The below '
quoted' comments are from a Thinktank thread located
here. Its titled,
What do you think?, referencing the ad sponsors featured on the site (just look to your far right). And everyone reading this is strongly encouraged to take a moment to read them
there in their original context flow.
After seeing the expressions shared, I found some of them interesting to ponder and review. In particular,
Darshan and
~C4Chaos had some nice thoughts. As did everyone. So I've decided to add a few my own reflections on just their comments for now. They're being addressed in no particular order.
[Darshan's thoughts]
"And no disrespect to the Integral folks, but I would hate it to appear to be that Zaadz was somehow a function of the Wilberites and Integralists, or for that matter, any large cohesive group that found a home here.
Again, it isn't about anything or anyone in particular, I guess it would be nice to see Zaadz, The Republic be a truly democratic representation of a “nation” we say we'd like to be."From my own observation, I can see where and how Darshan draws his point. I do see a tightly knit relationship between integralists and Zaadz. However, to say Zaadz is a "
function of the Wilberites and Integralists" appears debatable. I would say Zaadz is Wilberites and Integralists greatest cheerleader, rooting for the home teams. But Zaadz has operated independently from the beginning, being free of functioning
solely for integralists partiality.
There does seem to, clearly, be a preference toward reflecting
Integral Institute (with a strong buddhist twist) and the like. Which isn't a biggie, for me at least. After all, on the homepage its whole take on spirituality is in line with Integralism anyway.
[Darshan's thoughts]
"I guess what this boils down to is when you start having money spent to influence people's opinion, it starts coloring the opinion people have of you and your product, and your ability to share that opinion. I'm certainly not saying this to poo-poo your idea, Martha, I'm speaking to things I have already seen and the lessons that can be learned from history."I share those lessons that Darshan's speaks about. The concern is valid and should be
explored when cause for concern is raised. Of course we may remember the
little boy who cried "wolf" (its a classic children's story). Still, being practical, this business of 'changing the world' would have to involve actual
change. And all change is a result of
some sort of influence.
So perhaps scrutinizing the
amount,
nature and
motive of any influence is valid. And the matter of spending money to generate influence/change has its
success. The balance would be the level of individuality and impartiality exercised by the people to be influenced.
[~C4Chaos' thoughts]
"what's wrong with influencing people if your purpose and message is to promote a more conscious way of doing things? what's wrong with spending money on influencing people if this is done with utmost care and compassion? what's wrong with promoting your product or services if your intention is to make people's lives better?"These are good questions, and they insinuate a positive outlook. To me, the questioning should really be centered on not so much "
what", but
how. And I only saw mere
concerns about influencing via money. I didn't see anywhere about it being explicitly "wrong". Which
was very encouraging.
[Darshan's thoughts]
"I guess what this boils down to is when you start having money spent to influence people's opinion, it starts coloring the opinion people have of you and your product, and your ability to share that opinion. I'm certainly not saying this to poo-poo your idea, Martha, I'm speaking to things I have already seen and the lessons that can be learned from history."Even here, there's no mention of influencing being dead wrong. There does seem to be an honest heads-up on freedom of expression at Zaadz. For he did write: "
your ability to share that opinion". In regard to expressing ones opinion on a product that a company may spend
large amounts of cash to buy influence on, it may present a challenge. But is it really debilitating?
[~C4Chaos' thoughts]
"what i'm trying to say is: we have to reset our thinking and ditch the idea that once people start spending money then their integrity is compromised. there maybe some truth to this, but i think this is an unfair way of treating people who do business across the board. i think a more constructive attitude towards this is:
“gee, they're spending money to hear from us, they care on what we think, they are doing their best to be transparent, they are opening up the channels of communication, maybe i'll return the favor and take this opportunity to give them a piece of my constructive criticism so they can improve their product/service even more.” "Personally, I'd never ditch the exercises of mind or discernment. Doing that would support
Darshan's earlier red flag about "
your ability to share that opinion" on companies,
practices, products and services. Plus, people shouldn't need a company to open any channels of communication. They are already open, if they're wanting to do business.
As long as there are
options, a person's
choice itself is enough communication to send a
clear message. No company, whatever they offer, whatever the integrity, turns a deaf ear to profit loss and shameful mass media.
But the majority here likely exercise 'the benefit of the doubt', and work in harmony with ~C4Chaos' suggestion to be fair with constructive criticism. That's what I've found in the original thread. Although, I don't find it useful to feel pressured to kiss up on every occasion either. Wouldn't that be unfair?
Let us remember, the whole world is at stake. So such discussions should behoove us all.
Much thanks to the above participants for bringing us much insight from different angles.
empowerment
(18)
Tru
February 2008 
Access: Public