Forbidden Philosophies
I'd like some feedback on an idea of mine. As some of you know, I'm thinking of resuming my public speaking efforts. This would involve leading workshops such as Intro to Permaculture, Intro to Climate Change, Intro to Peak Oil, etc. As a side project, though, I'm also considering a talk, or a series of talks, called "Forbidden Philosophies" or something similar.
"Forbidden Philosophies" would explore several perspectives that are currently either taboo or looked down upon in our society. Current topics include:
* Anarchism. What does the A word really mean? Would "non-hierarchy" lead to social upheaval, or would it give people more freedom?
* Polyamory. What is polyamory? Does sharing intimacy with multiple partners ruin the integrity of all relationships, or can some people find true love with more than one person?
* Magic. What is magic? Is it real or imaginary? If it's real, how does it work, and why don't we see people getting turned into toads?
* Naturism (aka Nudism). Why do some people want to walk around naked? Should people be allowed to be naked in public?
Of course, there are plenty of other "forbidden philosophies" out there. But these are some of the ones that I actually believe in. Therefore, I always enjoy sparking public dialog about them.
So, what do you think? Does this sound like a good series? I know that it may alienate some of the people who would like me to stick to eco advocacy, but then again, it may also spark some dialog with people who aren't really into hugging trees. If other people think that these are topics that might actually spark some interest in the community, then I'll be happy and eager to organize a series. Who knows... maybe I could even wrap up the series with a debate between myself and a staunch conservative who thinks that all of these ideas are the work of the devil... :)
Let me know what you think. In the meantime, if you want to talk about any of these topics themselves rather than the series as a whole, you know where to find me... :) Either way, it should be a good dialog...
- Treesong's blog
- LOG IN to post comments
Comments
Feedback
IN RESUMING PUBLIC SPEAKING, WHAT IS YOUR GOAL?
1. To agree with people who agree with you? i.e. comforting support, often rudely called, "preaching to the converted."
2. To rattle the thinking of people who have so far agreed with you? i.e. challenge and exploration.
3. To inspire new thinking in new people?
4. Fill in the blank__________________
These questions make sense to me because how you present a series of talks determines who will be in the audience and who is in the audience impacts the success of your presentation.
What do you want to do? Who do you want to listen to you? What do you want them to do after they have listened to you?
Fondly,
Rachel
Resuming Public Speaking
Thanks for the comment. What's my goal in resuming public speaking? I think that each of the points you mentioned factor into it... and the goal is different for Forbidden Philosophies than for the other ones, so you make a good point. I'd have to present the two sets differently.
For this Forbidden Philosophies series, it's all about dialog. I'd like to learn about the perspectives of everyone in the community -- both my current "allies" and beyond. I'd also like to share my perspective and see what the response is. Really, this particular idea is inspired by the philosopher in me more so than the activist. Most people don't realize this, but there are such amazingly divergent viewpoints in our community, and I want to see what happens when I toss a handful of "far out" ideas into the mix.
For the Permaculture and other workshops, it's definitely the activist in me. I want to seek out people who have at least some degree of agreement with "green living" and give them more of the information and inspiration they'll need to make ecological harmony a reality. This may seem like "preaching to the choir"... but speaking with people who already have the interest in "green values" helps to build the internal strength of the "green movement," and it also saves me the time/energy/frustration involved in talking to people who openly despise green values and will probably never change their minds. [Planet Earth: Love It or Leave It!]
On some level, it's also a purely selfish desire to speak my mind, to hear other people speak their minds, and to live in a community where all of these life-altering topics are actually talked about. Even if I fail in my goal of sparking deeper dialog and further action, at least I can sleep at night knowing that if only for a moment, members of our community talked about issues that I feel really matter.
Resuming Public Speaking: my reply to your reply to my reply
You have a sprite mind, a good heart and common sense, Treesong.
Yet, one thing troubles me: Using the title, "Forbidden Philosophies" seems a bit risky in this ever-changing ya-ha media climate.
First, it dangerously sounds like the topic is rationalizations for kinky sex or Area 51 true believers.
Second, "Forbidden," is that accurate? Aren't these ideas openly discussed in many arenas? Isn't this type of thinking gaining acceptance? If this type of philosophy is highlighted frequently in the New York Times, how underground can it be?
Third, Scary titles scare away new people.
I understand the important allure of a spicy title; I just don't think this is the right spicy title now.
And I would hate to see the attendance numbers low because the banner was misinterpreted.
Best wishes,
Rachel Fischoff