http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/12/MNG6FP74D61.DTL
While I'm glad this issue is getting more attention and happy to hear California is on board with putting on the pressure for some immediate changes, and while in general I agree (partially) with the governor's take on guilt, I think this kind of approach is too little too late.
It's one thing to avoid beating yourself up with guilt about your choices in the past. It's another to keep on keeping on with your "powering of private airplanes" in Arnold's case and claim neo-environmentalism. You can let go of focusing on the guilt, because that focus can be crippling, but still move forward making different (maybe, better?) choices in the future.
I think global warming is past the "movement" phase that Schwarzenegger is describing and that the facts are out there (from scientists, not just body builders) that we have to make massive changes as far as conservation (on a wide scale). Guilt aside, its just the moral course of action moving forward.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"The one thing we know is we will outlast him."
Not much time to post lately...not much time today either. But I was reading this article http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/117637558539880.xml&coll=2
and the last quote left me feeling hopeful.
"The one thing we know is we will outlast him." Yay!
and the last quote left me feeling hopeful.
"The one thing we know is we will outlast him." Yay!
Saturday, March 3, 2007
the poor and those who will become poor
Thinking about the current "war" situation reminded me of this letter written by Mother Theresa preceding the Gulf War.
"Dear President George Bush and President Saddam Hussein,
I come to you with tears in my eyes and God's love in my heart to plead to you for the poor and those who will become poor if the war that we all dread and fear happens. I beg you with my whole heart to work for, to labor for God's peace and to be reconciled with one another.
You both have your cases to make and your people to care for but first please listen to *the One who came into the world to teach us peace.* You have the power and strength to destroy God's presence and *image*, his men, his women and his children. Please listen to the will of God. God has created us to be loved by his love and not destroyed by our hatred...."
Wise words from a truly holy person.
"Dear President George Bush and President Saddam Hussein,
I come to you with tears in my eyes and God's love in my heart to plead to you for the poor and those who will become poor if the war that we all dread and fear happens. I beg you with my whole heart to work for, to labor for God's peace and to be reconciled with one another.
You both have your cases to make and your people to care for but first please listen to *the One who came into the world to teach us peace.* You have the power and strength to destroy God's presence and *image*, his men, his women and his children. Please listen to the will of God. God has created us to be loved by his love and not destroyed by our hatred...."
Wise words from a truly holy person.
Monday, February 26, 2007
"Jesus Camp" and memes
Whew...I'm on a roll with the religious stuff tonight. But, the following comments aren't really about religion but about agendas.
If you have not seen "Jesus camp" you have got to see it! The whole film is troubling and interesting, but the most interesting thing from my perspective...and this relates back to the "sheltering" post, is listening to these parents and "preacher" who obviously truly love their kids and believe they have their best interests in mind! Juxtaposing this against what one might consider "more progressive" agendas/values and formulaic approaches to these things is really interesting and thought provoking.
memes: "self replicating ideas passed from brain to brain via behavior and the imitation of behavior. Memes exhibit the features of evolution. They are inherited in that they are copied. They vary in that the copying is not exact, but is subject to subtle and larger mutations through imperfect copying. There is a process of selection in which the memes that survive will tend to be those that are highly MEMORABLE, useful, or PROVOKE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE."
In "With Consent...", Jan Fortune-Wood makes the statement about memes that "Even when we rebel, we may often find that we are doing little more than buying into the same meme from another angle." She gives an example of Patrick, whose parents were both alcoholics but who believes he has "beaten the meme of alcoholism but in fact he is still playing it out. He sees the world through the lense of this meme..." surrounding his fears that his son will have an interest in drinking alcohol.
She also gives an example of Susan. Susan is greatly influenced by "natural living" in her parenting, but comes to realize that she wants to be treating her children as "unique individuals rather than according to a...stereotype of what may or may not be 'natural.'" She begins to question the "natural living" memeplex and starts to feel "disenchanted." However "there are some important insights within the natural living memeplex" and Susan starts to be able to see...that although this "memeplex" of natural living does not have all the answers that there are some "very valuable insights" there, along with some "very coercive ideas."
