Help Improve Script for the video Climate Change is a chance for human beings to consciously evolve by developing the capacity to be selfish

Draft Commentary on the video - can humanities become self-aware

For the third part of the video-the voice-over, i know it sucks. So i am looking for people willing to help me with

 1- background music with no vocals

 2- replace my voice-over with a group dialogue or a better energy-charged voice-over

 3- improve the visuals presentation, suggest relevant video clips.

Something I wish to add to the script is that, the chronic build-up of endorphins is really a chronic experience of pain, for endorphins being able to produce pleasure, which is just the other side of the coin of pain, like love/hate, and since most of us grow up with it, we cannot feel the blissfulness. This realization allowed me to be more compassionate, I think.

SCRIPT

Listen to your heart.

There is a sacredness in every heart beats, continuing without the need to be controlled.

There is a rhythm to life.

In the cycle of death;

As they naturally self-balance.

As all earth systems are, self-balancing.

Unless prevented from doing so. 

Thousands of years ago, some of the human beings created language, where they labelled black & white, happiness & sorrow,  you & me, society & I.  Other human beings found it useful, and they evolved the ability (to) represent realities. Thousands of years later,  their evolutionary advantage enabled them to build powerful globalized institutions,  so powerful, they were able to change the geological system of the planet (i.e. climatic system) As they accepted that was happening, and searched for ways to  not forget the relationships and the contexts from which each of “I” was born. Humanities evolved again. They became self-aware of thier themselves as an inseparable whole.

They began by asking themselves: Is it possible to solve the problem at the same level of consciousness which created it?

The evolution took place when some of they examine the structure of their thoughts. Each thought is made of memory. Each memory is a reflex in the nerve system. Each reflex is a chemical change in the body. As some memory is experienced through pleasant  sensations which involves the releasing of endorphins. When this is reinforced again and again. A  reflex may be chronically connected to endorphins. When one does nothing, the body naturally removes the chronic built-up of the endorphins (pleasant sensations), which gives  a sense of discomfort. When one subsequently tries to change it, the reflex is thus able to mobilize the body to defense against it.

Part II

Upon hearing this story, you started to test this it out for yourself. You asked:

  If the totality of human beings and their activities acting on the planet is altering the climatic system of their only planet.

Is it the same neurophysiological structure of thoughts, which, having created the problems,  then trying to solve it?

Is this self-denial what prevents nature’s elf-balance and  the inherent tendency to self-righten?

The question is then,

Can a mind which tries to solve problems as if it is separated from the problem, be aware of itself doing this?

Can the humanities as a whole, operate with all their senses awaken?

That is,

Can the totality of the humanities as we are now, be selfish? For to be selfish is to put close attention on ourselves. To feel the sense of unity and completeness, Just before the rise of thoughts, time, self.

 Can the humanities as a whole, be selfish?  To be selfish is to love oneself before you try to love others.  To accept yourself as who you are, without the need to become. Because, we already are.  Like everything in existence. Ephemeral in our manifestations, but eternal in our capacity to feel them.

Can the humanities as a whole, be selfish? Selfishly aware of our dreams, aspirations, possibilities we are committed to, the feeling of participating in something bigger than ourselves? Be free from the isolated boundaries of nations, religions, ideologies, systems of beliefs, the conclusions, knowledge?  Be free from the limits of thoughts?

  Can we, in moment of sorrow, anxiety, uncertainty, great sense of deprivation, a pursuit of pleasure and the endless pain of a thousand years of tears. Give attention to them? To listen to the body, in full acceptance?  To let it self-express. To let the authenticity, love within us shine beyond the thoughts and demands of its institutions?

To allow our inherent ability to self-balance, 

to heal the broken hearts,

to heal the broken relationships

In expressing what we deeply care about,

to heal the broken world.

For being simply selfish is

 to express ourselves

as love itself.

Part III

The story I was telling, and I am interested in you testing it out for yourself,  is that problems like climate change are really challenges for human beings to consciously evolve.

