conversation

Certainly conversation among the members of a Celebration and
Theater activism group are important.  But its not that conversation
at which I am pointing.

Rather I want to draw our attention to the conversation that arises by the
speech that Celebration and Theater creates, between the actors and
the government, and between the actors and the media, and most
important, between the actors and the public mind.

Protest, to use an example, by its very nature is against something.  Of late, the
so-called anti-war movement has begun to realize that it must be for something, so
it decides to be for Peace.  In a way that seems fairly obvious - we move from being
against war to being for Peace.  What could be better?

Well, in point of fact it is kind of bland and idealistic.  The public mind is a lot smarter.
The public mind knows that wars have existed throughout history, so a movement for Peace
is pretty unrealistic.  The Peace movement also assumes something.  Perhaps unconsciously, but
nonetheless factually, the Peace movement seems to assume that Peace is the highest ideal available.

My own view is that Peace is too amorphous - to vague.  Celebration and Theater, Art and Rite, tragedy
and comedy, activism and wisdom, Citizen Governance applying new arts of Statecraft - all of this
can be very concrete, and even exact, if we think carefully enough, and thoroughly enough,
about life, societies, human beings, law, history and myriad other related matters.

So, in effect, we have two conversations: one among the participants in the creation of Celebration and
Theater, and the second between our artistic creations and the public mind.