We are surrounded by language every day, but how often do we encounter real conversation? Although we read newspapers, screens, and books, engage in small talk or argument, the pace of our lives is such that the simple gestures of listening carefully and speaking prudently are amazingly rare. The Friday Night Salon aims at being an antidote to the urban pace that denies the civilizing graces of community. We begin with good food and drink, then take our places in a circle for discussion about a variety of topics. It's a welcome way to end the typical Dallas workweek. Topics for each Salon will be listed on the
Institute website bulletin board.
Discussion topics for May 4, 2007: 
1. Are violence and religion inescapably linked?
2. What is the purpose of public education in the U.S.?
3. Is altruism possible? Could or should a government practice it?
(Moderated by Dr. Larry Allums)
Feel free to talk about one or two of the topics. I know some of you already responded to #1 last salon. See the comments.
1. Are violence and religion inescapably linked?
9 comments:
Here's what you said for the roll over topic (#1) last time:
Michelle said: No, though the inability to accept absolute truth, and the lack of understanding of how to "love they neighbor" and violence are
P-ta said: False. Though Fundamentalism and Violence are close bedfellows.
I'll chime in with my input soon, and will take notes at the salon on Friday since my doppleganger won't be able to go (sniff.)
BTW, we all get to nominate topics for the salon and Dr. Boy gets to pick each week.
Christine made the list this week (quite an honor). Her's is topic #2 which means it WILL get discussed!!
So chime in Fougs so I can take your spirit with me on Friday.
Wow. That sounded way zombie-ish. Or maybe witchy?
Bitchy is right out..
uh. right now, but it's early.
excuse me for being self-centered, but maybe this little discussion can help me with one of the papers I have to write this week. Habermas said the opportunity of modernity was to complete the great project of the enlightenment, that is, to provide a public forum with open access to everyone. He thought salons and cafe movements were the greatest motivator for the fantastic progress politically and culturally. But then, the advent of media ruined the progress because it made the public arena a commodity, not openly accessible at all. He did see some potential for rekindling this in the "new social movements". I'm trying to take that and run with it. But also, what about the conversation cafe movement, a la Eric Utne, such as your own Friday salon? Much of these are online so are they equally accessible at all? Or only to the young and hip who can use and afford technology? And the salons in a physical sense: are they openly accessible? What could be changed to make them so? Would a bureaucratic ordering help? Which would tie everything back into the NGOs of the "new social movements" theoretically. Finally, is all this the path to social change (dare I use the progressivist term, progress?) anyway? Or are we just amusing ourselves with delusions of control over the patterns that society randomly finds over time?
Paper's due Friday, so think fast.
Jamie just said something so smart about #3! Isn't a government of its very nature altruistic? If it isn't working for the welfare of its people, it isn't "for the people, by the people" anymore.
Okay, G... Fougs here... here're my thoughts. I'm so bummed I won't be there, so you must take notes over my topic. Favore!!
1. I'm with P-ta. In fact, when an adherent of any given religion boils down his set of beliefs, I think most will find violence anathema to what the deity of his choice would most want. That being said, once people get involved, we tend to mess it up.
2. Should people be concerned that I'm a public school teacher and I don't know the answer to this question? Maybe it is enough to be asking it. I think that the purpose of public education is to perpetuate the given society. That may take the form of militant madrasas in a place where the society feels under attack and it may take the form of the egalitarian ideal that all citizens should be able to go to college in a country of wealth. I'm most concerned with this country, so that's my focus. I think that our public education should at its core be designed to produce citizens who will be useful to the society (in the many forms that takes) and who will be able to participate in the society and government in ways which will keep the society/republic alive and well. (To me the key to this second goal is the ability to read, listen, and think critically – in other words, the ability to detect false arguments and outright bullshit coming from a given candidate or official.) I'm not sure of the best way to meet these goals. Is attempting to get every teenager in the country into college really the best focus? Perhaps in so doing we are setting ourselves up to have a need to outsource "undesirable" jobs, which seems a dangerous setup to me. We are also casting manual labor in a negative light. I like that our high school has a balance, with a strong agriculture program and classes that teach skills such as welding right alongside AP and IB programs.
So, I don't have much of an answer. That's why I asked the question. The second half of my question was about funding, and that REALLY interests me. Maybe he'll do that separately sometime.
3. In classic salon fashion, I needed a definition.
Altruism: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
Is this possible? How can you ask that question when Mother Teresa lived on this planet?
As for the rest of us unsaintly ones, including governments and other groups, I say that the "concern for or devotion to the welfare of others" is not just possible but is vital. My problem with the definition is the word "unselfish." First of all, I don't care if you are doing the right thing for a selfish reason or not, just so long as you do it. If you are out building Habitat houses because you think it will get you into heaven, does that really lessen the impact your work is having for the greater good?
