![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
What else is lacking?
Jack added some useful thoughts to continue the debate over organizing disparate alternative religious groups:
I know what aspect of the “organize” debate bugs me personally… it’s calling it a “church”. It may just be a little thing, but I would envision something less organized, but at the same time, still a network of people that were able to support each other’s spiritual growth, offer community when needed (as here) and so forth.
It need not be one big building that everybody goes to on Sunday or Moonday and reads from one unified bible and sings some songs and let some old Pagan windbag go on and on about how we are here to honor the mother.
I think a more modern approach would not be far from what we are doing right here right now - we’ve got community and support and like mindedness, and we obviously were able to put aside differences and agree on a few things.
What else is lacking?
It’s a good question. What else is lacking? What would be the ideal for such an organization as this? Obviously face-to-face interaction is a key component. But one of the problems with that is that almost none of the people who comment here or have websites I read live in this city, or anywhere near it. If I were to attend some kind of local or regional organization looking for what I already have here, then I would be constrained to interact with people who are geographically close to me. There are obviously benefits and drawbacks to this. The main drawback being I’ve never heard mention of anybody remotely near this city who’s interested in this stuff, let alone in the way I am. And I know it’s sort of elitist to say this, but I would really not want to be stuck in a conversation group with a bunch of people who’s idea of alternative religious paths is wholly based on the Da Vinci Code and What the Bleep Do We Know? I know I’m not alone in that predicament either. So what’s the answer? Are people looking for something we’re already putting together or already taking part in?
- Media something something, hoo-ha
- The names of God are vibrations calculated to establish control of the brain
- Wayne Dyer Fans
- Technology Is An Extension of our Emotional Expression
- Numismatics!
- Prev: Flames of Hell Boost Economy
- Next: Transporting Terrorism
July 21st, 2005 at 12:58 pm
it’s still a question of purpose.
if it’s just to create a massive network of groups & individuals with the goal of making info available & discussing occult/spiritual concepts, then it’s pretty much already going on. all it’s lacking is a name & a cool logo.
if it’s to get people together communally to support one anothers’ “worship,” i’ll provide a link once again to casa, the cascadia alternative spirituality association, a local group of pagans & gnostics whose eventual goal is to share in an alternative spiritual community and to have a single location that can be used as ritual space by a bunch of different traditions: http://www.casanw.org/
if it’s to ‘get the word out’ (evangelize), then it’s missing a structure, a central hub of sorts & dedicated structural organization. the most effective groups have organized ‘missionaries’ in each area of interest; perhaps a missionary organization would be of interest to those who are into this idea. they could model themselves on the mormons or the jehovah’s witnesses who are annoying but extremely successful.
if one wants to avoid discussing spirituality like the da vinci code and ‘what the bleep,’ then you’re gonna have to find people who are, or exclude people who do want to talk about those things. either way, you’re still looking at more structure– who gets to decide what gets discussed? who gets to decide who deals w/the purple-haired channeler who wants to rap about ramtha? you’re also looking at things like a mission statement & bylaws, applications to local govts for non-profit status, taxation on any income taken in by the org (or applications for tax exempt status). or, you could do it sans such things and the risks that implies. you’d have to have a bylaws committee, or at least an informal group of people that basically established & enforced the structure, and *you’d have to get them to agree on stuff.*
or, it could be something that’s a combination of all of the above. either way, i know from lots of experience, having worked for two labor unions who are wholeheartedly concerned with organizing and mobilizing, that this kind of thing can be *extremely difficult and frustrating.*
it’s a really really really slippery slope . . . .
July 21st, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Slippery as shit, that’s for sure…
July 21st, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Slippery indeed.
Personally, I’ve always preferred salons. They’re a way for people who have a common interest to meet and discuss that interest, make connections, et al, but there’s no “organization,” it’s open ended. The salon topic drives the discussion, moderation prevents it becoming a haven for bleepers or what-have-you.
Anything more organized is IMO, dangerous- that’s when you get politics, personalities, hierarchies, when people start preferring the ‘charming’ over the spiritually knowledgable, etc. The trouble with any esoteric gathering is that there are always people who want to lead, and people who want to be led -I’ve seen a lot of people with personality take leadership or teaching roles they weren’t ready for, etc. There never seems to be any meeting of the minds once a hierarchy is established, and the conversation, feedback, etc all just go to shit.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Of course, what the real trouble is, is that the gnosis can’t be isolated and protected from the ravages of ordinary human behavior. I imagine keeping it free of organization helps, but people just can’t seem to resist the urge to organize
July 21st, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Which to me indicates a trait that very well is a part of the big puzzle.
Now what could be useful about organizing?
July 21st, 2005 at 7:02 pm
I agree. If it’s such a strong urge, then there’s definitely a need to address it, beyond simply just pointing out the dangers of it - which we all seem to definitely agree on.
I’ll start the ball rolling on the benefits of organizing:
- cross-pollination of ideas (extremely important)
- people coming together with a positive influence on one another
- great discussions
- meeting excellent role models and highly knowledgeable resources
- interacting with and teaching other people makes you smarter and better at communicating
- companionship with people on a similar path with shared goals
- social networking for on- and off-topic purposes
- FUN!
I’m sure there are lots more. Who’s got some ideas? I think this is a great topic. We’ve definitely outlined the negative aspects pretty well already, and sometimes it’s hard to see as clearly positive elements - but they are definitely there!
July 21st, 2005 at 7:18 pm
i think we have a terminology disconnect. speaking in terms of labor unions, ‘organizing’ is getting people involved who are not otherwise interested. for instance, employees at company ‘a’ decide to form a union, and therefore start an ‘organizing committee,’ which consists of trying to get coworkers to sign the union card. or, many unions have multiple ‘units,’ basically a workplace with a contract. a goal of the union is to organize more units, which means bringing people into the union who haven’t yet joined.
now, there’s a different activity called *mobilizing.* mobilizing is directed at people who are *already* involved. when there’s contract bargaining, for instance, we’ll have a mobilization committee whose job is to get people who are already union members more involved in union activities.
ergo, when i hear ‘organizing,’ i think proselytization, but i wonder if what we’re talking about here is more like mobilization. i’ve been involved in both, and have a little experience in these matters.
July 21st, 2005 at 7:23 pm
I think originally I was talking about the “organizing” like you define it above, but maybe the distinction of “mobilizing” people who are already interested and commited is a good one - at least for this current this current conversation.
July 22nd, 2005 at 3:07 am
Important perhaps, but almost anathema to organization. Once a group leader or ideal is determined, ego usually determines the flow, or worse, dogma.