From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: It it Psybernet?
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 15173d07

I have been sending out a few messages to people in various places 
over the
globe, and wanting to sum up what Psybernet is.  I can provede a 
general run
down to distinguish it from various other BBSs, but how is irt 
unique? among
Psych BBSs, they do exist.  (See up and coming message about a called
Psychbbs.Txt (in the Psybernet Main Library).  Here is my go at it. 
 Without
wanting to EXCLUDE people writing about anything and everything...

   ***********************PSYBERNET*********************

                          >>>IS<<<

Vision, Vitality, Experimental, About everyday life, involving,
experiential, Psychological Cyberspace, intriguing, soulful, 
mystical,
mysterious, ethical, non-sexist, gripping, addictive, challenging,
demanding, precice, social, mythical, futurist, interactive,
...into... the unconscious, anger, dreams and depth, methaphor, 
death,
altered states, tears, texture, relationship, creativity, laughter,
spontaniety, connection, earth, water, fire and air, stories, rage, 
romance,
poems, sadness, literature, movies and music, aesthetics, ontology,
psychotherapy, psychodrama, psychoanalysis, Jung, Freud, Moreno, 
Archetypes,
Gender issues, parenting, learning and love.


What do you think?


Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (393)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: It it Psybernet?
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ccd8d289



Building on your suggestions I have changed it a bit more and adapted
this version to the Psybernet Conference, getting it ready for 
becoming an
echo.  This time aiming more to inform than blast.  More work to do 
on this 
though.



------------------%--------------------%---------------------


***********************PSYBERNET*********************

The Psybernet Echo is for discussion about:

imagination, the unconscious, dreams and depth, metaphor, 
mythology, death,
altered states, tears, texture, relationship, creativity, laughter,
spontaneity, connection, earth, water, fire and air, stories, rage, 
romance,
poems, sadness, literature, movies and music, aesthetics, ontology,
psychotherapy, psychodrama, psychoanalysis, everyday life, Jung, 
Freud,
Moreno, archetypes, gender issues, parenting, learning and love.

We aim to make the Echo:

visionary, vital, entertaining, experimental, experiential, 
involving, 
intriguing, enjoyable, accessible, soulful, mystical, mysterious, 
ethical, non-sexist, gripping, challenging, friendly, demanding, 
precise, social, mythical, futurist, interactive.

The Echo is open to all comers, note that it is not focussed per se 
on
treatment or recovery nor on clinical discussions, though these 
things may
happen.  In short it is in and for Psyberspace in itself,


------------------%--------------------%---------------------


This still seems too long and not *focussed* enough.  I would like 
to put
crisply what the *main* point of this echo is.  If it is there on 
other
boards, it needs a readily  identifiable description.  I have been 
thinking
a lot about this and will go on, after a brief return to the 
primary world
<g> to write a new message called 'Alternate Worlds Syndrome'.


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: Reg Smith
To: Sarah Wadeson
Subject: Re: anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b8e8c27e
@REPLY: 3:770/270 5495478f

Reg is replying to Sarah who replied to All on 10 Feb 94 08:51pm

Hello Sarah,

Welcome to this cybernetic world, firstly what should I call you? 
You are
logged on as Sarah, but signed your message as Ruby, perhaps for 
now I
will stay with Sarah, but I definitely like Ruby as a name, it 
somehow has
a ring of richness and fire about it, I hope it is not a sign that 
we will
get into flames. <G>

 SW>  I have been reading a little of the anonymity thread and have
 SW>  been extraordinarily interested in the whole concept Now that
 SW>  I am attempting to type out my thoughts,I have stage
 SW>  fright. This is my FIRST message-I wonder if anonymity would
 SW>  make it any easier? Or am I anonymous to you all as it stands!

You are largely anonymous to me Sarah, but I have spoken very 
briefly on
the phone, even though it was brief, it still gives me additional 
data
that I would otherwise not have.

 SW> As I read all of your thoughts on whether or not one has a body
 SW> in cyberspace, despite the fact you spoke of different
 SW> distractions and sensations as you wrote eg fingers tapping
 SW> keys, sounds of kids in the background etc etc, in MY
 SW> experience you were totally without body or form. Even those of
 SW> you I know in person I experienced quite differently as I read
 SW> your messages.

Ah yes, this happens, the feed back I have had from Stanley and 
Walter is
that I am much more confronting and argumentative in cyberspace 
than in
the flesh. Mind you this is changing I think as I learn and explore 
how to
relate better within this medium I think (hope) <G>


 SW> As another personality,you might say. I do
 SW> believe we have different aspects to our psyches. This leads me
 SW> to ask the question-where and who is the true self?

Yes, I think this question has plagued many an entity for 
generations, I
tend to think these days that: We are one being, capable of a 
multitude of
different responses or the ability to enact many different roles, 
whether
we call a group or cluster of roles another personality or 'person' 
is
perhaps merely a question of terminology or semantics. This thread of
anonymity is assisting me to clarify my thoughts on this and 
thankyou for
your contribution.

 SW> I am generally a non intellectual person

I take it you mean not *overly* intellectual, if so, this makes 
sense to
me for how can we not be intellectual to some degree or another, the
ability to think and reason as well as feel, is what sets us aside 
from
lower life forms.

 SW> What is the intellect? Is that an intellectual question ? there
 SW> are 2 sides to everything...

Only two? <G>

 SW> Perhaps the true self resides wherever there is heart and
 SW> meaning.

I am not sure really, but it sounds good, <G>

SW> WELL must away now..thanks for reading...

 No worries Ruby, or is it Sarah or perhaps even someone else <G>


Bye for now 
 Reg

... A person in a passion rides a mad horse.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (668)   Thu 10 Feb 94 20:51                         
From: Sarah Wadeson
To: All
Subject: anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 50
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5495478f
 I have been reading a little of the anonymity thread and have been

What is the intellect? Is that an intellectual question ? there are 2
sides to everything...
Perhaps the true self resides wherever there is heart and meaning.
WELL must away now..thanks for reading...



                                till next time,

                                           Ruby

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 50
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:36 2000
Date: (744)   Thu 17 Feb 94 21:57                         
From: Sarah Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 57
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b66c1090
@REPLY: 3:770/270 b8e8c27e

Thanks for your message ,I've been wanting to reply for some time 
now but
have been unable to do so without Walter's help ,being very new to 
all
this and knowing very little about computers.It is a strange and 
wonderful
feeling to be deep in the bowels of cyberspace <g> ,and I feel quite
unreachable and unavailable for any other demands. Great feeling! 
It is
all painstakingly slow and frustrating but none-the-less, here I am.
 RS> Welcome to this cybernetic world, firstly what should I call 
you? You
 RS> are logged on as Sarah, but signed your message as Ruby, 
perhaps for
 RS> now I will stay with Sarah, but I definitely like Ruby as a 
name, it
 RS> somehow has a ring of richness and fire about it, I hope it is 
not a
 RS> sign that we will get into flames. <G>
Firstly ,you can call me Ruby, as do all those I am willing to have 
know
me. Officially it is Sarah but when I say it out loud it doesn't 
sound
like me at all, in my heart ,so somehow, somewhere along the way, I 
found
Ruby. Or maybe it was her that found me..... As for coming to flames,
well, who knows!!! Perhaps that would be all the more interesting <g>
Let the chips fall where they will..
 RS> Ah yes, this happens, the feed back I have had from Stanley and
 RS> Walter is that I am much more confronting and argumentative in
 RS> cyberspace than in the flesh. Mind you this is changing I 
think as I
 RS> learn and explore how to relate better within this medium I 
think
 RS> (hope) <G>
Yes I think this is the same for me
 SW>> to ask the question-where and who is the true self?
 RS> Yes, I think this question has plagued many an entity for
 RS> generations, I tend to think these days that: We are one being,
 RS> capable of a multitude
 RS> of different responses or the ability to enact many different 
roles,
 RS> whether we call a group or cluster of roles another 
personality or
 RS> 'person' is perhaps merely a question of terminology or 
semantics.
That is a wonderfully eloquent way of describing it. I think when 
faced
with a question or definition pertaining to the "true" self, I am 
struck
with, more than anything, the mysticism of it all. To me, all that 
I know
or think I know about another person is but a mere slice of who they
really are. Everyone that I deal with is far far more than I will 
ever
know...I have only felt this as truth in a few rare and scattered 
moments
when I have had a sense of falling into life with another person in 
the
immediacy of a moment. And then I have arrived at the fact that I 
cannot
arrive at any final statement about anything <g>
Yes, we are certainly capable of a multitude...
 RS> I take it you mean not *overly* intellectual, if so, this 
makes sense
 RS> to me for how can we not be intellectual to some degree or 
another,
 RS> the ability to think and reason as well as feel, is what sets us
 RS> aside from lower life forms.
Yes, that is what I mean, I realise now. In fact, dare I say it, I am
probably far more "intellectual" than I like to think. For some 
reason, I
have always shied away from defining myself in this way...perhaps 
it is
because I desire to dwell more in my heart and live my life from this
place, although it never feels like nearly as much as I know I am 
capable
of.
I am unsure as to what it is that sets us apart from other "lower" 
life
forms. I wonder if they are really lower. After all, the human is 
the only
creature to murder and abuse its own kind. Even sharks kill because 
they
must. And what other animal fears its own kind as much as we fear 
each
other?
 SW>> What is the intellect? Is that an intellectual question ? there
 SW>> are 2 sides to everything...

 RS> Only two? <G>
Good call <g> Well, there are at least two, anyway <g>
 RS>  No worries Ruby, or is it Sarah or perhaps even someone else 
<G>
Definately Ruby, although there is always the possibility that 
Sarah had
some part in it, and as for all the others, I guess that will come to
light (or even flames <g> ) in the Alter world.

 RS> ... A person in a passion rides a mad horse.
How right you are!
                                  Till next time,
                                                   Ruby
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 57
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:39 2000
Date: (942)   Sat 26 Feb 94 18:16                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Sarah Wadeson
Subject: Re: anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 61a15616
@REPLY: 3:770/270 b66c1090

Reg is replying to Sarah who replied to Reg on 17 Feb 94 09:57pm

 Hello Ruby,

 SW> Thanks for your message, I've been wanting to reply for some
 SW> time now but have been unable to do so without Walter's help
 SW> being very new to all this and knowing very little about 
computers.

