[Springboard] Deep culture behind our debate on health care reform

Thu Sep 3 10:06:12 CDT 2009

I would say the older we get, the more random ...  would be interesting, though to have an archive.

Jim

Coincidence is the spiritual equivalent of a pun.  G. K. Chesterton

Jim Wiegel

401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401

+1  623-936-8671   +1  623-363-3277

   jfwiegel at yahoo.com   www.partnersinparticipation.com

--- On Thu, 9/3/09, M. George Walters <m.george.walters at verizon.net> wrote:

From: M. George Walters <m.george.walters at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Springboard] Deep culture behind our debate on health care reform
To: "'Springboard Dialogue'" <springboard at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 7:37 AM

Hi Jim 

Great stuff. Are the Springboard Dialogues organized by
categories or just random? It seems to me where possible these insights could
greatly facilitate the background thinking for the workshop tracks in the
Symposium. Some like the one below relate to all the tracks in that they go
deep. Others may focus more on content. 

Your thoughts? 

With kindest regards. 

M. George Walters 

Resurgence Publishing Corporation 

4240 Sandy Shores Dr 

Lutz, FL 33558 

USA 

Tel: +1 (813) 948-7267 

Fax: +1 (813) 333-1787 

Mob: +1 (813) 505-9041 

URL: www.ResurgencePublishing.com 

From:
springboard-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:springboard-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On
Behalf Of James Wiegel

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:53 AM

To: Order Ecumenical Community; Colleague Dialogue;
springboard at wedgeblade.net

Subject: [Springboard] Deep culture behind our debate on health care
reform 

  I can see, from this conversation, how much more is going
  on in the health care reform debate, and how much more is being added in, so
  it becomes an "argument about everything" . . . and this is among
  us, a quite small demographic of people, I think, with a shared history and a
  "transestablishment" (facilitative) perspective of brining people
  together for consensus, common vision, etc.

  In the project I have been helping with re:  combining ICA's ToP and
  other methods for use in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, one of the
  project partners talks about 3 levels of a conflict:  conflict over
  resources, conflict over goals, conflict over identities.  Their insight
  is that once a conflict becomes about identity, there is something non
  negotiable that enters in to the conversation.   Another of the
  project partners talks about elements of the "deep culture" that
  fuel conflict -- a "cognitive pathology" and an "emotional
  pathology" (see below)   

  ·        
  Deep Cultures often have elements which are
  counterproductive for peace. Two syndromes in particular can generally be
  identified. There is a cognitive pathology in Deep Culture which affects how
  a society thinks and analyses a conflict. There is also an Emotional
  pathology which strongly affect attitudes.  
  ·        
  The Cognitive syndrome, DMA for short, is
  centered on Dichotomy (reducing the conflict to 2 conflict parties only)i, Manichaeism (where one side is “Good” and one side
  is “Evil”) and Armageddon (that there will be a final and inevitable battle
  in which Good decisively destroys Evil).  
  ·        
  The Emotional syndrome, CGT for short, is
  centered on Chosenness (the belief that a group of people have been chosen by
  transcendental forces or history for a political mission), Glory (the myths
  of past and future glory, underscoring their Chosenness), and Trauma (the
  experience of past injuries and defeats, underscoring the need to pursue
  their Mission).  

  iWe reinforce this syndrome when we call the
  “Israeli – Palestinian” identities into the room 

  Jim

  Coincidence is the spiritual equivalent of a pun. G. K. Chesterton

  Jim Wiegel

  401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401

  +1 623-936-8671 +1 623-363-3277

  jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com

  --- On Wed, 9/2/09, jonzondo at juno.com <jonzondo at juno.com>
  wrote: 

  From: jonzondo at juno.com <jonzondo at juno.com>

  Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] More about the definitions of Liberal and
  Conservati ve

  To: oe at wedgeblade.net

  Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 11:15 PM 

  1)Most conservatives I know support Diebold voting
  machines.  Some make money off of them.  And in Washington State,
  there was conservative resistance to a paper trail.