This relates to what I was saying about "living by avoidance." Like, maybe the focus on avoidance of these things (like, say, behaviorism out in the world or...hmmm...not wanting to be around kids with spider man clothes on...lol, I'm kidding for sake of example!) is living out the same meme from another angle. I think it's so important for focus to be on the bigger picture in the relationship, what it is that we do want to do...what we are bringing to/giving in the relationship. How we are an advocate, a support system. The people in the relationship and what they want and need.
If you have not seen "Jesus camp" you have got to see it! The whole film is troubling and interesting, but the most interesting thing from my perspective...and this relates back to the "sheltering" post, is listening to these parents and "preacher" who obviously truly love their kids and believe they have their best interests in mind! Juxtaposing this against what one might consider "more progressive" agendas/values and formulaic approaches to these things is really interesting and thought provoking.
memes: "self replicating ideas passed from brain to brain via behavior and the imitation of behavior. Memes exhibit the features of evolution. They are inherited in that they are copied. They vary in that the copying is not exact, but is subject to subtle and larger mutations through imperfect copying. There is a process of selection in which the memes that survive will tend to be those that are highly MEMORABLE, useful, or PROVOKE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE."
In "With Consent...", Jan Fortune-Wood makes the statement about memes that "Even when we rebel, we may often find that we are doing little more than buying into the same meme from another angle." She gives an example of Patrick, whose parents were both alcoholics but who believes he has "beaten the meme of alcoholism but in fact he is still playing it out. He sees the world through the lense of this meme..." surrounding his fears that his son will have an interest in drinking alcohol.
She also gives an example of Susan. Susan is greatly influenced by "natural living" in her parenting, but comes to realize that she wants to be treating her children as "unique individuals rather than according to a...stereotype of what may or may not be 'natural.'" She begins to question the "natural living" memeplex and starts to feel "disenchanted." However "there are some important insights within the natural living memeplex" and Susan starts to be able to see...that although this "memeplex" of natural living does not have all the answers that there are some "very valuable insights" there, along with some "very coercive ideas."
This relates to what I was saying about "living by avoidance." Like, maybe the focus on avoidance of these things (like, say, behaviorism out in the world or...hmmm...not wanting to be around kids with spider man clothes on...lol, I'm kidding for sake of example!) is living out the same meme from another angle. I think it's so important for focus to be on the bigger picture in the relationship, what it is that we do want to do...what we are bringing to/giving in the relationship. How we are an advocate, a support system. The people in the relationship and what they want and need.
"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17314883/site/newsweek/
The buzz around this pseudo science/religion/self help/how to get rich marketing campaign has amazed me! I have been so perplexed by this, and the following surrounding it, that I actually watched the movie! For a couple of weeks there I wasted way too much time on this.
I've thought about this from all kinds of angles, and I think what is one of the most brilliant things about this marketing is the absence of having to wait until "the next life" for your efforts to be fruitful. But the most brilliant, hands down, thing of all is...according to the inherent philosophy...you only have yourself to blame if you do not attract what you want! It's hardly a new idea, but a smart "think" (you know, the thinks that you think-Dr. Seuss) to package up and sell afresh all the same. This is way more intelligent than this fellow marketing campaign http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ in my opinion. Although...it shares many of the same characteristics.
Either way...most of Marx's points still apply. More opium for the modern day masses (and the smarty pants drug dealers are raking it in)! I'm fantasizing about writing about fraud...
The buzz around this pseudo science/religion/self help/how to get rich marketing campaign has amazed me! I have been so perplexed by this, and the following surrounding it, that I actually watched the movie! For a couple of weeks there I wasted way too much time on this.
I've thought about this from all kinds of angles, and I think what is one of the most brilliant things about this marketing is the absence of having to wait until "the next life" for your efforts to be fruitful. But the most brilliant, hands down, thing of all is...according to the inherent philosophy...you only have yourself to blame if you do not attract what you want! It's hardly a new idea, but a smart "think" (you know, the thinks that you think-Dr. Seuss) to package up and sell afresh all the same. This is way more intelligent than this fellow marketing campaign http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ in my opinion. Although...it shares many of the same characteristics.
Either way...most of Marx's points still apply. More opium for the modern day masses (and the smarty pants drug dealers are raking it in)! I'm fantasizing about writing about fraud...
old testament garbage
I've been feeling frustrated by the uproar surrounding this proposed anti-spanking legislation in California...and the fact that I haven't posted on this yet is 1) an indication of how busy I've been lately 2) the realization that there is no way I can adapt to an audience that thinks it's okay to hit kids...and any response to this is pretty much just nodding heads with folks that agree with me! But...what do you say? Ready to nod heads?