I am a little in the same boat now (longer message turn-around), not
through lack of knowledge, but busier than usual, installing some new
software on my computer over the last W/E and am also in the 
process of
shifting my counselling & therapy practice to town. After eight 
years of
working from my little backyard studio in an outer suburb, I am 
making
myself more accessible to my clients by taking a place in a city 
practice
"The Avenue Counselling Centre", if anyone wants to know.

 SW> It is a strange and wonderful feeling to be deep in
 SW> the bowels of cyberspace <g> and I feel quite unreachable and
 SW> unavailable for any other demands.

Yes, my re-entry tonight, is by way of time out from rushing around
organising my forthcoming move.

 SW> you can call me Ruby, as do all those I am willing to have 
know me.

Thanks.

 SW> Officially it is Sarah, but when I say it out loud it doesn't 
sound
 SW> like me at all, in my heart, so somehow, somewhere along the 
way, I
 SW> found Ruby. Or maybe it was her that found me.....

Yes, maybe it was like that, I also like the way you put that.

 SW> As for coming to flames, well, who knows!!! Perhaps that would 
be all
 SW> the more interesting <g> Let the chips fall where they will..

Yes, flames can be interesting, but they can also be somewhat 
unpleasant
and painful, I try to avoid them in this medium wherever possible, 
but
like life itself not always possible, eh? At one part of it I used 
to use
a tagline I invented "Stoking the furnace deepens the warm up", but 
I have
stopped using it lately.


   SW>>> to ask the question-where and who is the true self?

 RS>> Yes, I think this question has plagued many an entity for
 RS>> generations, I tend to think these days that: We are one being,
 RS>> capable of a multitude of different responses or the ability to
 RS>> enact many different roles, whether we call a group or 
cluster of
 RS>> roles another personality or 'person' is perhaps merely a 
question
 RS>> of terminology or semantics.

 SW> That is a wonderfully eloquent way of describing it.

Thankyou, it has taken me a while to get to the point where I could
articulate that, or type it as the case may be.

 SW> I think when faced with a question or definition pertaining to 
the
 SW> "true" self, I am struck with, more than anything, the
 SW> mysticism of it all.

Yes, it can appear that way at times, eh?

 SW> To me, all that I know or think I know
 SW> about another person is but a mere slice of who they really
 SW> are. Everyone that I deal with is far more than I will ever
 SW> know... I have only felt this as truth in a few rare and
 SW> scattered moments when I have had a sense of falling into life
 SW> with another person in the immediacy of a moment.

I like that a lot .....  'falling into life' I have never heard the
expression before, is it your own creation, or borrowed from a 
famous poet
or philosopher, maybe you are such a famous person yourself, but 
don't
know it yet <G>.

 SW> And then I have arrived at the fact that I cannot arrive at 
any final
 SW> statement about anything <g>

Yes, that makes sense eh? given the nature of the world, constantly
changing.

 RS>> for how can we not be intellectual to some degree or another,
 RS>> the ability to think and reason as well as feel, is what sets 
us
 RS>> aside from lower life forms.

 SW> Yes, that is what I mean, I realise now.
 SW> In fact, dare I say it, I am probably far more "intellectual"
 SW> than I like to think. For some reason, I have always shied away
 SW> from defining myself in this way...perhaps it is because I
 SW> desire to dwell more in my heart and live my life from this
 SW> place, although it never feels like nearly as much as I know I
 SW> am capable of.

Sometimes I have been that way too, (and to be honest, still am, to a
degree) also a little ashamed and embarrassed by my intellect, silly
really, but there is a voice within me and perhaps it is embedded 
in the
culture too that says *don't think* and most of all don't let 
anybody else
know that you are capable of it. I know that it is important to 
enjoy and
accept such aspects of ourselves, but somehow I still struggle with 
that
one.  Mind you like I said in my last message (well I think I said 
it,
seems such a long time ago now) it is the balance between all 
aspects of
me, such as how I feel that is most important, I reckon the 
overemphasis
of any one aspect is not good. I think I have written about this 
before on
the BBS, but not sure when and where.

I have enjoyed reading and replying to your message Ruby and look 
forward
to meeting you in cyberspace again.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Psybernet Windows Icon.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 57c15e19
@REPLY: 3:770/270 6045bbba

 WL> == Psybernet Windows Icon ==

 WL> Look for it in a file called P.ICO.  The work is a little
 WL> rough, I may update it some time.  Now where would you use this
 WL> icon?  Good question.

Don't know yet, but it looks great, how did you do it?

Bye for now 
 Reg

... Dew is the tears which the stars weep.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (684)   Sat 12 Feb 94 16:18                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Windows Icon.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6045bbba

Available from the Psybernet Main Library.  It is the image of a 
tree with
seven fruits.  Three cornflowers at its base.  It is obvious isn't 
it?

7 minus 3 = 4

Four = Earth Wind Fire & Water.

Look for it in a file called P.ICO.  The work is a little rough, I 
may
update it some time.  Now where would you use this icon?  Good 
question.


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: Reg Smith
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 df5e45c0

Reg is replying to SUE who replied to REG on 12 Feb 94 11:20pm


Hello Sue,


RS>> Yes, this is what role reversal is all about, although I am 
not so
RS>> sure about the taking bit, quantifying it in any way seems
RS>> counterproductive.

 ST> I agree with that bit.  I suppose what I was trying to say was
 ST> that I don't think men trying to imagine having female
 ST> reproductive organs and experiencing menstruation has got
 ST> anything to do with role reversal.

Ah, I do not see it as an imaginary process, I wondered about and was
surprised at Walters use of the term *imagining*, in earlier 
messages, I
think role reversal goes much deeper than imagination and fantasy.
Imagining is predominantly done with our minds, role reversal 
involves
what Moreno called the 'surplus reality' it is a larger than life
experience, it involves us at all levels, physically, intellectually,
spiritually and so on. I do not imagine I am you, I become you in 
that
moment. I walk like, talk like, think like and most of all feel 
like Sue.
If I think and talk about pretending to be Sue the role reversal 
will be
superficial, it will be play acting, it will not be role reversal 
at all.


RS>> Mmmmm...  back to my old question again, (see other message) 
are they
RS>> really other *persons*?

 ST> From my own personal experience, they really aren't separate
 ST> persons.  If they were I wouldn't have the quality of *being*
 ST> (can't think of a better word) with them that I do.

I can't think of a better word either, nor do I want too, I think 
this is
the crux of it, it is all you and lately I am thinking it is not so
relevant what we call them. The role theorist calls them roles, but 
that
is confusing for there are as I have said elsewhere several different
*types* of roles.

 ST>  Some of my
 ST> `persons' include the Psychiatrist,

Yes and you are not a trained Psychiatrist, but you enact some of the
roles of one sometimes, eh? we probably all do sometimes to one 
degree or
another.

ST>  the Seal

What do you do as a seal? Do you have fun and balance balls on your 
nose?
Or are you living in a more natural environment, diving under the 
water
catching fish in your mouth and chewing them up to feed to your 
babies?
Do you sometimes bark harshly when others approach <G> I think I 
have net
you <G> before but did not know <G> but then again perhaps I am 
wrong?

ST> the Monkey Sophie,

You like to have fun no? Jump up and down etc. Or are you the 
monkey who
dotes on and is doted on by a mate, picking one anothers fleas off 
and
eating them?

 ST> and a small person who wants rainbow socks.

A small girl, or boy or are you not old enough yet small person to 
know
that there is a difference?  Maybe you are not a child as I assume, 
but
perhaps a little pixie who lives under a mushroom in the forest?

 SR>> I really think psyberspace is the place where this can
 SR>> fruitfully happen simply because we don't have to be tagged to
 SR>> one- body identity.

RS>>No, we don't *have* to be, but there are many people who argue 
that we
RS>>should. What are your arguments, people out there,

 ST> Do I qualify as a person out there?

Most definitely!

RS>> as to why we should?
RS>> I want to know so that I can convince myself more fully about 
all
RS>> this...... <G>

 ST> I still maintain, Stanley's eloquence aside, that I have and am
 ST> one body, whatever I may find within of persons or identities.

I think it comes down to perception perhaps. I perceive myself as one
being, predominantly residing for the moment (maybe seventy or more 
years)
in one body to which I am extremely well linked, when the time 
comes for
me to move on, (return to the spirit world) I will.

 ST> This whole thing is starting to remind me of the early
 ST> Ecumenical Council (can't remember which one, to my shame, but
 ST> I could look it up) 's arguments about the Trinity - is God
 ST> three persons or three - oh, shit, what was the technical word
 ST> they argued about?  Anyway, it kept them going for a few
 ST> centuries.  We might be the same!

No not me, I know what I think.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Better to understand little than misunderstand a lot.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: REG SMITH
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 ST>>> Why is that?  I suppose I have a particular dislike of this
 ST>>> line of thinking because it smacks of yet another instance 
of a
 ST>>> man taking women's reality away from them.

 SR> Dear Sue, with this line of thinking you wouldn't be losing
 SR> your woman, but gaining a man. If this line of thinking  would
 SR> be good for the gander it would also be good for the goose!!!
 SR> And I don't mind you taking some animus reality for your own
 SR> use.

RS>Yes, this is what role reversal is all about, although I am not 
so sure
RS>about the taking bit, quantifying it in any way seems 
counterproductive.

I agree with that bit.  I suppose what I was trying to say was that 
I don't 
think men trying to imagine having female reproductive organs and 
experiencing menstruation has got anything to do with role reversal.

SR> And this means the release of all 'one's' other persons..

RS>Mmmmm...  back to my old question again, (see other message) are 
they
RS>really other *persons*? I ask myself this a lot. Walter says 
don't worry
RS>about it, but the distinction does seem important to me. 
Certainly in Th
RS>ALTERMATE Experience the distinction is not important, but on a
RS>theoretical level it is.

From my own personal experience, they really aren't separate 
persons.  If 
they were I wouldn't have the quality of *being* (can't think of a 
better 
word) with them that I do.  Some of my `persons' include the 
Psychiatrist, 
the Seal, the Monkey, Sophie, and a small person who wants rainbow 
socks.

