What Should We Seek To Have Occupied?

(Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty Images)

In respect to these “Occupy” protests my greatest hope is they never become a movement as found to be formed out of some individual’s or factional group’s vision for the world, yet simply remain the unified final recognition that things are in need of change and to admit each is seeking what that is while not as yet knowing what that would end up to be. So if this is truly to be the counter to being an ideology such as the Tea Party or that of any other group which presents as the same, it must be first understood the need for a true and open dialogue is what’s required and not an ordinary discussion, as to have found created not what we simply feel and think as wanted and needed, yet rather what can work to have this to be.

Just as a final thought, as perhaps as to add to the dialogue, is simply to remind that a total solution never is found with considering only 99%, even if it be greater than 1%.

"[Thought] seems to have some inertia, a tendency to continue. It seems to have a necessity that we keep on doing it. However ... we often find that we cannot easily give up the tendency to hold rigidly to patterns of thought built up over a long time. We are then caught up in what may be called absolute necessity. This kind of thought leaves no room at all intellectually for any other possibility, while emotionally and physically, it means we take a stance in our feelings, in our bodies, and indeed, in our whole culture, of holding back or resisting. This stance implies that under no circumstances whatsoever can we allow ourselves to give up certain things or change them."

-David Bohm & Mark Edwards, "Changing Consciousness"_, p. 15

"A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative."

-David Bohm & David Peat, "Science Order, and Creativity"_, p. 241