|
Sender: Rickrad
Subject: Re: Full Transpartisanship
Date: Sat, Apr 19, 2014
Msg: 100936
Hi John,
You raise a very important point.
I think the key is to realize that a partisan confidently proposing a partisan solution is very different than a transpartisan confidently proposing transpartisan solution.
I would love to get Don Beck's take on this, as I think spiral dynamics explains the path from partisanship (orange) to "dialog transpartisanship" (blue) to "full (structural) transpartisanship" (yelllow) better than I can.
I will simply say that productive dialog in search of solutions is not enough. We also need the wisdom to recognize the solution and the confidence to evangelize it once we discover it.?
- Rick Raddatz Founder, http://IncentiveReform.org 303-949-8075
On Apr 18, 2014, at 09:43 AM, millershed@earthlink.net wrote:
> Hello Rick, > > I like your structural components, but for me that is not the point. > > I would say that true dialogue involves suspending all one's own certainties in order to hear the other openly. David Bohm said (and I believe) that--when this really happens (big caveat!)--rather than compromise between polarities, we get fresh and innovative ideas that are both inclusive and transcendent of our various starting positions (and we find ourselves, in the process, better informed, more deeply connected, and inwardly transformed by our intimate participation with the other). > > So I would place the core ethos of transpartisanship as emerging from a state of inner openness and non-judgmental awareness. Thus, I see it as ultimately a spiritual thing--if I can use that word. > > Of course, it also has to have its feet on the ground and the idea is to address the economic, political, cultural, and environmental complxities that give rise to our various "issues." However, I think you have to start from the inner if you're going to effectively get to the outer. Without that, we just get a bunch of bumping heads and spinning wheels--which is exactly what you see. Most respectfully (and anticipating wonderful dialog!), > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rickrad > Sent: Apr 17, 2014 8:45 PM > To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: [TRANSPARTISAN] Full Transpartisanship > > > Most of us here, it seems, are "dialog transpartisans" meaning > that we are focused on bringing all sides together for healthy > dialog, deliberation and debate -- sometimes informally, > (e.g. Living Room Conversations) sometimes formally > (e.g. Voice of the People). > > I would like to make the case that such dialogs -- while essential -- > are only a first step and that "full transpartisanship" requires > something more. > > Full transpartisanship, I will argue, requires a vision of government > that unites the parallel pursuits of maximum freedom, maximum > social justice, maximum realism, maximum peace and maximum > sustainability -- all without compromise. > > At first glance, such a vision of government might sound impossible > but a first draft of such a vision is here: > http://IncentiveReform.org/Pentanomics.docx > > The quick summary is to imagine the modern world (capitalism, > democracy and diplomacy/defense) and add (1) a reform called > cap-and-prioritize to economize collective resources in order to > pursue social justice within libertarian limits; and (2) a global > implementation of cap-and-trade to pursue sustainability right. > > Now here's the hard part: It is easy to be in favor of dialog (who really > can be against it?) but it is hard to be in favor of structural reform -- > it's a big change, after all, and it requires re-thinking a lot of assumptions > we've all held for decades. > > And yet that is what I believe we must do. > > Why? Because no matter how formally and professionally > dialog might be done (e.g. Voice of the People), the most it > can possibly accomplish (I believe) is bipartisan compromise. > > In order to achieve full transpartisanship (i.e. maximum freedom, > maximum social justice, maximum pragmatism, maximum peace > and maximum sustainability at the same time) we need > more than dialog, we need structural incentive reform as > described above. > > I don't expect one email to persuade anyone -- but I do hope > to open a dialog about the idea that dialog is only a first > step and that full transpartisanship is something more. > > - Rick Raddatz > Founder, http://IncentiveReform.org > 303-949-8075 > > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 > > > > www.greenteaparty.us > FB: green tea party movement > Home: (952) 887-2763 > Cell (952) 797-2302 ############################
To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1
|