 SR> I really think psyberspace is the place where this can
 SR> fruitfully happen simply because we don't have to be tagged to
 SR> one- body identity.

RS>No, we don't *have* to be, but there are many people who argue 
that we
RS>should. What are your arguments, people out there,

Do I qualify as a person out there?

RS>as to why we should?
RS>I want to know so that I can convince myself more fully about all
RS>this...... <G>

I still maintain, Stanley's eloquence aside, that I have and am one 
body, 
whatever I may find within of persons or identities.  This whole 
thing is 
starting to remind me of the early Ecumenical Council (can't 
remember which 
one, to my shame, but I could look it up) 's arguments about the 
Trinity - 
is God three persons or three - oh, shit, what was the technical 
word they 
argued about?  Anyway, it kept them going for a few centuries.  We 
might be 
the same!




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: REG SMITH
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

SR> is one allowed to be more than one person.

RS>Theologically I think so: There are three persons in one God and 
God mad
RS>us in his own image. So yes you can be at least three persons. 
Well
RS>Catholics can for sure, not so sure about Protestants and 
Buddhists. <G>

It's interesting that you appeal to this precedent.  Doubt 
Buddhists think 
trinitarian thoughts, but from what I know of Protestants they do.  
Anglicans definitely do, but then they aren't really Protestants, 
of course.

RS>No,  we are spiritual beings, with a mind body and soul. We have 
at leas
RS>one core personality and possibly others, we 'enact' many 
thousands of
RS>'real' social, psychodramatic and somatic roles. We also 'act' 
many phon
RS>roles. The difference is to do with our level of spontaneity and 
warm-up

RS>I think I have just answered a question I have been asking 
myself for so
RS>time.

I read and understand the answer, but wonder what the question is, 
exactly? 
Just curious.

 SR> How we answer that on the
 SR> BBS will determine whether we exist for the soul or whether we
 SR> serve the current structure of society, as they would have said
 SR> at another time: God or Caesar?

RS>Why must there be a choice? Why not serve both?

Yes, I wonder that too.  My problem with serving Caesar is that 
much of what 
goes on in society as it is currently structured is unhealthy, 
oppressive 
and antihuman.  But not all of it is, just as I said to Walter that 
I still 
like the fruits of linear education and thought.  And that very 
unhealthiness does in itself spring from within the soul, the God 
element.  
When I get a ways along in this train of thinking, I can see how 
they came 
up with the doctrine of original sin, much as I have problems with 
it and 
what has been done with it.  But the logic becomes clear.

 RS>> I figured people would easily
 RS>> Identify my alters as being me and laugh or scoff at them.

I thought this when I read what is already in that conference.  
Because 
there are so few users, and I know you all well enough, I couldn't 
help but 
try to work out who was who.  If I thought I had and then came 
across 
something that made me doubt my diagnosis, I would think it a bit 
odd - 
certainly not laughing or scoffing, though - I've done too much of 
my own 
type of writing stuff to project that feeling onto anybody else's 
explorations of their inner world.

 RS>> I think the biggest question that needs to be answered is:
 RS>> should the protagonists have to identify themselves as who they
 RS>> are before they actually enter the "stage" as they do in a
 RS>> Psychodrama group? I personally don't think they should, which
 RS>> is a change from my original thoughts on all this.

 SR> My view is that people shouldn't have to identify themselves
 SR> first.

I wouldn't mind having a go in there, but I'm still not clear about 
these 
technical details.  I must have a look at it again when I log on to 
UL this 
lot.  My trouble is, I would want to be a totally arrogant, 
offensive male 
type of person, just to see how people would react.

RS>Ah, now that is slightly different to be Charlie in all areas, the
RS>possibility of harm is actually there, it is to do with breech 
of trust,
RS>truth and deception etc. How would someone who for instance that 
had
RS>experienced a lot of betrayal in their life react when they 
discovered
RS>that their Psybernet Consultant or an important group member was 
not
RS>Charlie at all but someone else.

I think that's a very fair point, really.  I suspect most people, 
including 
myself, would want to feel they weren't being exposed to some 
possible 
deception that they couldn't detect and protect themselves against, 
but 
would still be hurt by.  It's interesting just thinking about all 
these 
implications.

RS>Whilst I am not into neat little boxes if I can avoid them, I do 
believe
RS>in some form of boundaries or framing and I am also not into 
anarchy and
RS>people putting themselves beyond the law.

Goodness gracious, I'm not used to you and me agreeing, at least 
not to this 
extent.  But yes, I fall into about the same place overall on this 
issue.  I 
think boundaries and laws can be oppressive and abusive, just as 
damn near 
anything else can, but I still think the human psyche needs them.  
If 
they're too noticeably absent, it creates them!  Perhaps one of the 
abuses 
occurs when people aren't allowed some say in where the boundaries 
are 
placed.  Heaven knows how you achieve that in reality at a social 
level, but 
I do have a belief in the consensus model, at least for certain 
situations.
How my thoughts wander!!!

RS>The principles are fine Stanley, but as Walter put it somewhere 
else:

RS>'The alchemist must have some type of crucible'.

Do you mean in the sense of something to contain the energy, some 
structure 
within which to unravel the strands and not end up with an unholy 
tangle at 
your feet?  That's my knitting metaphor coming out.



Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 782b8be9

 ST> I wouldn't mind having a go in there, but I'm still not clear
 ST> about these technical details.  I must have a look at it again
 ST> when I log on to UL this lot.  My trouble is, I would want to
 ST> be a totally arrogant, offensive male type of person, just to
 ST> see how people would react.


I can't wait, the trouble is that I would never know if it was you 
being
the bastard!  We could all have a go.  We could even be as 
politically
unsound as the rest of the BBS world!  Long live bigotry.  I find 
this so
funny!


 ST> I think that's a very fair point, really.  I suspect most
 ST> people, including myself, would want to feel they weren't being
 ST> exposed to some possible deception that they couldn't detect
 ST> and protect themselves against, but would still be hurt by.
 ST> It's interesting just thinking about all these implications.

Yes, did you see my u/l of the message about 'Joan' or someone who
'changed people's lives'.  Reminds me of my brother who helped 
raise money
at a fair for an aged persons home by 'pretending' to tell 
fortunes.  He
did it so well people asked him back each year.


See you soon,


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1e0890a4

 ST> I suppose what I was trying to say was
 ST> that I don't think men trying to imagine having female
 ST> reproductive organs and experiencing menstruation has got
 ST> anything to do with role reversal.

I went for a walk today and 'role reversed' with Agness Hill.  I 
was no
longer on the track here, I was in the ALTERWORLD, and looking at the
little bird.  That is the only other one that Agnes has noticed 
there.  As
I looked at the bird, I *was* Agness.  No doubt about it.  My 
puffing and
sweating body walking up the hill in the heat was GONE.  I can't 
say I was
conscious, as Agnes, of reproduction or organs, she was involved 
with the
bird.  However, she has a female body, and mind I am quite sure of 
it.
God knows if she has it by her nature, nurture or will of the gods 
<G>.
Actually she is a victim of the sexism of her culture, full on.  I am
beginning to disagree with Sandy Stone.  (See earlier message).

I hope this is OK with you Sue, I know you have anger about all of 
this
gender stuff, and don't blame you for that.  I have an aversion to 
female
impersonators.  Benny Hill  (Eeek, I wonder if there is any 
relationship?)
I even hate Dame Edna, though I used to laugh, I just don't now.  I 
think
Barry Humphries is a misogynist and that it is a tragedy of our 
time that
the only older, female, comedian I can think of is a man, playing, 
well .
. . being, a rather obnoxious woman.

 ST>  Some of my
 ST> `persons' include the Psychiatrist, the Seal, the Monkey,
 ST> Sophie, and a small person who wants rainbow socks.

( Agnes noticed only the last one & will get her some! )

 ST> I still maintain, Stanley's eloquence aside, that I have and am
 ST> one body, whatever I may find within of persons or identities.
 ST> This whole thing is starting to remind me of the early
 ST> Ecumenical Council (can't remember which one, to my shame, but
 ST> I could look it up) 's arguments about the Trinity - is God
 ST> three persons or three - oh, shit, what was the technical word
 ST> they argued about?  Anyway, it kept them going for a few
 ST> centuries.  We might be the same!

AH, you see why I wanted to have an Ontology Conference in the 
early days,
to keep these philosophical discussions in check!  Any way, I can 
hear
them in the ALTERWORLD laughing at our antics here, our serious
discussions about whether they exist or not.  They know perfectly 
well
that they do!

Let us see if we can beat the Ecumenical Council for keeping a debate
going!  Perhaps they enjoyed it as much as I enjoy this.  Perhaps 
they
even chuckled as they flamed each other about  . . .  was it
transubstantiation you were looking for?  Ah, good on them.


This is definitely from me!




Bye for now.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: REG SMITH
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

RS>I think role reversal goes much deeper than imagination and 
RS>fantasy.  Imagining is predominantly done with our minds,  
RS>role reversal involves what Moreno called the 'surplus 
RS>reality' it is a larger than life
RS>experience, it involves us at all levels, physically, 
RS>intellectually,
RS>spiritually and so on. I do not imagine I am you, I become 
RS>you in that moment. I walk like, talk like, think like and 
RS>most of all feel like Sue

But how do you know that what you are walking, talking 
thinking and feeling like is in any way like me?  You could 
only go from what you pick up by watching and listening, plus 
interviewing me about my inner state, or whatever.  But how 
unreliable human communication is!  Even somebody you are very 
intimate with can misinterpret your words and actions in a way 
that leaves you wondering who it is they have been talking to 
for the last hour - it sure as hell wasn't me!  I doubt the 
outcome of that would be any closer to resembling the real me 
than the me you would dream up in your imagination.

RS>I can't think of a better word either, nor do I want too, I 
think this i
RS>the crux of it, it is all you and lately I am thinking it 
is not so
RS>relevant what we call them.

Yes, I go along with that.  I suppose that's why I call them 
by their names and don't try seriously to figure out exactly 
*what* they are.

 ST>  Some of my
 ST> `persons' include the Psychiatrist,

RS>Yes and you are not a trained Psychiatrist, but you enact 
some of the
RS>roles of one sometimes, eh? we probably all do sometimes to 
one degree o
RS>another.

