An experiment in trust
Just how strong is trust in a modern society. That is something I discussed in one of the chapters of “Gentle Action: Bringing creative change to a turbulent world”. My conclusions was that while there are some exceptions where certain vested interests have an influence, in general trust is fairly healthy.
This is something that Paul Bellis Jones, a student from Wales, believed and in order to test this out he left a disposable camera on Tryfan mountain with a note asking walkers to take photographs of themselves and giving his address. His motive was to see if anyone would make off with the camera. All in all thirty different climbers took photographs and when the film had run out the camera was left there and returned to Jones by a National Park warden.
You can see the photographs at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209877/Camera-abandoned-student-mountain-returned-snaps-fellow-walkers.html
1 Comment
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Gordon Shippey, November 17, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Actually Gentle Action can be applied in (at least as far as I know) one of 3 ways:-
A.From a Reformist position while retaining most of the presently imposed system/paradigm
B.Hollowing out the System {state/capitalism} till a new paradigm emerges or evolves
C.Rejecting the present system and working within a totally different Paradigm which is non-hierarchical, non-statist and non-market economy, a systems that reflects such values like Micheal Alberts Parecon {participatory economics} etc…
So while Gentle Action tries to show us the limits of the mechanistic paradigm it also hints at some of the blocks to this being the dominate paradigm of power, hierarchy and domination, however the book does not explore this area as Anarchist have. But which ever is choose we must be mindful of the fact that ALL of them ought to be an open unending process (which is the principle of An-archy) which should lead us to something beyond even that and NOT some dogma!
The problem with #1 is that this would probably hinder the process of Gentle Action and may even hinder creative development of human race, to educate themselves to the point were they are able through GA to perceive the fundamental problem with the most dominate paradigm!
Personally I prefer #2 but of course ideally #3. David’s book can be seen this way that’s the beauty while David has a particular vision of improving the system his idea of Gentle Action and the book it self has buried within it a multiplicity of visions and perspectives!
I guess I read it without the trust/ethical stance prior to the book coming out so it was perhaps easier for me to see. I know I read it after David told me it was in his 1991 book Philosophers stone and I also read his first paper on GA (1989), both of which give you GA without the trust in institutions business.As for trust between individuals or society well he does have a point, but trust in institutions is another thing and historical viewed it can be somewhat misplaced, especially when those institutions (like corporations & nation-states) are illegitimately imposed themselves!
As Philosopher David Hume once said ‘why obey Govtnment’, since as he rightly points out they (like Corporations) have imposed themselves via conquest,force and coersion.
Now if David Peat is correct (which I think he is) about folk who imposing their solutions on the world, then the same ought to apply to system itself!
Problem is that we have since internalized the values which we normally and in the spirit of Gentle Action would reject!
Warm regards
Gordon.