|
|
Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 8, 2007, 1:48 PM: |
||
|
If you are new to the pod, please read this first. If already a contributing member, please refer to this often. Cross-linking, as usual, is highly encouraged.
Based on his experience with community building workshops, Scott Peck says that community building typically goes through four stages:
As I draft this we are still in chaos, which is waining, and emptiness is quite evidently emerging. Please refer back to this if a conversation gets too far off topic. Any suggestions or additions you would like to see please e-mail Janos or Keith. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 8, 2007, 3:27 PM: |
||
|
Resurrected1 sent this along to me suggesting we may all want to see it, but she didn't exactly know where it would fit. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 8, 2007, 5:27 PM: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Janos' web site … for reference
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Oct 15, 2008, 11:42 AM: |
||
|
We are perfectly in alignment with the emerging Zeitgeist. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Aug 2, 9:41 AM: |
||
|
I wrote this entry before I watched The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation which is a comprehensive systemic overview of what is wrong and how to put it right. The presentation at nearly an hour and forty minutes long. It is extracted from the more extensive “Activist Orientation Guide”. “Our Crisis is a birth”
|
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 2, 2:20 PM: |
||
|
Your link, Janos, is missing. Here it is: The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Aug 2, 3:40 PM: |
||
|
…only the free market can do an efficient job of managing supply and demand… This is the “market fundamentalist” stance. It is quite difficult to engage with because it has the characteristics of an article of faith. George Soros talks a lot about this in his critique of the current form of theory-dominated capitalism. In my understanding, the theory fails to recognise that the market's supply and demand mechanism can see only “effective demand”, demand backed by purchasing power. Real demand, with no adequate dollars to give it a voice, goes unheard on the market. Also, efficiency is overvalued in the market fundamentalist model and is taken to be the supreme and over riding factor and is forced into areas os social functionality like education and health where rigorous measurement is not possible without reducing human participants to things. These schools of thoughts should take some lessons from living systems where a great deal of “redundancy” is tolerated in exchange for viability and stability. Going back to health care, I just don't see why the general standard of health of the people should be subordinated to the calculations preformed by the a-human mechanism of market forces. It may be true that bad doctors for example would eventually loose their practice for lack of clients, but our concern should be the waste and suffering before enough people relised that they should not go to him. Of course the market would not be allowed to reign supreme like that. Legal action would be taken after the first few cases of malpractice. But that is just the point, the market forces cannot be left to their own devices where human well being and lives are at stake. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 2, 4:22 PM: |
||
|
I just completed the video and am astounded by the attention to detail. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveDomus Ulixes said Aug 3, 2:49 AM: |
||
|
hihi, I like the video. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveMichael said Aug 8, 2007, 3:45 PM: |
||
|
I don't know how far everyone is on in group formatn, but I'd definately want to be a member of the Esoterics group. i've done a lot of work in the past few years on building up an alternative esoteric framework, a new collective archetypal framework, useful, I think, for undermining “the system” and replacing it within something better. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 8, 2007, 4:53 PM: |
||
|
Michael, |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveFusedroot said Aug 24, 2007, 2:57 AM: |
||
|
Well I'm here also … mainly watching. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Aug 28, 2007, 3:26 PM: |
||
|
And very nice to have you around, too. Welcome Nzira. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Sep 14, 9:17 AM: |
||
|
And a faithful watcher, thank you. and this may be the process: |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Aug 2, 10:02 AM: |
||
|
Not quite sure how the threading works. This post should follow Michael's statement of preference for the Esoterics board. The twelve modules or departments are of course need to converge to develop or identify resources to advance one common task the transformation of the troubled world we know into the Possible Good World (PGW). So contributions need to qualify as a resource and, if needed, the sponsor may have to indicate (as Michael done in his post — referenced) to the “collective” how it furthers overall task advancement. Our goal is this: |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivesandy said Aug 8, 2007, 6:48 PM: |
