Subject: MORE THAN ONE ISSUE; MORE THAN ONE NGO; WE NEED A MOVEMENT!
Date: Mon, Mar 24, 2014
Msg: 100858
From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of Bruce Schuman Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:46 AM To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG Subject: [TRANSPARTISAN] MORE THAN ONE ISSUE; MORE THAN ONE NGO; WE NEED A MOVEMENT!
Dear Mark Gerzon -
Good morning from Santa Barbara.
Thank you for this discussion, thank you for your history of involvement with Transpartisanism.
This morning, I was going through some saved links and pages - going over my "keynote" terms of "holistic - integral - collaborative" - and I found a powerful article by Don Beck, published in Integral Leadership Review, that I had saved. I enclose the text below, and attach the Word.docx document. Your work is mentioned at the bottom.
WEAVING TOGETHER
I wanted to offer a response to your call "to weave together a framework for a movement that makes sense - and makes a difference."
This call resonates powerfully with me - and, as you suggest - no doubt with many others.
I am currently doing what I can along the particular track of my own skills and instincts - which involve web system development in a holistic/collaborative framework - and insofar as possible, building bridges and establishing relationships between what appear to me to be diverse sectors of a larger whole that many of us are attempting to bring into focus.
I wanted to offer to you a few thoughts on this subject - that from my point of view, do seem critically important to any realistic hope for success.
First, let me offer a few comments in response to your remarks - in a "dialogue" format.
**
Mark Gerzon: I want to thank Evelyn Messinger and Steve Rubenstein for their spirited exchange about money in politics. To review: Evelyn made the compelling case that money in politics is the issue that could unite all Americans across the partisan spectrum and proposed a transpartisan focus on this troubling issue. Steve responded that "money in politics" is not just one issue; it is part of a system of issues that require change.
Bruce Schuman: I too found their exchange interesting and helpful. I agree with Steve, that we need a broad spectrum of approaches, and we need to deal with "a system of issues that require change". Below, I want to suggest some thoughts on that theme.
I also agree with Evelyn. "Money in politics" is a huge and central issue. I took a look at a website that Evelyn suggests. https://represent.us/ is a powerful, well-designed activist framework, with a very strong list of founders.
Perhaps, combining Steve's idea of breadth with Evelyn's core imperative, we should be exploring ways to build a broad multi-issue/multi-dimensional transpartisan alliance - that can build common cause with an expert system like represent.us - or perhaps with many such expert systems - while not limiting our broad vision to a single issue (or a single "nest of issues").
Are we capable of organizing at that level? My instinct is - we have to find a way to step up and do this - even though this is very ambitious, probably unprecedented, and could be quite challenging to conceive and develop. Let's get going on how to do this.
Mark: All that I want to add to their exchange is that money is one of several issues that require reform; that a diverse spectrum of approaches are needed; and that only a transpartisan movement that brings many of the brilliant current initiatives together will be effective.
Bruce: I absolutely support this, and thank you for saying it. And yes, you are right - there are "brilliant current initiatives" out there today - informed, expert, powerful, capable - and right on their particular issue or factor.
Mark: This is the reason that NCDD and Mediators Foundation started this website: to catalyze a dialogue that would lead toward a movement.
Bruce: I think we are doing this. I hope this message can be a contribution to that dialogue.
Mark: Think about your work in the Dialogue and Deliberation field. Think about the issues that you address. Don't you think that they are part of the answer to the problem of hyper-partisanship and political gridlock?
Bruce: Yes, speaking for myself - I absolutely do believe that my efforts are contributing to an answer to the problems of hyper-partisanship and political gridlock.
I could say a lot about that - and I do tend to believe that we need some new ways to understand these problems if we are going to be successful. I'll mention some of those themes below. In general, we need to think in "holistic and integral" terms - and this is proving very difficult in a complex high-speed political/social context, for reasons I will mention. In my opinion, we somehow have to rise to this occasion, possibly in new ways - perhaps in a "team-based" way that can address overwhelming complexity and detail .
We need sophisticated and systematic ways to understand our situation, systematic methods for developing solutions, and better psychological models of voter/citizen behavior. We are caught in a kind of information tsunami of simultaneous interdependent factors that is overwhelming our capacity to respond. We have to recognize this, get clear agreement on fundamentals and basic principles, and build a high-capacity solution.
I personally believe this is possible - but I also believe that developing these solutions will require break-through thinking. Though it's essential, we're not going to solve this problem with civility alone. We need powerful well-organized integral methods that embrace and confront the full range of complexity and gridlock, and build a spirit of teamwork and community that can address this complexity. In that spirit of shared vision, with broad inclusion and agreement on fundamental principles, our movement can emerge with clarity, force, integrity and inspiration.
