My ideas about seeds and trust

Deborah, thank you for your thoughtfulness and for taking the time to comment here.
I do see that we disagree on some fundamental points, and I appreciate the opportunity to continue the dialogue and clarify what I believe.

1) No need to say sorry. Just because you think my post was eloquent doesn't mean it should be exempt from disagreement. I'm glad that you are engaging me in debate.

2) You say: “…before the seed system, all voices were equal - none better and none worse.”

When you say equal, equal in what regard? Do you mean that all were considered inherently worthy, deserving of the rights of freedom of speech? If so, I would say yes, I believe that all voices were equal, and I would also say that all still remain equal in that regard. Freedom of speech is only limited here by our contract (zaadz terms of agreement) to express ourselves in a way that is respectful. Flagging for review exists for the purpose of bringing to attention content and behavior that may be disrespectful or abusive. If you mean we don't all have equal freedoms of speech under the seed system, I don't see how you mean. Can you clarify this for me, if this is what you meant?

Or perhaps you mean all voices are no longer considered equal in value?
To that I would say that the seed system acknowledges that all voices are equally valuable but the content of all speech is not of equal value. I believe some people are wiser than others, some people are funnier than others, some people interpersonally astute and insightful, some people have superior gifts of analysis, some people have learned to live with great integrity while others have not, some people reason better than others, some people are musical geniuses, some are blessedly compassionate to their core and express it in all their relations, some can read subtle energies better than others… and so on. I believe, for example, that Dennis Kucinich is more compassionate and that he has more integrity, wisdom, and diplomatic saavy than Dick Cheney or G.W.Bush. Therefore I would prefer to hear his ideas on the issues of our time, say, addressing the health care crisis in the U.S. I would prefer this because his ideas (his “speech”) are of superior value by my assessment – meaning, the greatest number, and the Whole of which we are all a part, would benefit more if his vision were realized. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. had more important things to say than J. Edgar Hoover. In my hierarchy of value, MLK, Jr.'s expression of his life had much greater value than Hoover's, though I believe that they share the same Essence (that we all share).

I think that “better” and “worse” are important distinctions to make, regarding what an individual is saying. I also think that people need room to grow and more importantly, to be, and they should not be condemned for being who they are, but that actions, beliefs, and value systems can be condemnable.

3) All that said, a great many people use the power of judgment to serve petty, insecurity-driven agendas – lifting themselves up via scornful, heartless, shallow, judging rejections or ridicule of others – that have nothing at all to do with discerning truth or deep value. And I absolutely agree that it is critically important that to serve our healing and growth and development we need consecrated spaces where we can express ourselves, exactly as we are, and be truly seen and honored for both our Essence and our burgeoning (and perhaps unripe) gifts, and accepted in our weaknesses or unripeness. Ultimately I believe we do learn to create that safe space within our own psyches, but many of us are greatly wounded and we need a lot of mirroring to get to the point where we can do that for ourselves. I needed such safe spaces for much of my twenties and a good part of my thirties, and sometimes still do (though now I prefer to be challenged and criticized more, especially when I trust that my challengers are deeply rooted in love and wisdom, but even when they are not, because then I get to practice my discernment skills – “does this criticism have truth in it?” If it does, even if it is not respectfully offered, it is still valuable to me. If it doesn't, it's irrelevant to me.)

If I'm reading you correctly Deborah (and please correct me if I have misread), you are championing the necessity for such a safe space, and you feel you found that at Zaadz previously and that it will be at the very least jeapordized by sanctioning “judgment.”
I applaud your concern and how passionately you express it.

But I think Zaadz can continue to succeed as a sanctuary of the sort that we need in order to heal, to find our voices, to develop confidence in them, and to refine our crafts of expression, without existing only and exclusively to be a “safe space.” Because I think we also need communities among true peers where we can be challenged at the edges of our growing, challenged to turn and look at our blind spots, reminded that we may have lost our way. I want my friends and my opponents to challenge me. And if the shoe doesn't fit, I've learned most of the time to not put in on. It's someone else's shoe. We need a space where, within the context of a reverent and respectful container, we can practice learning this skill. And as I understand it there's no reason people can't create private pods with rules of their own that designate it a “no-judgment,” no-seeding, no-flagging pod. So within the context of the larger zaadz tribe, an individual or particular group can still create the space they need for freedom from judgment.

4) I'm glad you liked the quotes from Robert Augustus Masters.
If you would welcome a loving challenge, may I offer one here… The quote you loved:
“If I am untrustworthy in certain areas, don't override your concerns just because I am so wonderful in other ways; don't let my good points obscure or marginalize my not-so-good points…” acknowledges that people have good points and not-so-good points. How is one to determine what someone's good points are as distinct from their not-so-good points without employing the powers of judgment and discernment?

Blessings and thanks,
Lauren

Hi Deborah,
Sorry I've taken so long to respond to you.
I like your attitude too

You say:
“I will not base where I go, what I read, how I react, what I think or who I like upon any computerized system so devised.  People and circumstances are as complex as life itself.  There is no machine able to recreate life and no program able to truly judge an individual human expression fairly.”
and ask if this is where I think we disagree…

I do disagree that the seed system will make this community any less vibrant. I agree with you that “there is no machine able to recreate life and no program able to truly judge an individual human expression fairly.” But I don't agree that the seed system is about handing over the power of our perceptions and the responsibility of discernment to machines. No more than I believe that using Zaadz at all is an act of handing over my powers of choice and freedom because it is a virtual community, dependent on code and language and complex programming and grid-sourced electricity for its existence…

I believe the seed system gives MORE power to the individual to “arrive at that judgement (what is good and what is not) privately on their own,” and makes it less random.


Much respect to you. I think your passion is valuable and lovely.
Namaste,
Lauren

Hi Deborah,

You are a steadfast and dependable blog responder. I admire that and aspire to it.

You asked:
”How does it give me any POWER?  How does it help me arrive at a judgement about anything?”

I don't think the seed system helps you to arrive at a judgment of (or, a clear perception of the relative value of)… anything. That power is entirely in your own hands. It simply gives you another way to express the power of your own awareness by giving a symbol of value to what you value (and, via “flagging for review”, what violates your values.)

Namaste,
Lauren