g. ChopWood, CarryWater

AVATAR IS SCI-FI ABOUT A TEAL SOCIETY!

Submitted by Stella on Sat, 07/24/2010 - 15:55

In Reference to: Avatar: The Many Levels of Pandora

I was looking forward to a juicy interpretation of this film (having heard the matrix review Ken did which I loved) and was soo disappointed!

The dialogue itself is the hodgepodge of contradictions it claims the film was...

eg. starts with describing tribal as not having invented the wheel yet, and then applies it to a peoples who have mastered organic flying (hello?) - which by the way, is clearly presented as the rite of passage Ken says is missing in this tribe, - and just because he's got this idea that it's not a rite of passage unless it involves bugging some other tribe. Bit of axiomatic confusion there.. (a peaceful, non-competitive very advanced society would have more interesting rites of passage, like a dangerous wooing and successful - blissful! - marriage with wild nature. that was such a nice detail)

The interview (rightly) mentions the virtues of modernity (over tribal) being a 30yr add-on of life expectancy and feminism, etc, .... then completely ignores that the Na'vi can practically resuscitate the dead (or badly injured, transposing them into another body no less) and women are clearly equals with men there.

what's going on?

am totally ok with the analysis of post-trans on many things (mean green is the bane of my life, I'll deeply appreciate Ken forever just for giving a name to that crazy-making stuff), but here it's really off.

What I found most interesting was the assumption that 'they hadn't even moved to nations yet' (there's no evidence whatsoever for that, all we know is they're spread out in various tribes across the planet, and they live very peacefully, ie. as a nations' villages would do) - as it echoes something Daniel Quinn say in Ismael.. that in the genocide of the American Indians, it was the tribes that had already tried AND REJECTED agriculture (for not being sustainable) that were the most aggressive in combating the colonialists - who offered them agriculture as a way of helping them move on up the development stages. (i'd love to see an integral take on Ismael by the way...totally essential novel, for anyone interested in how we design humanity's future)

I agree that there is a lot of romanticising of the noble savage in this film, but it would mostly be from that kind of reading some would give it, not the director's perspective, I feel .. And this doesn't bug me anywhere as much as the - clearly director perspective - white-man-as-saviour theme which pops up quite a lot in other stories also (another big discussion but shan't go there now).

For me the most important thing was that I saw the film as a rare vision of a teal-upwards future (where, indeed, the best of tribal, modernity.. etc. all the levels have been integrated) of which I've only found another 3 examples so far, and all from feminist sci-fi writers: Door into Ocean, Woman at the Edge of Time and La Belle Verte (see my recent blog entry).

What they all have in common is that there IS very advanced scientific progress, but it's in the 'soft' sciences, like telepathy, bioenergy mastery, genetic engineering ... and all together with the wisdom to use that huge power for Life, not to dominate or exploit, and an accompanying great respect for our place in nature, and accompanying non-fear of death, or any fear (a most striking feature of level 2). Door into Ocean was written by a biology professor, so it's a double delight, of sci-fi with great science.

Very rare genre, hope to see a lot more of it because we desperately need interesting visions of truly sustainable futures, (sustainable for everyone, not just an elite) and we're swimming in both apocalipse and high-tech fantasy visions, with nothing much in between. I think these are the only teal future visions I've seen so far, would love to hear if others know of more??

And yes, these teal visions all have in common that we go 'back' to living in tribes .. but this is in fact what seems to be, in terms of sustainability, the most logical, healthiest, most resilient and viable social form - a globe of villages, instead of the global village (as planetarization is, I hope, inevitable).

The global eco-village movement is an early experiment in that. Now we also have the Transition Towns movement (big mistake to wrap it all up as boomeritis stuff - sure, the people moving all this might well be mostly full-on green but look a little closer at the science please) ... and we just need to couple those with a truly planetary participatory democracy system (difficult to imagine without internet, which however relies on a heavy industrial base that somehow clashes with the ecovillage model, at least for me, so far .. hence the organic communications systems like telepathy that come up again and again in this type of sci-fi, I guess).