Mark: [Think about the issues that you address. Don't you think that they are part of the answer to the problem of hyper-partisanship and political gridlock?] If so, then you are part of the transpartisan movement. That's probably why you joined this ListServ. So let's start making those links between what each of us do, and each of us care about, and begin to weave together this framework for a movement that makes sense - and makes a difference.
Bruce: Yes, exactly, thank you.
1) "Make links between what each of us do." Let's devise some framework that enables us to do this explicitly, with precise systematic clarity - and not settle for a noisy process of emails or phone calls that fly by in an instant and are gone from the screen, leaving behind little more than a vague and wobbly if persuasive psychological imprint.
2) "Make links between what each of us care about." Yes, let's "entrain our passions" to build common passion and motivation over a diverse array of interconnected skills and levels of expertise. This is critical to the success of a movement that is not, and cannot be, "single-issue" in the traditional sense. We must be "hydra-headed", and "multi-dimensional". We must be "everywhere" and "about everything". We have to "take on everything that is relevant" - all at the same time, in a well-orchestrated division of labor that is at the core of our community and our movement.
3) "Let's weave together a framework for a movement that makes sense." Community combines the facets of diversity. Across the internet, there are hundreds (literally thousands) of images that illustrate how this is done and why it is critically important. "We are all a part of the solution, each in our own way." Our movement, too, must follow the inspiring national motto: E Pluribus Unum - from many strands of political motivation, weave together a unified and transformative vision - and an effective movement based on that vision. We have to "get organized" - maybe at an unprecedented level. Let's begin to think this is possible, and explore how to do it. We have amazing new tools at our fingertips today.
4) "Make a difference." With a broadly integral and consciously-conceived movement, that recognizes the full holistic structure of community, that ties together all relevant facets of society, we can create a movement that generates impact and "makes a difference" and exerts influence in hundreds of interconnected ways at the same time. Yes, reduce the destructive influence of Big Money. And yes, take on critical issues like climate change - and yes, take on hundreds of other interconnected issues we can list if we settle down to do it.
FURTHER
As this conversation continues to unfold, I do want to continue this response - and get into some additional details. In particular, I want to cite Tom Atlee's initial statement here from March 7, and his context of "the whole", which I believe is critically important, and probably the essential framework for any kind of "wisdom" that might emerge in a civic/secular/collective space.
Secondly, I want to review basic psychological theory on "cognitive bandwidth" and the limitations of the individual human mind. Of course, I want to cite the very famous paper "The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two," by psychologist George Miller, which suggests that no individual person can reliably hold more than seven independent elements in their thinking at the same time (with an absolute upper bound of nine). This has critical implications for the ability of any particular individual to take on the huge array of interdependent issues we are facing today. Just briefly consider the complex interdependence of ecology and economy, with implications for health, infrastructure, energy, housing - not to mention education, national defense, global business - you name it, it's a long list. It's no wonder we're fighting about all of it.
I want to look at what's involved in systematic and well-engineered collaboration. Do we need to be doing this? I'd answer a resounding yes.
We need formal well-conceived well-supported methods for identifying shared principles and values, coordinating teamwork, and building a movement. While honoring everything we know about relationships and mutual respect, we should be using good engineering methods that are not only accurate and stable - but which can "scale" to levels of complexity and detail that vastly exceed traditional approaches to political organizing.
Thanks for everything going on here - to all contributors, to NCDD, to the Mediator's Foundation.
"Think Whole"
- Bruce
"MORE THAN ONE ISSUE; MORE THAN ONE NGO; WE NEED A MOVEMENT!"
For me, this image and quotation are like an integral alignment vector - this is a key principle for what we must do - and how we can/should "align" what we do in a spirit of integrity and wholeness.
As Leonardo and Don Beck suggest, let us "learn how to see"
cid:image001.png@01CF4670.343B3290
cid:image002.png@01CF467C.E5634150
The Master Code and Integral Politics in Polarized America
http://integralleadershipreview.com/8568-the-master-code-and-integral-politi cs-in-polarized-america/
By Dr. Don Beck
Regardless of your own political views, memetic codes, or location on the intensity spectrum (from flame thrower to pragmatic) you must be both concerned and confused as to the current issues in Washington DC. While the words "stalemate, "crazy," "polarized and soaked with acrimony," define the condition, it appears the huge gaps in our society continue to grow and expand. The fiercely fought presidential campaign has not abated one bit. President Obama's campaign team continues to work its magic with the full force of a supportive media and one can now get direct access to the oval office for a sum of $500,000.