Which involves developing the capacity to be selfish –putting close attention on ourselves at every moment, because the collective attentions of human kind have been institutionalised and fixed on helping others and objective attainment/avoidance.

The stories can be summarised in 2 points:

1-      All systems spontaneously self-balance.

2-      It is now being prevented by an incoherence in thought, that thought as a system, denies itself:   Thought represents the reality to us, and it denies that it merely represents it.

Thus, climate change, like all other experience of problems, becomes a mere a symptom of a pattern. Inwardly, it is manifested as the thinking pattern of problem-solving:  the instance of trying to solve a problem as if I am separated from the problem itself.  Outwardly, it is manifested as economic, political, legal institutions currently being globalised:  institutions based on extraction, manipulation nature including human beings  towards centralised locations for the purpose of profit consolidation and asset accumulation.

And at structural level, both the problem-solving mind-set and the institutions are based on the presumption that there is this ‘black’ existing separated from my drawing the distinction from ‘white’’, that there is this “I” existing somewhere separated from the rest of what is in existence, from the context, the relationships.

The way I am presenting, this pyramid structure is based on a model of thinking. At the bottom, the mental model is the structure of thought

So a part of my video is dedicated to examining the structure of thoughts.

I started by borrowing from David Bohm, a quantum physic scientists and his theory of the neurophysiological construct thought. According to my interpretation of it, thoughts consist of memory, which consists of a reflex induced through a chemical change in the body which the brain is a part of.   A memory comes from experience of us interacting with reality which includes the totality of senses: feeling, smell, taste, which generates pleasant sensations  induced by a chemical called endorphins. etc.   Some reflexes, as result of being reinforced again and again, have chronic built-up of endorphins,   the result is that,  any attempts to remove it or change it or to do nothing will result in  removal of endorphins, which produces discomfort or apparent unpleasant feelings, and this would mobilise the body to defend that particular reflex.    One of such power defensive reflex for some people is “I”.

Another way to look at these whole thing is that if we treat pain as when our body send message to us that we need to stop doing whatever we are doing, for example, over stretching, so that it can re-balance itself.  

But, suffering is when we actively invest into the conditioning and building up of endorphins in others’ thought systems by associating certain words with producing pleasant/unpleasant sensations in the body.  For example, if you don’t do this, I will slap you, you do that I will give you an ice-cream.   And because the thought doesn’t tell us that it is a collective system, we end up feeling painful ourselves as others doing the same to our body*.

According to the two points above, I draw two implications:

1-      The things we do to solve problems now are perfectly causing the problems. Stop trying to solve problems will create conditions allowing the experience of problems to dissolve 

2- So how to do that? Since the endorphins built-up related to certain word like “I” happens in the body, if one pays close attention to our body which is producing it,   because with attention comes acceptance. In acceptance, there will be no more thoughts trying to trigger defensive reflexes.    At that very moment, the body, as part of the natural system, will not be prevented from its spontaneous self-balance; and start generating self-rightening thoughts and actions which happens to rectify the problems.

Therefore, in being selfish, which is simply to be. 

And nature would have all the endorphins built-up which constitutes the content of mankind’s consciousness, including millions of years of sorrow and pain removed.

As our bodies express themselves,

As love itself.

 ——————————————————————————————-

So I am interested in working with people who want to design small experiments within our own lives to test these stories.  Because thought, like language, is collective in nature, it is best to be tested as a group, where the inconsistency of this system can be corrected through our collective attentions.    The process of testing it would already be a liberating experience for some.

   If you are interested in how we can test these things out or to design process for emergence during your planning of initiatives and projects together, I can connect you to people who can facilitate the process.

