we have seen unilateral attack on Iraq, involvement in numerous civil wars in developing countries, and an ever-tightening relationship between the federal government and multi-national corporations.

Today, the USA is an imperialist empire, much like Rome and Great Britain were centuries ago. We have witnessed the breakup of the former Soviet Union; it is no longer a world power. When Great Britain shed many of its colonies, it became a much more representative government. Do you think that perhaps if China would give up Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, then it could govern the remaining people within its domain in a just manner? What does this say about the U-S-of-A? [Editor's note: Rachael, who said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?]

Many believe that our country as it is organized today is unmanageable. Our legislators don't truly represent the people who elected them, we have a President that acts like a king, our government is spying on its own citizenry, and some states claim they get the shaft when it comes to federal monies coming back to them. In essence, our government has lost touch with its citizens, and it is mainly in partnership with powerful corporations as they use the rest of the globe to secure resources, control puppet governments, attack leaders who don't cooperate, extend their tentacles into dangerous places they don't belong, and use our children as pawns in a gigantic global chess game.

What would our 50 states be like if we became five countries: the Northeast, the Northwest, Southeast, the Midwest and the Southwest? What if we did separate into the United Red States and the United Blue States? Maybe Vermont could at last become its own country. Perhaps the 50 most vocal interest groups could each settle in one state, and thus there would no longer be the imperial empire that rules the world, but instead there would be many smaller countries representative of the hopes, dreams and even eccentric interests of the people who live there.

One concern about separating into a bunch of new nation-states is the headache of negotiating interstate environmental regulations. Interstate commerce probably wouldn't be that difficult to manage since free trade is in full force now anyway. The most positive outcome would be that no one nation-state would be strong enough to rule the world. No one country would be able to unilaterally attack another country halfway around the globe. Maybe peace would truly break out in the world.

I may have to change my mind regarding states' rights. I may even have to think beyond states' rights - think of new countries from what are now states. Maybe our grandchildren will never know what it is like to live in an empire. Instead they will be citizens of Iowa, or Michigan or Vermont with a small government and a more truly representative type of governance. Could this happen? Remember, Thomas Jefferson himself said that every generation needs a revolution. Maybe this is the time!

I'm grateful to Rachael for this view of history through the eyes of a southern liberal.

Editor, propeace.net

Three-state solution

Susan Livingston — Mon, 05 May 2008 14:19:16 -0400

I received the following comment from Powell Foster, a fellow Appalachian Peace Education Center activist, on May 3, and I want to share it with the propeace community.

Even our constitution was drafted by plutocrats, and it has been downhill ever since.

Before the war between the states, the states as a whole were referred to as "the United States are..." not "the United States is." What followed was the industrial revolution and a Supreme Court decision in the late 1800s declaring that, under the
constitution, corporations had the same rights as people. When Truman was president, the decline in the balance of powers started, with the Executive Branch gaining unequal power. And despite efforts such as POCLAD, we have become a corporate democracy - government of, by and for the plutocrats.

I often have wondered, if the War Between the States had resulted in at least three nations - the United States, the Confederate States, and the Western United States - would it have resulted in a group of nations too weak to go to war to "save" (read "use for our benefit") other nations? Would the 3+ nations have formed some alliance that might incorporate common needs such as one monetary system, open borders, free trade among the nations of the alliance, health, environmental and safety regulation? Is dissolving the union now and forming such an alliance among the individual states a practical way to meet these common needs?

Thank you, Powell. This is the question I want to address in order to reframe secession as a constitutionally-defensible act of nonviolent civil disobedience.

Editor, propeace.net

New*Horizon

Rainbow Brain — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:33:36 -0500

When media, government, corporate, and religious leaders ignore and attempt to marginalize the protests, petitions and votes of even a minority of the people, let alone the mass majority, it is a CLEAR SIGN that those who are in the streets, ARE making a difference, as the first reaction of every failed policy maker, CEO and leader is to make motions, words and actions which amount to burying their head in the sand.

As the numbers grow, the votes and money disappear, sales drop, fuel supplies begin to backup, the economy and environment turns steadily downward, with death and destruction at their door step, the powers that be will either change or be swept away by the rise of the storm.

This is the old energy way of doing business, and it will not change easily nor readily, until it is completely replaced by the alternatives which are now looming mightily on y/our new horizon.

BL*M

thoughts, emotions

papananook — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:21:53 -0400

I feel you, Susan, and I think you are a very intelligent person.
We all need to get outside more and reconnect with Gaia as living organisms ...to find a balance between our minds and bodies, thoughts and emotions...i recommend a day of body-surfing in a clean ocean...that always restores Harmony to my soul.
But since i live in Alaska now that's impossible, so i just roll around outside with my grandkids...