What really has my stomach turning is the indignation from people who want to be assured of the right to hit children under the age of three! With studies/experts overwhelming agreeing that spanking is harmful and not helpful...and a predecessor to what is acceptably defined as "child abuse!" It's not acceptable to hit your partner, your friends, people who piss you off in traffic, but people think it's okay to hit defenseless little children because they are "my kids!"
It just seems to me that if you asked the question "Are people free to physical hurt other people" without the word "child" as part of the equation, overwhelming people of all walks of life would largely agree that hurting others is not okay!
As far as this argument/concern I keep hearing about people making a mistake and losing their kids...that's such a bunch of crap! Someone who has a temporary lapse in judgment...a one time offender...is unlikely to cause an injury or do this in front of a witness! People who hit their kids in public hit them much harder, and much more frequently, when other people aren't around! The people who make a "mistake," or the one time offender...are overwhelming not the people who have to worry about these types of consequences.
And some people think it's about the government telling people how to raise their kids, well yay! yay! yay! when it comes to hitting defenseless people! I'm all about freedom...but we are not free to hurt others. Our freedom ends as soon as it infringes on the safety of others. What could be a more important role of government than protecting children from physical harm?
And then you hear the religious arguments..."spare the rod, spoil the child" garbage. If you are going to base your parenting on an old testament bible verse, why not stone adulteresses to death, stone your rebellious teenager, sacrifice animals to atone for your sins, demand that unmarried women continue living in their father's houses, require women to wear head coverings when they leave the house and ban them from teaching positions or from talking to strangers...or loads of other old testament garbage that are overlooked by sane people. It's the old testament folks...for Christ's sake!
What really has my stomach turning is the indignation from people who want to be assured of the right to hit children under the age of three! With studies/experts overwhelming agreeing that spanking is harmful and not helpful...and a predecessor to what is acceptably defined as "child abuse!" It's not acceptable to hit your partner, your friends, people who piss you off in traffic, but people think it's okay to hit defenseless little children because they are "my kids!"
It just seems to me that if you asked the question "Are people free to physical hurt other people" without the word "child" as part of the equation, overwhelming people of all walks of life would largely agree that hurting others is not okay!
As far as this argument/concern I keep hearing about people making a mistake and losing their kids...that's such a bunch of crap! Someone who has a temporary lapse in judgment...a one time offender...is unlikely to cause an injury or do this in front of a witness! People who hit their kids in public hit them much harder, and much more frequently, when other people aren't around! The people who make a "mistake," or the one time offender...are overwhelming not the people who have to worry about these types of consequences.
And some people think it's about the government telling people how to raise their kids, well yay! yay! yay! when it comes to hitting defenseless people! I'm all about freedom...but we are not free to hurt others. Our freedom ends as soon as it infringes on the safety of others. What could be a more important role of government than protecting children from physical harm?
And then you hear the religious arguments..."spare the rod, spoil the child" garbage. If you are going to base your parenting on an old testament bible verse, why not stone adulteresses to death, stone your rebellious teenager, sacrifice animals to atone for your sins, demand that unmarried women continue living in their father's houses, require women to wear head coverings when they leave the house and ban them from teaching positions or from talking to strangers...or loads of other old testament garbage that are overlooked by sane people. It's the old testament folks...for Christ's sake!
privacy, perspective about others
One of my goals with this blog is to avoid providing specific, personal information about other people in my life. I'm wanting to talk/publicly journal I guess, about my thinking and ideas about things but in a way thats somewhat abstract/coded.
Since my posts are about how I'm making sense of things in my life, or with what I'm thinking about the things in my life or what is influencing me etc...this can be tricky (especially when talking about parenting, or about why I think what I think and knowing how much that is influenced by my own experiences parenting or being parented or otherwise). I'll likely use hypothetical examples that hopefully aren't too obvious and also kind of springboard off movies and news stories and such that help formulate my thoughts in a way that I can do so without personal examples.
Anyway...I just wanted to put this in writing because it feels like more of a commitment to post with the spirit of the privacy of other's in mind.
