[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Famous people who eat organic

Hi Jim -

<<    Actually I support your comments virtually 100%.>>

A great way to start any email, of course. :-)

<<This is *exactly* the point I was trying to make in 
our recent conversation about GE. >>

Ah, to set me up as agreeing with _you_! :-)  Well, nice try anyway...

I think there are important differences between these two conversations,
and perhaps if I have some spare time I'll try to work them all out....
But, to take a stab at it, it has something to do with "you can't be sorta
pregnant" - to me, some arenas have gradations, some don't. 

For instance, there are techniques for pitching organic that I _would_ have
a problem with, like strategies based on lying, stealing, cheating,
intentionally hurting people, etc.  If we were discussing those types of
tactics, I'd say "just say no" - it's too harmful to relationships and
Spirit, etc., to be messing with, and we don't need it, and it harms our
true strengths - ethics and true connection to nature (and, to me, Spirit).
 Or I'd at least ask for evidence that we need to go to this extreme when
there are many ethical paths available (re: the starving person defense for
stealing food).

I personally put all GE into the "just say no" domain. I know others don't,
and that's a key reason that it's tricky issue of our times.  I don't want
to get into the GE conversation again. But that's how I see the difference
between these situations. 

By the way, I put pitching organic by celebrities into a middle domain.  To
me it's not unethical and doesn't have other qualities that make it a flat
and immediate no.  On the other hand, the strategy itself is not directly
based on or derived from the philosophy of sustainable or organics itself,
so it doesn't have some level of purity and direct alignment with original
purpose. But it has usefulness as a bridging approach to reach new people,
which is a key goal in making a sustainable world. To reach new people
without sacrificing ethics becomes interesting. Not that it should be a
primary strategy, if someone wants to also shift the culture to something
new.  But you can't change everything at once, and sometimes achieving one
valid goal supports other valid goals, as long as one doesn't go too far
astray to do it. It's reasonable to believe that putting out positive
images of being organic will support people moving toward other sustainable
practices - it's not necessarily in conflict.  (I don't think it creates
more consumption - people are going to eat something anyway - why not have
it be quality food...?)

Also, who says one couldn't find a celebrity/famous person that was also
wise about the real values of sustainable, etc.?  I think it's arrogant to
assume that all celebrities are worthless as human beings, or have bought
into the system.  Although the cult of hero-worship is perhaps extreme in
our culture, there have always been heroes and models, to help us shape our
way. Isn't it to our benefit to have positive ones? Are we so sure none of
the current ones have valuable perspective to add?

<< PD SAID: > I think it's to our benefit to be open to a variety 
of (reasonable)approaches to reaching people to make that choice.... 

<<    Of course. Just one reservation (or two).  Is the
best way to get out of a problem is to use the
same behaviour that got us into it? Is debate
of tactics wrong? When we use the wrong means
to get to the right end, have we really gained
anything at all?

Agreed. I thought about those things as I wrote my note, which is why I put
"reasonable" in.  I don't believe that the end justifies any means - for
many reasons, but mostly because I think if you get too far off positive
principles consistent with your vision, you actually reduce your chances of
reaching your goal - i.e., I don't think it works.  So part of the art of
strategy when bridging is required is how far to adapt to that which you're
bridging to, and how much not to.  Surely an art there, not a science.  We
could likely agree on extremes, but have trouble agreeing in the middle
grey area. Ultimately, what I notice is that many people trying different
things in the grey area is useful - different things will reach different
people. A lot depends on the vision and manifestation skills of the person
trying the particular approach, to make sure that adapting doesn't take one
too far from one's own center, while still being open to growth and new
perspectives.

And of course I think debate about tactics is valid and useful - never said
differently. But it depends on how one debates. If the only answer is
always "no, that's a stupid idea and you're wrong to have it" it doesn't
cultivate positive action but fear of speaking out. That's just a fact. If
people confuse their personal choices as being the only Truth, that makes
it hard for them to benefit and discuss other perspectives. And if people
aren't trying to create positive paths themselves, at least in their minds,
I don't think they can recognize how hard and courageous it is to generate
positive constructive ideas. As I said in my last email, it always looks
easier in the stands than on the field.   Actually trying it leads to great
humility and respect for those out actually trying to create positive paths
that balance purity of principle with understanding of reality and current
states.  Not as easy as it _looks_!

I said nothing to discourage debate - only destructive conversation about
others ideas.  Constructive conversation toward positive paths I support
completely.  In constructive conversations, people may disagree with a
certain path, but they support the person, and they remember that people
have different views that might also be valid. They may disagree on
strategy, but they state their points constructively and supportively,
always looking for the positive way through.  

For instance, rather than just dissing the whole idea of celebrities, one
might notice that there might be a useful core underneath (that we've
always had heroes), and then say, "For this to work, I think it'd be
important to have someone not only famous but also really clear on the
important sustainable principles, so this isn't a shell but a genuine
commication that enlightens people."  This gives the person something
useful to work with, and doesn't stop the conversation they started.  Or
even "I'm concerned that this will just feed our overactive hero worship in
this culture. Do you think there's a way to avoid that?"  I just see too
many people putting down an idea without adding anything tangible and
constructive in place, not talking about positive projects they were doing
that did meet their high standards, not looking to see how this might be a
good idea after all.  I don't consider that type of conversation conducive
to positive action forward.

Anyway, Jim, thanks for your thoughts - thought-provoking as usual! -
stirring me to put my thoughts into specific words... Hope this gives some
kind of answer to your questions...

Patricia Dines