Re: (fwd) Thoughts on the Homeless (fwd)
Donald Bokor (boko7751@uidaho.edu)
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 15:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Dear Pat,
Feel free to publicly post anything that I say or do. It is my belief
that only through love are we going to change our individual and
collective consciousnesses, and love requires perfectly open action and
communication.
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, P. Myers wrote:
> Don. I'm replying to you privately, because I want you to decide whether
> to send this to the list or not.
>
> I didn't understand your escalation to anger with...circumstance? my
> reply?...I'm sincerely confused (not much better than insincere confusion,
> but...)
I don't know if I'm really angry or not. I don't think I am (love
destroys anger). What I think is that I am outraged (as oppossed to
angry) and that rage is interpreted as anger. I'm also confused because
what I believe to be true is not commonly believed to be true, and it
takes much will power to keep my focus against others' criticisms of my
beliefs.
> I think we're closer, both in practice and theory, than we realize,
I don't think we are closer, actually I think we are there. That is why I
get so outraged. Because we already have the knowledge and the resources,
but they are not being applied or directed in an environmentally
sustainable fashion.
> Don,
> and I hope I can illustrate that (of course, I may fall flat on my face,
> and have to admit that we simply disagree...hope not...
I honestly doubt that we disagree at all. And goddess knows jsut how much
improved my appearance has become after falling on my face an infinite
number of times.
> I don't want to
> lose your perspective from this list...you make me think, and act, and
> reflect, and change...) more:
I appreciate the thought. I know it is true that my perspective is
designed primarily to broaden people's thinking, and I've experienced the
look of wonderment in people's eyes when I shared with them some of my
ideas. And I also know that this approach does not necessarily cause
people to work directly with me, because the sharing of ideas is meant to
raise people's consciousnesses enough that they can then see new
directions for actions in their own lives. So I'm still alone. But I'm
also patient, even though my patience sometimes turns to rage. Now is the
time. We are the people. I will continue to try to do my part, and I
will look forward to the time when my brothers and sisters will be within
the grasp of my hug and the earshot of my "I love you."
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Donald Bokor wrote:
>
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > This is the essence of my approach to homelessness. That is, that there
> > is really nothing we can do by hoping that others will solve our problems
> > for us, and that we must come together to solve our own problems.
> >
> and I agree! We seem to have a little different way of thinking about how
> to accomplish that...
How do you envision the accomplishment of our coming together to solve our
problems?
If our difference is in "thinking" about accomplishment, as opposed to the
actual means of accomplishment, then maybe some clarity on "thinking"
would be appropriate. This is going to be rough because it is coming more
from my heart than my head. So please bear with me.
In my opinion there are two approaches (actually there are infinite
approaches but I'm going to simplify them into two) to thinking about
poverty. One approach is that poverty is the result of people not having
the material resources necessary to ensure some minimum standard of life
quality. This approach causes one to look for solutions that provide some
minimum level of material resources, from the collective pool available to
all, for those in need. Advocacy and activism primarily follow this
approach to thinking about the problem.
Another approach is that poverty is simply the result of people not
organizing in an effective and efficient manner to provide for their own
needs. This approach leads one to look for solutions that mobilize
currently available resources, from those in need, for the purpose of
ensuring the provision of at least some minimum necessary material for
sustaining the lives of all involved.
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, P. Myers wrote:
> >
> > > I would suggest, though, that anything that has to do with people,
> > > especially marginalized people, *is about housing, money, economics, etc.
> >
> > Although it is just my opinion, I have to disagree with this suggestion.
> > On the contrary, anything that has to do with people is about people, and
> > anything that has to do with marginalized people is about acceptance of
> > people's differences. My parents will not let me into their house (they
> > do not accept me for who I am) while unemployed kids on the street will
> > bring me into their or their parents' homes (among those kids I am
> > accepted). What I have been trying to get HPN to realize is that poverty
> > and homelessness is not about housing, money, economics, etc. All of
> > these things will not make a spiritiually bankrupt person moral; while a
> > transcendant consciousness will make even the poorest of people wealthy
> > beyond all material.
> >
> I have a friend on this list, Mike, who would love to hear this...may I
> send to him? (he often fails to read, so I try to jumpstart him...*8D)
Jumpstart him. Also let me know what are the things that I say that are
useful to others. One of my problems is that I am a brainstormer, and as
such not all of my ideas are useful, and furthermore it's difficult for me
to know which of my ideas are helpful.
> I don't build the conceptual walls that I think I'm reading above...