Since my posts are about how I'm making sense of things in my life, or with what I'm thinking about the things in my life or what is influencing me etc...this can be tricky (especially when talking about parenting, or about why I think what I think and knowing how much that is influenced by my own experiences parenting or being parented or otherwise). I'll likely use hypothetical examples that hopefully aren't too obvious and also kind of springboard off movies and news stories and such that help formulate my thoughts in a way that I can do so without personal examples.
Anyway...I just wanted to put this in writing because it feels like more of a commitment to post with the spirit of the privacy of other's in mind.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
More worldliness, please
Lately I've been thinking about the concept of sheltering, and balance with sheltering...and how to recognize motives and entrenched theories that maybe should be challenged with this.
I think all loving parents shelter to some degree. Parents are predominantly the ones bringing the world to really young children. So, exposure is largely based on the parent/or other care-provider's ideas or what they are electively bringing to the child's surroundings...until the child starts developing more of his/her own theories. Obviously most parents wouldn't intentionally expose their children to things that their best knowledge deems harmful to the child...such as scary or illicit material...things not age appropriate for example. So...I think the drive to protect children (from harm, psychological or physical) is a good thing.
I've also seen many sheltered children grow up and passionately seek out the very things their parents have sheltered them from (as soon as possible). That whole "forbidden fruit" thing. My concern about this is not so much about outcome...outcome meaning whether or not child will share parent's values. My concern is the anger and resentment there...and how somewhere along the line (before the expression of these emotions)...the child is hurting.
Sheltering can be controlling and imbalanced. How do we know when it's imbalanced? I think one clue is when "sheltering" is a predominant focus. I think this not only runs the risk of turning a person off...as far as from his/her parent's values...but it also can really take the fun out of life and can feel more about the parent's image or "formula for how to parent effectively" than about the child and the child's individual needs and feelings.
I think most parents have the best of intentions...but values differ. When I look back and think about sheltering from rock music, or long hair or ear rings on a boy...etc...it seems obvious. I would never be that controlling! But sometimes I recognize "living by avoidance" in my thinking surrounding ideas that I consider "progressive."
You know, avoiding commercialism...behaviorism...crowd control tactics...etc. Is it possible that my child will view my reasoning and approach to parenting as mostly about "avoiding things?" I think I should think about my thinking.
Hypothetical example...say child wants to play baseball. Child loves it, no pressure from parent, no problem so far... But, you know, it sure is a "praise heavy" climate...sports! "Alright, good hit!"..."Everybody high five!" Cheering "keep it up!" It's really in the nature of sports! Can you imagine a baseball game without this? Either way...you are unlikely to find one.
I think it would be the dumbest idea in the world to say "Oh, I don't want you to play baseball, even though it's fun and you like it! The coach is using behaviorist tactics to encourage you guys, and I want people to treat you more respectfully than that!" This is a pretty extreme example...but it still makes the point. The message there is "This world is not good enough for us. We are in this world, but not of this world..." puke puke puke!
I'm doing my best to parent without behaviorist/controlling tactics, and I feel passionate about it, but I also feel confident that what parents are giving their children is more deserving of focus than what they are protecting them from! Children are individuals and they very much want to feel a part of their world...and the more theories they have the more a parent's thinking and ideas will be challenged! Parents can learn from those challenges...more opportunity for growth!
I think all loving parents shelter to some degree. Parents are predominantly the ones bringing the world to really young children. So, exposure is largely based on the parent/or other care-provider's ideas or what they are electively bringing to the child's surroundings...until the child starts developing more of his/her own theories. Obviously most parents wouldn't intentionally expose their children to things that their best knowledge deems harmful to the child...such as scary or illicit material...things not age appropriate for example. So...I think the drive to protect children (from harm, psychological or physical) is a good thing.
I've also seen many sheltered children grow up and passionately seek out the very things their parents have sheltered them from (as soon as possible). That whole "forbidden fruit" thing. My concern about this is not so much about outcome...outcome meaning whether or not child will share parent's values. My concern is the anger and resentment there...and how somewhere along the line (before the expression of these emotions)...the child is hurting.
Sheltering can be controlling and imbalanced. How do we know when it's imbalanced? I think one clue is when "sheltering" is a predominant focus. I think this not only runs the risk of turning a person off...as far as from his/her parent's values...but it also can really take the fun out of life and can feel more about the parent's image or "formula for how to parent effectively" than about the child and the child's individual needs and feelings.