Back to the film review ... I also don't agree totally that modernity is shown as all bad and 'tribal' (which it aint') as all good, either. There were actually more 'good guys' starring as the Earthlings as bad guys and the display of technology they are capable of (that amazing ship Jake arrives in, the lab, etc.) was impressive.

And the Na'vi also have 'baddies' in that they are still prone to jealousy, petty infighting and racism, (but I loved that they are shown as passionate in expressing their feelings! something I also think will mark an important developmental progression for us, but is still considered culturally 'primitive' now), and the freedom in all that beauty they enjoy does come at a high cost, eg. of defying death in their rite of passage. And I got the impression that there's more of those kinds of tests - that if you're not a tough cookie there, you just die (this also comes up in the other sci-fi of this type that I mention above)

So I actually thought the film went some way (given the limitations of the mass-film-industry) towards portraying quite fairly, that the good things in both world-views come with their own big - and simply logical - downsides: an imperialist culture will eventually destroy its environment and have to get very bellicose in order to survive, and an enlightened tribal world, even with the most advanced bio-science imaginable, does not make for an easy life ... and they are still vulnerable to being wiped out by desperate high-tech imperialists if they get too complacent..

In terms of how outstandingly popular this movie was, it is typical of our culture to romanticise the surface sparkle and forget about the actual content, but am sure that if it seriously came down to it, even all the people that got post-Avatar depression wouldn't swap their comfy apartments for a hammock in a tree, no matter how sacred or beautiful the tree. (I have some practical grounds for saying this, as my job involves attempting to train mostly green people who say they want to learn to live closer to nature .. and often find out they really don't.. infact the orange types actually find it easier, ironically enough..)

The "I see you" thing is also interesting - and ¿do you know that one of the most successful eco-villages today (Damanhur in Italy) also have that greeting, only it's "con te" (with you)? Although I get Ken's analysis of it not necessarily being about a spiritual connection, talking about basic narcissism in the wider context of this rich culture (where anyone can plug into Eywa personally) doesn't make much sense, I think.

Yet the most important issue for me here is ¿how do you envisage a truly teal society?

Am not saying this is my perfect vision (nor the plot of the film, see above) but yes I AM celebrating that so many people across the world got to see it, and I hope it influences the visions of the kind of world they wanto live in, as well as make a lot more people conscious of what the imperialist base supporting our great lifestyles is actually costing (in destruction of ecosystems).

What would be most useful here would be to say, ok, it is just a vision, so what IS right and what is wrong with it, as a vision (for our future)?

What is your vision of a teal society?

James Cameron Interviews about Avatar

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT THE WORLD OWES TO NORWAY

Submitted by Stella on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 10:29

In Reference to: Heartbreak in Norway

The most enlightened thing I've heard about the events in Norway, so far:

Another colleague from Oslo sent an incredibly touching email saying how nobody there is talking about the gun-man, that all their leaders have appeared on television crying, saying to listen to each other, to hug ... what is amazing about this event is precisely how they've managed to raise above individualism.

wow

great example

-------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SPIRITUAL BYPASSING

Submitted by Stella on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 23:46

originally titled "What a Relief!"

In Reference to: Spiritual Bypassing

This is SO important, I want everyone to listen to this first recording on Spiritual Bypassing, it'stremendous, thanks so much for putting it out there loud and clear for once.

I was in my early twenties when I first witnessed some extreme forms of 'spiritual bypassing' - actual cruelty inflicted on me from 'pseudo-spirituals', a typically opressive form of 'getting out of feeling one's pain' (do a nasty on someone else). After having my attention drawn to this so poignantly, I could see it happening on others too, and yes it's very common.

And I am sad to say I have kept seeing that kind of stuff all over, but am grateful for these early 'inmunisations' for giving me the in-sight and awareness and am doubly grateful that it is being 'outed' so clearly here, now, in this series of talks. I really hope it marks a coming of age of this particular type of spiritual movement.

