I appreciate and resonate with Margaret Mead's sentiment expressed in
her quote which opens this essay. It expresses what's pivotal for
who we are
as human beings. It expresses what's pivotal for our
future as human beings. In particular, it expresses what's
pivotal for what's possible for us human beings.
Furthermore, it lays bare what's at the heart of the matter for us
human beings, which is it's we who have the power to not
only invent new possibilities for ourselves and for
humanity for our future but also to make these new possibilities real.
So if I get out of step with Margaret for a moment, it's not because of
disrespect. Rather it's in looking with her at the
source
of new possibilities for humanity, I'm inspired to make this
observation
and to start this inquiry:
Now ... if this
point of view
were true, if it were true the world is
already alright,
if it were true
there's nothing we need to
change
about it, if it were true it's just we who don't get it's
already alright,
if it were true we not getting it's
already alright
is the only reason why we all don't act consistent with "it's
already alright",
then I would say this to Margaret: "Margaret, I get what you say. I
respect what you say. I'm inspired by what you say. In fact I
love what you say. So allow me to look with you at the
same result from a slightly different
perspective.
How about: don't change the world (that's right:
don't change the world). It's
OK the way it is.
Instead:
transform
its denizens (as
Werner Erhard may have
said).".
This isn't just semantics. This idea of
transforming
its denizens rather than changing the world is a
contextual
shift
in looking at changing the world. It's more than that actually. It's a
contextual shift
in looking at the world itself. The "small group of thoughtful,
committed
citizens" Margaret would have change the world are the
mavericks I would enroll in
transforming
its denizens.
You have to be something of a maverick to be enrolled in this small
group of thoughtful,
committed
citizens. To be enrolled in this small group of thoughtful citizens
committed
to
transforming
the denizens of the world, the world has to be
already alright
with you. You can't enroll people in the idea the world is
already alright
unless you're enrolled in the idea the world is
already alright
yourself. To enroll yourself in the idea the world is
already alright
you have to invent it for yourself like a possibility.
You have to be a maverick to enroll yourself in this small, thoughtful,
committed
group. You have to be a maverick to play on this team. You have to be a
maverick to play on our team.
Be careful! There's nothing exclusive or possessive implied by
referring to this team as our team. Yes, in a you
or me world, referring to this team as our
team sounds exclusive and possessive - which is to say it's
interpreted
as exclusive and possessive in a you or me world. But in a you
and me world, this team of thoughtful citizens, this team
of mavericks
committed
to
transforming
the denizens of the world is in fact and quite literally
our team.