I think most parents have the best of intentions...but values differ. When I look back and think about sheltering from rock music, or long hair or ear rings on a boy...etc...it seems obvious. I would never be that controlling! But sometimes I recognize "living by avoidance" in my thinking surrounding ideas that I consider "progressive."
You know, avoiding commercialism...behaviorism...crowd control tactics...etc. Is it possible that my child will view my reasoning and approach to parenting as mostly about "avoiding things?" I think I should think about my thinking.
Hypothetical example...say child wants to play baseball. Child loves it, no pressure from parent, no problem so far... But, you know, it sure is a "praise heavy" climate...sports! "Alright, good hit!"..."Everybody high five!" Cheering "keep it up!" It's really in the nature of sports! Can you imagine a baseball game without this? Either way...you are unlikely to find one.
I think it would be the dumbest idea in the world to say "Oh, I don't want you to play baseball, even though it's fun and you like it! The coach is using behaviorist tactics to encourage you guys, and I want people to treat you more respectfully than that!" This is a pretty extreme example...but it still makes the point. The message there is "This world is not good enough for us. We are in this world, but not of this world..." puke puke puke!
I'm doing my best to parent without behaviorist/controlling tactics, and I feel passionate about it, but I also feel confident that what parents are giving their children is more deserving of focus than what they are protecting them from! Children are individuals and they very much want to feel a part of their world...and the more theories they have the more a parent's thinking and ideas will be challenged! Parents can learn from those challenges...more opportunity for growth!
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Rats fueled the black plague
So...wild rats give me the creeps.
I had pet rats when I was a kid, and really loved them. They were good pets. They were initially white, but we had this green bedding at the bottom of the cage and it got wet and they turned florescent green. They were green for the rest of their lives. Pet, green rats. No kidding! When they died we put them in shoe boxes and buried them and had a funeral and everything.
But last spring I saw this wild rat very anthropomorphically eating out of my garden...just picking the fruit off with it's hands. I was screeching and freaking out...wanting to stand up on the furniture even though I was inside and she was outside. I was only looking at her through the glass door. It was an unreasonable response.
Before I actually saw her in my garden, when someone suggested that a rat might be the culprit (eating the fruit) I thought..."well, rats have to eat. They're living things. We can share." I so want to be a pantheist...I fantasize about being able to be a pantheist...but I'm really agnostic to the core. I just can't truly accept anything other than not knowing. Sort of beside the point...back to the rats. Anyway, I ended up pulling up all the plants with fruit, planting mint around the garden (to deter them) and starting over. See...not even a good wanna be pantheist.
I saw this movie once...I can't remember what it was...where this single mom and her baby were living in this run down apartment and she woke up to see a rat (right beside her sleeping baby) drinking, again anthropomorphically, the milk out of her baby's bottle! We are supposed to think anthropomorphic is cute...this struck me...look at the cute animal holding the baby bottle and drinking! Unless they are disease carrying rodents I guess! Uuuugh.... I just shudder when I think about it.
A friend had a rat problem in their home recently (and shared about it). I can't stop thinking about it. What a nightmare! Makes me want to get more cats...Cats don't want to be pantheist when they are really agnostic. Let them do my dirty work and keep the rats out of my compost pile and garden! Yuck, yuck, yuck!
I had pet rats when I was a kid, and really loved them. They were good pets. They were initially white, but we had this green bedding at the bottom of the cage and it got wet and they turned florescent green. They were green for the rest of their lives. Pet, green rats. No kidding! When they died we put them in shoe boxes and buried them and had a funeral and everything.
But last spring I saw this wild rat very anthropomorphically eating out of my garden...just picking the fruit off with it's hands. I was screeching and freaking out...wanting to stand up on the furniture even though I was inside and she was outside. I was only looking at her through the glass door. It was an unreasonable response.
Before I actually saw her in my garden, when someone suggested that a rat might be the culprit (eating the fruit) I thought..."well, rats have to eat. They're living things. We can share." I so want to be a pantheist...I fantasize about being able to be a pantheist...but I'm really agnostic to the core. I just can't truly accept anything other than not knowing. Sort of beside the point...back to the rats. Anyway, I ended up pulling up all the plants with fruit, planting mint around the garden (to deter them) and starting over. See...not even a good wanna be pantheist.