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is never selfish to take care of others. I firmly believe in the interconnectedness of everything. If that is true, then it is really impossible to be selfish in any action that helps others, because you are helping yourself. It is my sincere hope that governments and countries will be able to learn this lesson. If you can help provide for others and therefore give them hope for their futures and the futures of their families, they will be much less likely to want to blow themselves up. But, as is true with interpersonal relationships, material gifts will only get you so far. We have to give each other the gift of our listening, and this is perhaps the biggest problems for governments. I see that it is hard to listen to someone who is threatening the people who are your responsibility. But it is naive to think there is any other way to solve the problem. You cannot fight violence with violence, it will only perpetuate itself. As the Dhammapada says, "Hate is not conquered by hate; hate is conquered by love. This is the eternal law."
Annie - I don't know the answers to your questions. (sorry)
I can say that the salon I attend is actually made up of a variety of folks from Dallas (we're not all teachers and we do not all have the same socio-eco situation), and so we all have vastly different ideas/opinions.
The goal of our salon is not to change a political or social circumstance, as that would require debate which is forbidden in our discussions, but is to promote communitas - the spirit of community. Ours is more of an idea sharing for further understanding, and also it's an attempt to practice real, intelligent conversation; that is speaking mindfully and carefully listening.
In fact, I diagree with several people at the salon on certain topics (esp. political ones), but instead of debating with them, I might say something like, "I think you're right about this and this, but I would like to suggest that this is a good idea too," or "Please explain where your idea is coming from," or "I respectfully disagree and would say that this is a more viable answer."
We are not on line, but anyone can attend. We do pay for the salon, though Dr. Boy wouldn't turn anyone away; he will gladly welcome anyone who is interested to come and share.
I think we are progressive in that we are thinking critically about differing opinions and we are certainly learning from each other, but the goal is not to further an agenda or to move politically. I don't think we are out to change anything, but ourselves, really.
Finally, I think anyone can start a salon. It just takes a bit of organization. And more than using technology to encourage participation, I think good old fashion word-of-mouth is the best promotion.
Using the idea of salon (or community) to change the the world politically and culturally is better seen in Mark's "Green Pea" idea. Check out the link under my accomplices list. He has a description at the bottom of this new blog.
Hi everyone. Greenpea is not really being updated as I would wish yet, as we're still in the process of setting up meetings and events to promote the ideal.
So, in the meantime see also last entry on other blog:
Liberal 'representative' democracy is misnamed, because politics and law-making is mostly done through unaccountable, overpowerful, unrepresentative channels.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence"
And where once these channels helped to free us from the brutal world of kings, they now constitute a democratic trap. Though told we live in a democratic state, we are not yet truly free.
If we really want humanity & freedom to flower we must work together to create new political conditions. This is envisaged as a new constitution of governance, built from the ground up, by ordinary people in common cause. An inclusive, decentralised, movement that eventually transforms the system. So that one day political decision-making is as it should be: locally centred, popular, non-hierarchical, transparent and, most important of all, accountable to people.
This ideal of political, rather than merely liberal democracy is closely aligned with the positive republican tradition of democratic thought. This was once championed by Jean Jacques Rousseau and is today found operating, to some degree [known also as direct democracy] in his native Switzerland.
Rousseau believed representative democracy tended to create an elite ruling class, because of its emphasis on election rather than participation. He pointed out that, although it was undoubtedly an improvement on the rule of kings that preceded it, representative democracy was by no means government by the people.
Under the positive republican tradition, 'liberty under the law' is the idea that good laws can make us more free. But this theory also states that good laws are only possible when ordinary people are able to participate in framing them. Without regular, popular participation in law-making, the state will invariably make bad laws, either because it over-protects the interests of an influential and domineering few [often banks, corporations and large landowners], or because it fails to articulate or take into account the 'aspirations of the powerless majority.'
Under our much vaunted systems of representative 'liberal democracy', this is exactly what has happened, to our great and abiding impoverishment.
To counter this, it is necessary to build alternative structures of power, independently and from the ground up. The 'democratisation of all spheres of life,' especially in the places we live and work, is the key to transforming the whole of our political constitution, community by community, from below.
This is an introduction to the ideal of political democracy.
See also ideas at ESEI inspired by the US anarchist thinker, Murray Bookchin.
"lifestyle activism is flawed .. [instead, let us focus on] .. the relationship between the global and the local, and [understand] that the kind of globalisation that fosters an ecological balance between nature and society can only emerge from community".
With this in mind in London there is a regular [weekly] meeting group to discuss these ideas, a kind of reading/action study group dedicated to social change, from below.
Most recently they've been looking at the idea of Participatory Economics, which you can read more about at ZNet
Have a good one salonistas!
M
Sorry, Fougs.
I din't get to the salon on account of my assmar.
(Or really on account of my stomach muscles being shredded into a million little fibers and then shoved up my nose in time to mutate into the ooze that is caking my throat and lungs... NOT. PRETTY. and mmmm. cake.)
Instead, we'll just have to have a mock salon, you, Jamie, Rich and me. We can even attempt the different accents to mirror the ones at the salon so we feel more ecclectic and diverse. I'll start researching Aristotilian v. Platonian and Dionysian v. Apollonian and Locke and Degas and some other smart suchness on these particular topics. You brush up on your German.
Definitely, we'll have to end the evening with dinner in D.
Post a Comment