Well, my one is female, and she wears those kinky long black 
leather boots and carries a long black leather horse whip.  
The overall effect is not so kinky, though - more like a Nazi 
prison guard.  Her speciality is telling me I'm mad in the 
sense of having a serious deepseated mental problem.  She 
thinks every body else is mad as well, incidentally, except 
her.

ST>  the Seal

RS>What do you do as a seal?

Good question, but it's actually not me that does it.  It is 
the seal that does it.

RS>Do you have fun and balance balls on your nose

No, it's more mysterious than that.

RS>Or are you living in a more natural environment, diving 
RS>under the water

Yes, that's more the habitat.  There is an Iris Murdoch novel 
in which a man moves to a house on the coast and sees the 
seals in the ocean.  They enjoy a long tradition of being a 
mystical symbol, and mine is more like that than the ball 
juggling sort.

RS>catching fish in your mouth and chewing them up to feed to 
RS>your babies?

I'm not aware that it has babies.

RS>Do you sometimes bark harshly when others approach <G>

No, certainly not.  It never barks but is very silent, and 
only swims up to look quietly and intently at people with huge 
luminous black eyes.

RS>I think I have ne
RS>you <G> before but did not know <G> but then again perhaps 
I am wrong?

You might have.  You never know when you will see the seal - 
you just have to sit by the shore and wait to see if you will 
be blessed.

ST> the Monkey Sophie,

OOops, is that my typo?  Sophie and the monkey are two 
separate people - there should have been a comma between them.

RS>You like to have fun no? Jump up and down etc.

Sometimes he does.  But he can also be a very sad monkey.  
Overall, I would say he is a sensitive but very extraverted 
person.  Something of an exhibitionist, perhaps.

RS>Or are you the monkey who
RS>dotes on and is doted on by a mate,

No, he doesn't have a mate.

RS>picking one anothers RS>fleas off and
RS>eating them?

Or fleas.

 ST> and a small person who wants rainbow socks.

RS>A small girl, or boy or are you not old enough yet small 
person to know
RS>that there is a difference?

No, the difference is known.  This small person is a girl, 
although she is not allowed to be one in the way she wants to. 
There are plenty of socks in the drawer already, but they are 
grey or brown.  She wants ones with many bright colours on 
them.

RS>Maybe you are not a child as I assume, but
RS>perhaps a little pixie who lives under a mushroom in the 
RS>forest?

A bit of that too - perhaps an elf.  On summer mornings you 
will find her under the asparagus ferns.

RS>I perceive myself as one
RS>being, predominantly residing for the moment (maybe seventy 
RS>or more year
RS>in one body to which I am extremely well linked, when the 
RS>time comes for
RS>me to move on, (return to the spirit world) I will.

Yes, that makes sense.




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (460)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>Do we have the right to deny access? YES.

WL>Is going where you have no access a crime?  YES.

Absobloodylutely.

WL>In other words cyberspace is a place where power dynamics an
WL>abuse also occur.

AbsoBLOODYlutely.

WL>good reasons we have a Women's Conference on the Psybernet BBS.  
I think
WL>is a good thing that we deny access to men, especially after I 
had a loo
WL>the Women's area on MindVox and the Fido Feminism echo.

Haven't looked at Mindvox, but I was put off by that intro thing 
you put in 
the files area.

WL>These places attract misogynists

You're not kidding.  Why do you thinkt that is?  Do you understand 
that 
phenomenon?

WL>and are fine for those who wish to do battle with t

I'm always tempted, I must confess, although I usually deeply 
regret it when 
I give in and do it.

WL>See how I can't resist forming opinions?  I stand by these views 
quite
WL>firmly and for all the fluidity of boundaries in cyberspace, I 
favour th
WL>creation of firm boundaries in this world, without rejecting the 
fluidit

I feel it has to do with creating boundaries where they are needed, 
and 
not generating them for the hell of it, to oppress people.  But we 
do have a 
right to protection.  I take this stance about society as a whole, 
also - it 
stops me from being an anarchist.

WL>Right now I'd like to find such a place ready made, any
WL>know a good one?  Perhaps All I need to do is adopt a new name 
and go fo
WL>somewhere, where that is OK.

I dare say you've looked at all those role playing game areas?  
They'd be a 
bit youthful, wouldn't they?  What about that BBS that is dedicated 
to 
weirdness of that kind - now what's it's name?  Never Never Lande.  
Probably 
not your cup of tea, although I'm only guessing as I've never been 
on it.


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (459)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>There is nothing to stop me entering the Cybernetic world using 
pseudony
WL>and taking on any personality I like.  In some places that is 
encouraged
WL>Such as in the echo for spouses of sexually abused people.  In 
others it
WL>not allowed.  I noticed it is prohibited in the NZ-COMMS echo.  
Even in
WL>these places people could cheat.  Also there is a fine line 
between name
WL>and nick names, new names, akas etc.

I was interested greatly by a skirmish on FEMINISM a while back on 
this very 
issue - the use of pseudonyms.  A man came onto the echo and 
expressed some 
very strong feelings about people who use pseudonyms, somewhat 
along the 
lines that the practice is the resort of the dishonest, cowardly and 
deceitful.  A flock of regulars responded vigorously, and for the 
most part 
IMO intelligently, defending the habit and pointing out the 
well-established 
and long-standing good character of many pseud-bearers on the echo. 
 The 
fellow in question remained affronted - also, incidentally, over 
the use of 
cuss-words which he regarded as indefensible (the same people 
defended the 
usage in question intelligently, BTW), and so he disappeared in high 
dudgeon.  I'd never thought of it as being so contentious!

WL>The question is not a technical one
WL>even a pragmatic one but a musing on the nature of 
*personality*, that i
WL>the Psybernetic question.

I posted on FEMINISM to the effect that I thought different names 
would reflect different facets of myself - that is, if Prompt/2 
would let me 
post out on an alias, which it doesn't - bloody thing tears them 
all off. It 
follows that other people's handles reflect certain aspects of 
themselves 
that they wish to project into some particular echo.  I enjoy the 
handles as 
they get me wondering about the person and why it is that they see 
themselves in a way that makes such a pseudonym appropriate.  I am 
especially intrigued if/when I get to find out what their *real* 
name is - 
often a fascinating pseud turns out to have been adopted by 
somebody called 
Joe Bloggs.  Understandable, really, and I don't mean because the 
name 
might be thought boring.

WL>In Marge Piercy's book 'The Body of Glass' one of the main 
characters en
WL>the Net as both a man and a woman.

Must have a look at that.  Is it a recent one?

WL>In cyberspace we ... not have bodies.

But, but ... I'm in cyberspace right now, and I've got one.  I do 
know what 
you're saying, but I just know I've got one, whatever space I'm in. 
 It's my 
body that's writing to you, and touching the keys, and hearing the 
children, 
and feeling tired and tense, and wondering when it needs a drink, 
and what 
time's bed.  All of me is involved in the reality I am in right now.

I want to yell - THE EMPEROR ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES!

I AM MY BODY, FOR CHRISSAKE!!!

WL>But in true cyberspace even the notion of man or woman
WL>only a vestige of another world.  It is really a form of 
Alternate World
WL>Syndrome to think of oneself as having a sexual body.  Or is it?

Seethe, choke, splutter ...

And anyway, what is a sexual body?  What about a person who has had 
their 
gender identifying bits removed because of cancer?  What does their 
body 
become?

WL>Is the
WL>cybernetic experience always grounded in a body somewhere?  Yes 
it is.  

Sigh ...  Dunno about yours, old chap(ess?), but mine is.  And 
another thing 
- on that MEN'S_ISSUES echo, a person of the male persuasion who was 
obviously fairly disturbed in the head launched into a painfully 
awful 
diatribe about how there were zillions of WOMEN (shock, horror, 
gasp, the 
enemy!) masquerading as men and COMING ONTO THE ECHO!!!  Holy cow!  
The sky 
is about to fall!

WL>the Psybernet BBS we validate people, to see that they are who 
they say 
WL>are, perhaps 'face' value would be a better way, do we judge 
people on t
WL>basis of their relationship to their existence in primary reality.

This raises issues for me to do with judging people on their 
physical 
manifestation - something I have a problem with, although we are 
all trained 
to do it with relentless accuracy.  I know that's not what you're 
referring 
to, but it brought those thoughts up for me.  And I'm baffled by a 
person 
having a relationship to their existence in primary reality.  I 
want to 
stamp my foot and say I'M JUST ME!  Doesn't mean I'm not enjoying 
your ideas 
and musings - I just like to react to them from a different angle.

WL>In the end you will know *nothing* of the physical nature of 
your pen pa

But the thing is, I DO know the (social) physical reality of the 
three main 
protagonists on Psybernet!  Doest that make this BBSing different 
from when 
I converse with somebody on Grand Rounds or CIS, just because I've 
never 
laid eyes on them and I have on you lot and cam easily draw a mental 
portrait of each of you, capturing something of your essence as it 
strikes 
me?

WL>You will never really know who wrote this will you!

No, but ...

But I DO know you from your words, even if you're not the actual 
same Walter 
Logeman who I was chatting with a week or two back.  You are the 
person who 
you are, whether you're under a false name or playing dishonest or 
bending 
your gender or whatever other trick you may get up to.  What you 
write is 
what you write.  And if I reply, even if I am gravely misled as to 
your 
identity, my words will strike the heart of who you REALLY are.

WL>But do you like my style?

Either I do or I'm a masochist ...

WL>Or do I go on your twit list, and never light up your
WL>phosphorescence again?

Aw shucks, no, why spoil the fun?  I reserve the TF for dickheads 
and 
drongos.

WL>The choice is yours.

Sure is.  I like having that sense of control over my BBSing.


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (465)   Mon 17 Jan 94  1:12                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a5f430cb

Hello Sue

WL>> There is nothing to stop me entering the Cybernetic world using
WL>> pseudonym and taking on any personality I like.

 ST> I was interested greatly by a skirmish on FEMINISM a while back
 ST> on this very issue - the use of pseudonyms....

 ST> I posted on FEMINISM to the effect that I thought different 
names
 ST> would reflect different facets of myself - that is, if Prompt/2
 ST> would let me post out on an alias, which it doesn't - bloody
 ST> thing tears them all off.

