Difference of Opinion - Commentary

Overview

• In order to achieve this goal, we have to start with ourselves. We need to be more rigorous inside RC in not tolerating the rehearsal of distress. We are still too tolerant towards irrational positions.
• We have to be brave enough to be rational.
• People are lied to about many things. It's necessary to communicate where the lies are coming from. Precise language is important. Sloppy language is used to manipulate.
• We are not the only people acting raionally; we are proud, but not arrogant about our thinking.
• What we are actually doing is inviting people to think well about themselves and others.
• It's simple: present society is collapsing. We need to hold on to what is rational and dump the rest.
• What we're about is getting it generally known that when people hurt they don't think well.
• This means that we are going for real thinking. We are about creating space to reach real thinking by listening to diverse opinions. It means not being manipulated by the oppressive society into adopting policies based upon pseudo-thinking.
• We have to teach people the discharge process as a way to distinguish between thinking and psuedo-thinking, if we are going to teach them that there is a difference. Also with this first goal, we have to teach mental health liberation, informing people that their minds are completely intact--ALL people are smart and intelligent.
• We have to realize that when we put out correct policy, we have to assume that we will be counseling people that we present it to. It can't be presented without allowing for discharge too. For this, support must be set up for those putting the policy out there.
• We either move forward or we die--because the distresses of the oppressive society are growing so rapidly that we risk getting caught in the avalanche if we just stand still.
• If we can maintain sight of the benign reality, it will make it easier to attain the goal.
• We think that not tolerating irrational positions is the same as maintaining integrity and courage in all human activities.
• This goal will only be reached when people are really able to think for themselves and when we can really respect differences of opinion, inside and outside of RC.
• REMEMBER THE HUMAN.
• Solicit the thinking of new people (into RC) about this goal.
• This goals is a wake-up call to stand firm against oppression and to discharge our fear.
• This policy is about acknowledging that there is a distinction between intelligent thinking and psuedo-thinking, not about making the distinction ourselves, but instead applying the tools of RC in a case-by-case situation and sharing the tools of RC.
• This goal gets us to look at some rigid, irrational elements of our culture without putting us in the position of having to choose between the dominant (white) position and the rebel (minority) position.
• This is exciting. We have established that there is no inherent conflict between people-that we can have well-thought-out positions and exist in the world. Interrupt where we cling to our identities in order to feel safe. We can be completely human.
• This appears to have arisen from the Gay policy. Depending on your background, you react differently to difference of opinion. It is important to be able to disagree. There is a tendency to think about our constituency and advocate for that constituency. We could use practice in thinking about the whole of humanity.
• We discussed this as a goal for individual Co-Counselors. As individuals, it directs us to take on a role in the wide world akin to that filled by Reference People within the RC Communities.
• The Gay policy was an interesting experiment of this policy. It exposed a lot of disagreement within the Communities and how we struggle there.
• We need to tell what the implications of this goal mean as a change to the current society and to give a clear picture of what living in a more rational society will be.
• This goal is the "how" of goal three: modeling integrity and courage.
• There's a certain defensiveness in the Community. It sees itself as under attack.
• What's new is to make clear the distinction between pseudo-thinking and real thinking by word and deed. It means taking a principled stand on many things we already know.
• This is not to be confused with religions, proselytizing.
• Trust that we know where to go and know what needs to happen.
• This goal forces us out of internalized oppression.
• Connected to integrity-do what is right. Important to hold out policy and welcome difference of opinion.
• Liberation policies are drafts-It would be nice if this first goal reaffirmed that. To remind us that our thinking is evolving-we have this process to do that.
• It's a direction to all of us to get into positions of power and influence in the wide world.
• This goal is about taking a stand and getting over timidity. We need to learn how to take a stand and to clearly separate our feelings from our thinking, not react even if the other person is reacting.
• This could be the basis for coalition-building between groups whose goals appear to be polar opposites.
• This could be related to building relationships on the basis of inherent reality.
• The whole "western" world's development has been based on exploitation, dishonesty.
• This goal is the key challenge and activity that we as a Community get to take on-that is, sort out the lies we've been taught and that we say to ourselves, from the truth about ourselves and our world.