  2) The elections of 2000 and 2004 and the lack of interest in counting every
  vote.

  3) Discussions with my conservative relatives.

  4) "Illegal" Phone calls made in several states to my friends of
  different ethnicities giving false information about the 2008 election, all
  in an effort to reduce the number of people voting for Obama.

  I hope that all people are ready for fair clean elections.  That will be
  a blessing.

  Jon Elizondo

  You've got to be kidding!  Where could you possibly have come up with
  the idea that conservatives oppose fair clean elections and open government? 

  ____________________________________________________________

  Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!

  http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYcxwRKK2WhZ4jfXZJ1Rns6QRfnv2OQUVezn2U9UD7gndVhM8JS/ 

  You've got to be kidding!  Where could you possibly have
  come up with the idea that conservatives oppose fair clean elections and open
  government?  Part of the huge problem with Obama is that he promised
  transparency and hasn't practiced it.  And can you possibly know about
  Acorn and think the Democrats are all about clean electins? Conservatives
  support everything on your list. They just don't support distortion and
  manipulation of all those issues. 

  Susan 

  From:
  oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Dave
  Thomas

  Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:49 PM

  To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'

  Subject: [Oe List ...] More about the definitions of Liberal and
  Conservative 

  Learn
  more about Liberals and the types of Conservatives (Traditional
  Conservatives, Libertarians, Christian Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives)
  who oppose them at http://www.pugetsoundliberals.org/bootcamp/05AboutLiberals.htm

  Also
  note our Liberal Priorities, which Conservatives consistently oppose: 
  ·       Fair Clean Elections and Open
  Government  
  ·       Fair Taxes and Competent Spending 
  ·       Investment for Productivity 
  ·       Quality Health, Education, Jobs,
  Income  
  ·       Environmental Protection and
  Energy Independence 
  ·       Security and Equal Rights  
  ·       Justice and Peace Everywhere 
  ·       International Cooperation and
  Leadership 

  Conservatives oppose all of these  Dave
  Thomas 

  From:
  oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of ed
  feldmanis

  Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 7:59 PM

  To: oe at wedgeblade.net

  Subject: [Oe List ...] What do we mean by a right? To Jim, Dave,et.al.
  re: Conservativism 

  Jim,

  The most eloquent modern day description that I have seen is in the book
  Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater.

  I have to agree with Dave as far as his description goes. Here is where I
  found the problem, at least for me: Conservatives may give lip service to these
  values, but they intolerantly restrict the freedoms and opportunities they
  would offer people different from themselves, often valuing the freedom of
  businesses more than the freedom of individuals.  

  I find that statement in general to be devastatingly true and possibly
  un-American. However, I don't agree that every conservative is merely giving
  lip service. My own impression is that Barry Goldwater was very sincere and
  specific in his book. At the point of writing the book, in my opinion, there
  was some sense in that folks still wanted to make America work for everybody
  and they thought they had more common ground than there is today.

  For a while it, the Goldwater book, was the standard of what a conservative
  was. Conservativism was tied to merit, learning,  service, pay as you go
  spending, and the wide spread use of incentives before deciding to create an
  agency; and, by the way, there was some sense of what is called
  state-craft.  If pushed beyond Goldwater to Teddy Roosevelt it was also
  tied to conservation.  I think in my time this is as close to having a
  dynamic - conservativism- defined in some stability. (Notice some of the
  liberalism inherent in the above description.)

  Where I really disagree is where many people simply call the new crowd
  conservatives; for example, the crowd now in power and mostly Southerners and
  their business conspirators. The label, I think, in this case, is a cop out
  for the sake of convenience.  In my mind, I can not get the label of
  conservative to stick on extremists or people who have neo-fascist
  ideas.  These are the same people who called Goldwater a liberal. And
  they are the so-called conservatives of our day.  I don't buy it, but
  the press and then everyone else seems to.

  Ed

  -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 

  _______________________________________________

  OE mailing list

  OE at wedgeblade.net

  http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Springboard mailing list
Springboard at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/springboard_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/springboard_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090903/492c1761/attachment-0001.html>