I'm not sure of what conceptual walls to which you're here referring. The
only one that I am afraid of at this point is the following, "I would
suggest, though, that anything that has to do with people, especially
marginalized people, *is about housing, money, economics, etc." I see
this as a wall because it implicitly makes us look for material solutions
to what I have to truthfully call a social problem. By housing, people
usually mean low cost single family dwellings or apartments. By money,
people usually refer to good paying jobs. By economics, people usually
refer to the balancing or management of income and outflow. This material
approach to the problem is itself problematic because all the years of
houses, jobs and economics hasn't prevented poverty. What makes us think
that these materials will solve the problem now? Why is it that I meet
homeless people at Rainbow Gatherings who are full of love and community
despite not having housing, jobs, and economics? This is why I think
poverty is a social issue, and not a material one. If we get the social
spirit corrected then the material shortcomings will be overcome. There
is an underground community in the country (kind of like the underground
railroad during the Civil War) in which anybody who belongs can go to a
community and find food and shelter with their family there. This is the
safety net that we need to build. We need a community infrastructure such
that any person who is in need can belong and stay for as long as needed.
With such an infrastructure in place, then we will be protected against
the time when the world of single family homes, and paid employment
collapses.
> I look
> to how people got those "don't"s into their lives: don't reach out; don't
> let him in, even if he *is our son; *let him in, even though he's not a
> relative; s/he is ok---s/he is not...all that labelling *does affect how
> folks make decisions, and usually at a level that isn't real accessible to
> the conscious...just assumptions (ha! "just") that get acted on...to
> exclude some and include others...including whether or not we reach out
> with a feeling of membership in the human race...or don't because we've
> been taught that others don't want us...that was *my personal
> internalization...the tapes *I have to silence before I can ask for
> help... and it *was external, until I, at some age, in some way,
> internalized and accepted it. Understand?
This is why I refer to acceptance of people's differences or to tolerance
of diversity. The only thing that I want to internalize and accept is
love. And for me that means to use my strength to provide for our
material well-being, and my compassion to provide for our spiritual
well-being. As a result, I accept you and what you are doing, even though
they differ from me and what I am doing. Together, we can ensure that you
can do what you need to do to become you, and that I can do what I need to
do to become me. At some point though, everybody has to decide whather to
follow the dictates of our upbringings and shape themselves with society's
molds, or to transcend their histories by charting and folowing their own
courses. As far as I'm concerned the sheep are not enlightened, for
whatever reason, and furthermore often choose to remain unenlightened
(like the ostrich with its head in the sand, if it can't see the danger
the danger mustn't exist). As far as an enlightened person is concerned
then their only option is to internalize and accept love. Which is to say
that they must find ways to build others' physical and spiritual health.
> > > And about definitions
> >
> > Yes, it is about definitions. Who is responsible for the poor person's
> > misery? The poor person. Why? Because it does no good to look outside
> > of oneself for the answers to one's problems.
>
> I hate to jump into the middle, but I gotta! Part of looking out at
> what and who benefits from marginalizing and defining and dividing us *is
> cruicial to changing one's belief in one's helplessness...
Yes, conflict theory goes a long way toward identifying the real culprits
of our misery, but if we were to then punish those evildoers then we would
be repeating the same mistakes that civilization has committed in the
past. This knowledge does not help change my belief in my helplessness
however. Rather it points to which players in the field that I don't want
to cooperate with.
> at least for
> some...not a stopping point, where one gives up as helpless victim, but a
> *beginning, where one may think about *personally chosen options,
> previously ignored, or thought inappropriate, because of the bill of goods
> bought from where ever: parents, media, etc. and internalized.
This is the problem with conflict theory because it does not provide those
"personally chosen options", that would eliminate one's belief in their
helplessness. In my opinion the only way to eradicate the belief in
helplessness is to focus on the spirit. I am helpless to prevent my
material death, but through the spirit I can live eternally. Once I
realize that I am not helpless to give love, then I can realize that no
amount of material threat or deprivation can prevent me from loving. This
is a very empowering understanding. Not only am I not helpless, but I am
the source of all power. As the poor and weak understand and accept this
truth of the source of power, then collective consciousness changes so
that people begin to find new ways to provide for the physical and
spiritual well-being of all.
> I'm talking about stages of understanding that will result in just what
> you are wanting, Don: collective action, spontaneously taken, as a
> function of understanding that the sign "Don't Walk Here" is a wicked
> sham, and one we don't have to believe or respect.
We are talking about the same thing. And this is the same thing that all
enlightened humans and cultures have talked about. I just read Ralph
Waldo Emerson who said the same thing, and this summer I read the Hindu
Upanishads which also said the same thing. Even Christ and the Buddha
said the same thing. That is, everybody agrees that for humans to become
they must look into their hearts of love, discern loving from hateful
actions, reject all hateful actions, enact only loving actions, and suffer
the penalty that society will levy for becoming human instead of a tool
for its ends. The last seems to be the hardest part. How can suffering
or dying for my beliefs of love, help to improve my life? Once we realize
the eternality of love then we can willingly sacrifice our material
welfare so that those who follow us may experience a more loving
environment.
> > So what are the poor doing
> > wrong that keeps them poor? They are not using the resources they have at
> > their disposal to help themselves and other like-situated people. Once we
> > realize that all people are members of the human family, and that it is
> > our individual responsibility to help every one of our family members in
> > need, then both the poor and those better off will be able to solve the
> > problem of poverty. Blah, blah, blah. Shut your fucking mouth Duck!