Expressing Our Thinking

• (freedom to express differences of opinion as we reach accurate positions but not tolerating irrational positions for the sake of greed, etc. )
• Notice the difference between "taking a position" and "expressing an opinion."
• It is a great relief that we can state "complete freedom of expression" only as a step toward reaching a statement of reality.
• Allowing people to tell their stories, even people with differences of opinion, is usually more effective than the expressing of an opinion.
• At present, the most dangerous thing to our capitalist society is freedom of thoughts.
• This is challenging for our European culture: since the French Revolution we have been indoctrinated into thinking that freedom of expression is the main thing-in fact, we need freedom of expression only in order to formulate a rational position.
• The behaviour of expressing differences of opinion is, like anything else, subject to intelligent and pseudo-intelligent thinking. It is important to use intelligence and awareness in the process of expression differences, in particular, in deciding when, how, and whether to express a difference of opinion. The purpose of expressing differences of opinion should be for the purpose of reaching a more intelligent position, rather than for the purpose of "having your say."
• When I stay secret, no one knows the issues; we need to say where we are at.
• If we are open to discharging about anything, we will reach a correct position.
• We have to express ourselves when we see something go wrong.
• We have to take care to not be arrogant with our perspective.
• We can hold out that people have an equal right to be listened to, without that meaning that everything that gets said is of equal validity.
• It's a personal thing that we can do one-to-one, always respecting anther's thinking; we also get to do this at a policy level.
• Freedom to express thoughts is initially interfered with in the family situation, but the main destructive work is done in schools.
• We can welcome people to think as a way of brainstorming, developing ideas, but not take that free thinking as the basis for formulating policies/positions.
• Discussing and disagreeing is important in sifting through our thinking but not to persist in disagreements that support the pseudo-thinking.
• Clarify the notion of "free speech" and censorship, and get good at counseling on the difference between allowing the expression of opinion and tolerating inaccurate positions. The more you counsel on this point, the more relaxed you will be explaining it to others and counseling them on it.
• Remember that we're all in this together because when we start getting into differences of opinion, and not tolerating things it's easy to forget that, but that is the reality.
• Remember how our class background effects the way we express our opinions and not dismiss other opinions because of how they're expressed.
• We need to be sure we are using the terms "pseudo-reality" and "pseudo-thinking," rather than "stupid" or "unintelligent" (which are part of the pseudo-reality).
• There is some effort in the wide world to separate reality from pseudo-reality, but we need to make a bolder effort to take on making that distinction everywhere. We need to talk about why there is pseudo-reality, greed, distress recordings, where it's roots come from, and what are irrational positions.
• To be honest to myself and to be active in discharging, thinking, and acting.
• I need to face and challenge the places where I accept pseudo-reality and reclaim my significance as a thinker.
• We are all entitled to an opinion, we have to say what we think in order not to lose valuable information.
• In Central and Eastern Europe we shouldn't publish materials for those that are not in RC, we have to be careful because this society is not major enough to hear and see these (no TV, no mass media).
• Need to establish context where we are taking a firm stand versus when to elicit different opinions. A preliminary step is to elicit different opinions
• Sharing opinions sometimes results in changing opinions.
• Freedom of speech. We have the right to say what we think, to listen to all the opinions different or not, and from all these to collect the information that is real. We have to be careful not to take this freedom too easy, not to influence the others in a negative way.
• Be more courageous about saying what we really think in public.
• People still need encouragement to express their opinions inside and outside of RC.
• The majority is not necessarily right. WE have many examples from history where it is wrong. In the present age opinion is manipulated by the capitalistic interests that control the mass media.
• It is very important to have a group of people, among which someone can discuss ideas and thoughts.
• Only when we have ideas of all people around us, we can have rational position and understand our own oppressional position.
• To speak louder about our own positions and to have more strong positions.
• To be a model of intelligent thinking and rational position to other people. In this case people can ask us to help them to make clear their own thinking.
• Need to keep pushing for clear thinking so that a firm stance against irrational positions does not get confused with squelching differences.
• Need to emphasize complete freedom of thinking as well as importance of taking a stand against irrational positions
• This goal is about the elimination of oppression . We have to be bold, and this doesn't mean being rigid, but instead not wavering on stance of justice.
• As the Reevaluation Counseling Community, we open all discussion to the expression of any opinion. We also intended to break with past traditions of shyness.
• The freedom to express diverse thinking on any question is necessary before we reach intelligent reality-based policies. We think it is correct to support leaders but it is essential that people's differences of opinion be heard if we want to have diverse Communities and correct policy.
• The permission to express differences of opinion is the jewel of this goal. This holds out a standard for us all.
• This is a standard for us to strive towards. I see it as strong encouragement for us to take more risks to speak out against things not in alignment with reality. It raises the question for me as to whether this means that we as RC'ers will be encouraged to speak out openly and specifically about the insanity of capitalism, for example. Thinking intelligently will mean figuring out in every situation what makes sense about how to speak out and then being counselors as we do.
• The discharge process is very important when two opposing opinions are presented. Important to say that we are not striving for "eternal truth" but for what appears closest to reality.
• Need to respect the differences in the way in which people hear and communicate.
• Communicate that we don't think that we are the only ones who have the truth.
• Asians can usefully discharge around issues of conformity, having individual thinking instead of group thinking and having a principled stand.
• We acknowledged that it is important and necessary to entertain a variety of freely expressed opinions in order to reach the best possible conclusions. This does not mean, however, that distress recordings masquerading as thinking will be tolerated. The challenge will be to get people to discharge thoroughly in the places where it is difficult for them to think and act.
• We can decide to communicate the most accurate thinking available to us in every situation which we encounter.
• It is useful to assume that people are eager to hear accurate thinking and will re-evaluate their own thinking more effectively when challenged to a different perspective.
• Explaining the basis for our ideas will be useful for people in understanding the "reality" perspective.
• Talking about reality as our own thinking will be useful in communicating the ideas.
• We can get better at both listening to differences of opinion and at taking a stand with people. Both skills are important.
• Allowing people freedom to express their opinions will foster more diversity and will strengthen the process of building community.
• We can expect in our RC leadership that people are going to follow our directions.
• Should people have the right to free speech when it's oppressive? e.g. Nazis, "right to die," classism.
• "Disagreement" can be an attempt to think and figure out where we're preoccupied with distress; a rehearsal of patterns; rational-people of cultures other than white protestant US yell/disagree loudly, etc. and that can be good.
• Do we allow oppressive clienting? Will listening to it work? We do need to listen to it at least once to understand where it's coming from.
• We are an extremely oppressive society which doesn't allow disagreement . In RC we need to have it safe not to be attacked for difference. Don't use the phrase any more: "that's just your distress."
• Fear that disagreement will cause us to lose our jobs (in and out of RC).
• I feel like we don't have a format in RC to safely disagree without being ex-communicated. We need some way to disagree about policy and still be included.
• Speak out how really the society is operating . They will either glaze other or take notice.
• Differences of opinion seem to be basically based in distress.
• Ties in with respect, that we listen to each person with respect.
• Sometimes, the appropriate response to thinking we disagree with is to offer permissive counseling, i.e., listening. In other cases, non-permissive counseling, where we call people on thinking that leads to harmful resulls, will be necessary. We must also be prepared to courageously step in to set harmful situations right without wishy-washy behavior. A"junkyard dog" posture may be the best choice.
• Use the words capitalism and classism directly . When questioned by people, I emphatically go into what I really think. I say, "You can't decide on your distress and emotions on this and you obviously have a lot so you need to keep working on it. "
• I'm excited about my life, and I tell people what's going on.
• Go for the ability to speak frankly within RC; try to speak as honestly as you can on your thinking, particularly on issues of racism and classism. Your own internalized oppression as a person of color makes you think it's up to the white people to figure it out.
• No one should let their cat get their tongue.
• If we decide to think and act on our thinking, not our distress, we'll have to challenge oppression and will be attacked; this can be a fun challenge.
• We can put out our best thinking at all times-it won't be perfect and we will grow from that.
• We're using a democratic process to get to correct thinking. Correct thinking itself is not democratic.
• We need to develop a process to clarify differences of opinions.
• Stop putting out U.S. rigidities as best practices and policies.
• At the introduction of every policy that it be formally written that it's fine to disagree with the content of the policy.
• There's only one binding agreement in RC, the one-point agreement, and the rest is open to disagreement.
• It would be good to explain the difference between the RC policy on attacks and differences of opinion.
• Question: should every opinion be given time to be heard?-probably yes, but what about the "real crap?"
• Useful to express differences of opinion in a relaxed way. Does not imply acceptance.
• When we stand up for what we think is right, others may think the opposite. Others have different beliefs than we do. Very important that others get freedom to express.
• Confusion that listening is not acceptance of a position. I assume that irrational positions are in a position to be discharged as they are being stated.
• We often feel like once we've spoken, we can't change our mind; need to see people's thinking as a progressive thing, moving forward.
• Hold people responsible for what they say
• Fears have fallen away as I take clear stands
• "I value your opinion, would you think about this with me?"
• speak with confidence based on experience, respect for others.
• stickiest thing in RC community is understanding correct policy; bump up against fears of authoritarianism
• Some people need extra encouragement to say what they really think. Canadians are a group that is an example of this.
• We have to stand together on possibly unpopular but correct thinking.
• Defend right to express thinking-but that's a process to lead to something, not an end in itself.
• People get confused about free speech thinking that it means just state your opinion without thinking. Importance is placed on diversity of opinions rather than thinking critically.
• People need more encouragement to express differing opinions. Perhaps we need an additional format for this in RC.
• You have right to say your opinion, but you also need to question your thinking, to test your opinions, to take on the responsibility of thinking. We want everyone to be able to think everything through and decide.
• We need to take a look at the "freedom of expression" part, especially the way USers rigidly hold to it as a "right." Problem with freedom of expression is it makes no differentiation between intelligent thinking and pseudo-thinking. There is currently a tolerance of pseudo-thinking.
• Difference of opinion is necessary because we are trying to do something we have never done before-eliminate all oppression.
• RC was developed as a community of listeners. It is important to develop our capacity to put our thinking forward. We need to encourage free discussion in classes on all subjects, encourage thinking out loud in our original language making use of think-and-listens and distinguishing between the process of thinking things through and holding a position.
• It will require work to practice more than the appearance of flexibility, that we are really listening to different opinions
• We still haven't figured out very well how to disagree with someone.
• Expressions of different ideas can spark/encourage others' thinking.
• We are up against a talented marketing machine. People can see through the marketing ploys, nevertheless. People would find someone who "tells the truth" very refreshing.
• We're not after differences of opinion per se, we are after differences of opinion that move us forward.
• We need to decide to go ahead lay out our thinking, and watch the results-rather than wait for some point of re-emergence to start thinking.
• More "think and listens" -they unlock people's' brilliant thinking
• It will take time to listen to everyone's thinking
• Keep holding out policy as our "best thinking."
• Need to consider contrary positions and not label them as distress too fast.