I saw this movie once...I can't remember what it was...where this single mom and her baby were living in this run down apartment and she woke up to see a rat (right beside her sleeping baby) drinking, again anthropomorphically, the milk out of her baby's bottle! We are supposed to think anthropomorphic is cute...this struck me...look at the cute animal holding the baby bottle and drinking! Unless they are disease carrying rodents I guess! Uuuugh.... I just shudder when I think about it.
A friend had a rat problem in their home recently (and shared about it). I can't stop thinking about it. What a nightmare! Makes me want to get more cats...Cats don't want to be pantheist when they are really agnostic. Let them do my dirty work and keep the rats out of my compost pile and garden! Yuck, yuck, yuck!
"It ain't me, Babe"
"You say you're lookin' for someone
Never weak but always strong...
To protect you an' defend you
Whether you are right or wrong...
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe..."
Bob Dylan
The puzzle seems to grow larger the more pieces are fit together. Shall I stop thinking? Let other people tell me what to think? Maybe keep grasping in the shadows, trying to understand the puzzle...continually deepening perspective.
On another note, darn about Carpet King and the like at the new Mueller Airport Development.
Never weak but always strong...
To protect you an' defend you
Whether you are right or wrong...
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe..."
Bob Dylan
The puzzle seems to grow larger the more pieces are fit together. Shall I stop thinking? Let other people tell me what to think? Maybe keep grasping in the shadows, trying to understand the puzzle...continually deepening perspective.
On another note, darn about Carpet King and the like at the new Mueller Airport Development.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
TCS
I'm a student of Taking Children Seriously (TCS) philosophy.
TCS is an educational philosophy which holds that children are entitled to the same human rights, respect and bodily dominion as adults. The philosophy also holds that it's possible and desirable to bring children up without doing things to them against their will, or making them do things against their will. While I won't make the wild claim that I never coerce, this is an area where I am always challenging my thinking and striving for growth. I want to think in terms of seeking win-win solutions and want to view mistakes as opportunities for growth (rather than things to justify or feel guilty about).
I have been actively (regularly) studying this philosophy (and the roots of this philosophy), and have spent much time discussing this subject with others, for almost three years. I've also spent time studying and discussing and drawing from other philosophies that promote "being with" or "working with" rather than "doing to," such as Alfie Kohn's "Unconditional Parenting," and M.B. Rosenberg's "Non-Violent Communication."
Where a few years ago I might have said "I practice TCS," I find that just like with all knowledge...the more I know the more I realize that I don't know! I'm also not a fan of claims to universal truth, nor is that the point of consent-based philosophy anyway. It's not about "the one right way to live."
What it's about is replacing HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY with FALLIBILITY, about welcoming the concept that no matter how sure we are that we are right...there is always the chance that we could be wrong! It's sort of like applying the scientific method to parenting...well...sort of. We aren't testing/experimenting with other people. It's sad that I feel the need to clarify that...
My meaning is that it's about acquiring new knowledge, as well as correcting and integrating previous knowledge. We are able to gather evidence and subject our ideas about others to reasoning (critical thinking)...always keeping in mind the possibility that we could be wrong...and this makes having a win-win dynamic and achieving healthy conflict resolution more attainable. It's about seeking truth, and learning through "conjecture and refutation." In practice it's about seeking/finding solutions where everyone wins...solutions that everyone is happy with...more of the time.
TCS is an educational philosophy which holds that children are entitled to the same human rights, respect and bodily dominion as adults. The philosophy also holds that it's possible and desirable to bring children up without doing things to them against their will, or making them do things against their will. While I won't make the wild claim that I never coerce, this is an area where I am always challenging my thinking and striving for growth. I want to think in terms of seeking win-win solutions and want to view mistakes as opportunities for growth (rather than things to justify or feel guilty about).
I have been actively (regularly) studying this philosophy (and the roots of this philosophy), and have spent much time discussing this subject with others, for almost three years. I've also spent time studying and discussing and drawing from other philosophies that promote "being with" or "working with" rather than "doing to," such as Alfie Kohn's "Unconditional Parenting," and M.B. Rosenberg's "Non-Violent Communication."
Where a few years ago I might have said "I practice TCS," I find that just like with all knowledge...the more I know the more I realize that I don't know! I'm also not a fan of claims to universal truth, nor is that the point of consent-based philosophy anyway. It's not about "the one right way to live."