It really is no different from any other addiction, and in the 12 step movement they've always known about 'spiritual addiction', by the way (same thing as 'spiritual bypass' or 'doing a geographical') - and all addictions are just about trying to avoid emotional pain ... when it is the actual avoidance that makes it most painful. Really cleanly releasing big emotion, no matter WHICH it is, is simply orgasmic. And - ironically - it's our fear and judgement of some emotions being 'bad' that hurts us more than anything (or 'negative' and others are 'good' or 'positive' - big toxic pseudo-duality right there).

In this recent Beyond Awakening conversation I've been discussing the (for me very BIG and important) issue of the repression of emotion, and how incredibly institutionalised it is, from every angle, including the spiritual. It's just chronic, in our culture, wherever you look.

I love this video by Isha, it's probably THE talk that clinched it: I've finally found my Guru (blogged about it on my guru-birthday here)

"... emotion is one of the beautiful experiences of being human, the capacity to feel. It's wonderful to be human. ... you've created this experience, so enjoy it! "

... so why is it so rare to find spiritual leaders who say this sane stuff?? Too simple? Would make less people dependent on gurus fairly quickly, is my guess.

All the complicated talk about "how to deal with the shadow".. even that is about a kind of repression: analysing it all does NOT make it go away, so no wonder these 'masters' then say 'your shadow will always be with you', and 'you just get to learn to deal with it'. I feel furious when I hear that! It's a huge big fat lie! And I hate that so many people then believe it. It's a typical prophecy that then comes true.

I (and many others I know) have a completely different experience: I have witnessed big huge chunks of shadow melt away and leave no trace ... and quickly, all through simply liberating the emotions, as children do, by good old-fashoned crying, raging, shaking.. what our wonderful human bodies are DESIGNED to do. It's really THAT simple. (what isn't simple is setting up the relationships and safety where you can get to do that work, uninterrupted). Sure you can learn to control it instead, but at what cost?

Am sure other 'release' methods can work too (like 'breathing it out' or going for a monthly scream to the football game, or a big laughter therapy at the comedians), but like any 'by-pass of nature's design', they're probably longer, messier and not as effective in the long run. Just like everything else we've tried with other ecosystems, trying to be cleverer than Nature.

Most entrenched, strong emotional reactions you couldn't analyse if you tried anyway: much is pre-verbal - that's the deepest stuff, often and all you can do is just dump it. I've had big sessions raging or crying desperately (safe in the arms of a counsellor, who just relaxedly loved me through it) about things I could never describe to anyone, nor understand myself ... some I don't even know where they came from, it just felt like the pits of hell, they could even be foetal experiences. Some became as clear as day afterwards, all by themselves. But the point is it doesn't matter: emotional release just works, it's simply 'garbage out', what we do naturally, it's DESIGNED to work ... if we don't interfere with the process.

And if we don't endlessly drama about it. Humans just get so dramatic! A very un-romantic image comes to mind: a cat or a dog who needs to vomit just vomits quickly and moves on. We normally feel compelled to do a big performance around it all, sometimes for hours, even days ... And so on with every other type of discharge we need to get on with. When you dump the expectation of it being long, complicated or messy, and with a bit of practice, it simply isn't.

We have a mania with adding things, when a lot of the time, all we need to do is just to take away, subtract (there's always a pill or therapy for everything, we need to 'take' something, even if it's just 'advice'). But all natural rhythms are like breathing - there is an in and there is an out. Emotions are the out phase, it's very simple. And we deeply screw up when we keep stuffing them and 'taking' something instead of letting them out, and Be.

I hope and pray for the day we just love our humanity enough to really accept it, and love ourselves enough to not buy that there is one hair out of place in our perfection: then life will be a lot simpler, a lot more passional, deep and true.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTEGRAL CITIES

Submitted by Stella on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 17:36

I started working in urban permaculture (a radical sustainability science) about 15yrs ago, in inner London, where our is small organisation, Green Adventure had some success in doing precisely the kind of integrated, community-led projects that the Transition Movement is now popularising as the way to go, if we are to ever hope to reach some kind of sustainable rational society.

