From: KNat <knat@sprintmail.com>
Perhaps a different view. Using more facets and less sides.
Stating a concern one can see from their vantage point strengthens the
ability of the group, to all see the same decision and its implications,
to decide together. A concern of "negative" implication is not saying
don't continue. It is merely saying "I see a potentially contrary
reaction in this plan."
The trust in the group, is to be brave enough to be the only one who
sees it and speak your truth without fear of personal isolation.
--------------------------
From: Michael Burns
Subject: Re: [permaculture] Democratic solutions to Permacultures
conflicts?
......
The second problem is if you do not believe a national organization is needed or appropriate at this time, to disagree with Kevin's idea as presented also meant you would appear to agree with his characteraztions of those who would disagree as lacking in "trust in democratic process and organization," and prone to "individualistic trends." Earlier in his questions/proposal he suggested that we needed a process that "does not further divide us all, or place people in turf battles, or cause any of the other internal problems that seem to plague the 'movement'?
Unwittingly, a discussion becomes framed as you are either for a democratic national organization OR if not you are an undemocratic individualist that accepts the divisions and turf battles. Egos, values, and our own personal worth are at stake and the original question becomes mired in distracting accusation, comparisons, personal declarations, and dormant and minor disagreements become divisions in a movement.
...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.