Marko Koskinen (marko@vapaus.net)
Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:55:21 -0500
Thanks Scott, that discussion was surely useful and it gave me lot to
think about.
Marko
Scott Gray wrote:
>
> For those interested, the consensus-vs-parliamentary debate thread has
> come up a number of times on this list.
>
> I think that most of the salient points in the debate were made in the
> following particular set of messages, in a thread begun by Martin Wilke:
>
> http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives/dsm4/index.html#17
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Marko Koskinen wrote:
>
> > Thanks Bruce, that makes sense. Thanks also to Hanna for having some
> > really good and enlightening discussions with me.
> >
> > But what I'm proposing, at least as I see it, is a structure where all
> > HAVE equal voice and in which individual rights ARE protected even more
> > than in democratic structure. People don't seem to believe that
> > consensus decision making is possible at least in larger groups, but I
> > DO. I'll have to check out that discussion you are talking about.
> >
> > If, as I suppose, the consensus decision making would work, then is
> > there something inherent in it that is against the democratic ideals? If
> > so, could someone give me an example or something to describe a
> > situation that would be against it.
> >
> > And what comes to the therapy issue, I really feel that people don't
> > know what I'm talking about. I really disapprobe any kind of traditional
> > psychotherapy where the therapist analyzes the patient. I guess you'll
> > just have to do with my assurance that the way I would practice and have
> > practiced it is totally non-coersive. If that's not enough for you, you
> > can order books from www.rc.org. (I can suggest some books if requested)
> > The theory is too complicated to be discussed here. I've tried to
> > explain it many times but usually failed misarably.
> >
> > Third issue is about the assumption that the mediation process would
> > have something to do with "psychologizing" (whatever that means). I can
> > see where this assumption comes from, but I once again assure you that
> > this is not what I've ment. If feelings are involved in problem solving
> > (as they usually are), they don't make the process any more
> > "psychologizing" than it would be without them. I interpret the word
> > "psychologize" to mean that someone analyzes the situation or the
> > participants and tries to make them "see what's their real problem".
> > Well, as I said previously, I totally disapprove such processes. I
> > really don't like anybody telling me what my problems are, but I would
> > like someone to listen to me when I try to figure out myself what they
> > are. And also, I wouldn't like anybody to give me any advice how to
> > solve the problem, but again, I wouldn't oppose someone listening to me
> > while I'm trying to solve it.
> >
> > What I'm trying to accomplish with this is to make sure that everybody
> > would feel safe enough to show their feelings and not hide themselves.
> > What I'm probably trying to fight is the irrational cultural "norms"
> > that appear as peer pressure.
> >
> > Marko
> >
> >
> > > It is not the implementation of the proposals, but rather their content,
> > > which makes them inconsistent. I think this discussion is caught on a
> > > unique, but often overlooked, aspect of democracy: that it can vote itself
> > > out of existence. Voters in a democracy can vote to make it something other
> > > than a democracy. Think of all the times throughout history when people
> > > have voted in dictators and emperors. It is only the culture of democracy
> > > that truly preserves it: the desire to maintain structures where all have
> > > an equal voice, and in which individual rights are protected.
> > >
> > > Having said that, I suspect some would argue that we in this country have
> > > already allowed it to become something less than democratic.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > >People have been saying that what I've been proposing is not consistent
> > > >with Sudbury model. I'm just wondering why is that, because all that
> > > >I've suggested is not ment to be implemented without the whole school
> > > >community voting for it. I'm not planning to implement my own ideas "by
> > > >force".
> > > >
> > > >If I suggested these things at SVS School Meeting and they were voted
> > > >for, would SVS cease to be a Sudbury Model school?
> >
> >
>
>
> --Scott David Gray
> reply to: sgray@sudval.org
> http://www.unseelie.org/
> ============================================================
> Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal
> oneself.
>
> -- Nietzche
> ============================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:07 EST