In my decades of focusing on the nature of ego-involvement, beginning with the experience of my study of the l860 presidential election that led to the bloody "Civil War," I have never seen such polarization in this society. It impacts virtually every issue, problem, and proposed solution. The air is filled with distortions, high levels of manipulation, down right false claims and threatening rumors coming from the polarized opposites and their surrogates. I frankly don't know whether the center can hold, especially if we experience a major financial crash.
If you have kept up with what I have been writing in this column you recall that I have warned about this possibility, especially during the campaign. While each person is most certainly free to exercise individual political choices, I warned about anybody connecting the "Integral Movement' to either candidates. If "Integral" has any meaning at all, it must include elements free from partisanship, or taking sides, since our skills and insights should be preserved and protected until the divides are full blown, requiring fresh approaches based on our unique mission to avoid being "used" by the media voices from either camp.
During all of my years working within the South African apartheid society I was very careful to connect with all elements in that power structure, even though I most certainly had points of view. On a single day in Pretoria I was called a fascist pig and communist dog. Both descriptions were probably accurate. I had been struggling against racism my entire working life, but over the 63 trips I saw beyond the contemporary divides to begin to work and propagate an "integral" view. I must tell you I was most likely the only person doing so. I learned, then what I am trying to say to you in the Integral persuasion - that you need to be careful and full of wisdom.
So, now, the question for this community is whether we have anything to offer? Is there a practical "walk" from all of our fancy" talk.? Neither "blame and be blamed" or even "live and let live" can help. Maybe "thrive and help thrive" will, as we search for the quality of collaboration that can involve a spiral-full of insights and actions.
First, it is essential that we get to the core of the belief systems, much like the DNA that lies beneath the surface level political positions and movements. Ever since I was working at Paul Robeson High School in deep South Chicago, I was keenly aware of the thought processes in the Hyde Park area where President Obama was working. I knew about Saul Alinsky and the "Rules for Radicals" as well as many of the more 'liberal" academics from the University of Chicago." Much of what began to be called "the Mean Green Meme" entered my thinking at the time. Both traditional Blue and even selfish-oriented Orange were the "enemies."
Clearly, President Obama's own world view and current political strategies are centered in that philosophy. We are not seeing the content or style of his 2004 speech at the Democratic National convention or even the elements of his 2008 campaign. Before you deny this characterization you best open your eyes and look at the evidence. Here is a Illinois State Senator who most often voted "present" not to identify with positions in order to keep his slate clean. Here is a president who constantly alleged that "You didn't build that," but it was the collective who did so. To those who question the "trickle down" economic systems where resources go to the wealthy and who, in term, create jobs and enrich more," consider there is also such a thing as "trickle down" government where the decisions go to bureaucrats and rule enforcers. (Later I will describe in full an "integrate" spiral-based trickle down, bubble up, and distributions systems that build capacities with decision making systems that enrich the whole. (My book, The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future, provides a model for implementing this version.)
The manner in which the Obama health program, aided by colleagues in the House and Senate, was both designed and passed, was primarily responsible for generating the Tea Party movement. This is called blow-back as the foil, counter foil move toward more radical positions reinforce each other. There is guilt enough to go around and history will not treat either kindly. I'm not certain our political leaders can "negotiate" anything of significance in this climate.
Over the years I have learned to detect the end-state, the critical dogma, that underlies a movement. With President Obama and his core advisers it is quite clear as to what drives his entire administration. The entire "transformational" effort represents a major break from the past, but lacks the sophistication of understanding the nature of Second Order change." In short, the current Democratic Party reflects a combination of the RED (the victims) and GREEN (the rescuers). They need each other. In contrast, the current Republican Party still holds the Blue and Orange Axis, and Mitt Romney was the ideal candidate as a standard bearer. While Abraham Lincoln was famous for this "Team of Rivals" approach, we lack, now, the capacity to enlist and include the full Spiral of beliefs in our political and economic programs. While there will always be conflict when such "radical" change is being proposed, our current media environment with 24/7 news cycles and a myriad of partisan voices has made extremism more pronounced, and dangerous.
And the constant pre-campaign chaos within the Republican Party's nomination process was not reassuring. New leadership needs to emerge that can produce what the Democratic Party needs for it to be to make possible healthy negotiation.
We recommended in the book The Crucible that South Africa pause to engage in 10 years of national unity to get a better understanding of the unique diversity of the South African population and life conditions. Unfortunately, it is now beginning to reap what it sowed in the initial transfer of power to the African National Congress. Desmond Tutu still grieves over the manner in which only a few leaders in the ANC benefited from their newly discovered wealth and privilege.