I don't think you can on our board either.  Perhaps it would be 
useful
to make a distinction between a name like Sweet Pea, where we all 
know
it is an alias, and say, me using the name Pat Morgan, and living 
that
ID in different places in cyberspace. Where I see people doing the
first I find it a bit trite, and the second seems sinister, but OK,
that is what the woman does in Marge Piercy's book, but then they all
do it there.  Wouldn't Pat become a real creature, as real as
characters in a novel, more real in that I could even reply to them
myself?  I'd like to do it, but it still feels *wrong*.

WL>> In Marge Piercy's book 'The Body of Glass' one of the main
WL>> characters enters the Net as both a man and a woman.

 ST> Must have a look at that.  Is it a recent one?

Fairly, her last I think, it is in Scorpio and out in a cheaper
edition with another name HE, SHE and IT?

WL>> In cyberspace we ... not have bodies.

 ST> But, but ... I'm in cyberspace right now, and I've got one.  I 
do
 ST> know what you're saying, but I just know I've got one, whatever
 ST> space I'm in.  It's my body that's writing to you, and touching
 ST> the keys, and hearing the children, and feeling tired and tense,
 ST> and wondering when it needs a drink, and what time's bed.  All 
of
 ST> me is involved in the reality I am in right now.

 ST> I want to yell - THE EMPEROR ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES!

 ST> I AM MY BODY, FOR CHRISSAKE!!!

Yes, I even replied to my own message along these lines!  But I won't
give up here, I think we are onto something important, exploring the
finer lines of this.  I feel dread when I hear adepts of the medium
talk of their body as being irrelevant.  Also I went for a walk today
and some of this writing is a result of the musings while I walked,
the air and the green stimulated this!  YET:  There are some people
who are excellent writers, who are more involved in this medium than
the other reality.  They have a life here and none there.  Are we to
judge that?  Yes I too have a BODY at this point it is also touching
the keys! When Wordsworth wrote his Prelude, does it matter where he
wrote it or if he was thirsty?  Or even if it is true.  J L Moreno 
who
invented psychodrama made up stories about his past which he
considered more true than the facts.  Psychodramatic truth.  Stanley
if he is listening, might say:

         By this move we are transformed from the animal who seeks
         only immediate libidinal discharge without an imaginative
         realm, into humans for whom thought and fantasy is the real
         world we inhabit. In a word, it creates our human world.

                     From 'Eros' by Stanley Richards
                     -- a document in the Psybernet Main Library

I could become someone else, with a different body, 
*imaginatively*, a
role reversal, I would experience the different body, if I became a
woman I might 'experience' female organs and even menstruation.  PMT
even!  If that can be done, then it is the *imaginative* aspect of
personality that really counts.  I am My BODY, yes, but also how I
experience that body, and the body is not totally in control of that,
though it has its influence, no doubt.  Back to my imagined female
alter, perhaps she has a link with my body, she is me, perhaps I 
could
never experience these aspects of my body without letting the
imagination go like that.

I would like to *do* this.

I have role reversal in psychodrama groups many times, and that is 
not
play acting, it is becoming someone else.  I have been a doctors wife
in Gore, Stalin, a disembodied soul in heaven--an angel I guess, a
guru etc.

Did you see the movie, My Dinner With Andre, a video in Alice's.  It
on this theme.  They speak about an acting class I think, where 
people
act others at a party.  Then they act themselves at the party!  The
movie is acted by the authors of the script!

To go back to the other side of the fence a little, Sandy Stone, 
who I
keep quoting from the article in MONDO Magazine, said that a man 
could
never experience what it is like to be a woman.  He is a trans 
sexual,
so he has certainly tried.  Quote:

               ...There are people who need surgery because that 
makes
               them happy, and there is everything in between.
               DD {Interviewer}: There are irreversible processes 
that
               you can't get across, even if you make those physical
               changes.
               ARS (Sandy Stone): Yeah, how much oppression can you
               learn?

                                MONDO 2000 Issue 11  , p 57.


WL>> But in true cyberspace even the notion of man or woman
WL>> only a vestige of another world.  It is really a form of
WL>> Alternate World Syndrome to think of oneself as
WL>> having a sexual body.  Or is it?

 ST> Seethe, choke, splutter ...

 ST> And anyway, what is a sexual body?  What about a person who has
 ST> had  their gender identifying bits removed because of cancer?
 ST> What does their body become?

Yes exactly, the body isn't the boss over the personality, that is
what Stanley has been saying somewhere, gender is a product of the
imagination.  My response to that has been along the lines that it is
a product of the imagination of the ad men, (that is another issue I
suppose)

WL>> Is the cybernetic experience always grounded in a body 
somewhere?
WL>> Yes it is.

 ST> Sigh ...  Dunno about yours, old Chap(ess?), but mine is.

Chap(ess?)  That makes me Laugh!

But who knows what lurks in this Chaplessness!  Not me.  (But who 
am I
to say that?  <G>)


WL>> the Psybernet BBS we validate people, to see that they are who
WL>> they say are, perhaps 'face' value would be a better way, do we
WL>> judge people on the
WL>> basis of their relationship to their existence in primary
WL>> reality.

 ST> This raises issues for me to do with judging people on their
 ST> physical manifestation - something I have a problem with,

 ST> And I'm
 ST> baffled by a person having a relationship to their existence in
 ST> primary reality.  I want to stamp my foot and say I'M JUST ME!
 ST> Doesn't mean I'm not enjoying your ideas and musings - I just
 ST> like to react to them from a different angle.

But you would not want men logging on as women entering the Women's
Conference?  Nor would we want people to say they were therapists to
enter the THERAPIST echo.  That is all I mean.

WL>> In the end you will know *nothing* of the physical nature of 
your
WL>> pen pal

 ST> But the thing is, I DO know the (social) physical reality of the
 ST> three main protagonists on Psybernet!  Doest that make this
 ST> BBSing different from when I converse with somebody on Grand
 ST> Rounds or CIS, just because I've never laid eyes on them and I
 ST> have on you lot and cam easily draw a mental portrait of each of
 ST> you, capturing something of your essence as it strikes me?

I guess so, what do you think?  And perhaps that still a trait of not
yet fully being able to accept this medium and its potential, as a
form of living literature.

WL>> You will never really know who wrote this will you!

 ST> No, but ...

 ST> But I DO know you from your words, even if you're not the actual
 ST> same Walter Logeman who I was chatting with a week or two back.
 ST> You are the person who you are, whether you're under a false 
name
 ST> or playing dishonest or bending your gender or whatever other
 ST> trick you may get up to.  What you write is what you write.  And
 ST> if I reply, even if I am gravely misled as to your identity, my
 ST> words will strike the heart of who you REALLY are.

Yes, and that heart is in here in my BODY!  I can't help but end on
that note.

WL>> Or do I go on your twit list, and never light up your
WL>> phosphorescence again?

 ST> Aw shucks, no, why spoil the fun?

Thanks Sue.



Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (474)   Mon 17 Jan 94 22:56                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 aae1fdd1

WL>> These places attract misogynists

 ST> You're not kidding.  Why do you think that is?  Do you
 ST> understand that phenomenon?

I have a political analysis that just like Marx's, but where he has
'production' I put reproduction.  The relationship to the means of
reproduction are in a state of revolution, and the working class are
women.  Etc.  All a bit intellectual and from my head, and from
*years* of too much linear education, still, that *is* what I 
think, I
could expound for hours.

More from my heart and direct knowledge of men, including myself, I
think we are deeply afraid and threatened.  It is quite an art to 
feel
that & not take it out on women.

The first thing a man seems to say as the woman in his life shows a
glimmer of independence is 'How can she do this to me!'


 ST> I feel it has to do with creating boundaries where they are
 ST> needed, and not generating them for the hell of it, to oppress
 ST> people.  But we do have a right to protection.  I take this
 ST> stance about society as a whole, also - it stops me from being
 ST> an anarchist.


Yes i feel fine about the access arrangements we have, and yet i have
this urge .. .

WL>> Right now I'd like to find such a place ready made, any
WL>> know a good one?  Perhaps All I need to do is adopt a new name
WL>> and go for it somewhere, where that is OK.

 ST> I dare say you've looked at all those role playing game areas?
 ST> They'd be a bit youthful, wouldn't they?  What about that BBS
 ST> that is dedicated to weirdness of that kind - now what's it's
 ST> name?  Never Never Lande.  Probably not your cup of tea, 
although
 ST> I'm only guessing as I've never been on it.

I haven't been to these places.  Is it worth the look?


Till the nest message,


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:29 2000
Date: (504)   Sat 22 Jan 94 22:37                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

Hello Walter

ST> I AM MY BODY, FOR CHRISSAKE!!!

WL>Yes, I even replied to my own message along these lines!

I know, I did notice that, but I just wanted to shout that out loud.

WL>I feel dread when I hear adepts of the medium
WL>talk of their body as being irrelevant.

I wonder if people in that space don't in fact think their body is 
irrelevant in all aspects of their lives.  Did I relate the story 
about 
Steve and me being in the After Hours Surgery, and overhearing the 
man with 
the injured hand talking to the doctor about it as if it was a part 
of his 
motor car?  It seems to permeate large portions of the entire 
culture.

WL>There are some people
WL>who are excellent writers, who are more involved in this medium 
than
WL>the other reality.  They have a life here and none there.

Yes, I know some of them.  I have met a few face to face, and have 
read the 
writings of a great many others.

WL>Are we to judge that?

No, certainly not in the sense of being judgemental.  I would hope 
never to 
judge anybody too harshly for being so dysfunctional they can't 
find a real 
place in the world.  I mean to say, we're all like that in various 
respects, 
however secretly.  But in the sense of reaching a judgement, then I 
guess 
that's inevitable.

WL>I could become someone else, with a different body, 
*imaginatively*, a
WL>role reversal, I would experience the different body, if I 
became a
WL>woman I might 'experience' female organs and even menstruation.  
PMT
WL>even!  If that can be done, then it is the *imaginative* aspect of
WL>personality that really counts.

I guess we differ here, but I don't think you can.

WL>I would like to *do* this.

