Mayday USA and Lawrence Lessing

Lawrence Lessig is out there living his passion and communicating his truth.  In that, he is commendable.  He makes a compelling argument for everyone to give up their defeatist attitudes - "What can I do about it?" and stand up and help solve the issues that our collective apathy have brought about.  He has started the movement Mayday US and you can check out his website if you are interested. 

As i said in "A Movement of Ones", we can all do something. I have up to this point no argument with his statements, nor can I (or would I) refute his claim that it is the 1% that is driving the U.S. (and I would add most Western democracies') political and governmental decisions while people stand idly by, consoling themselves with "Well, what can I do about it anyway?".  Small consolation that. 
 
I do object to Lawrence's scope and the fact that he is using the weapon of hope.  Weapon of hope?  Yes, I will explain that below.

Hope as a Weapon
Hope - a weapon?  But haven't we all been taught that hope is a good thing? Well it certainly can be.  Anything can be either helpful, hurtful or neutral.  In the instance of fixing a completely corrupt systemic institution - hope is not only not useful.  I believe it is a dangerous, even a weapon which will backfire on the one's wielding it.  Let me explain.
 It would be like wishing that the food in your fridge, that better comes under the title of  "failed science experiment" could be salvaged as viable nutrition.  Rather than just wishing, suppose you began to hope and then moved into actually working towards salvaging it and making it edible once moreI Even if it were possible, would it be the best we could do?  Is this somewhere hope should be employed?  I think not.  
It would be regrettable that we had forgotten about the food and not managed it better.  But having discovered that it is wholly  corrupted and no longer good to use, the best thing would be to throw it out and get something new in there.  Hope in this instance would be ridiculous.
Yet let us suppose that one of us (or more) feels an attachment to this particular  piece of ex-food and wants to salvage it at all costs.  We might try to clean it up, rehabilitate it, perhaps try to deodorize, remove the mold and the bacteria growing on it in the hopes that we would find it palatable again.  But would it ever be safe to eat?  No. And that hope would drive you to waste your time and energy investing in something which will never return either to you in any meaningful way.  A blind hope, like a blind love is not helpful and may be harmful.  It is a weapon.  It can leave one feeling depressed, resentful, or destructively angry.  Ultimately wielding hope in a hopless situation will shut down the will to act.  This is using hope as a weapon.
Now some of you will feel this to be unfair as an example but I think you understand better what I mean by the weapon of hope.  I believe that in presenting hope of systemic reform of government to the people and getting them to believe, as he obviously does,
 that it is possible, Mr. Lessing is using that hope as a weapon.  I do not however, believe that it is his intention to do so.

Is systemic reform of governmental institutions possible?

Where I disagree with Mr. Lessing is that systemic reform is possible.  The Romans went down trying to reform a corrupt system, a system which was broken.  Mr. Lessing uses the example of the first Pentium chip and its repair - which came at great cost - to assure us that such reform of the governmental system is possible.  But before you sign up and start marching, ask yourself one question.  Is he right?  Other forms of government have been taken out before, "fixed", and re-instated yet they ended up as corrupt as ever.  The monarchy in France after the Revolution is a case in point.  True, they eventually got themselves free again but is their current government doing the will of the people?  Or is the Emperor simply wearing a different mask?

Is Democracy viable?
"We the people..." is a compelling phrase.  We the people have wanted to believe in democracy since Greece, if not before.  Yet what we have is not a true democracy.  I don't believe that democracy, the representative kind which we have, where we send someone else as a proxy to do what we want and pay them to do it because we can't be bothered, can ever end up as anything but a totalitarian dictatorship.  I believe that what we need is a realization that you can't send someone to do your job.  You need to voice your own opinion.  In the past that hadn't been possible.  Are things different?  Is there something that might make democracy, real democracy, possible?

Democracy and Social Media
 In this age of facebook, skype, instagram, twitter, and other forms of social media,we could have a real, not a representative, democracy.    I think that is at the very least where the mark should be set.  1 voice, 1 vote, period.  The corporations as entities should not be able to sneak in behind our backs (actually they don't even really try to hide what they are doing anymore) and buy the politicians we have elected.  If we were to remove the politicians, or susbstantially downgrade their roles, we would not only slow down corruption , we would save ourselves a lot of money.  We only need a few taskers to do the grunt work of small items - approving infrastructure maintenace and other small things.  For the large ticket items - pipeline or other potentially ecologically hazardous items, major changes in policy, approval of the budget, and so on - we all vote.  It can be done.