Sources:

Music

Reincarnation (from ghost in the shell) - Kenji Kawai

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBvwhnmUxDA

Tiluk Kamod - Khuda Kay Liye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEdcpUn8cQY

Young Artists For Haiti - Wavin’ Flag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB7L1BIDELc

David Bisval - Knaan - Waving Flag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wjZG6vOEZ0

Video Clips:

Amy Zhang, UN COP15 Copenhagen

Me: UN COP13 Bali, Free Hug Day at HKU

Contact Movie Intro: Universal Zoom out from Planet Earth

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=xb2vgG_c0g8

HONG KONG time-lapse film HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glryiXmH05U&feature=related

hong kong island: tilt/shift time-lapse 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_YeTcDvh6w&feature=related

Sunrise from Space (HD)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf4LJdQdEZI&feature=related

More information:

Roger Burton: Minutes I took of our 8 meetings together 

Krishnamurti: What Has Happened to Mankind? (Video/short article)

David Bohm: Thought as a System (Online Book via HKU library) 

Osho: Making Love is a Sacred Experience  (video)

Peter Senge: The Fifth Discipline; The Necessary Revolution (books) 

Lao Zi: Dao De Jing (道德经) (online book)

Ouspensky: The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution  (short lecture note)

Gregory Bateson: Is consciousness a sufficient feedback system for evolution?  (Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity)

Climate Chance: http://thenetworkforchange.org (student network based at HKU)

If you are in China:
气候变化是人类意识灵性进化的一个机会：自私才能自爱， 爱自己才是爱地球. http://www.tudou.com/progr ams/view/NoseciOawu4/ 

See http://www.facebook.com/vi deo/video.php?v=4424275671 15&saved for the short version. 

Background of the making of the video/ Example of An experiment to test out the story from the video:http://hkccc.tumblr.com/po st/1328173861 
Or sponsor/participate a proposal for introducing the experiments into your own curriculum: 
http://www.slideshare.net/ Serenagao/living-lab-propo sal

(Source: videoscript)

資本主義能否拯救氣候變化？

by Jessica

資本主義能否拯救氣候變化？ 答案恐怕是不能。

為什么不能？因為資本主義正是造成氣候變化的本質原因。愛因斯坦曾經說過，我們不可能用產生問題的思維模式去解決問題。

此次哥本哈根會議的一大高潮是極左派的委內瑞拉總統Hugo Chavez于12月17日的演講。雖然因為與中國氣候談判顧問的會見而錯失了親身體驗Hugo Chavez慷慨陳詞的機會，但網絡視頻的重現仍給我留下非常震撼的印象。他質疑這世上真正民主的存在性，只有資本主義下的假民主。真正的民主應該是有包容性的，認真將各方的意見集合起來以做出最符合集體利益的決定。然而，在全球氣候變化的談判中，在民間團體，特別是年輕人的呼聲下，已經清晰可見最符合集體利益的決定是各國齊簽署二氧化碳排放的約束性目標，卻只見發達國家一味地回避責任，將發展中國家視為二等公民，不愿慷慨解囊提供支援的同時，還強硬地規定發展中國家的排放量。換句話說，就是在剝削自然資源提高了本國的生活質量后，限制發展中國家的經濟進程，讓他們無法同享發達國家擁有的優越物質生活條件。資本主義下的假民主的另一表象，就是是次金融危機。美國一夜之間可以出臺數以千萬計的救市方案，拯救全球經濟，為何偏偏在氣候問題上，吝嗇地都不及正遭受著淡水危機的玻利維亞。

雖然我沒有Hugo Chavez在資本主義問題上這么偏激，但我不得不承認他向世人揭示了很多令人望而生畏的真相。資本主義講究生產資料的私人化，當股市一落千丈人人自危，大銀行家們支持的美國政府自然不會袖手旁觀白白讓資產化為烏有，可一旦遇到環境問題，作為公共資產的氣候就變成燙手的山芋，既然氣候并非任何一個國家的獨立擁有，那任何一個國家都應負有責任。雖然美國政府對于兩種危機的處理方式截然不同，但這兩種危機卻都證明了資本主義在提高社會整體利益的局限性。次貸危機是自由市場經濟的產物，而氣候變化，根據Garret Hardin的公地悲劇理論，源于人類對自然資源不合理的剝削使自然沒有充裕的自我修復的時間。令我好奇的是，可談判桌上的解決方案依舊是資本主義化的碳交易市場占主導，即將碳排放商品化，轉變為稀有戰略資源，使個體可以通過買賣碳排放額度來獲取利益，同時滿足減少碳排放的義務。