Why is that?  I suppose I have a particular dislike of this line of 
thinking 
because it smacks of yet another instance of a man taking women's 
reality 
away from them.

WL>Did you see the movie, My Dinner With Andre, a video in Alice's. 
 It
WL>on this theme.

No, and Steve has now sent his television set back, so there are no 
more 
videos!

WL>To go back to the other side of the fence a little, Sandy Stone, 
who I
WL>keep quoting from the article in MONDO Magazine, said that a man 
could
WL>never experience what it is like to be a woman.

Yes, that's the side I find myself on.

WL>He is a trans sexual, so he has certainly tried.

Yes.  From what I've read and heard (secondhand) about people who 
have tried 
in the same way, they never seem to achieve the capture of that 
elusive 
sense of *being* a woman, no matter how much it seems to them that 
they 
should have been one, or should be able to become one.

  Quote:

WL>               ...There are people who need surgery because that 
makes
WL>               them happy, and there is everything in between.
WL>               DD {Interviewer}: There are irreversible 
processes that
WL>               you can't get across, even if you make those 
physical
WL>               changes.

Yes, that seems right to me.

WL>               ARS (Sandy Stone): Yeah, how much oppression can 
you
WL>               learn?

Nice.  And anyway, why is it that men are queueing up to *become* 
women, 
whereas very few women feel the slightest desire to become a man?  
There is 
even very little cross-dressing in that latter direction.  So 
what's the 
great fascination with wanting to know what menstruation/PMS or 
whatever 
feels like?  I find this a curious phenomenon, and in many cases an 
alarming 
one.  It puts me in mind of the Playboy centrefold of an X-ray of a 
woman's 
uterus.

WL>My response to that has been along the lines that it is
WL>a product of the imagination of the ad men, (that is another 
issue I
WL>suppose)

Amen to that.  As a feminist, I can't resist rewriting that 
sentence to read 
- the imagination of the men.  I have a lot to say about this, but 
not here 
and now.

WL>But you would not want men logging on as women entering the 
Women's
WL>Conference?

Not at all, for obvious reasons.

WL>Nor would we want people to say they were therapists to
WL>enter the THERAPIST echo.  That is all I mean.

Yup, fair enough.  But it did bring those thoughts to mind.

 ST> But the thing is, I DO know the (social) physical reality of the
 ST> three main protagonists on Psybernet!  Doest that make this
 ST> BBSing different from when I converse with somebody on Grand
 ST> Rounds or CIS, just because I've never laid eyes on them and I
 ST> have on you lot and cam easily draw a mental portrait of each of
 ST> you, capturing something of your essence as it strikes me?

WL>I guess so, what do you think?

I think it does, but not automatically.  If I have met somebody 
face to face 
a number of times but have never really developed any rapport with 
them, 
then I would *know* them less well than some faceless individual on 
CIS with 
whom I had corresponded at depth for some period of time.  Of 
course, the 
CIS person could be pulling my leg about their gender, values, 
opinions or 
whatever, but then face to face acquaintances can do that (except 
for the 
gender part, by and large) with extreme efficiency.  I think a lot 
of being 
alive and in relationships has to do with trust - of oneself, as 
much as of 
others.

 ST> What you write is what you write.  And
 ST> if I reply, even if I am gravely misled as to your identity, my
 ST> words will strike the heart of who you REALLY are.

WL>Yes, and that heart is in here in my BODY!  I can't help but end 
on
WL>that note.

Well said!

Thanks for the ongoing intellectual and social stimulation!


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:29 2000
Date: (503)   Sat 22 Jan 94 22:37                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>Ha ha,  What stage of your cycle are you at Mildred?

Agnes, caught you out!  Asking questions like that won't convince 
us you 
are really a woman!

WL>that old question of gender.  But I kept thinking that the psyche
WL>*is* rooted in the body

But that could be taken to mean that gender is not all 
conditioned/learned after all, couldn't it?  I'm just looking at the 
possible inconsistency here.

WL>and that gender *is* related to such things as
WL>cycles

Even more interesting!  If you continue to maintain that gender is a 
social product, does that mean you think cycles - what a queer word 
for 
normal fluctuations in state of being! and why do they have to be 
cyclic 
anyway? to make them easier for men to retain control over? I 
personally 
specialise in being totally and wholeheartedly ERRATIC - are 
socially 
derived and not biological?  Again, just curious to know how what 
you 
think hangs together.

WL>and that male ones are more like 24 hr ones

Please elucidate!  Do you think this has a genuine biological 
basis?  And 
what is the pattern?  My close observations of the male type of 
person 
would seem to indicate a longer and more irregular periodicity than 
this.

WL>and women's more monthly.

Hmmm ... although I don't disagree per se, I always flinch when 
people 
come out with that line.  I tend to expect the age-old rubbish about 
women being dominated by their hormones, etc.  Quite apart from its 
rampant sexistness, it is just medical nonsense.

This brings to mind a very entertaining article I picked up at THAW 
about 
premenstrual syndrome.  PMS has always been defined (by men!) as 
the time 
of the month when women go dippy in the head.  The author of the 
article, 
coming at it from a feminist perspective, redefined it as the time 
when 
women are in a state where they can break down the strong 
conditioning 
that keeps them in the acquiescent, agreeable, cute and cuddly 
mould, and 
they are able to say exactly what they think about people and 
things - 
that is, all the dickheadedness and stupidity that drives you mad 
the 
rest of the month but you're too polite to say so.

WL>But what of my inner women?  Agnes, I think is menopausal.

How do you know?  What do you see as the symptoms of this?

Saw a great tagline recently - Women don't have hot flushes, they 
have 
power surges!

Great hearing you on an interesting subject!



Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:29 2000
Date: (534)   Fri 28 Jan 94 17:01                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 9338d144

ST> Hi Karl, oops, Walter

WL>> I have a political analysis that just like Marx's, but where 
he has
WL>> 'production' I put reproduction.

 ST> How come somebody else thought of that?

They are clever too <G>.  I got it from Rob Stevens a pol sci 
lecturer, who
got it from a feminist woman no doubt.  Shula smith?  Rowbottom??

WL>> The relationship to the means of
WL>> reproduction are in a state of revolution, and the working 
class are
WL>> women.  Etc.

 ST> Good stuff.  Do you mean specifically starting from when
 ST> artificial contraception became available, as is commonly meant?

I think women have always owned the means.  I haven't thought this 
through,
what do you think?

WL>> All a bit intellectual and from my head, and from
WL>> *years* of too much linear education,

 ST> Not at all, I don't think.  Linear education is OK if you learn
 ST> to use what it has to offer and can break through the barriers
 ST> it tries to impose.  I think the essence of it is valuable -
 ST> it's just the crap that goes with it, like when they tell you
 ST> what to wear, and all that junk.

Linear is poison.  Marxism picked up on something much older and 
wiser:
dialectics, quite mystical.  Perhaps the mode of thinking here is 
not from
the linear education but from my own dabbling in Marx.

WL>> More from my heart and direct knowledge of men, including 
myself, I
WL>> think we are deeply afraid and threatened.

 ST> I presume you mean of women here?  Since you admit to this -
 ST> assuming I'm correct - in yourself, can you tell me why you
 ST> feel that way?   What is it about us?  We're just people!

All that mystery, and the fear of a latent matriarchy, some sort of 
crazy
intuitive world of women.  I don't think it would be peaceful!  But 
men
would be somewhat irrelevant.  I lived in a commune for 3 years. The
marriages broke up, there was a woman's house and a men's house.  
The women
became strong, often paired off with other women.  All this because 
we
briefly and temporarily were able to move out of the dominant 
culture.

WL>> It is quite an art to feel that & not take it out on women.

 ST> Tell more about this.  Why should you take it out on women?

Well, a lot of men who saw this process, which i am still using as an
example of a larger phenomena, dismissed the women as having some 
sort of
problem, angry dykes.  Not the men from the commune so much.  I 
like the
process & for me it is still easy to think: *That* is a bit 
excessive! And
if
these women are actually more aware, free, informed, then it means 
change!
And we all resist it!  Transitions are stressful, and don't make 
for an easy
peaceful life with slippers and cups of tea.

WL>> The first thing a man seems to say as the woman in his life 
shows a
WL>> glimmer of independence is 'How can she do this to me!'

 ST> Hmmmm ... I ran that past a few women friends and they thought
 ST> it sounded accurate, from their experience.  I don't know that
 ST> it is from my own, though - the male person in whose life I am
 ST> the woman seems to allow it to be very readily because he
 ST> figures it is part of me and will make me happy and complete.
 ST> Actually, I think I'm a bit more inclined that way than he is!!!

Maybe he is more evolved!  I don't think I ever *said* it but i 
felt it, and
still have that place in me.  It was worst of course at the time my 
marriage
broke up.  That seemed like a crazy thing, not of my making.  But 
it was in
a dialectical <G> sort of way.
 See you soon

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:29 2000
Date: (512)   Sun 23 Jan 94 13:54                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter & Sue
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 22 January, 1994,
 Psybernet Conference, public.

  Hello Sue and Walter

WL>>> There is nothing to stop me entering the Cybernetic world using
WL>>> pseudonym and taking on any personality I like.

 ST>> I was interested greatly by a skirmish on FEMINISM a while back
 ST>> on this very issue - the use of pseudonyms....


WL>>> In cyberspace we ... not have bodies.

 ST>> But, but ... I'm in cyberspace right now, and I've got one.  
I do
 ST>> know what you're saying, but I just know I've got one, whatever
 ST>> space I'm in.  It's my body that's writing to you, and touching
 ST>> the keys, and hearing the children, and feeling tired and 
tense,
 ST>> and wondering when it needs a drink, and what time's bed.  
All of
 ST>> me is involved in the reality I am in right now.

 ST>> I AM MY BODY, FOR CHRISSAKE!!!

 ST>> But I DO know you from your words, even if you're not the 
actual
 ST>> same Walter Logeman who I was chatting with a week or two back.
 ST>> You are the person who you are, whether you're under a false 
name
 ST>> or playing dishonest or bending your gender or whatever other
 ST>> trick you may get up to.  What you write is what you write.  
And
 ST>> if I reply, even if I am gravely misled as to your identity, my
 ST>> words will strike the heart of who you REALLY are.

