Talk:Recreational intoxicants

From EcoReality

Subject: 	schedules into values
Date: 	5 January 2006 13:13:17 GMT-08:00

Hi Jan,

Thanks for your detailed reply and sharing your thoughts about my words.

SB: Here are my thoughts back:

Perhaps the following weekend will work for consensus...

JS: As I recall, Natasha will be in Cuba then. I guess we can't please everyone!

Yes, now I remember that, and I think inclusion of natasha would be great, so we'll look at primarily Feb4th for consensus training, and secondarily we'll check out the following weekend, but not Feb 5th, ok?

SB: Jan and Carol, I have been thinking about our Must Have and Must Not Have conversations since you left, and in my reflections it occurred to me that I might have come across as unyielding or selfish...

JS: Not at all! We are all products of our environment, and I respect and admire both the background that brought you to your position, and your willingness to consider other points of view.

I liked your emphasis on "intent," but am concerned that it is difficult to judge fairly. Certainly, the addict does not "intend" to be such, and the person who is drowning their sorrows is generally not aware of it enough to accept such as the "intent" of their substance abuse.

This is why I would like to focus on "results". I have little respect for victimless crime laws. Such laws generally attack symptoms, rather than causes. Substance abuse is a symptom, not a cause.

It wasn't so long ago that laws existed in the US that declared where people with certain skin color could sit. It is CURRENTLY the law in the US that one must provide a certain portion of their income to support killing people. I do not support such laws, but try to express such non-support in a manner that keeps me out of jail! :-)

If we focus on the results of actions, we avoid both the slavish following of unjust laws, AND the psycho-analysis necessary to judge "intent" that is not always straightforward to those involved.

(If I misunderstand your use of "intent," please explain!)

I think agree with you. I used "intention" because it expressed my view that a person changes the energy of their situation by their mere intention, AND ALSO BY THE RESULTS OF THEIR DIRECT OR INDIRECT ACTIONS. That is, intending to 'go against the rules' can actually shift the ENERGY of relationships (to self and to others and to organizations or decision-making bodies). It is this shift of energy that I can actually feel (in myself, and in my relationships to others and communities). I wish to create an ecovillage where INTENTIONS are discussed and people are willing to look at themselves in their actions and to help self (and each other) to assess the CAUSES underlying symptoms. This is the kind of society I wish to be a part of. This is the kind of teaching I do, in yoga, in ecological agriculture. It is the basis of feedback on actions (to self and to others), and I think feedback is the very core of being willing to improve and help others to improve, and also to accept differences and diversity and see many perspectives of the whole.

JS: If someone's use of any substance or practice results in harm or diminishment of the community, then it should be addressed compassionately, with an escalating sequence of circumstances. This "result" should be objective, clear, and apparent to all, and avoids subjective judgement.

Yes, absolutely. However, that is where I think intention enters the conversation, and I think learning to speak and share about intentions and perceived intentions can often ELIMINATE diminishment of a community or results that harm. I think we would do well to bring this "intention and results-based communications" to our discussion and awareness (over this and other issues) as we form agreements and policies. Communication, commitment and responsibility seem to be the ways to look at "intentions" and see how all different people have different perspectives. For example, usually when I am confused about how someone's actions or words "FEEL or RESONATE" to/with me, I ask them what their "intention" was in doing/saying, and thus clarify and resolve through our conversation. 99% of the time when I do this right away, I find that I was misunderstanding or their ENERGY and/or the RESULTS of their actions were miscommunicated to me, and rather than building up judgments, I accept and move on. So here you go, perhaps I have pycho-analyzed intention quite a bit!!!

In summary, I agree that it is actual results in REALITY that are the things we can best communicate about because they have happened and they are observable in time, distance and form (not perceived understanding or thought). It is clear to me that results may create disrespect and/or hurt others (self, victims, bystanders, participants or the decision-makers who created policy, community spirit as a whole), yet I also feel that communicating about intention is important because it can cause rifts in relationships (especially to self when we cease to go deeper and look at our intentions behind actions and results). Intention, when clear and understood by others and self, can be a source of learning and can remove resistance within self and energetic resistance in community forward growth and momentum. Intention is also worth mention. Discovery-based, not cover-up based community.

JS: For example, I could probably become a recluse, neglecting responsibilities to others. I could even imagine yoga becoming such an obsession that it interferes with one's ability to do what they say they'll do. Certainly, excessive religious devotion can also become an impediment to being a functional member of a community.

If we judge the result, rather than the action, we have a clear problem that all concerned can see as a problem, and then we can agree on appropriate action.

About yoga and religions, I do agree that anything in excess, out of balance, can interfere with integrity of a person, and any organization they are part of.

I have experienced "spiritual ego" in others who claim to be high teachers of a path, sharers of wisdom.

On jugdment, my perspective: working compassionately eradicates judgment. Being compassionate with myself means looking at my intentions, underlying actions, which cause results. How I determine my intentions (or my impulses, like thought patterns and habits - whether conscious or unconscious) will help me to be compassionate (or not). The more compassionate I am with myself, and the more I share my intentions with others and look at whether they "ring true" and "uplift" and support my values, the more I am compassionate as a communitarian, friend, teacher, partner, mother. This requires awareness, because there sure is the factor of "environment or situation" that comes into play. When one has awareness, choices are stemming from intention, rather than reacting to situation. We are surely going to come across some results that are "combined actions" by many and where the intention may be stemming from one source. I agree that "escalating series of consequences" based on actual community judgments of how peoples' results meet with community values is the way we can build a system that will be sustainable, and I'm merely pointing to a deeper place of finding spiritual sustainability - evolution of individuals through group process. Heavy, but there it is....calling to me to be shared.

BOY! I hope this gets communicated as clearly as I'm trying to make it. I'm getting tired reading it! This discussion for me reflects the way that I seek to be guided by "higher consciousness" and that my ultimate goal is not a personal one, but to uplift humanity and increase awareness so that love and compassion and all the energy running on those functions can predominate where the balance is tipped and "lack of awareness" leads to EXCESSIVE destruction. (with awareness that destruction is part of the circle, natural cycles, rejuvenation)

OK! That is it for me for now. We can pick this up in person perhaps (and not during our precious business meeting time, but as a topic for conversation!

Bye for now,
Shannon

SB: I want you both to know that I did not intend to sound harshly judgmental of your choices about ********* use...

JS: I don't think either of us took it as "harshly judgmental" at all. Our conscious "intent" is #1) as an aphrodisiac, #2) socially (much less often), #3) as somewhat timid defiance against victimless crime laws, and #4) medicinally (although rarely, and without formal prescription).

SB: I am creating the space in my listening of you to put a "positive" spin on this...

JS: I would like to take a stab at coming up with a policy statement that we can further work on together. It will address "recreational intoxicants" in general (without particular respect for legality, which is simply a temporal zeitgeist) and their acceptable level of impact on the community.

SB: I simply respect and love you too much to deem your differences a "problem".

JS: Thank you! And please know that this is very mutual! It has been so fun and easy working with you two that I sometimes fret about adding others to our cozy circle!

:::: This phase we're in of exponential growth is about over. We now have an exponential growth culture that at the present time doesn't even know how to cope with a state of non-growth. -- M. King Hubbert, 1976 ::::
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.EcoReality.org> ::::

Shannon Binns, Ph.D. Assistant Professor

Agroecology Program & UBC Centre for Plant Research

Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia

2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada

604.822.2941 voice

604.822.2184 fax

http://www.landfood.ubc.ca/research/faculty_webpages/binns.htm

Grounded in Science. Global in Scope.