Reality /Pseudoreality

• Thinking/ "Pseudo-thinking "
• We need to publicise that there is a difference between rational thinking and expressions of pseudo-reality without prescribing what the difference is, but to start everyone's thinking.
• If irrational thoughts are not allowed to be said, they will not be able to be dealt with. A courageous leader will allow all thinking and assist people in dealing with the irrational "thinking."
• We feel that when people are trying their best to think well, it can be confusing to them to worry about it being called "pseudo-thinking."
• Holding out the distinction between intelligent thinking and pseudo-thinking is what integrity and courage means.
• Clarify the difference between patterned thinking and clear intelligence.
• Not getting hooked in an argument.
• It is very important to explain clearly real reality to other people.
• It is necessary to be clear about the underlying reasons why people hold irrational positions.
• People generally know the difference between right and wrong.
• Regular counseling will help to have intelligent thinking.
• Clear theories about what is it clear on n on-clear thinking is can help.
• Everyone should be aware that they are very intelligent, but that they can't use it properly because of some distresses. RC is one way to recover their intelligence.
• This goal should be completely achieved within RC communities at the same level and quality to open to the wide world.
• A good way to decide what is rational is to compare the actions/thinking against our model and assumptions about humans. When the actions/thoughts do not go along with these models, then it is probably "pseudo-thinking."
• We need to challenge the irrational position, for example, that shops should be open twenty-four hours a day.
• Our group made a list of places where we had come across false information as a way of further clarifying what we are talking about.
• Each of us should discharge our feelings about thinking-we will be better at rational thinking if we do.
• Can there only be one correct position?
• We need a clear process for developing draft policies and for making explicit who participates and processes for participation.
• There are many possible intelligent solutions to a given problem. There is not one accurate position on every issue.
• Each RCer should keep challenging his own thinking and not to stop when the thinking looks okay.
• Society should adopt a rational mode of thinking in place of pseudo-thinking.
• The goals of thinking should be clearly highlighted so that it can be seen if thinking is rational or pseudo. And this will help us discharge on our thinking before making decisions.
• This is a continuation of the call for integrity and courage-it calls on us to state clearly and honestly when we disagree and to deal openly with those disagreements, while being careful not to get confused between correct positions and irrational ones.
• Write down our rational good thinking and use that resource as a reference when considering whether new ideas are rational or pseudo-thinking.
• There are clear pieces of reality we have carved out in RC that could be useful to all people, e.g. goodness of all humans, people think better when listened to, taking turns. We could be immediately useful to the world by putting out these ideas.
• The goal was endorsed for the following reasons: A. It seems to challenge rc'ers to clear up our own irrational positions in order to clarify our own intelligent thinking in all areas. B. It is an excelling challenge to internalized distress which sets irrational limits on our own thinking . C. It will require much listening to others and learning to ask good questions. D. As a goal it can challenge us to work toward this position, yet not wait until we're there before taking public action on it.
• Fear around second part--who gets to say what's rational/ what's not?
• We think that the distinction between thinking and "pseudo" thinking cannot be made clear without also including the information about the discharge and re-evaluation process, without making clear the whole of our basic theory. But this is already covered by proposed goal #2: to make RC public.
• Just because we use RC it doesn't mean that all our thinking is intelligent. We've got a long way to go. We are making progress.
• I see this as a guideline for my life; I will use it to push out of the "easy life." Hopefully the communities will use it to push into the real world. It will help me think better when faced with pseudo-reality.
• In order to decide what is rational, we need to discharge a lot. The only remedy to pseudo-thinking is discharging.
• Need to respect the thinking about clear vs. pseudo-thinking that has been done by non-RC people, especially people of color and raised poor people.
• Establishing what is intelligent thinking may best be done by modeling.
• Everyone, especially leaders, needs to be aware of the distresses of their own culture or identity, and move toward contact with a wide variety of people, to get help from allies who are outside their distress to make sure that their thinking is rational.
• It was noted that scientific theories are often cited as very accurate thinking even though it has become abundantly clear that industry has used "science" for its exploitative purposes and much misinformation, labeled "scientific," has been disseminated.
• How to determine what is rational or correct thinking/policy? A starting place: eliminate all forms of humans harming humans.
• We don't have to know what is accurate thinking before making the attempt to uncover reality.
• Before interrupting someone else's pseudo-thinking, we need to check and be sure that it is pseudo-thinking.
• People can be vulnerable if they challenge positions within religions
• This is what we are about, what we teach in fundamentals class-the difference between thinking and feelings or pseudo-thinking. We have a good start there. It's a challenge to get people to notice what is thinking, and what isn't.
• In US culture there's a lot of pretense, a seeming desire not to understand the situation we're in.
• This is the spot, in RC classes, where people struggle for years-to tell what is thinking and what is distress.
• I still come back to who calls it pseudo and who calls it real? I think there are issues of trust.
• We need to be confident and patient with people's patterns, knowing what an uphill climb it is, how much people actually are up against in changing their thinking. We are offering this to people who are even more oppressed than we are. I am optimistic that we can be less scared and extend this wider.
• Setting a goal of not tolerating things that do not make sense, then fixing them. Can be a large thing like classism or an individual teacher's actions in a classroom.
• We're saying, we will accept you with all your distress and patterns, up to the point where you insist that your distress is reality.
• An accurate and enlightened position will never lead to harming another human-or it isn't accurate or enlightened!
• Pointing out the difference between thinking and pseudo-thinking is fun. I went in and said that we could disagree, but we need to treat each other with respect with no personal attacks. I point out that everyone is well intentioned.
• Sometimes, the belief in freedom of speech in the United States can mask liberalism and be an excuse to put out distress instead of holding firmly to corrrect policy.
• People pick up difference between reality and pseudo-reality by "osmosis."
• Distinction between speaking one's mind on patterned material as a precondition for discharge and re-evaluation vs. pretense of counselor tolerating oppressive material withut knowing how to challenge it.
• We can increase our collective pool of what is reality by the various constituencies taking on how they've been hurt and distinguishing reality from the pseudo reality that has been the basis of their experience.
• We need to admit to the place where our thinking is distressed.
• In order to challenge bad thinking we will have to take positions.
• Often "wrong" positions contain some grains of truth.
• Helping people sort out what it means to be a culture, not taking traditions for granted; actually thinking about what makes sense.
• We have to re-hink everything we think we know. Question our own certainties about "reality."
• Be open about the many lies taught in school.
• We know "intuitively" when we haven't done the right thing.
• Reality is how things look after you discharge. Pseudo-reality is how things look before you discharge.
• Having super high expectations for people to make the distinction
• The idea of arriving at correct positions rooted in reality is a radical idea in and of itself.
• We are somewhat clear in RC that there is a distinction between pseudo-thinking and intelligent thinking but this distinction is not there in the wide world. We need to be prepared to take on the confusion.
• One of purpose of policy is to hold the line against distress. (i.e. no socializing policy, Gay policy). Develop process of weeding out false information. One we use is discharge.
• Where do policies come from in RC? Many seem to be spring fully formed from Harvey's mind. Cherie sees her job as putting out policy. Somebody has to take individual initiative.
• Thinking in conditions of oppressed society is likely to be pseudo-thinking
• To get to an intelligent position, you often hear a lot of garbage. Have to sort through to find correctness. Often come to good thinking after bad thinking is put out.
• Communicate that the way to figure out the difference is to discharge
• Society needs guideposts to define things. (Religion used this way.)
• Intelligent thinking is always flexible, always allows for new information. To think intelligently is to think for the whole. It is to think from love rather than fear. Greed and dishonesty will naturally go away if we are treating each other intelligently. A "difference of opinion" that is rigid is not intelligent thinking. It arises from hurts, oppression, and greed.
• Definition about the inherent nature of humans (loving, cooperative, zestful, intelligent) is the basis for the distinction between intelligence and "pseudo-reality" in RC. Pseudo-thinking is rigid; it will become clear that it is not part of our inherent nature.
• There is thinking and there is distress that is mistaken to be thinking
• Everyone thinks that they are thinking even if they are not, or they are thinking on the basis of different assumptions than we have.
• It will be productive to ask/require people to identify their assumptions and to discharge on them
• What is the clearest distinction between intelligence and pseudo-thinking? Is thinking always one or the other, or can there be grey areas where both co-exist?
• Just as we say that discharging on any subject won't hurt us, we can postulate that if there are two rational opinions they won't be in conflict with each other.
• Bringing the understanding of what is rational vs. irrational means bringing discharge to the world.
• The goal is to learn clearly for ourselves when we are thinking, and when we are clouded by distress and are not thinking. We need to know this and be able to admit "we can't think right now" when this is the case, in order to communicate it widely.
• For some groups, e.g. women, some of our thinking has been so squashed that it comes up in a rush, an inelegant way that looks like distress. We've maintained for a long time that intuition is "super-fast thinking" but it would be useful to reiterate this and get more practice in checking such intuitions with logic.
• There might still be differences of opinion even after reaching an elegant and/or accurate position.
• Person does not equal pattern has a parallel: thinking does not equal pseudo-thinking
• How much of our (pseudo) thinking is based on our cowardness?
• Question about who is responsible fore deciding what is intelligent thinking vs. pseudo thinking, particularly on issues where there is not broad agreement or clarity.
• A yardstick: "Does this position lead to the elimination of humans harming humans?"
• Seems there may be many possible elegant solutions/rational positions.
• The overall goal is to have everyone get to a place where they can think for themselves and be able to tell, themselves, when their thinking is not clear.