Second, there needs to be a significant change and shift away from the surface level pontificating into a focus on "what needs to be done" - not what any specific ideologue promotes, from either left, right, or center. It will take much longer to roll this out, but we have been working on this effort for several decades. By understanding the market place, the needs and capacities of people, their available resources and capacities, then by hanging the plumb bob over those people, in those places, one can develop an understanding of the appropriate political, economic, and education strategies and tactics. For example, in terms of "Integral Leadership, the formula how should who lead whom to do what with which people living where points at "what needs to be done."
John and Margo (King) Steiner, along with Mark Gerzon in Boulder, are leading an effort to convene a "Transpartisan" movement, one designed to uncover the so-called "third way" initiative. Likewise, the Evolutionary Leaders group, established by Deepak Chopra, are exploring ways to introduce a global view at the United Nations in June.
I hope this column will generate a healthy and robust discussion on these matters because, if we claim to be uniquely "Integral" thinkers, it is time we earned our reputation. Just leave your personal priorities, filters and commercial interests behind if you want to be serious. Unfortunately there are already signs that the "Integral movement" is breaking up into commercial empires which displays a strong RED and ORANGE under tow. How sad. One should think that "Integral" elements would be able to practice their own profession.
Reprinted from Integral Leadership Review , March 2013
**************
Bruce Schuman
NETWORK NATION: http://networknation.net
SHARED PURPOSE: http://sharedpurpose.net
INTERSPIRIT: http://interspirit.net
(805) 966-9515, PO Box 23346, Santa Barbara CA 93101
**************
From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of Mark Gerzon Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 7:09 AM To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] MORE THAN ONE ISSUE; MORE THAN ONE NGO; WE NEED A MOVEMENT!
I want to thank Evelyn Messinger and Steve Rubenstein for their spirit exchange about money in politics.
To review: Evelyn made the compelling case that money in politics is the issue that could unite all Americans across the partisan spectrum and proposed a transpartisan focus on this troubling issue. Steve responded that "money in politics" is not just one issue; it is part of a system of issues that require change.
All that I want to add to their exchange is that I money is one of several issues that require reform; that a diverse spectrum of approaches are needed; and that only a transpartisan movement bring many of the brilliant current initiatives together will be a effective.
This is the reason that NCDD and Mediators Foundation started this website: to catalyze a dialogue that would lead toward a movement.
Think about your work in the Dialogue and Deliberation field. Think about the issues that you address. Don't you think that they are part of the answer to the problem of hyper-partisanship and political gridlock?
If so, then you part of the transpartisan movement. That's probably why you joined this listServ. So let's start making those links between what each of us do, and each of us care about, and begin to weave together this framework for a movement that makes sense - and makes a difference.
Thanks for letting me share these thoughts, and again, thanks to Evelyn and Steve for inspiring me this morning.
Mark Gerzon Mediators Foundation 2525 Arapahoe Avenue E-4 #509 Boulder, Colorado 80302 3038171409
"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." - Albert Einstein
********************************
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Evelyn Messinger wrote:
Briefly: my name is Evelyn Messinger. I am a television and web producer whose work focuses on bringing citizens into the policy-making process by leveraging their opinions via media - see our website below my signature.
If there is one issue that unites left and right in fundamental agreement on a problem and a solution, it is the corrupting influence of money in politics. The transpartisan movement could look at this issue as a case study and perhaps a way to seek practical avenues to engage the public.
This post is inspired by a new campaign from http://Represent.us - which sponsors an "Anti-Corruption Act" among other things - to hold a nationwide march on April 15 to "turn tax day into representation day." This is the group most likely to have a real impact using a grass-roots approach, because they are dedicated and professional, as this video shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGECjjoJ3KE#t=137
Liberals and conservatives emphasize different aspects of this problem, with conservatives focusing on the venal actions of politicians and liberals on the greedy demands of corporations, but there is surprising agreement on both sides, even among many elected leaders, that the rules of campaign finance should be changed. See this video we produced at both the Republican and Democratic 2012 Conventions on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDIkiD3irBA &list=PLC4B2F48B04494A6A (disclosure: we worked with Represent Us on this project).
You would think that this degree of support would lead to change, but there are two problems: extremely powerful vested interests in maintaining, and even expanding, the current system; and the fact that money in politics, a root cause of many concrete problems, is more abstract than the problems themselves (my mortgage is under water, my kid's college tuition is going through the roof, I pay for 3000 TV channels but spend most of my viewing time watching commercials.)
Is this the one issue that our transpartisan community could united behind?
Thanks and regards,
Evelyn -- Evelyn Messinger http://citizenschannel.org +1.415.377.6278
_____
To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN &A=1