Insufficient Scope 
But what Mr. Lessing is suggesting is not enough.  Like all university type thinkers, he has an idea but it is an unconnected idea.  
So let's say that he does accomplish the fact that they have a more honest government.  It is still perpetuating the monster that government has become from the standpoint of all of the inefficiencies in the system  The system itself is what needs reform, not just one tiny part of it.

Another way - the Inclusive Local Circle
Now, personally, I believe that the flaw in democracy is not fixable.  It is a system, which we have explored over generations and frankly it hasn't really held up well.  Like Monarchy, Oligarchy, Communism, Democracy is not a particularly humane system.  I think that we need to go to a locally driven Circle type of government, which would link with other local governments in a network.  You might need a few co-ordinators but you would not in any way need the huge (and expensive) governmental system we currently support with our taxes.  It would be less expensive and more efficient.  

Local Governments and Responsiveness
Local governments can not help but be more responsive to their
citizens concerns because they live in the same communities. They are impacted by any issues the community faces, such as:

• Water
• Energy
• Land use
• Education
• Medical attention
• Quality of Life
• Recycliing
• Food

These can all be dealt with at a local level.  In a study, the U.N. found that if local communities were to take care of the bulk of raising their own food, we would be able to feed everyone. 

Change 
Old habits die hard.  I'm not saying this would be a welcome change.  I'm not saying that people who are privileged under the current corrupt system will not fight to keep what they have.  The more the system is (or you believe it is) serving your needs the less you want change.  But if we choose not to become extinct within the next few hundred years we need to start the process of change now.  

What will it take?
Most people know the problems we face.  They might hide their head in the sand about it but they know.  Lessing claims he has given people hope.  Maybe he is right.  My contention is that hope will not be enough.
There are some qualities that we need to  cultivate in order to forge a new way:

1. Awareness - We need to wake up and look around us and actually see things the way they are, not the way we were told they are.
2. Honesty - It is important to be honest about what we are facing and the fact that we can find a solution.
3. Courage - It is important to confront our fears and forge on toward a solution.
4. Vision - We need a new vision of the future.  Without a new vision, we will continually recreate the same mess.
5.  Ceativity- We need a creative way to solve our issues.
6. Solidarity - We need to put aside our personal differences and stand together to get to a new future.
7. Understanding and Compassion - We will not necessarily "get it right"  right away.  That does not mean we are not on the right track.

What Lessing Missed
What Lessing missed is this - the Pentium chip, he used in his example was new.  It was not an old chip which had become corrupt.  It was a brand new item, which needed tweaking.  That is possible.  What he is suggesting is not.
  
A Vision and A Voice
We have the false idea that only a democracy can give us a voice.  There are other ways to have a voice.  Let's look at that and really start something that will serve humanity - all of us.  And let's do it now.  It doesn't need hope.  It needs clarity and the qualities listed above.  But most of all it needs a way forward.  It needs a vision of a better future, not just the reruns of our past failings and hopes.  That is a vision, which is emerging.  I will leave that for a future installment.
In conclusion,  I wish Mr. Lessing safe travels on his hero's journey.  I don't believe he is wrong necessarily but I maintain that he is walking with his eyes closed in the dark over rough terrain.  That is a dangerous journey.  

Dependent, Codependent, Independent, or Interdependent?  Which one are you?

Babies are beautiful and totally dependent.  As babies, we are all born dependent on others for our welfare.  Our childhood, teen years, and even into our early twenties are a gradual weaning off of this dependency.  Some of us don't make the cut and become codependent.  This is not the "healthy" independence that every parent wants their child to grow up and acheive.  We all take  great pride in our independence, be it individual, national, or other but is that the most desirable state for humanity?  Let's really take a look at this "given", shall we?
 Let's define our terms here before we go further.  From the Oxford Dictionary, let me present you with some definitions, beginning with the root word. -
Dependence 

• contingent on, or determined by someone or something;    
• requiring someone or something for financial, emotional, or other support; 
• unable to do without.

Despite our illusions of independence, given the definition above, most of us are and remain dependent all of our lives.  We are not sufficient unto our selves - producing our own food, energy, and so on. We often don't like to look at that aspect of our society yet it exists.  Most of us achieve the type of independence, which our society does everything in its power to assure we do not achieve because the more dependent we are, the more easily exploited we are.  As children we require our parents to support us in numerous ways and as said above we proceed to become less dependent on them as we age.  It can be argued that the parents are merely exchanged for the marriage (or non-marriage) partner.  To some extent this is true.  But that is another discussion altogether.

It is easy to see where the other definitions branch off from the root. Codependence would come from the last meaning.  Codependence is the uneviable state that sometimes passes for "normal" or even "self-sacrificing".  It is "the state of being excessively reliant, emotionally or psychologically upon someone else, who requires support due to an addiction or illness".  .So instead of determining one's own way and finding one's own passion and purpose, the codependent person allows the partner to become the determining factor in their life.  The addicted partner has given up their independence to the addiction of course.  This is generally agreed to be unhealthy behaviour.