Spreading RC

• Don't stay at discharge. Action must follow.
• To discharge feelings of fear to spread the ideas of RC.
• If we teach one thing, it should be the basic assumptions about human beings. This provides a standard to check the logic of our thinking.
• We have to remember to tell people that RC is an experiment.
• For me, this means taking what we've used in counseling to a global level.
• Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have arranged not to pass their money on to their family but to give it to non-profit organizations such as pro-choice and anti-nuclear groups. Can we reach these very wealthy men who are liberal capitalists and who would possibly be delighted to know that their billions could be used to build a better society? Another example would be those who are involved at Ben & Jerry's who believe in a humane business.
• The wide world will be able to hear the hope in RC ideas just as they could hear something different in Clinton's bid for re-election and in Harold Washington being elected mayor.
• That the continent of Africa is rich but the people are poor is a place where people can see the greed and a need for change.
• We need to think more clearly about groups targeted for destruction, including the working class.
• We can revive the idea of people to going out and being "missionaries" for RC - "Janie Appleseeds."
• Focus our efforts on presenting and modeling those things that we know work.
• Make it clear that no one is required to agree with policy-define policy over and over as it is defined in RC-that most policies are draft policies.
• We have to get tough and fearless around getting people to discharge when we are talking with them.
• Contacts are critical to communicating RC.
• Be a magnet, not a club-entice people into RC.
• In RC, we have an agreement about giving up addictions, etc. This supports putting RC out there in its pure form.
• Prepare ourselves to explain how to position RC in relation to liberation, e.g., in relation to other such organizations in the world.
• To give real information only way to treat as human.
• This (RC) is the best thinking around, we need to stop doubting and believe that we can change the world.
• Examples in Present Time of people communicating theory; specific ones are the best.
• We know we have to talk about it. Need venues, decision, and practice. Start neighborhood support groups, take turns, build community groups: Sunday prayer groups, etc.
• Share successes naturalizing theory; be specific about how it was done.
• Remember how eager people are for this information.
• Model the process of discharge despite any embarrassment
• We need to consider what people can take in and not underestimate their ability because of our fears. Which is what we usually do.

Tradition

• We need to discharge on all traditions and identities and cast out what is not rational. Strong group identities are open to manipulation.
• We must face the habits and rigid patterns of our own communities and clean up our own fears.
• For Arab women, tradition says not to hug men; how quickly to challenge this? If you challenge that from the beginning, then the first step is the hardest (but the rest is relatively easy).
• When teaching people with strong irrational traditions, we must go very slowly.
• This is a call to discharge especially on irrational traditions. Many traditions are beautiful, but some are irrational and require deep discharge.
• Messy scenarios come up when I think about the implementations of this.
• While "maintaining past traditions" can easily lead to targeting particular traditions as irrational, we need to challenge as well the putting any tradition on a pedestal. We've begun to challenge some traditions as based in distress, but have not yet thoroughly explored what is rational and what is distress-based in those traditions.
• Could easily become an excuse to attack traditions (but do need to face what is not rational in each culture)

Implementation:

