[OccupyCU] Notes 10/3/14 by melanie

[Melanie Meltzer via OccupyCU]

Susan: I want us to start off with Billy. He'll participate as a student
and presenter. the problem of memory, choosing to be free: the life story
of rick turner.
Billy: this is a history class and a reading and writing class. I wanted to
try to give many assignments. I will give a brief presentation and some
part of that will be reading and responding to the reading. We will make
time outside of the class to discuss readings. Everyone takes on a project
to write about history. You can think about how you want to write it. I've
been studying history and writing history for some years now. I was
encouraged to study history by my uncle when I was a teenager.. He was part
of SDS in the 1960's. When I came here in 2002, I was confronted with a
question: what is the function of studying history if i want a desirable
future? I'm trying to frame studying history that fits within designing a
society. I wanted to share one thing from the first book. This is a chapter
from the first book. I went to New Orleans and worked at a school. This
book combines work with that school, organizing, and history of
emancipation in this country. I want a writing about history that focuses
on history of oppressed people and attempts to name a system and not take
the system off the hook. The system is not broken--it's functioning the way
it is supposed to. There's also a second chapter with more explanations.
It's an introduction.

What I would like with all the readings is that we look at them as an
attempt. I'm interested in hearing about my failures. This is a top-heavy
class. This is a poetic attempt to outline the criteria. It's just the
start. There's five of them.

(Reading the criteria)
Billy: i want to offer one more thing. The second book I wrote is about a
white South african, a radical philosopher--he wrote a book called the eye
of a needle. This is a post script. You don't have the book itself. His
writing assignment was-->
To look at our present system as if it is the history for the society we
desire.
This is an avenue for writing about contemporary problems. What he meant
from participatory democracy: hierarchy is reduced, all forms of racism is
abolished, work control, schools are abolished, and people are given
priority over objects. That was the proposal in the book itself. If that's
the society i want, what in South africa gives us leverage toward that
direction.
In 1972, in South Africa, all aspects of social life were racially
segregated. 80% of land was owned by whites. Black workers were not allowed
to organize unions. A censorship board controlled media.

Any questions?
Billy: he was not within the communist party. It was a provocation for
white Christians. It had some impact among that group. He was banned and
excluded from public life.

Susan: a listener can make connections. The exercise we did
yesterday--there was a sense that it wasn't really a system. If you look
history as a system, then the writer will influence the history. If you are
writing about a historical problem, the writing should be shaping toward
the solution. To look at our present system as if it is the history for the
society we desire.

Gonzalo: it's very hard to talk--to put something intelligible. Two
things--I'm very skeptical when people start denouncing. The framework is
usually attacking something. If anything is going to be changed, it can
only be changed through integration. In order to do that, one has to create
a framework of thinking. To be aware of what is really at stake. How to
make a distinction. What is really at stake when one distinguishes
something. The way you think may have an impact on the thing you're
distinguishing. Don't go first to attack something. Usually, the ways to
think are only available things you can see. To be aware of the emotional
state that you're in. There are certain things that are not available to
see. You're in a specific emotional state. The basic emotional state is not
the one of "love" or accepting people. To be aware of that, once you're
aware of that, the ways you think are much more important than objecting
the object and system. These are fundamental. Not starting from the bad
problem.

Snow: when I hear the word "thinking", it has the root to know from
cognition.

Joe: it occurs to me that I didn't hear what Gonzalo said as an objection.

Mark: first of all, I want to remind something about discourse. For those
of us who speak often, speak less and ask questions. Attempts to describe
the idea of system. The notes give a hint. The consideration: am I looking
a system? In a certain point, maybe a stuck moment, maybe calling this a
system is something I'd like to do now. I emphasize that aspect of system
where you distinguish parts and whole--a change in part constitutes a
change in the whole. I was using or relying on another approach to
cognition--an attention to dynamics. For decades, Herbert Brun held a
seminar, sometimes it seemed as though no one knew what anyone else was
talking about. Larry Richards has written papers specifically about
dynamics. His work influences my thoughts on dynamics. When you're paying
attention to change, specifically the how and when of change, rather than
the what. It upsets our notions of time. If you want to apply a stopwatch,
you're going into the systemic thinking. Noticing what's actually going on.
This can manifest when you're looking at social systems. This organization
may have written descriptions of what each role is supposed to do. You can
occasionally step back from those descriptions. Where are decisions coming
from in this place? Should I ask this person or that person? The whole
field of conflicts, interpersonal and group conflicts, people try to define
positions. there's the dynamic: you can't pinpoint the start and resolution
of a conflict.
Tantrums and weather.

Certain of you may have had the experience of maybe deliberately trying to
take on such a storm. "I better make a scene here". This is one story about
how I'm thinking about dynamics. Larry Richards-it's an alternative to
causality and power.

Game. In theater, when you're writing a play, a lot of attention is the
dynamics. One of the techniques of the theater is the moment of
interruption.

Susan: we are exploring system. When we look a system, we see a collection
of elements in which we provide a framework in which a change in an element
results in a change in the whole. To re situate care as the core of
systems. To make a position of care to defend or attack it. I want to show
you briefly...

We use the words care-giver and care-taker equally. If you look at give and
take, we know its different. We have a conflicting relation to care. The
expression "I couldn't care less" is frequently "I could care less". If I
tell someone I'm taking care of my grandmother, I frequently hear "aw,
you're such a nice person". That condescending twist of the head indicates
that the person both respects and despises me.
We don't have revolutions for care--we have them for freedom.