目前主流科學已經用數據和理論證明了氣候變化由人類活動引起。氣候變化的罪魁禍首在我看來不是石油，而是人類使用它的方法。造成這種不可持續發展的正是資本主義宣揚的個人利益的最大化，為了降低成本，以犧牲集體利益來保障個人對物質生活的追求。這種觀念將人與自然，甚至人與人之間的利害關系拆散，仿佛人是獨立于自然，獨立于他人生存的，但氣候變化讓我們看到一種毋庸置疑的相互關聯。因此，我質疑，資本主義框架下的碳排放，究竟能幫助環境多少？它或許奏效，但很大程度上依賴于監管力度和道德標準，那就要通過社會宣傳來建立一種新的，強調統一性的價值觀體系了。

反思中國的現代化進程，它正處于一個尷尬的境地，經濟發展上資本主義占上風，而政治哲學卻是延承馬克思的社會主義思想。如何平衡這兩者之間的矛盾，達到魚和熊掌兼得的局面，我想是中國需要深思的地方。

氣候變化與信仰

by Jessica

回顧緊湊的六天行程，民間社會遍布著對氣候公義的訴求。從坦桑尼亞乞力馬扎羅山積雪融化導致當地水資源匱乏，到孟加拉國日趨嚴重的洪水威脅生命，靠天吃天的發展中國家脆弱地不堪一擊。因此談判過程中大多數爭論的是，作為造成氣候變化的罪魁禍首，發達國家是否有責任援助發展中國家適應氣候變化。若有責任，再進一步探討，應該如何援助。我發現，無論從哪個發展中國家的立場看待氣候公義，都回歸到道德義務，平等氣候談判變成了對發達國家道德標準的一種考驗。而這種道德義務，與不同的宗教信仰追求的對自然的敬畏不謀而合。

這樣的結論源于我與一位致力于環境保育的基督徒的對話。他叫Brendan Bowles，是Climatestewards的主管。Climatestewards以社區為基礎，在全世界18個國家開展環境保育項目，宣揚神對萬物之愛。創世紀1:31寫道，“神看著一切所造的都甚好”。以Brendan Bowles的觀點來看，氣候系統和自然環境都是神的完美創造。神還創造了人，要人從土里種出食物來維持生命，并交付他們管理土地和所有活物。稻谷生長，石油噴涌，這些都是上帝的恩賜。因此人類應以管家的身份照看神所造之物。管家意味著人類必須按仆人的形象，時刻以照看好地球萬物的平衡來榮耀主人。維持人類生命的土地，空氣和水，既是神賜予的禮物，亦帶給人類責任。因此他希望通過宣講，越來越多的基督徒可以看到這樣一種聯系，為神造之物禱告。他的一席話讓我想到，氣候變化或許正是因為許多人失去了對神的敬畏，變得自大的后果。詩篇24:1寫道，“地和其中所充滿的、世界、和住在其間的，都屬耶和華”。 但是人類卻逾越了神的職位，設法征服自然，征服神的創造。正是這種狂妄讓我們的生存環境遭受著不可逆轉的破壞，屬于自然的反抗。