What it's about is replacing HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY with FALLIBILITY, about welcoming the concept that no matter how sure we are that we are right...there is always the chance that we could be wrong! It's sort of like applying the scientific method to parenting...well...sort of. We aren't testing/experimenting with other people. It's sad that I feel the need to clarify that...
My meaning is that it's about acquiring new knowledge, as well as correcting and integrating previous knowledge. We are able to gather evidence and subject our ideas about others to reasoning (critical thinking)...always keeping in mind the possibility that we could be wrong...and this makes having a win-win dynamic and achieving healthy conflict resolution more attainable. It's about seeking truth, and learning through "conjecture and refutation." In practice it's about seeking/finding solutions where everyone wins...solutions that everyone is happy with...more of the time.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Change
This is my first blog entry...I'll just dive right in.
I watched "Pleasantville" the other night, which I hadn't seen in years. The movie ended up profoundly speaking to me about change. I was flicking through and decided to stop, because I remembered Jan Fortune-Wood quoting the movie in "With Consent: Parenting for All to Win." The quote is "...I know you want it to stay pleasant around here, but there are so many things that are so much better, like silly or sexy or dangerous or brief and everyone of those things is in you all of the time if you just have the guts to look for it..." I said "the TCSers love this movie."
What I didn't remember is that Pleasantville is a parable about change. Everything is perfect in Pleasantville. The sky is always clear, all of the neighbors are friendly and "normal," all of the children are well behaved and respectful, there are no conflicts. There is no change or GROWTH! And, when things start changing boy do some folks resist it...just wanting things to go back to being pleasant.
George: What happened? One minute everything was fine and the next...What went wrong?
David/Bud: Nothing went wrong...People change.
George: How?
David/Bud: Well...Sometimes they realize that what they thought they needed isn't what they need anymore...Sometimes they see that what they're scared of--they don't need to be scared of anymore. Sometimes they just...let go.
George: Can they change back?
David/Bud: I don't kow. I think that's harder.
***********************************************************
David's Mom: When your father was here, I used to think, "This was it. This is the way it was always going to be. I had the right house. I had the right car. I had the right life."
David: There is no right house. There is no right car.
David's Mom: I'm 40 years old. I mean it's not supposed to be like this.
David: It's not supposed to be anything.
These words keep coming back to me lately, when worrying about the future is giving me pause. I keep thinking of how "it's not supposed to be anything."
And I keep thinking about how if everything was always pleasant, and if we could always depend on the outcome, there would be no growth! Wow!
I watched "Pleasantville" the other night, which I hadn't seen in years. The movie ended up profoundly speaking to me about change. I was flicking through and decided to stop, because I remembered Jan Fortune-Wood quoting the movie in "With Consent: Parenting for All to Win." The quote is "...I know you want it to stay pleasant around here, but there are so many things that are so much better, like silly or sexy or dangerous or brief and everyone of those things is in you all of the time if you just have the guts to look for it..." I said "the TCSers love this movie."
What I didn't remember is that Pleasantville is a parable about change. Everything is perfect in Pleasantville. The sky is always clear, all of the neighbors are friendly and "normal," all of the children are well behaved and respectful, there are no conflicts. There is no change or GROWTH! And, when things start changing boy do some folks resist it...just wanting things to go back to being pleasant.
George: What happened? One minute everything was fine and the next...What went wrong?
David/Bud: Nothing went wrong...People change.
George: How?
David/Bud: Well...Sometimes they realize that what they thought they needed isn't what they need anymore...Sometimes they see that what they're scared of--they don't need to be scared of anymore. Sometimes they just...let go.
George: Can they change back?
David/Bud: I don't kow. I think that's harder.
***********************************************************
David's Mom: When your father was here, I used to think, "This was it. This is the way it was always going to be. I had the right house. I had the right car. I had the right life."
David: There is no right house. There is no right car.
David's Mom: I'm 40 years old. I mean it's not supposed to be like this.
David: It's not supposed to be anything.
These words keep coming back to me lately, when worrying about the future is giving me pause. I keep thinking of how "it's not supposed to be anything."
And I keep thinking about how if everything was always pleasant, and if we could always depend on the outcome, there would be no growth! Wow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)