>
> What they are also doing wrong is believing that they can join together...
We must join together, but not for the purpose of excluding others.
> that there is a process necessary to building understanding that we are
> all a human race, and when one is left behind, that leaving is to
> everyone's detriment...
Absoultely. This is why I reject private property. All property is the
possession of humanity, including my body. By spending my body on
humanity, humanity returns my body with food, shelter, etc. This is
putting the cart and the horse in the right order.
> For me, this gets stuck to talking about capitalism, competition and etc.
> which "ideals" we've been brainfed for so damned long...NEVER SHUT UP,
> DUCK!!!
Unfortunately, I think that I succeeded in alienating our capitalist
listmember. Yes, I will always criticize capitalism just as I will always
criticize centralized governance. But I will not only criticize, I will
also look for ways to substitute those systems with alternate systems that
do not have the same faults. This is where Liberty proved herself unable
to consider alternatives that rejected capitalism. She thought that my
attack on capitalism was an attack on her personally, because she sees no
other way to deal with poverty than through capitalism, and she doesn't
realize that capitalism is the cause and source of poverty itself.
> > > ...externally created, and eventually internalized
> > > definitions... that very profoundly influence how people, one by one and
> > > together, understand their rights and responsibilities, and their
> > > possibilities... maybe the politics of division has as much to do with the
> > > difference between the groups putting together enough for a house (or a
> > > meal or two), and the guy sleeping in the dumpster...
> >
> > The politics of division suggest that we are not responsible for anybody
> > but ourselves. The politics of unity suggest that we are responsible for
> > everybody including ourselves. It is true that the groups putting
> > together enough for a house are not seeing the guy behind the dumpster as
> > one of their concerns, but neither is the guy behind the dumpster helping
> > others like himself to get a better place to live.
> >
> absolutely agreed. We live in a country...nation...damned near world that
> *operates on the politics of division...all our institutions do...we
> compete for entertainment; survival; jobs; homes; and our politicos are
> *real interested in hiding from us the politics of inclusion...that's
> *exactly* what hpn is trying to develop...and you have been a huge part of
> that...why don't you see that, Donald??
Yes, the politics of inclusion. Didn't the Statue of Liberty welcome all
the poor and needy of the world to our shores? Yes, I agree that a
politics of inclusion is an appropriate goal for HPN, and I have been
using everything in my verbal arsenal to direct our focus to empowerment
and direct action. I think that Tom has done the most in keeping this
focus and it is hard for me to see anything that I am doing yet as HUGE.
In part, because I am in solitary confinement (so to speak) and can't see
the positive actions in your own communities. Also, I am having very
little luck motivating the people in my own community.
> > I really don't know what to say. I think that you've all heard it from me
> > before. What can I do to help (beyond intellectualizing the problem)?
> > Will starting soup kitchens and youth hostels help? What if my community
> > doesn't want to see those things in it? Do I go to some other community
> > where soup kitchens and youth hostels are accepted? If that's the case
> > then aren't I just going to be another of the homeless problem in these
> > larger cities? Look, we need to organize, and I don't mean to become an
> > advocacy agency which uses government funds to meet governmentally
> > ordained needs of the poor.
>
> Agreed, agreed, agreed...but w re to government funds...why not screw the
> screwers?
This attitude does not give me the moral high ground. If
I'm going to just be another in the long line of fuckers then why don't I
find some way to move to the front of that line? Play football, or sell
insurance, or join the mob, or something.
> There are ways to receive gov't funds without selling out
> ideals
I also have to disagree with this. Life is free. The use of money is a
selling out of life, period. There is no way to steal from life and not
sell out life. There are ways to adjust your conscience so that the
selling out does not make one feel guilt, but the selling out is still
happening. Money reinforces at all stages the belief in material as
greater than the belief in ideals. Why does the food service industry
provide food to consumers? To advance the ideal of well-fed humans? Hell
no. To make a profit? That's right, and if it threatens our profit then
all the humans can just starve to death for all money cares.
> ...one may maintain integrity while flipping the gov't on it's own
> system of having to prove not only accountability, but fairness.
Let's replace the government with a globe of humans that are individually
accountable and fair in their everyday actions.
> I'd love to talk advocacy with you more, Don...you have ideas I want to
> bounce mine off...
Let's talk advocacy.
> > Is anybody interested in helping out? Or can
> > somebody tell me of a group that is doing the work that I have in mind?
> >
> yes, dammit, hpn!
I'm still here.
> What can I do right now, to make your life easier? Tell. Please.
>
> patM
Thanks Pat, I love you. I'm not necessarily looking for an easier life,
just a more meaningful one. And you do help me, right now, by making me
question and explain my understanding of meaning. But what you could do
to help is to continue the dialogue, and cooperate on the formation of an
empowerment collective.
Peace and Love Always (All Ways),
Donald W. Bokor, (AKA "Happy Man/Love You")