也許有人會質疑，這只是基督教支持的觀點，這種人與自然的關系并不能應用到其他宗教信仰。在12月16日Klima Forum為西藏游牧民族組織的氣候變化論壇上，我見到了信仰在氣候變化問題上的共通性。西藏代表講述了中國的現代化進程對草原造成的破壞。中國政府要求西藏施行草原承包經營制以方便管理，同時，這樣的承包經營可以創造競爭氛圍，達到經濟效益的最大化。在這種資本主義的經營方式下，經濟效益在短期內的確有顯著提高，但過度放牧卻加速了草原退化和沙漠化，令西藏失去了長期效益。藏族自古對自然有著神圣的崇拜。他們認為凡事都應該尊崇自然規律，各家的牛羊應該在草原上自由奔跑，覓食求生，而不應圈養。這樣留給草原的生態系統足夠的時間自我恢復，年復一年，不斷更新生長的嫩芽才能保證牛羊有充裕的食物資源，維持西藏人民薪火相傳。西藏游牧民族的經歷更直接地傳達了人與自然如何和諧相處的信息。更令我驚訝的是，2009年11月2日，世界宗教與環境保護聯盟與聯合國開發計劃署共同主辦了主題為 “諸多天堂與一個地球——為適合生存的星球而做出信仰承諾”的會議。來自全球基督教、佛教、伊斯蘭教、巴哈教、印度教、猶太教等宗教的200名宗教界人士參加會議，共同討論保護人類生存環境的問題并提出許多環保倡議，其中包括坦尚尼亞植樹計劃、建設綠色宗教建築、使用再生紙印刷宗教書籍等。盡管各大宗教信仰各有千秋，但在環境問題上卻殊途同歸。

宗教在全球范圍的力量是不可估量的，若所有宗教信仰都在氣候變化問題上達成一致，這樣的社會效應將是史無前例的。哥本哈根的當地教會就在身體力行，改善教會運營方式達到碳中性，創建綠色教堂。聯合國氣候談判期間，更是在服務期間在圣壇上擺放來自格陵蘭島的石塊，馬拉維的粟米棒和太平洋小島的珊瑚碎片，以提醒人們對氣候變化對全球各地的負面影響。

什么是氣候公義？

by Annabelle, one of the Green Advocates

來哥本哈根之前, “氣候公義” 對我來說不過是發達與發展中國家之間角力的代名詞。雙方在”共同但有別責任”這節骨眼上爭個沒完沒了, 公說婆負的責任不足, 婆說公沒有盡力幫助她, 上演一場你推我讓的鬧劇。我對政治的把戲不感興趣, 一直都以冷眼旁觀的態度看峰會的政治家能變出什麼花樣來。

然而, 連日來在哥本哈根所認識的人, 學到的知識, 聽到的故事, 將我對”氣候公義”的認知提升到了另一層次。這議題之所以成為討論的核心，是因為它是制定任何氣候政策都應持有的基本原則：受氣候變化影響最嚴重的一群應該獲得最多的援助及重視，因為他們對環境傷害最少，但卻要承受最多惡果。這脆弱的一群包括有原住民，島國居民，貧窮人口等等，每一個的背後都有說不盡的辛酸，每一個所背負的無助和無力感都是生活無憂的香港人所難以想像的。

在學習的過程中，特別令我難忘的是十二月十六日於周邊會議場地舉行，題為”氣候變化在南非：擔子在誰身上？＂的講座。幾位來自非政府組織的講者詳述氣候變化對南非民生的影響，以及南非本身的不利條件－貧富懸殊，愛滋猖獗，科技落後。更甚，非洲除了有社會不公義的情況外，亦存在著性別不公義的問題。女性活在男性的陰影之下，不習慣主動為生活帶來改變，欠缺適應氣候變化應有的知識和技能。然而，作為家庭的食物供應者和農業經濟的棟樑，女性首當其衝受氣候變化所害，但亦是最能為非洲社會帶來改變的人。講者們對此大膽提出：沒有社會和性別公義，氣候公義是不可能實現的。我聽後深受震動，既為非洲女性的困境焦急，也拜服於她們龐大的潛力之下。非洲的未來，就押在這群外柔內剛的婦女身上！