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

sushil_yadav — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:57:13 -0400

Regarding the discussion about gaps between Thinking and gaps between Emotion :

The gap between Days is Night.
The gap between Nights is day.

sushil_yadav

Bottled*Lightning

Rainbow Brain — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:33:41 -0400

The speed of Awareness is like lightning in a bottle, one only needs to remove the cork and share its light and energy with others, it is then that its pace and destructive force can heal and slow the aggression of ignorance.

BL*M
Global-Luvolution.blogspot.com

Thoughts and Emotions in the Information Age

Susan Livingston — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:25:58 -0400

There is a fundamental linguistic problem in our society, and after I explain it, I am hoping that some of our users who were raised in other linguistic environments will tell us if the same difficulty is found in their language. Until we know that, we don't know if the phenomenon I'm going to describe is a human thing or specific to one language group.

Start with the statement that "emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking."

Now turn it around, and see if "thinking is what we experience during gaps in our emotion."

The linguistic problem is that we do not distinguish between the two, and the result is that we use them interchangably - much to our unfortunate confusion. Another problem is that we don't have a good verb to express emotions.

*I am comfortable - a thought in which the subject is defined.

I feel comfortable - a feeling in which a state of being of the subject is described.

In the first assertion, "am" functions as an equal sign in the same way as describing a chosen profession, for example.

I am a teacher - a thought in which the subject is defined.

*I feel a teacher - an action (feel) by an agent (I) on an object (teacher).

That we accept the first pair but not the second pair as equivalent presents a problem. We are not our emotions. The fact that they fade away and we're still here is proof of that. By maintaining constant vigilance about what we identify with, we can create some space between ourselves and our emotions and perhaps begin to identify to ourselves and others what we feel. When we lose that space and become the emotion, we can't get enough perspective to describe it. Then, although we may display emotion, our emotional vocabulary and intelligence remain low. So I'm advocating that we develop the habit of saying what we feel instead of what we are.

We talk a lot in NVC about distinguishing between a feeling and a thought. Although the speaker meant the first two examples to be equivalent, we would argue that the first is a thought and the second is a feeling. Yet consider how often you hear statements that start with "I feel" and are completed with totally cerebral content.

*I feel it would be better to go elsewhere.

I feel angry; I think it would be better to go elsewhere.

I feel like I'm making a mistake.

I feel anxious; I think I'm making a mistake.

This is an interesting set. The first sentence definitely doesn't describe a feeling, so why can we accept the third? We can accept the third if you have made enough of this kind of mistake in the past, and you noticed that you always experienced the same emotion, or if what follows "like" is well-known to produce a consistent emotion across people. Then, the word "like" marks a simile.

I feel like a lost child.

If making mistakes has brought about several feelings in the past, then it is clearer to use number four rather than a lot of qualifiers.

*I feel like when I used the full measure of liquid in that pancake recipe and they came out so flat and hard.

I still have a problem with using the word feel for both of the concepts in the second pair of examples near the top. I like to reserve the verb "to feel" for describing my awareness of sensory input.

I feel a headache coming on.

His beard feels coarse.

We have a perfectly good verb to use when we want to say that an emotion is being expressed: to emote. Yet we save this verb for the non-verbal aspects of communication such as body language and tone of voice.

*I emote strong.

I emote strongly when I'm acting.

Notice that in the second example, it is clear that "strong" is not being used as a feeling word at all.

I have to disagree with Sushil Yadav's contention that emotions are slow. For physiological reasons, they last longer than thoughts, yet they start sooner than thoughts. They are more pervasive than thoughts; thoughts are brain waves - electrical impulses that travel along the neuron and cross the synapse when the impulse causes the release of the neurotransmitter, which is then picked up by the next neuron and sets off a new electrical impulse. Emotions, on the other hand, are chemical cocktails that travel in the blood, a slower mechanism, yet they start faster because the sensory apparatus is more directly connected to the emotional centers of the brain than they are to the cerebral cortex.

In one of the source articles, Sushil Yadav is wanting a way to measure emotion. I maintain that we have several ways to do that. We can measure tiny changes in the amount and salinity of perspiration, tiny changes in the temperature and electrical charges of the skin, tiny changes in the contraction of a muscle, etc., and then correlate these with the subject's self-report to find qualitative differences between emotions. When it's quantitative differences that are being studied, rating scales work just fine when there are no marks on the line and only the extremes are labeled. The subject's mark can then be measured afterward. This technique puts all measures on the same scale and overcomes a great deal of response bias.

I appreciate the loss of self-connection that comes with an urban lifestyle in the information age, but I don't agree that the solution is to return to rural living and slide rule calculation. I haven't yet give up on the human race's ability to adapt and learn how to slow down without regressing to some idealized former state. I think the simple act of becoming aware that we have the problem is already at least half of the solution.

Editor, propeace.net