As a lifetime activist (and from time passionate would-be integrator) in the area of practical sustainability, I am delighted that finally the large 'personal development' current of emergent humanity is coming round to the idea that touching the earth might actually be an essential spiritual practice, and hope that the green movement will likewise integrate the best of whatever the personal development movement has come up with.

This is something I've been working on for the last 8yrs, and which I recently synthesized as the 8th Life Project, a proposed speeding-up of the action-research + flushing-out of the learning that we've been doing here, on the roots of the reason why (even would-be environmentalists who are quite familiar with the ecological disasters we're facing) we westerners have such massive resistance to doing what Marylin says in the interview we need to do now: "...take what we know and apply it", and take charge of our behaviours in order to do that.

Quite apart from - but related - the issue of integral cities ..

there is a serious question in my mind from time about whether 'sustainable cities' might be an oxymoron .. and despite having this wonderful vision from Anna Edey (a vision she put out there some decade ago, and as an expert in practical sustainability, also beautifully illustrated by her own hand) and being myself a committed optimist - who did hold that vision of cities being possible until not long ago. Now I simply doubt the energy economics hold, but that also depends on what we end up defining as 'cities'.

But I must say that I feel the same way about "Integral Cities", in terms of whether the idea of squishing people so close together actually has any psychological integrity, and I can find no better way of explaining why than quoting Gibran on Houses - a beautiful radical view which has shaped much of my thinking about cities, starting with the basic question "what are they for"? - see below.

It is an important question now especially now that we have Internet, as perhaps the only unquestionable benefit of cities - the rich culture that is made possible by such high density of people - could easily be achieved in other ways.

And anyway.. it fascinates me to ponder ... if cities have fear at their core (as cause and result, as Gibran suggests), then will they disappear in second tier? (And should't we be designing for that?)

yours, in slightly puzzled amusement

Stella

http://8thlife.org

On Houses

Kahlil Gibran

Build of your imaginings a bower in the wilderness ere you build a house within the city walls.

For even as you have home-comings in your twilight, so has the wanderer in you, the ever distant and alone.

Your house is your larger body.

It grows in the sun and sleeps in the stillness of the night; and it is not dreamless. Does not your house dream? and dreaming, leave the city for grove or hill-top?

Would that I could gather your houses into my hand, and like a sower scatter them in forest and meadow.

Would the valleys were your streets, and the green paths your alleys, that you might seek one another through vineyards, and come with the fragrance of the earth in your garments.

But these things are not yet to be.

In their fear your forefathers gathered you too near together. And that fear shall endure a little longer. A little longer shall your city walls separate your hearths from your fields.

And tell me, people of OrphaIese, what have you in these houses? And what is it you guard with fastened doors?

Have you peace, the quiet urge that reveals your power?

Have you remembrances, the glimmering arches that span the summits of the mind?

Have you beauty, that leads the heart from things fashioned of wood and stone to the holy mountain?

Tell me, have you these in your houses?

Or have you only comfort, and the lust for comfort, that stealthy thing that enters the house a guest, and then becomes a host and then a master?

Ay, and it becomes a tamer, and with hook and scourge makes puppets of your larger desires.

Though its hands are silken, its heart is of iron.

It lulls you to sleep only to stand by your bed and jeer at the dignity of the flesh.

It makes mock of your sound senses, and lays them in thistledown like fragile vessels.

Verily the lust for comfort murders the passion of the soul, and then walks grinning in the funeral.

But you, children of space, you restless in rest, you shall not be trapped nor tamed.

Your house shall be not an anchor but a mast.

It shall not be a glistening film that covers a wound, but an eyelid that guards the eye.

You shall not fold your wings that you may pass through doors, nor bend your heads that they strike not against a ceiling, nor fear to breathe lest walls should crack and fall down.

You shall not dwell in tombs made by the dead for the living.

And though of magnificence and splendour, your house shall not hold your secret nor shelter your longing.

For that which is boundless in you abides in the mansion of the sky, whose door is the morning mist, and whose windows are the songs and the silences of night.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------