 WL> Yes, and that heart is in here in my BODY!  I can't help but
 WL> end on that note.

BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.  The last refuge of the literal ME.  'I am 
my body
for Chrissake! you said Sue. And, above 'the heart of who I really 
am is
the heart in my body'.  Which heart?  My romantic heart?. 
St.Augustin's
heart?  Harvey's pump? The hero's great-heartedness? Richard Coeur 
Lion?,
The heart of the matter? My tender-heartedness?. And which body?
Yesterdays body?  Tomorrows body? My dream body last night. The 
body of my
depression? My Astral body.
.
     (XX) Oh! don't be silly Stanley, you know which body I mean. 
You've
          only  got one. The one that is sitting at the typewriter 
right
          now.

     (SR) You you want to nail me down as to who I am?

     (XX) It guarantees that you are only one person and doesn't 
make me
               feel  so nervous.

     (SR) So you want me to identify with my body so YOU don't feel 
so
               nervous?

     (XX) Well, doesn't being anybody and everybody make YOU feel 
nervous
               Stanley?

     (SR)  Not so nervous as being stuck with one identity!

     (XX) Why are you so nervous about having only one identity, 
Stanley?  
               Didn't you hear Sue tell you that *pain* made her 
sure she  
               only had one body?

     (SR) I should know, I wrote about that recently.

     (xx) What did you write?

     (SR) Ah yes, here it is:

There is a necessity in the soul's pathology. Or, put more precisely,
there is a an inescapable pathology in each god; and, since we have 
our
being in psyche, there is no way we can escape being in the 
perspective of
one or another archetype, one or another pathology. The archetypes 
are the
metaphors for our fate, the essence of which is the sense of
inescapability; and it is here we come face to face with the gods, 
not in
a mystic awareness or as though we had a general admission ticket to
Olympus. We never experience an archetype in a thoughtful, 
reflective way,
as though  presenting itself for our understanding. Yes, we can 
*think*
about the archetypes, but that's not the way we experience them.

I experience them where I am nailed -  nailed to something absolutely
concrete and particular. The metaphor for this is place. The gods 
appear
in a place and they place us. Psychologically it is always a good 
question
to ask, 'where am I?', 'where am I at?' 'where am I located'. A good
question because the soul always locates you, it places you: in your
stomach, at school, arguing with your boss in his office, caged in a
dream, the fantasy of tomorrows meeting. There are as many places 
of the
soul as there are persons, each person a place. In ancient times 
and among
primitive people, a spirit, a nymph, a goddess was always located 
in a
definite place. This tree belonged to this particular spirit, this 
grove
to that nymph. And for us, what we euphemistically call out moods 
are, if
we look closely, quite definite places of the soul, each quite 
distinct,
each with its own characteristically felt domain.

The archetypes pin us in a location, bind us to a circumstance, 
say, in a
relationship. I am never pinned down by the problem of 
relationships *in
general*. It is always THIS particular person in exactly THIS 
circumstance
that nails me to necessity. It is where I am  gripped most 
personally that
I am most archetypal.  It is where I am most struck down, nailed to 
the
spot, powerless to escape, the ever returning problem that grips my
stomach, the nightmare that terrifies, the relationship I cannot 
wrench
free off, the self-abuse I must repeat, the haunting memories of
childhood, the overwhelming ecstasy of love-making, the obsession I 
cannot
shake off, the sudden love-affair that couples my heart, the moment 
of my
death. These moments, where my life is absolutely on the line, is 
where I
meet the gods and know that my life is in their hands. Even when I am
trapped in the spirit's fantasy of freedom - especially there, 
where I am
most ignorant of necessity - I am locked in my fate, the soul's 
pathology.

In this sense the archetype is anti-psychological because it 
resists being
seen through. It pins me to the particular. When I would move to 
the many
it traps me in the one, when I would see through it into the 
imagination,
it yields only an opaqueness that calls itself fact. It ties us to 
our
obsessions: to a single body, a single pain, a single 
interpretation. The
archetype nails us to our mortality. I am most certain that I have 
only
one body when there is no escape from physical pain. The gods 
fulfil their
ancient function of  reminding us of our mortality by pinning us to 
the
particular. And here the soul's connection with death is the way 
out: to
die to the singular is the price of admission to psyche.


                    Best,    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:29 2000
Date: (510)   Sun 23 Jan 94  1:31                         
From: FRAZER GREENWOOD
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 ST> Hello Agnes

Agnes ???????

WL>>Ha ha,  What stage of your cycle are you at Mildred?

Mildred ?????

Wo , I Think i logged on to the wrong BBS

Walter .. i think you need a bit of your Counselling ???? Maybe you 
could
give you a discount (Don't worry you'll get it)
Ŀ
Frazer Greenwood. 46:110/220. No Netmail, it won't reach Me !!! 


... It takes a wise man to recognize a wise man.   Xenophanes
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 1
 * Silver Xpress V4.00

--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:29 2000
Date: (505)   Sat 22 Jan 94 22:37                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>I have a political analysis that just like Marx's, but where he 
has
WL>'production' I put reproduction.

How come somebody else thought of that?

WL>The relationship to the means of
WL>reproduction are in a state of revolution, and the working class 
are
WL>women.  Etc.

Good stuff.  Do you mean specifically starting from when artificial 
contraception became available, as is commonly meant?

WL>All a bit intellectual and from my head, and from
WL>*years* of too much linear education,

Not at all, I don't think.  Linear education is OK if you learn to 
use what 
it has to offer and can break through the barriers it tries to 
impose.  I 
think the essence of it is valuable - it's just the crap that goes 
with it, 
like when they tell you what to wear, and all that junk.

WL>still, that *is* what I think, I
WL>could expound for hours.

Go for it, I'm all ears.

WL>More from my heart and direct knowledge of men, including 
myself, I
WL>think we are deeply afraid and threatened.

I presume you mean of women here?  Since you admit to this - 
assuming I'm 
correct - in yourself, can you tell me why you feel that way?   
What is it 
about us?  We're just people!

WL>It is quite an art to feel that & not take it out on women.

Tell more about this.  Why should you take it out on women?  I'm 
not being 
aggressive - I'm just curious to know, as it's not often I hear a 
male 
person talking about these things.

WL>The first thing a man seems to say as the woman in his life 
shows a
WL>glimmer of independence is 'How can she do this to me!'

Hmmmm ... I ran that past a few women friends and they thought it 
sounded 
accurate, from their experience.  I don't know that it is from my 
own, 
though - the male person in whose life I am the woman seems to 
allow it to 
be very readily because he figures it is part of me and will make 
me happy 
and complete.  Actually, I think I'm a bit more inclined that way 
than he 
is!!!

 ST> I dare say you've looked at all those role playing game areas?
 ST> They'd be a bit youthful, wouldn't they?  What about that BBS
 ST> that is dedicated to weirdness of that kind - now what's it's
 ST> name?  Never Never Lande.  Probably not your cup of tea, 
although
 ST> I'm only guessing as I've never been on it.

WL>I haven't been to these places.  Is it worth the look?

I can't honestly say I've been into them systematically, apart from 
a few 
Fido games areas, but knowing your interests I don't honestly think 
there'd 
be much there for you.  Is there something on CIS?

See you soon




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (537)   Fri 28 Jan 94 18:31                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 bd9a4dd2

WL>> Ha ha,  What stage of your cycle are you at Mildred?

 ST> Agnes, caught you out!  Asking questions like that won't
 ST> convince us you are really a woman!

It was not Agnes, definitely Walter!

WL>> that old question of gender.  But I kept thinking that the 
psyche
WL>> *is* rooted in the body

 ST> But that could be taken to mean that gender is not all
 ST> conditioned/learned after all, couldn't it?  I'm just looking
 ST> at the possible inconsistency here.

WL>> and that gender *is* related to such things as
WL>> cycles

 ST> Even more interesting!  If you continue to maintain that gender
 ST> is a social product, does that mean you think cycles - what a
 ST> queer word for normal fluctuations in state of being! and why
 ST> do they have to be cyclic anyway? to make them easier for men
 ST> to retain control over? I personally specialise in being
 ST> totally and wholeheartedly ERRATIC - are socially derived and
 ST> not biological?  Again, just curious to know how what you think
 ST> hangs together.

I could be showing traits of inconsistency Sue!  <G>

WL>> and that male ones are more like 24 hr ones

 ST> Please elucidate!  Do you think this has a genuine biological
 ST> basis?  And what is the pattern?  My close observations of the
 ST> male type of person would seem to indicate a longer and more
 ST> irregular periodicity than this.

WL>> and women's more monthly.

 ST> Hmmm ... although I don't disagree per se, I always flinch when
 ST> people come out with that line.  I tend to expect the age-old
 ST> rubbish about women being dominated by their hormones, etc.
 ST> Quite apart from its rampant sexistness, it is just medical
 ST> nonsense.

Ah, but there is something in it, something apart from the power 
and sexism.
Something that is exploited by the sexism, and that women are 
reclaiming
too, as an OK thing.

WL>> But what of my inner women?  Agnes, I think is menopausal.

Agnes has said nothing.  She does not like these conversations.  
But the
truth is that I did not even mean menopausal, she is much older 
than that,
post menopausal by a way.  I spoke if her irreverently and in jest, 
not
nice.

 ST> How do you know?  What do you see as the symptoms of this?

*That* is a mystery to me.


All for now,


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (536)   Fri 28 Jan 94 18:31                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f08a5774

 ST> No, certainly not in the sense of being judgemental.  I would
 ST> hope never to judge anybody too harshly for being so
 ST> dysfunctional they can't find a real place in the world.  I
 ST> mean to say, we're all like that in various respects, however
 ST> secretly.  But in the sense of reaching a judgement, then I
 ST> guess that's inevitable.

But what about a place in the imaginal world of text?  And all the 
more now
since it has become interactive and alive.

WL>> I could become someone else, with a different body, 
*imaginatively*, a
WL>> role reversal, I would experience the different body, if I 
became a
WL>> woman I might 'experience' female organs and even 
menstruation.  PMT
WL>> even!  If that can be done, then it is the *imaginative* 
aspect of
WL>> personality that really counts.

 ST> I guess we differ here, but I don't think you can.

