Internet indeed moves at the speed of light: my thinking, however, does not.
Some people have written reviews and excellent and insightful commentary on that ‘Freedom thingy‘ (‘Freedom of Speech and Liberty Symposium’ and ‘The conservative movement at a crossroads’ is such a mouthfull!) I went to last Monday (7th of December, 2009), some even with links to the speeches themselves.
I’m afraid I did not, because, well, I am still mulling it over…. By the time I will have thought through the individual speeches (I’m nowhere near done), any write up will be embarrassingly ‘stale’. My apologies.
My absence of commentary, however, does not mean that I did not find attending both the day and evening sessions interesting, useful and fodder for a lot of constructive thinking.
Had I gone simply to listen to the speakers, I would have heard much of what I knew, and a bit that I didn’t. However, that was not my primary purpose for attending. As is my nature, I – you guessed it – I went so that I could ‘observe‘. And when things seemed too dull or scripted (private discussions – not presentations), I’d lob in a ‘conversational grenade’ – so I could, yes, observe…
I was equally fascinated by what was said and discussed as by the how. But, I was even more interested by WHAT WAS NOT….
It was that ‘what was not’ that I think is really important: whether because we are not aware that these bits are missing, or because we are too afraid to discuss them, is irrelevant. Not addressing them is something we cannot afford to do!
Since I have the attention-span of a gnat, I know I’ll probably never finish the full series, but….
In the next couple of posts, I would like to look at at least a few of these ‘missing bits’ which we need to fill in before this grass-roots, pro-liberty movement is viable. And, I think it CAN be – but not without some considerable self-examination by us all in the ‘bits’ we’d rather not talk about…
How come I am talking about this, when so many better qualified people did not mention it?
Well, I often think ‘outside the box’ because I am always having trouble ‘seeing the boxes’….
I am an immigrant – so, my observations tend to be with respect to a slightly different frame of reference…alternate cultural experience during formative years and all that.
Plus, my ‘reading list’ is not the same as most of the people’s who were there: they are knowledgeable in political history and theory stuff – I have no clue about that, have not read any of those books, have not been in Canada for many of the ‘formative events’ they describe.
Instead, I studied physics in University. In my free time (and spare courses), I studied sociology and anthropology of religions (any dogma, really, whether theological or not). I read books about how specific beliefs and attitudes will arise out of particular societies, and how dogmatization of these beliefs will then shape the society’s future evolution: there is a whole feedback thingy there. I took time to learn various religions (both from books, and by attending services and discussions with theologians and laymen (except for the Wiccan Church of Canada: in Wicca, every practitioner is a priest or priestess by definition), to make sure I understood both the theory and practice). I also studied the bits of psychiatry of that deal with archetypes and religious belief/faith… I know, rather silly, but fascinating!
So, I suspect that even if I do see some ‘boxes’, they are not likely the same ones as most of the people who attended see…. I just hope that my observations and suggestions will be of help.
(I’ll update this with links to the pertinent posts, if I remember…)