If independence is" the state of being free of outside control, not depending on another's authority". The question one should be asking oneself is, am I independent?  Be honest now...how much does the media influence your choice of what you wear, drive, or how you live? Could you simply go out and quit your job?  What about taxes?  Rules and regulations?  You are independent to some extent .  But you aren't completely.  Although you could be, for a price most of us are unwilling to pay.  We leave that to the Nelson Mandelas and the Ghandis of the world.  Ever wonder what would happen if we did not?  If we really all took our own independence in hand?

So what about interdependence?  I was disappointed with the definition in the Oxford Dictionary.  All it said was,  "...the state of two or more people (or things) being dependent on each other."
Not positive and not negative, mostly not a very good explanation at all, which always peaks my curiosity.  Why just that definition?  If dependence is generally thought of as a "bad" thing and we define interdependence as "being dependent", doesn't that make it "bad" by association?  (I know "bad" is not very accurate - sorry!)  I personally, believe that we have been duped into believing that independence is preferable to interdependence.  That it is a black and white, all or nothing proposition.  I believe that it is a  case of both being necessary in proportion.  Let me explain:

1. You need to develop independence of thought.  You need to be able to really see what is and not what you are conditioned to see, question what is, and arrive at an understanding of your own beliefs, your passion and purpose in life.
2. Then you need to use that insight and your passion and share it with others.  They support you in your passion and you in turn support them.  That is interdependence.

Interdependence is what allows us to work together.  As long as we remain isolated, we can be kept in a state of dependence.  Although that may be a very good thing for those in the society who make their money off the easily-led types, it is not a healthy way for us to continue to live.  
Have you every had the experience of a group working together and managing to accomplish far more than expected in far less time?  This is especially evident if the thing they are working on is something they are all committed to and all passionate about.


Einstein once said "Everyone is a genius.  But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing it is stupid."  I would add to that, If all the fish, who have been judged "stupid" by the system get together and share notes, they may find out the truth - that the judgment was wrong.  Interdependence can do that.  That is why we are taught to be independent.  So that each poor fish believes themselves to be incapable, when they are not.  Because they all stay in their independent little bowls, never sharing their story with anyone else, this belief persists.


Independence and interdependence - both are important.  There are many places on the web that are helping people to reach out and find community.  Check these out:
http://www.liveyourlegend.com
http://www.thepassiontest.com
http://www.globalcoherenceinitiative.com
As always love to hear your feedback!
Love and light,
Jadzia

Are we missing a basic right in the Charter of Human Rights?  I think we are after reading a shocking news article yesterday.  It read:  Homeless woman fined for building her own home. 
Really?
Don't we have a right to build our own home?  But when I thought about it, maybe we don't.  That would be a coup for the construction industry and all its related components but most of all it would be a coup for the bankers and investors, who are gaining more and more power in our unbalanced times.  
Reading the article, I began to feel an increasing conviction that, just like raising our own food, we should have the right to build a home that suits us.  As long as we are not endangering others.  This woman was not.  And the fine she received was $10,000!  She was building the small dwelling herself with donated materials.  She was not in the middle of town or anywhere that her (perhaps shoddy) construction skills could impact on anyone else's property values, as I understand it.  So why the fine?
This woman was trying, with the help of others' donations, to better her lot in life and put a roof over her head.  Does\' she not have a right to do that?  I would like to build my own dwelling also and I know that there is a growing trend away from the "box" housing they are building for people en masse, where you get to look at garages, and into your neighbours' houses for a view.  The Tiny House movement is coming on strong in the U.S. and  here  in our area people are building with cob, straw and other natural building materials, that are more people and earth-friendly.  
When our "building" codes and ordonnances meant to promote general safety, instead begin to promote wealth in the pockets of the politicians, and financiers, instead of allowing people to build their lives in a humane fashion, that equals a warning sign in my eyes.
We as a species tend to make a law and keep that law long after its usefulness has expired.  Don't believe that?  Then you might not know that Toronto has a law that you cannot drag a dead horse through the streets (Sorry, if you were planning on doing that!), or that you can wear a sword in public (but not kiss) as long as it is sheathed.   So why not this right?
The Tiny House movement is coming on strong and facing opposition as is the  movement to build with more natural materials.
It may not be your particular interest but that doesn't mean that the right to do it shouldn't be available.  
So here is the missing right - People have the right to design and build, with materials of their choosing, their own dwelling place, without harassment from government or banks. 
That's my say.  Have your's below.