• It's needless to wonder if our Community is in good enough shape to handle all the "new people." When teaching people, it is our job to get them in good enough shape to participate in the Community. Each leader creates her own Community.
• This goal means that in every situation we take the responsibility to answer the question: Is intelligent thinking going on here? The answers to these questions can be compiled and put forward as draft policies by each Wygelian group. As we establish this, we need to get better at handling attacks, and to handle attacks, we need to be able to offer each other closeness and connection ( the caring as the contradiction to the pattern)
• Be more vigorous in RC about guidelines. Each person go through them and apply them i n his or her life. Utilize coached counseling
• Teaching RC to people and becoming good at this happy process is one way of achieving part of this goal.
• In communicating what we know, we need to work where people actually are.
• Communicate outside RC about what human nature is and how distress and patterns messes with thinking. And any other key pieces of theory.
• We need to hear about mistakes.
• Stick with each other despite mistakes.
• Have more places in RC to think about policy (workshops, etc.)
• Present Time written in words that aren't RC, say what we really mean for the wide world.
• We need to offer ourselves in the wide word for policy teaching and places that are building policy
• Put out wide-world literature about policy.
• We recognise that there is a difference between putting out a policy that challenges liberalism in an area where there has already been discussion and discharge, and in an area where the preparatory work has not been undertaken.
• Require RC leaders to be in at least one wide-world place working on policy and get support from the community.
• RCer's should be tasked to raise the standard of thinking at all times that happen around them--in and out of RC.
• Introduce the idea of internalised oppression into public debate; interrupting this needs to be understood as key to ending liberalism.
• RC Fundamentals classes should include work on this proposal. Also, RC teachers should give their students opportunities to discharge on being visible.
• Different contexts will influence the implementation of goals differently. This needs to be considered when understanding a specific goal.
• RCer's should notice where we have carried this out already if it worked, and compare what you did then to what is proposed here.
• Within four years we will have positioned a significant number of RCers to lsten to and effectively challenge the leaders of the oppressive society. We will assist such leaders to express the feelings and hurts which have attached to any irrational position they have taken.
• It's important for us to be up front about being RC'ers and having a set of goals, namely keeping people from getting hurt and from hurting each other.
• We need to go after places where oppression separates us--we can't achieve this goal without eliminating that separation.
• To make this work we need to communicate the nature of distress and how it works.
• If you give information about distress, need to also let people know there's a way out. begin publicly practicing with our inner circle---family. Continue relentlessly to discharge our distress that might get in the way while we go ahead and speak out and share the theory.
• Clean up in our personal lives and RC communities tolerance of pseudo thinking. Organize classes and community events to assist with this.
• More boldly and openly present our ideas as the ideas of RC in all our personal interactions.
• Develop systems in our local, Regional and International RC Communities where people with judgement and expertise can make and approve public statements by RC'ers on current events and important issues.
• to create more literature w/out jargon.
• to clarify in our literature how to distinguish thinking from pseudo-thinking.
• By "going public", WE will have to discharge our mental health oppression and on the possible attacks that will come from seeing discharge happening. The mental health systems view on discharge as bad, weird, sick , deserving to be stopped by medication, etc., is going to come up! Must discharge on the other thoughts others will have about us as RC'ers ( that it's a cult, etc.). These JUST NEED TO BE DISCHARGED.
• Prepare to be asked what our credentials are when we go out there with the message that everyone is good
• We can clarify what is thinking vs. pseudo-thinking by checking it against our basic counseling assumptions.
• Everybody in counseling needs basic training in thinking out and holding a position on any issue and learning how to change a position.
• We should make more use of the agreements we have in place in the RC Community about how to handle disagreements. It helps if people can stay and discharge and move toward agreement.
• Keep refining positions using the process of discharge and re-evaluation. Take decisions and act based on our best thinking and then re-examine the thinking based on what works.
• In making the distinction between intelligent thinking and pseudo-thinking, we acknowledged the importance of having a process to use, i.e. discharge and the development of draft policies, which are subject to revision as we discharge and the world changes.
• We agreed that it is important to courageously speak clearly what we know to be true and to interrupt what we know to be misinformation, untruths, stereotypes and other distress recordings, including distress recordings arising from the internalized oppressions emanating from any group subjected to oppression.
• We will succeed better in challenging patterns of timidity at the next round of continental conferences because there will be a larger number of people of color and younger people at future conferences.
• Rather than lecturing people or throwing labels at them, inspire people by putting out thinking that challenges people to live begger lives.
• Distinguish between patterned disagreement vs. offering an alternative.
• Define who "we" is who are going public.
• Do we interrupt something now, or give an appearance of tolerance in order to build relationships until we can figure out how to interrupt something without destroying the connection we are building with another human being?
• Do we need a strong personal relationship with someone before we interrupt something or present them with a whole different idea (like, no circumcision)?
• We need to resist yearning for conformity and being accepted by a person or group. We need to discharge what keeps us from falling in love with people who disagree with us (so that we can be respectful even while we insist on correct policy).
• Holding a position highlights where we don't feel we have choices.
• We need to give up the powerlessness we feel in relation to people who disagree with us. In all likelihood, we will need to work on what happened within our families around disagreements. Our identities are probably relevant; examples are patterns commonly imposed on Jews and women.
• The role of discharge is the hard piece of information to communicate.
• You cant do this without pointing out the role of feelings. There needs to be information given about how to think not based on your feelings.
• We need to also resist the pull to pull in people who think just like us.
• We just did this in a topic group at lunch-we disagreed, we listened and thought, we figured something out together. We reached an enlightened position and it was easy to do.
• We all know the face of racism. End it in my life time.
• Discharge any timidities that cause us to accept irrationalities.
• We need to learn to argue within RC while backing leadership expertly.
• It means taking a principled stand on many things we already know.
• We have learned how to set up the group discussions in which a meaningful exchange of opinions can occur to reach an increasingly enlightened position can be achieved.
• Include a tone of caring to be set for meetings, a prohibition against attack, and an opportunity for discharge.
• We need to listen well and walk our walk rather than argue with people about
• Be generous and inclusive in who we listen to; don't isolate.
• Get correct information out about human nature and the difference between people and patterns to assist people to be able to recognize correct thinking.
• Assist people to discharge on the ideas that everyone has their mind and can not lose it; all people are brilliant and can come to correct conclusions through discharge and re-evaluation.