If someone gets extremely ill, people say "I can't wait until mom gets
better so i can go back to life" normal life is not caring

People speak about being care-free as if its value. We want to be free of
care. The person who says "I don't care" is stronger--the one who cares is
the sucker.

We have an endless capacity to know but a limited capacity to care. I think
we are against care as a core value.

I have the emotion of an inquiry. I want to seduce you into an idea. The
word "traverse". It's a travel word. You walk from point 1 to 2. You leave
point 1 to get to the second one. The "I" self is actually too small for I.
The pronoun I is too small. When the I can traverse and find itself in
another system, idea, context. I would almost call this traversing a human
need.

When people are mentally suffering, they cannot traverse. Their I self is
endangered.

When people say "put yourself in another's shoes," it is a glory to
traverse your I self and be in someone else. When something allows you to
flee from the tiny boundaries of your I.

I am purposely making freedom and care in contradiction with each other.
The story we're often told is the story of freedom. Freedom is not
necessarily a value statement--freedom is measured by the number and kind
of alternatives. We choose an alternative, try it on, and if it aligns with
our needs and desires, we like it. We decide we're not going to do it
anymore. There's a fiction that you can go back in time and choose another
option. In the timeline of freedom, we maintain the fiction that you can go
back, restore, to where all the options are open.

I want to move into the untold story of care. "When I decide to become a
part of another system's structure."--care. If we talk about living
systems, we need to talk about needs and necessities. No choice on needs.
Need is that which i must satisfy to have that need again. People need to
be hydrated. The necessity is water. There's a recursion about needs. We
eat so that we get hungry again. There's a recursivity about needs. We have
a choice with which necessities satisfy that need. Where humans have choice
is in the necessity. If I decide to become temporarily a part of another's
structure, I am inside the needs and necessities of another's structure. I
can't pull out like I can in freedom. In the care scenario, things are not
equal. If you decide to stop, the consequences are that you can be part of
destroying another living system. If you & your partner have a baby, why
let this creatures need get in the way of your life?if you decide to stop,
People won't congratulate you. You're in a different scenario when you
start caring. Freedom is to do what you want when I want. A lot of freedoms
are freedoms from, and I'm aware of that.

There's a lot of ways to proceed from this dilemma. You can delegate care.
Maybe I'm speaking from the present system. Care is when you belong to it,
not when it belongs to you.
I told you about traversing. When you have an idea, you're inside that. I'm
suggesting that if we could somehow constitute that care has a different
timeline and set of emotions that have been slandered and maligned.
I'm trying to make care provocative.

Mark: we're inviting ourselves to take up this project. To take up
different large scale aspects of the society. To think about care could
become a value. Four groups around various themes. These are starting
points. So the general categories; art, justice, health, education.
When i say these, I want to make it active. But it could be creation of art
facing the culture industry. You can define what that theme will focus on.
Likewise, justice is such a fraught term. There's been some analyses of how
prison systems connect to industry and government. the prison industrial
complex. What is a fair way to approach work?
With health, that is an intriguing subject matter, given that our society
has a huge system for it. Healing is something that an organism does.
Education is sort of a dry term that can be linked to how our society
treats age. It is one of the large social structures that help kids get
placed in society. If you're questioning the society, you might question
the way it is integrated. The SDaS has been interested in taking desire as
a starting point. An assignment: to make a list of false statements that
you wish were true. The realm in which you consider this wish can be vast
or narrow. How false? How far away from potential truth? How reasonable and
unreasonable.


Susan:
False in the current system, it would require a change of system to become
true and you're willing to do work to make it true. You'd have an emotional
commitment.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Susan Parenti <healthintensive at yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Taylor Sparrow <tfsparow at gmail.com>
> *Subject: **"Office Hours" for Billy's Class*
> *Date: *October 3, 2014 at 2:54:23 PM CDT
> *To: *sdas-current at googlegroups.com
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> As I mentioned yesterday during my presentation, I'm going to be offering
> "office hours" on a weekly basis, to allow us to have more time to discuss
> the readings, as well as to discuss your own interests and ideas for a
> project.
>
> The office hours time will be from 1-3pm on Tuesday afternoons. We will
> meet at the Flying Machine coffeehouse, which is also a pizzeria, on Main
> St in Urbana (#208 W. Main, near the corner of Race and Main). If a number
> of folks show up, we can have a group conversation, and if only one or two
> show up, people can speak with me one on one, if this is helpful.
>
> In addition, this week I will also offer one-on-one office hours, to get
> to know you, and to get a better sense of what your background and your
> interests are. I am offering between **1-4pm on Sunday** to meet with
> people for 30 minutes each. If you are interested, please get in touch with
> me and let me know when you would like to meet. The Flying Machine is still
> the office.
>
> ***
>
> A Note about the readings:
>
> I wanted to clarify that the readings that I am offering are just that:
> offerings. I have culled material that I believe is well written and that I
> feel includes worthwhile ideas and information. I will do my best to make
> the readings relevant to you. All the same, I only want you to read them if
> they interest you. If you are not interested in any particular reading, or
> simply don't have the time to do readings outside of class, I won't be
> offended.
>
> Also, if there is anyone that didn't get one of the readings that would
> like to, let me know and I will make more copies.
>
> Wishing you well,
> Billy
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SDaS Current Session" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sdas-current+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/occupycu/attachments/20141003/07e24914/attachment.html>