This lightness of ours is most evident on OEN, which is sort of our virtual home. I was always wondering why our level of tolerance had not developed much although the site exists for already a rather long time and had become a very fruitful source of knowledge. Still, we do not value the alliance much. You can easily predict the pattern of the comment thread; if the article is somehow personal, like about women or a personal experience, or animals, or an ethnicity, or about, say, libertarians - you can expect a significant feedback. If the article makes an attempt on explanation of the phenomena (whether war or some act, or the process of election, etc) from the positions of a particular ideology, sort of establish a parametric surface - that article rarely gets more then 2 or 3 comments; people do not like to be lectured. Some very powerful authors get no comments at all for months. This is not whining -- I am sincerely concerned; we do not cultivate allies. Our behavior on OEN still resembles the billiard balls - we collide but do not get dents. We behave like an ideal gas model. Why?
I think it is because of the lack of the goal. Imagine an engineering company with no product. People come to work every day, they discuss technical issues, make calculations, write reports - all of that for nothing; no final product, no hardware, no machine. I think we on OEN are in exactly that stage - we sit in the same room, know what we are and why we are there, but there is no sense of the common goal and our energy dissipates in hitting each other.
I am a former chess player and I remember a story about a famous genius Jose-Raul Capablanca. He once watched a group of people analyzing a game. He approached and asked what they they were seeking. They told him that they were trying to find a way for the White to win.
"That's easy," said Capa, "You have to put these pieces (he had shown which) into these places for the final position."
"Yes," said the folks, "But how do we achieve that?"
"Oh that," said Capa, "You will figure that out yourself."
The progressive cause is just, so the goal should be easy. Turns out it is not that simple. It cannot be a goal of survival - never works. It cannot be a goal of restrain - never works either. Nothing can be turned back and a person with a cell-phone will never return to the rotary ring. The goal must be a new opportunity, something which promises a better life for EVERYONE approaching. It can be within the current framework of values but promising a new approach to it. It has to feel better for (sorry to say that) petty, selfish interests of the people. What's the goal then?
I would dare to state that the definition of that goal is the MAIN AND URGENT task standing in front of the progressives for them to stop being a crowd and becoming a movement. Here's how I see it, IMHO:
The goal of the progressive movement is the development of the power structure for the truly qualified and honest to rule.
I sincerely believe that truly qualified and honest are actually the power for the people, of the people and by the people; I believe I personally will prosper under the power of the qualified and honest and I believe that those monumental problems of Humanity could be easily solved if those qualified and honest exercise that power. And I believe that qualification and honesty transfigures the otherwise natural human qualities towards the service of good. It is just the matter of the proper standards.
"Insurmountable obstacles seem that way to us because we stay on our knees. Let's stand up"
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
1