• A contribution of RC is a system of leadership support that backs each other's thinking. We don't have to think in isolation.
• Instead of allowing ourselves to be attacked or locked up for speaking out about what's right, we can organize in large groups as we speak out in unity with solidarity.
• Model that it's ok to have distress and reach through the distress for people's humanity.
• We need to discharge about making enemies.
• Question: How do we set it up? (The conditions whick allow this goal to happen)
• From the view of working-class folks-we should expect to have animated fights, agree to disagree, and as a result, influence change. And it means taking on the addictions (substances and behaviours in the group)
• Need not to lose track of each other or abandon each other.
• Need to learn to listen to each other (e.g. re: racism).
• Know how to work collectively so that it becomes natural to think about the collective.
• RC Community builders need to go through The Guidelines and discharge about them.
• We need to separate the viewpoint from the person.
• We have learned how to set up group discussions in which a meaningful exchange of opinions can occur increasingly enlightened positions can be achieved.
• Winning people to corect policy versus cramming it down people's throats.
• With disagreement, look at the whole picture-is it a rehearsal of a pattern or attempt to think?
• School curriculum on making distinction between human and distressed position, i.e. greed vs. a society that works for everyone. Different color markers- "greed" vs. based on "human needs."
• Who is the "we" in terms of our public presence as an RC Community? Participating democracy model has limitations. Someone makes a decision and others follow.
• Discharge process needs to be publicly acknowledged (in the face of "mental health" oppression) in order to be able to talk publicly about the thinking process and how opinions can be expressed and agreement reached. We need to do work in sessions on internalized "mental health" oppression.
• If we're dumb about how we do this, we could have a mess to clean up.
• Even in a playday, there can be many disgreements. This is complicated, and we need to practice arguing an disagreeing.
• We need to step in with each other and not to be liberal within RC.
• One example of requiring people to stick to correct policy is holding people around me to keep confidentiality. This is one thing people can do right now in RC.
• It's important to get information and use the discharge process to come up with the best thinking and not just rationalize why the people in "authority" are correct.
• We need to treat all people as of equal value-asking the question, "Is this for the good of all people?"
• We need to guard that permissive counseling not support pseudo thinking.
• Listen for hurt in everyday conversations to give clearer thinking. More boldly share the discharge process.
• Remember that people want to counsel us-teach them how to.
• We need to remember that the world includes our immediate surroundings.
• Be a good human being-walk the talk.
• Remember there are people who like RC (us) and respect RC-how could they be helpful
• Do it as our own, not Harvey's. Present it as a liberation movement, not as a therapy.
• Clearer distinction about who is in the Community and who isn't.
• Allay fears that RC is a cult.
• How do we arrive at policy and yet keep disagreement alive?
• Confusion between honesty and telling the truth. Integrity is doing the right thing, not necessarily always "telling the truth."
• Nothing that will convince people that we're right better than listening, respecting, and holding on to a correct position.
• Don't want to create propaganda.
• Need to create real relationships with people and put out the policies to them.
• Need to push against liberalism-"it's just their opinion." There is often really is a right or a wrong way to go.
• The first objective in implementing this goal is to make the ideals a reality in one's life.
• An important way to implement this is to get information to parents.
• These goals are useful to our individual re-emergence. Taking this goal as personal policy is important.
• This thinking must first be modeled through integration of intelligent thinking and living one's life fully.
• Support whatever "thinking" is already out there. Clearly and publicly support rational, effective people out there.
• Important to be able to logically check something out.
• Decide what places want to take a stand.
• Have relationships with people you don't agree with.
• For many young people, the terminology is hard to understand.
• Be proud of all the work we're doing to build communities of people together
• As a worker in schools and as a Native, important to be visible
• Learning about everybody's experience
• closeness helps communication
• We need to have more flexibility in relaxedly counseling people who hold different points of view.
• First get people to agree we live in an oppressive society and that we've all been conditioned by that.
• The goal should establish a process for accomplishing it, such as to look at the beliefs people hold based on greed, etc.
• How do we establish how long we listen to difference of opinion when it's really an issue of discharge?
• In wide world how do we hold out distinction between thinking and feeling without discharge process? We do introduce RC process? If not in RC process, how long do we listen?
• Through the discharge process we can distinguish the difference between opinions based on experience vs. distress patterns.
• We are all peers. Respectfully disagreeing with designated leaders is not an attack.
• Keep discharging on greed, traditions, and oppression
• We like the goal of thinking all the time and taking a position of not giving in to our restimulation.
• It will be crucial that as we go into the future that we have an agreed-upon process for coming to a rational position on any topic. We can decide to welcome challenges and questions.
• Stop complaining
• We will need some structures/processes to support the discussions that need to take place.
• Practical guidelines are needed for promoting intelligent thinking and administering the expressions of different opinions in our Communities.
• Clarify the boundaries of expressing differences of opinion and their consequences. Listening to people's expression of differences is not a stamp of approval. This must be understood before the discussions.
• Clearly articulate rules for expressing differences of opinion so as to not attack leaders who present policies.
• Our approaches to people whose opinions are inaccurate, but just not thought through, might be different than when dealing with people whose position is calculated to maintain pseudo-reality.
• We should be able to clearly state why leadership and policy are necessary, and why having policy is not the same as doing someone's thinking for her/him.
• We need to develop our "decider muscle," so we will be capable of deciding to hold a position again and again. We're not just after discharge, we're after re-emergence.
• There is a lot of colluding with each other's material that goes on in the Communities-caretaking and "nice" patterns that get in the way of people thinking well about each other, in particular not being effective with leaders. It's important to address "leadership oppression," even have an ILRP on this issue.
• Start the work in fundamentals classes
• Develop relationships first
• No preaching
• Our critique of capitalism is subversive. Find some way to present it differently. Educated, non-educated, radicals--putting it some way so that all get the idea.
• Communicating our message should be done in a way that's safe, not restimulating.
• People are waiting for some point of remergence to do this. Think we need to decide to act now.
• Key leadership is needed around leadership oppression
• Put out and emphasize the logical structure of what we know. Our assumptions and how everything follows logically from them.
• Need to counsel on discipline, particularly our early experiences.
• Key strategy to allow people to reclaim their thinking which implies the need for everyone to reclaim the discharge process.
• Make a commitment to never again attack or in any way invalidate another person because of what they think or believe in.
• No patty-caking around and staying in our isolation.
• We all keep rowing or the ship sinks and it's a big ship.
• At the introduction of every policy that it be formally written that it's fine to disagree with the content of the policy.
• We have to rethink everything we think we know. Question our own certainties about "reality"