講座後，我訪問了兩位非洲的知識分子。第一位是一名來自納米比亞的女學者，她曾親身觀察過一位年過七十的老人家仍靠耕作獨力養活二十個孫兒，是女性堅韌力量的活生生證明。“女性處理問題的能力和智慧不可輕看。＂她說：“而且，年輕的非洲女性已醒覺要爭取更多自主權去改善自己和家人的生活。可惜，外界的幫助往往未能針對女性的需要，以致在當地社群的效用不大。人們必須認識女性是改變非洲的關鍵，不然是很難裝備非洲應對氣候變化的。＂另一位受訪者是一名蘇丹的醫生，他認為非洲的社會問題其實與氣候變化有密切的關係。“社會不公造就貧窮，人們受求生本能所使，會急著耗用資源去滿足需要。這種不能持續的發展模式促成氣候變化，人們的生計和健康受害，又加劇了貧窮的狀況，由此形成了惡性循環。＂訪問將近尾聲時，他再次懇切的對我說：”請世界關注非洲吧，我們需要有脫困的一天。＂那一刻，我想到自己一些浪費資源的行為，還有很多人面對非洲只會說一句”好慘啊＂便拋諸腦後的情景，頓覺語塞。不公義，何嘗只存在於政治的領域內?

“氣候公義”於現在的我來說, 並不單是政治家的工具, 而是所有人類對脆弱的一群都應該有的道德責任. 氣候變化既是全人類的挑戰, 便應由每一個人去共同承擔, 並切實幫助需要支援的同胞, 對症下藥. 也許我認識的仍是很有限, 但我清晰感受到, 哥本哈根之行點燃了我心中的一點光, 給我勇氣和使命感去推動一個更和諧的世界.

Reflection on today’s Antarctica Sharing

Today, due to overwhelming demands, we held a second Antarctica Sharing. The group dynamic is quite an interesting contrast to the last sharing session, as people coming here are more knowledgeable and passionate and were eager to share.

But i could not help to notice what i was able to express got considerably more limited, as i feel nervous, and my body tensed up as the way people put forth their idea as to what “should” be done is very closed for challenge. It is like a debate or the UNFCCC Negotiation, where countries bring their position paper, put it on table, take it or leave it. And inside of me, i hear myself crying.

This is when I realised that the biggest lesson i learned from the Antarctica Expedition is how ignorant I was. How the very idea of thinking i “knew” could prevent me from LISTENING and be genuinely curious about finding out more.

And when Roger Burton, as the program designer dismantle the set schedule, any structure, but gave us the free space to determine our own course, responsibility for our actions becomes not something which needs to be imposed, but something you see growing from you inherently, by giving the choice to determine HOW you wish to discuss things, take actions, move in spaces, and ultimately, live.

He said no more than - Listen to how you listen.

He did no more than being fully present, listening to you with full attention.

He assumed no more than positive intents.

And here it is, the entire Climate Chance Network born and dedicated to enact paradigm shift.

And here it is, my whole life turned upside down - i feel i live more freely, wholly, lightly, than ever, completely dedicated to the idea of being in service.

An old friend of mine replied to my email signiture:

What if climate change is only symptomatic of a structure based on extraction and manipulation and centralization of natural resources? A structure which assumes nature and human beings are objects. If “success” and “progress” are defined by your ability to objectify and manipulate self and others, how do you define “achievement” for your life?

In answer to your quotation above, I’d say a person should have two non-correlated metrics for life success.

Tim Ferriss, one of my favorite authors, lists his as

1. Rate of new skill acquisition and

2. Number of people I help overcome their fears.

I couldn’t help but smile.

How can we live a life where every second you let go any desire to cling to anything? How does it feel, letting life lives through you……to me, an access to eternity and infinite thankfulness,

Anyhow, here is some sides which shows the applicaiton process and some of the “containers” for collaborative discussions which we talked about today  - for those who wish to dig more. It does not have substansive contents of the ANtarctica Sharing (photos, stories of Robert Swan)

Antarctica Expedition (Short) Climate Chance(2) View more presentations from Serenagao.

For friends and families, wish to share this photography book made by my fellow Antarctica Expedition teammate, Joe Little

http://www.blurb.com/books/811590

an Open Society which is not so open~ Response to a video conference with George Soros on the Finantial Crisis and China

Click above to see the video/texts of the series of lectures

Serena

Brilliantly illustrating philosophies of economic theory. He also emphasizes its contradiction with reality of flexibility- which something what we (Climate Chance) have been working on (with system thinkers like Peter Senge, Roger Burton):

- if you assume someone to be bad, then it becomes bad… if you assume one to be selfish, we act accordingly and create realities in which the “object” becomes bad…

- the concept of feedback loop (continuous and circular influence) between the impact of participant’s statement or reflection which in turn,shapes how participants think.