||
|
'tolerance , has it worked” |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 8, 2007, 7:52 PM: |
||
|
This is precisely what Janos and I have been discussing … ”How to move forward?” … ”Should there be rules?” … ”What to do to facilitate?” … |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Aug 9, 2007, 1:51 AM: |
||
|
Sheila, |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveTraveling Alchemist said Aug 9, 2007, 7:04 AM: |
||
|
I brought the information about community building to this pod because I have experienced it through the Peck model. It is not the only model. Most folks who are employed have more experience with team building and organizational methods. Organization has been brought up in our discussions regularly. Here is some information about the community building model, and how it correlates with team building. Please note at the end of this article how community building is different. The four stages of community formation are somewhat related to a model in organization theory for the five stages that a team goes through during development. These five stages are:
It is in this third stage that Scott Peck's community building methods differ in principle from team development. While teams in business organizations need to develop explicit rules, guidelines and protocols during the norming stage, the 'emptiness' stage of community building is characterized, not by laying down the rules explicitly, but by shedding the resistance within the minds of the individuals. It does take time to create a viable 'structure' through which these zaadz groups will offer their visions as a group. There really is no rush. One lesson here is that, as most of us are used to the current dynamics of our cultures, we must rush to accomplish…whereas in making a change, slowing down to become cohesive will inevitably serve the greater whole. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 11, 2007, 8:56 PM: |
||||||||
|
New word: icosahedron I feel this needs to be discussed. On the one hand, as stated, we certainly don't want to give birth prematurely, as this will certainly diminish the life-expectancy of any project. However … On the other hand, we have events occurring in the world today that suggest the old is quite literally coming apart … now … before our very eyes. Whether the fall begins Monday morning, or next week, or next month is not relevant. The old paradigm will fall. It's failing now. It must. It cannot be sustained. It has no energy to sustain it, which is why it's fighting so hard to stay alive. All the new energy has and is shifting back to the people, as highlighted in the short video The Shift linked above. Mark my words on this … When the first major system collapses … a chain reaction will begin that cannot be stopped … We always have choices. We can choose to wait, to debate, to merely sit here and talk and talk and talk. Until that first major collapse occurs, like the world financial markets for example, where we might be too late to affect meaningful change. Too little, too late. And all this will have been for naught. We're merely wasting our time and energy. Or we can be ready … because we all know this change is coming. When it does start … it will be swift. Should we not at the very least build an incubator so that if the birth must be induced prematurely we can increase the chances for life? Can we agree on that? |
|||||||||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivesandy said Aug 11, 2007, 9:04 PM: |
||
|
I can agree on that Keith - |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveTraveling Alchemist said Aug 12, 2007, 6:56 AM: |
||
|
In response to you Keith, we are not in control of the failure of the old paradigm, just as we are not in control of the new one. Our preparation here is not wasted, for we do have foresight. We are being called upon to be ready. Timing is perfect, so we will not be premature or overdue in our involvement. We have our fingers on the 'pulse' of the patient. The transformation will happen according to its right time. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 12, 2007, 1:51 PM: |
||
|
Of course you are correct T.A. We can only control the world we live in. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivekatrinamae said Aug 14, 2007, 12:38 AM: |
||
|
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=125351681 |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary ObjectiveKeith said Aug 14, 2007, 4:06 PM: |
||
|
This is fine Katrina. Just a reminder, this is not “my” pod, nor does it belong to Janos. |
|||
|
|
Re: Primary Objectivejanos said Sep 14, 9:27 AM: |
||
|
Thank you, Keith, for the reminder. It is our pod—to use the original Zaadz terminology. |
|||
|
|
Our Primary ObjectiveFusedroot said Sep 2, 2007, 5:08 PM: |
||
|
Hi http://primaryobjective.notlong.com is a 'neatened' & appropiate link straight to this thread from the outside matrix. |
|||

Help