Wording suggestions

• There was considerable discussion about the use of the words "the distinction." Although the intention is clearly to establish that there is a distinction, the impression from the wording could be that we are also prescribing what is the single intelligent thinking on any issue. It would probably be better to have it say, "To establish clearly, publicly, and definitively that there is a distinction between . . ." so that this is clear. We are asserting that there is a distinction, but making the distinction is not always easy and is not the sole province of RC.
• Instead of "pseudo-thinking," could we use "non-thinking," or "reaction"?
• The second part of the I goal should be changed "To insist that everybody has complete freedom to express differences of opinion and to help people do so in a way that does not hurt the others; this is a necessary preliminary...."
• Eliminate the word "publicly."
• "Pseudo-thinking" may be the wrong term. Distressed thinking is still thinking. There may be a more elegant way to say this.
• Rephrase the first sentence to reflect more accurately what we know about the real nature of human beings-of how greed and dishonesty and the structures of oppression arise from distress recordings.
• The goals should be written in all languages.
• The word "establish": means that it gets to the stage where it can flourish without special nourishing.
• The proposal is written in an inappropriately academic intellectual language.
• The first sentence is already clearly stated in the guideline: Cut it down to "To clarify that complete freedom to express differences of opinion on any question is a necessary preliminary to reaching enlightened and accurate positions." Remove "but" in second sentence to have the first clause not qualified by the second.
• To establish clearly, publicly, and definitively, the distinction between intelligent thinking and "pseudo-thinking". Pseudo thinking arises from false information, distress recordings, the operations of the oppressive society, greed or dishonesty.
• The goals could be written down as a bullet point or statement and then followed by anexplanatory paragraph.
• We should create 2 sentences out of the last sentence ("But this freedom" should start a new sentence.
• We should not speak of "pseudo-thinking," but instead move towards a more general understanding and spreading of good thinking and what is not helpful.
• The way this goal is written is not appropriate for non-RC'ers. It's full of jargon but makes sense for Co-Counselors.(ex. would be better to use "non-thinking" rather then "psuedo-thinking").
• Question: Do we want to use words like "sound" thinking, or "critical" thinking, or "clear" thinking? We have to define what we mean by "intelligent".
• Raised poor, and working- class peoples get hooked on the oppressive society's ideas about intelligence that come from academia, especially.
• "Psuedo-thinking" has a negative connotation to it.
• The goals should be phrased more simply and be shortened.
• We would like to see this goal separated into at least three parts. After Dishonesty; positions and remove the but that after positions. This creates three clear and powerful statemetns.
• Pseudo thinking -- who decides? Very long sentence - confusing. Is this for the general society?
• You have to read it several times to grasp what it is about.
• We think this needs to be rewritten to clarify its intent.
• I think the second sentence should stop at "irrational positions." The rest of it seems too limiting.
• It could be broken into two goals, or part a and part b. It needs to be worded differently to not raise red flags for non-RC'ers (arrogant, what the hell do you mean by psuedo-thinking?, etc.)
• The language could perhaps be simpler for this goal, to address the needs of poor and working-class people. Leaders can also adapt the language to fit the needs of beginners.
• A recommendation was made that the goal be put into language that is accessable to people in the wide world.
• What does it mean to go public? Perhaps to sponsor legislation, write articles, attend conferences, etc.
• Concern about this goal being too wordy. We don't want it to be something people have to read and re-read, still confused over the wording, as opposed to being able to think about the goal itself.
• The goal should be written in short sentences. This is necessary to obtain clarity.
• Concern: something needs to be condensed; oppression is the key piece here; can we write it clearer? This is important.
• We suggest the language in this goal be simplified and examples added for increased clarity.
• Add that the tolerance of an irrational position is often due to fear.
• It would be good to have a statement about disagreement. I don't know if we need the first statement. "There is no inherent conflict between human beings."
• The goal needs to be restated more clearly and succinctly.
• Text has to be changed in a way that everybody can understand it. Split it up.
• Goal three should be at the top and the rest underneath as strategies.
• We suggest new wording of maintaining past traditions, maintaininfg oppression, or of colluding with a patterned desire for comfort. Include a tone of caring to be set for meetings, prohibition against attack, and an opportunity for discharge.
• This goal needs to be in easily digestible language for all people to understand.
• I wish the sentences were shorter for clarity.
• This proposal could be written more clearly.
• End first sentence with "oppressive society." Leave greed and dishonesty out of first sentence. Greed is covered in distress recordings; dishonesty in the form of lying is sometimes an act of integrity, It is not always wrong or always imply lack of integrity. Second sentence: Change "preliminary to" to "environment for" which would imply that listening to opinion in the future is ok. Listening to opinions is not the same as acceptance of views. End second sentence with irrational positions. But/and ? - propose changing "but' in 2nd sentence to "and."
• If this is meant to evoke emotion, it does. Change to "past behavior" because some traditional behavior is good.
• Term "past traditions" is very loaded, changing it might be useful.
• Confused about last line: adding a reference in first part about where things get liberal or permissive. Needs to be rigorously maintained.
• Couldn't take it out written like this, hard for people to understand.
• May need to be two separate goals-it's two different things.
• Confusing as written
• "Flexible" intelligence should be added.
• "Clear" and "definitive" are good.
• Dense paragraph
• too wordy; make it more concise
• Critical to have a second sentence in order to arrive at distinction between thinking and pseudo thinking. Use discharge process as an aid to drawing conclusions.
• Add: experience/opinion.
• We need to use words that are not "loaded." Clarity is important. "Enlightened" and "pseudo" are hard.
• Discharge needs to be added.
• Change wording: add the word "hurtful" before "traditions."
• Words like enlightened and pseudoreality were unnecessarily confusing.
• The goal is sound, but we found the wording too vague and confusing for implementation.
• There is not a clear connection between the two inherent goals: -insistence on intelligent thinking; -freedom of expression
• The goal requires a definition of what is rational and intelligent (meaning appropriate for every situation) if we intend to go public with a policy
• This statement seems a little jargony. We need to be able to put it in our own words.
• Distinction between "goals" and "draft policies"
• This proposal could be rewritten more clearly.
• We should clarify whether Goal 1 encourages us to go public with our thinking as Rcers or without this affiliation.
• Suggestion to break Goal 1 into two goals. Each sentence would be a goal unto itself. And that there be an expansion of sentence two, explaining the reasons why "liberalism" is an issue for the RC Communities. (There was a counterproposal that there be a clarification of the link between the two ideas and keep them as one goal.)
• This goal should be expressed in relation to Guidelines 3 (one-point program for RC) and Guideline 4 (process for continuing discussion and clarification of RC thinking). The chief difference involves the "public" role for confronting disagreements.
• Possibly reposition this goal as number 2 or 3.
• Change "pseudo-thinking" to "conclusions. " [The reasons: a) It's possible to think well given the information we have although we might later discover the information was false. It's misleading to call such thinking "pseudo-thinking." b) If this is to be a public document, the term "pseudo-thinking" is not likely to to encourage a positive response. The term pseudo-thinking does have application in concrete cases where patterns are operating. Change "oppressive society" to "the oppressive operations of society." Not all operations of society are oppressive.

Questions

• To be in leadership in this organization you have to buy into the politics of the left of center. How do we attract the Christian Right, etc. This would not fly with them.
• Would a distress-free human society have any differences of opinion, or only different individual preferences, such as some like licorice and some like vanilla?
• Re: false information-should people be allowed to say it? We can't correct the misinformation if we don't hear it.
• How do we arrive at policy and yet keep disagreement alive?

Greed

• It is difficult and important to challenge business people about their positions on greed.
• Asking ourselves and others to re-think our greed in our lives.
• People's positions or wealth and greed will have to be disassembled by large masses of people.
• Greed actually is fear Fear is dischargeable and different for each person
• Greed based on the false assumption of scarcity.
• The class system is relevant to this discussion, and we need to show that greed and dishonesty are distress recordings.
• In the oppressive society, greed has been elevated into a business operation-"That's business." Blaming people, not understanding why people are poor or unemployed. The institutions of the European Community are being used to colonise Eastern Europe, to sell capitalism to Eastern Europe. Society sells dangerous products to make money, etc.