Comment on the 5th Lecture which i attended yesterday:

1- HKU continues to stage Q & A with pre-prepared questions from selected students- an open society indeed~

2- Great overview of the financial crisis - the current “stability” being a delusion, the pattern of how we had reacted without questioning the fundamental assumptions of economics

3- However, great contradictions…in Amy’s word, he speaks like a life-long drug dealer or polluter  now advocating  anti-drug or environmental law.

He paints a very ugly picture for the future of the world - the fall of US and its International Capitalism based on Washington Consensus - prioritise preservation of countries placed at the centre (since WWII)  and continuous exploitation of peripheral countries ) and the rise of China and its State Capitalism (which breeds state rivalries, similar to what western imperialists and colonialists.

His solution is - US needs to be more far-sighted and learn to handle the reality of being a declining empire (economically and politically) while maintaining military supremacy. China needs to be “even more far-sighted” to be more open and to have rule of law.

One questions what is the basis of “law”?  Check out this interesting article on the Politics of International Law in European Journal of International Law.

My question is thus:

Given how Soros outlined the reinforcing and self-defeating feedback loops created by our the false premises on which our current finantial system is based on, how does the rule of law or the proposed imposition of internatinal finantial regulation regime help to to get us over the hurdle given the basis of our legal infrustraction - the assumption of neutrality and existence of objective reality?

Why Climate Chance?

Because we think that only when people’s mentality is shifted from fear-based reactive problem-solving and crisis-avoidance to pro-actively  create the world they envision by seeing and seizing the opportunities , can we generate the momentum needed for a climate movement which ensures a just and sustainable world.

Problems are not negative, they are signs that the way we need to be broadened.

Climate Change, as a planetary crisis, offers a chance for global collaboration, collaboration across all classes of society.

Climate Change, as a human-induced crisis, invites shared personal responsibilities,  because climate change is symtomatic of our social/economic/political arrangments’ deficiencies, opens up dialogue about some of the fundamental assumptions our current industrial modern society is based on.

Climate Change, since it was discovered 30 years ago, the actions (or inactions) since  highlights the reality of structural oppression characterised our fragmented, egoic civilization that dominated humankind for the past two centuries. Climate Chance, a chance for a collective and conscious human evolvement of mind, to construct a world where prior unity of our realities is a working presumption.

Serena

Gun and the modern Industrialised world

Serena

I have always felt an invisible gun behind my neck, behind many of my contemporary chinese’s as well. I was not set free until my experience in Antarctica, where the possibility of a whole other reality was shown to be possible. So i did a little research about the invention of gun, because i do not think our globalised world, the industrial economy is possible without it, given many cultures’ years of traditions with contrary principles and values.

The invention of guns followed the development of the explosive black powder in China. The first guns were simple tubes from which to shoot explosive charges, but gradually they were made easier to load, aim, and fire. Guns revolutionized warfare and effectively ended the age of the armored knight and the castle stronghold. They have had a profound effect on human history.

Gunpowder is an explosive mixture of 15% charcoal, 10% sulfur, and 75% potassium nitrate, or saltpeter. It was already being used in ninth-century China for making fireworks. Chinese books from as early as 1044 include recipes describing the necessary proportions of the three ingredients. The first primitive guns were probably bamboo tubes, fragile and ineffective firearms used in futile attempts to stop the Mongol invaders. Europeans obtained gunpowder in the thirteenth century. A formula for making it was discovered in writings dating from the year 1249 and attributed to Roger Bacon (1220-1292). However, most scholars now believe that it was not developed independently in Europe, but was brought there from China, perhaps by Arabs or Mongols. The Europeans, having gotten hold of gunpowder, seemed more determined than the Chinese to develop it into ever more efficient weapons.