Going Public

• Reports from Beijing remind us that going public has been done. In the context of relationships and closeness this information is easy to hear and people are eager. Going Public was the "time of their lives" for those who went to Beijing.
• Public--what does this mean? How? On the radio? Spokesperson? Lots of strange ways to get it out, but these would not necessarily represent me. Are we ready to handle "60 Minutes"?
• If we have a positive attitude and have expectations of people who are receiving this information, then they will probably hear it.
• Be thoughtful about differences globally. How public can you go?
• When we go public, it is most important that we emphasize the inherent goodness of human beings, as summarized in the zero point.
• We must keep thinking and not allow change to become a mantra. With accurate information, the working class majority of the world will change the world.
• We recommend that as we begin to go public, the RC Community in general undertake a large project (for example, like our work in Beijing).
• The most important word in this goal is "publicly." This shifts the view to the wide world instead of keeping our attention on the counseling Communities. It is good to go public in a big way.
• White RCers have a lot more work to do about what is going on with people of color before going public.
• People should make decisions on a case-by-case basis about whether or not to announce they are "RCers."
• Support systems need to be in place as we go public. Everyone needs to understand these goals.
• Each Community needs to figure out what they can take on (use the model of the Women's Conference in China). Every leader needs to prepare for attacks and criticism as we go public.
• Go public NOW. Designate people who are ready to lead and present RC to the world now. There is enough of a global Community that RC will be able to break out all over once it goes public big in one place.
• This goal speaks about something that we are already doing-at this point we are going beyond that and asking our Communities to deliberately commit to this goal and get behind it.
• RC policies on abortion and on the use of psychotropic medications are examples of RC policies that require bold and public stands in the world.
• We must ge public on certain issues first, others later, after thourough discussion and agreement. Issues I think we can agree on now: - oppressiveness of the "mental health" system; - discharge prcess; - use of drugs on young people and elders; - using/distributing resources unfairly
• Which of our policies are public already? Where do we find them (since we are the leaders supposed to be upholding them)?
• How should we go about getting Community agreement on a policy that we wish to go public with?
• We can put out "process positions" to stop people from getting hurt, rather than clear end positions.
• To build RC Community capacity to support this goal, we needto work on: --ability to handle atacks, because there will be attacks ; --learn to debate, argue, disagree-do lots of practicing; --need a place for disagreement within RC; -- use sessions to support us on principled stands; --work on being disliked; --work on times we've stood up against attacks and survived; --work on defensiveness about our patterns/positions so that we can hear disagreement; --become professional as an organization-we're here to do certain work-other organizations get together to do work. Locally, people often act like RC is a "get-away-for-the-weekend" club
• Seems the only part of this statement that we haven't begun doing already is just the "public" part.
• It's scary for me to think of communicating this to folks who think you should act on your feelings. It's also difficult to share information about the oppressive society.
• Building relationships is the foundation for getting enough credibility to go bolder and more public.
• I do this work. I say its RC. I sell the literature. People are hungry for this.
• RC Community must go public with our positions-e.g., "mental health" system and drugging instead of use of discharge with young people and elders; people using resources in an unfair way.
• To be clarified-how and where has RC taken a public stand?
• The discharge process is the first position, our clearest, to go public on. Others we're not so clear on. Survey The List to see which of our positions we have clear agreement on. How do we get agreement within the community?
• A question arose as to the nature of public. How public? When? How?
• We create a climate in which people can broadly share their best thinking and in which we're encouraged to work through our timidity at sharing our thinking publicly.
• The consensus of our group is that we must go public with the ideas of RC-that the society is collapsing and people are hungry for our hopeful information.
• We need to take the full program of RC to everyone.
• Hold monthly introductory lectures on RC throughout a given area.
• Set this goal with the understanding that some people ready to do it right away.
• Force us to discharge on stuff which fouls up our relationship with RC (secretiveness) and our feelings about RC.
• We will get attacked-many leaders, not just one.
• Empowering to learn we can survive attacks, fully claiming who we are. Give up trying to be acceptable to everybody.
• We're not ready for the attacks.
• If go public, need to position it vis a vis other things.
• Very culturally biased, so unwise.
• We need to pick some strategic thing like Beijing where we do a lot of thought and planning.
• Leave it up to RCers in different countries to judge whether they can safely go public.
• A group to think about how to think about going public would be useful. Example of the extensive preparation work that went into sharing RC at the Beijing Conference.
• Seems very "heavy." I do not know if publicly is such a hot idea. The media often misconstrues information. Integrity and courage may be different for me than for someone else.
• Seems like Goal I means taking all of our thinking outside RC.
• We already have these goals. Why put them out to be attacked?
• Is the world interested?
• People need safety in order to notice true reality. Then they'll grasp the true information right away.
• Taking goal seriously means taking self seriously, being bold.
• Going public will push us to build support as you go public. Use what we know about leadership
• This will be useful in challenging patterns of passivity.
• Most useful-challenges patterns of passivity.
• What does "publicly" mean?
• At least two areas of operation come to mind: the sphere of our lives including work and personal associations, and the political sphere where someone might decide to put out this information as part of a public platform.
• Besides "going public" with this distinction between thinking and pseudo-thinking, we need to do a lot of work within the RC Communities; helping people make a decision to commit themselves to this.
• As we go public with RC we need to develop a mechanism to handle attacks publicly.
• "Publicly" is problematic. How in the world will we pull it off without falling into a million pits?
• Gonna stir up a lot of crap.
• We gotta be ready to defend our position.
• Our modeling will have to be terrific.
• We have a tremendous amount of accurate, important information that is very needed out in the world (i.e. men are not the enemy, a class society does not make sense, racism must be eliminated, women are smart, etc.). Essential that we put this thinking out there, pushing through our fears to actually take on transforming society.
• In the same way that we have recognized that one-on-one communication is most effective because in order for people to hear and use ideas that so thoroughly contradict their fears they need to hear it from someone they love; we need to recognize as we go public that we develop a solid relationship with the "public" we are trying to reach-to make it clear we are committed, solid, clear, loving, have integrity, courage; this will allow people to hear us and accept ideas that may scare them. (Example: Martin Luther King's coming out against Vietnam War in early 60's before anyone else had done so publicly) He had built a strong public presence.
• No question, this is hard ball. It means getting behind each other.
• What do you mean "publicly"?

Spanish/Espaniol

Realizar proyectos en común, por ejemplo, talleres. Intercambio de información de país a país-con líderes latinoaméricanos.

• Reevaluar "que maravilloso es ser latinoaméricano." Reconocer nuestros patrones rígidas y estimar nuestras valores.
• Solicitar y brindar apoyos para la creación y consolidación de nuevas Comunidades.
• Crear mecanismos para utilizar eficientemente los medios comunicación a fin de que llegue la información a toda la Comunidad RC.
• Desahogar los patrones de inconstancia, de lo leer, puntualidad, etc., y otros de que nos caracterizan como latinoaméricanos.
• Reafirmar las comunidades de Co-escucha: donde existen un espacio donde te puedes expresar y ser totalmente libres.
• Fortalecer las comunidades darles formación a través de clases y literatura, talleres, etc. Es importante y valiosa la práctica de sesiones, mas frecuentes para líderes, y de este modo lograr una completa liberación para poder ayudar a otros co-escucha.
• Comenzar a incursionar a los centros de poder de pseudomensajes como las partidas políticas; sectas económicas; medios de comunicación. Buscar maneras de difusión a través de programas radio les dar contradicciones sociales y trabajar sobre esto. E.j., tomar un caso de corupción y contradecir.
• Todos los líderes deberían tener su grupo de apoyo y desahogar.
• Desahogar acerca de como los chismes nos afectan en nuestra comunidad y de donde provienes.
• No aceptar la falsedad de los políticos y como eso demuestra la forma de integridad.
• Leer la literatura y desahogar y encontrar formas practicar, de la vida cotidiana para ilustrar los pensamientos verdaderos, que reemplacen las ideas viejas.
• No tolerar que las ideas opresivos sigan extendiendose o perpetuandose.