Some ramdom reflection over why i am speaking and writting in english

I was reading Peter Senge’s acclaimed organisation management book - The Fifth Discipline: The Art  & Practice of the Learning Organisation when I thought about

why I (a Chinese girl) now know and speak in English?

Answer:

The glorious expansion of the British Empire with their technologies (guns and industrialised machinaries).

Then It occurred to me it was an Empire which failed (American Independence, and other colonies’ independence). While we remembered much of its glory, it would seem that there is much to learn from its failure despite its advanced technologies —how it embarked on a journey doomed to fail.

“Like the fall of the Trojans, The Nazi, U.S. Involvement in Vietnam, stories after stories, leaders could not see the consequences of their own policies.”  Like the case of the boiled frog,  they could not slow down to see the gradual processes and deeper structual forces, instead, they are like cavemen, reacting against their perceived “threats”.

Today, most of the world follows through this model, because of the success of the capitalist economy, which make immediate benefits possible; but the cost of such is a life, forever trapped in chasing its  own shadow - a cycle of the fear, insecurities, pain, anger, sorrow and solitarity.

Faster and faster,

towards the “future,” an illusion of our mind.

Do you call this freedom? Do you call this “practical”? Do you call this “rational?” Do you call this “reality”? Do you call this “Life”?

Btw, you can write in Chinese here if you like! Or any other languages you feel comfortble in expressing yoursel.

Conversation Tool Box for effective meetings - Peter Senge - The Necessary Revolution

I remember countless time when people sit around feeling exhausted by the end of the meeting as the conversation did not leave anywhere and the “arguments’ and debates” drain our energy, tighten our stomach„,

I have been reading Peter Senge, chairman of Society for Organisational Learning and the  book and I want to share some of his insight  what we have come together to et out to do - to bring about changes..

-Building Relationships p 251

1-    The more daunting the change necessary, the more sophisticated the collaboration skills must be of those leading the change. This sounds almost self-evident, yet it is easy for people seeking to create new product, process, or business models for life beyond the Industrial Age Bubble to become so absolved in advocating for what they think needs to change that they pay little attention to how hey will build and sustain the relationships needed to achieve the change.

2-    We often find that most sustainability advocates fall into one of two camps

a.    Either they think that the reasons to change are so clear and compelling that anyway awake must be on board

b.    Or they look at the enormous gap between what is and what is needed and become cynical arguing the changes needed will never occur or demonizing those who preserve the status quo.

In between there are small numbers who have both a passion for the vision and an understanding of the need to build the collaborative network the vision requires. They focus on fostering deeper conversations and relationships between parties who were previously distrustful.

-Conversations that shape the future – Importance of a generative dialogue p 252

For groups who try to collaborate across boundary, it is a natural relation for people to be trapped in the loop of extreme politeness or debate.

In groups characterized by speaking out, as one manager put it “ we all spoke our minds here, but no one’s mind has changed.” For the silent ones- they feel trapped and instinctively flight (not fight) in reaction to the “threat”.

The reasons is that both groups are working to preserve the status quo, and in so doing, re-enacting patterns from the past. Thus, focusing on future and let go of pursuit of individual agendas is the key to significant innovation.

While expression of passion and vision makes time spent doing so worthwhile, paradoxically, the willingness to let go of cherished beliefs and views is also crucial to allowing something bigger than themselves. Sometimes, it makes it harder to pay attention to what other people really are saying.

A generative dialogue requires empathetic listening, that is, “the thinking of the head”, as well as the “thinking of the heart” – the former has to do with reason and logic, while the latter has to do with meaning and becoming fully engaged, qualities that are essential for tackling systemic problems.

- Skills needed for generative dialogues

1-    Learning how to suspend immediate assumption
2-    Reflecting on mental models we had previously taken for granted
3-    Balancing advocacy for our ideas with inquiry into other opinions

….

I wish we can continue to share our readings into things which may help us grow, together, as an organisation and to be able to look at the bigger picture and formulate smart strategies which achieves truly sustainable results