WL>> I would like to *do* this.

 ST> Why is that?  I suppose I have a particular dislike of this
 ST> line of thinking because it smacks of yet another instance of a
 ST> man taking women's reality away from them.

I was thinking of all sorts of role reversals not just gender ones. 
 Taking
on other *bodies*, gender need not be a bigger part in that for me 
than
other aspects of personality or circumstance.  I an still on the 
track of
anonymity though.  Somehow it appeals to enter as another.  To make
cyberspace the psychodrama stage, referring back to Reg's 
descriptions of
role reversal, in another message.

 ST> So what's the great
 ST> fascination with wanting to know what menstruation/PMS or
 ST> whatever feels like?

I have a sense of the alters within me.  They are well hid, but 
they are
there and *they* have the last word.  I suppose they are the 
product of my
imagination, and their embryonic existence the product of my lack of
imagination.  If some of them are women, I expect that is little to 
do with
sexism, in me or the culture.  All this seems a bit deeper down 
than that!

Your next sentence is now a little out of context but it fits the new
context:

 ST> Amen to that.  As a feminist, I can't resist rewriting that
 ST> sentence to read - the imagination of the men.

I expect our imagination is contaminated, and not *real* 
imagination, I do
have a faith that there is a pure spring of the stuff, I trust 
dreams like
that, they are not out of *our* will, they come from far beyond any 
ego
control.  My male & female alters for all their coming to the 
surface with
some embarrassed talk of PMT etc, are quite beyond my input.  They 
could
easily take a dive back down as this is quite exposing.

The other thing is that they seem to exist *in my body*  or at 
least in *a*
body.  From my work with multiples I know they experience different 
bodies
in different alters.  They *look* different too.  There may be 
*one* body,
with its bones and flesh and mortality, but that body can *be* in 
different
ways and experience itself differently.

WL>> But you would not want men logging on as women entering the 
Women's
WL>> Conference?

 ST> Not at all, for obvious reasons.

WL>> Nor would we want people to say they were therapists to
WL>> enter the THERAPIST echo.  That is all I mean.

 ST> Yup, fair enough.  But it did bring those thoughts to mind.

Thus the ethical implications are very important in this sphere of 
anonymity
in cyberspace.  I am keen to learn where others have written on 
this, I am
sure they have.  Also mores are developed.  On CompuServe in 
certain forums
they allow handles but the name must indicate the true gender.  
Interesting.


 ST> Of course, the CIS person could
 ST> be pulling my leg about their gender, values, opinions or
 ST> whatever,

Could they though, their very attempts would be a revelation of 
themselves.
One of the things commonly said about role reversal in psychodrama 
is that
all the enactments are *you*.

 ST>> What you write is what you write.  And
 ST>> if I reply, even if I am gravely misled as to your identity, my
 ST>> words will strike the heart of who you REALLY are.

WL>> Yes, and that heart is in here in my BODY!  I can't help but 
end on
WL>> that note.

OK, it is in the heart of this Walterish chapp, writing here.  Some 
of the
alters feel different.  One is impatient with the discussion.  
Another does
not understand it at all!

How do I know that . . . somewhere in me . . . ?

See you


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (551)   Sat 29 Jan 94 13:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Frazer Greenwood
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 44cd22fc


 FG> Walter .. i think you need a bit of your Counselling ???? Maybe
 FG> you could give you a discount (Don't worry you'll get it)


Soon I'll be rich from counselling myself!


Await exciting new develpments.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (563)   Sat 29 Jan 94 22:51                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>They are clever too <G>.  I got it from Rob Stevens a pol sci 
lecturer, 
WL>got it from a feminist woman no doubt.  Shula smith?  Rowbottom??

Don't know them.  Or by the first do you mean Shulamith Firestone?  
And I do 
know Rob Stevens, or at least by sight and reputation.  My brother 
was a 
great admirer of his when he was doing his MA in the pols 
department.  After 
graduating he became a parliamentary research officer for the 
National 
Party.  His hair got shorter and shorter and now he's regional 
manager for 
the Auckland West region of Housing New Zealand, and an avowed 
fascist.

WL>> The relationship to the means of
WL>> reproduction 
WL>I think women have always owned the means.  I haven't thought 
this throu
WL>what do you think?

No, at this point of my thinking I don't think they have.  
Fertility has 
been the aspect of their lives that women have probably had the 
LEAST amount 
of control over, hence their many desperate and often terminal 
efforts to 
rid themselves of the inevitable product.  And, despite the advent 
of the 
Pill and the condom and god knows what-all, I think we still don't 
have full 
ownership, or anything approaching it.  Our sexuality is still far 
too 
enmeshed in male control mechanisms.

WL>Linear is poison.

Hmmmm.  I can see what you're saying, and I have respect for it.  
But ... 

Maybe I've had so much linear education myself that I can't let go 
of the 
idea that it has a certain amount of value if approached in a 
particular 
way.

WL>Marxism picked up on something much older and wiser:
WL>dialectics, quite mystical.

Ironically, anything I've known of Marx has come from the linear 
system.  
All I can really remember about dialectics is 
thesis/antithesis/synthesis.  
Is that right?  Or am I misremembering and thinking of Hegel?

As for the mystical, I suppose my own thought has been heavily 
influenced by 
the mysticism in the Western religious tradition.

WL>> More from my heart and direct knowledge of men, including 
myself, I
WL>> think we are deeply afraid and threatened.

 ST> I presume you mean of women here?  Since you admit to this -
 ST> assuming I'm correct - in yourself, can you tell me why you
 ST> feel that way?   What is it about us?  We're just people!

WL>All that mystery

Errr, what mystery?

WL>and the fear of a latent matriarchy

Ummmm, where?  It's not something I've actually ever heard women 
discuss, 
and I've mixed with some feminists.

WL>some sort of crazy intuitive world of women.

Ahhhhh, I'd be intrigued to find out where it is.  None of my mates 
inhabit 
it, and some of them are as wacky as you could wish for.

WL>I don't think it would be peaceful!

Could it be worse than this culture, with its track record of 
warfare and 
destruction?  Or do you think the world would turn into a seething 
cesspit 
of screeching harpies?

WL>But men
WL>would be somewhat irrelevant.

Apart from a few separatist lesbians, who says so?  Is that what 
men fear?  
Why?  Because they secretly believe they just might be?

WL>I lived in a commune for 3 years. The
WL>marriages broke up, there was a woman's house and a men's house. 
 The 
WL>women
WL>became strong, often paired off with other women.  All this 
because we
WL>briefly and temporarily were able to move out of the dominant 
culture.

I know this process.  I sometimes think life must have been so much 
easier 
back in them days when boys was boys and girls was girls, and all 
that shit. 
You just got on with cooking and making yourself look frilly and 
producing 
babies, and never thought to look for any more out of life or to 
scream out 
at injustice.  I have great respect for women who form lesbian 
relationships - I sometimes have serious doubts as to whether it is 
possible 
to have a fulfilling, healthy relationship with a man at this time 
in this 
culture - not so much because of men per se, but because the issues 
are so 
complex and painful.  We have been placed in the middle of a 
battlefield not 
of our own designing and told to build a relationship of love and 
trust.  
Bloody difficult with shells whining over our heads.

WL>> It is quite an art to feel that & not take it out on women.

 ST> Tell more about this.  Why should you take it out on women?

WL>Well, a lot of men who saw this process, which i am still using 
as an
WL>example of a larger phenomena, dismissed the women as having 
some sort o
WL>problem, angry dykes.

Did it ever occur to them to ask the women, or themselves, what 
they were 
angry about?  Or is anger in a woman *wrong* by definition?

WL>Not the men from the commune so much.  I like the
WL>process & for me it is still easy to think: *That* is a bit 
excessive!

Do you mean women's reactions and decisions, like those at the 
commune?

WL>if
WL>these women are actually more aware, free, informed, then it 
means chang
WL>And we all resist it!

Yeah, except when it's just intolerable to live in the cage any 
longer.  
Once I reached that point I couldn't prevent myself from moving 
ahead.

WL>Transitions are stressful, and don't make for an 
WL>peaceful life with slippers and cups of tea.

But who wants that?  And who gets to sit down while who else brings 
the 
slippers and tea?

WL>man seems to say as the woman in his life shows a
WL>> glimmer of independence is 'How can she do this to me!'

 ST> Hmmmm ... I ran that past a few women friends and they thought
 ST> it sounded accurate, from their experience.  I don't know that
 ST> it is from my own, though - the male person in whose life I am
 ST> the woman seems to allow it to be very readily because he
 ST> figures it is part of me and will make me happy and complete.
 ST> Actually, I think I'm a bit more inclined that way than he is!!!

WL>Maybe he is more evolved!

A higher form of life, huh?  Thanks.  He's just better at hiding 
his fears 
and insecurities than I am.

WL>I don't think I ever *said* it but i felt it,
WL>still have that place in me.

Perhaps you have some evolving to do.




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (552)   Sat 29 Jan 94 13:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d08db216

 ST>>> I was interested greatly by a skirmish on FEMINISM a while 
back
 ST>>> on this very issue - the use of pseudonyms....

BTW, Sue, do you have a record of that discussion, I never saw it.  
I'd be
very interested.

WL>>>> In cyberspace we ... not have bodies.


 WL>> Yes, and that heart is in here in my BODY!  I can't help but
 WL>> end on that note.

 SR> BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.  The last refuge of the literal ME.  'I
 SR> am my body for Chrissake! you said Sue. And, above 'the heart
 SR> of who I really am is the heart in my body'.  Which heart?  My
 SR> romantic heart?. St.Augustin's heart?  Harvey's pump? The
 SR> hero's great-heartedness? Richard Coeur Lion?, The heart of the
 SR> matter? My tender-heartedness?. And which body? Yesterdays
 SR> body?  Tomorrows body? My dream body last night. The body of my
 SR> depression? My Astral body. .

Ah! to figure *which* heart I access something, and while that 
something is
not only my body it is not something to DISSECT.  The experience of 
the
accessing is one psycho-physical-numinous-mundane simple little act.

 SR>      (XX) Oh! don't be silly Stanley, you know which body I
 SR>      mean. You've only  got one. The one that is sitting at the
 SR>      typewriter right now.

 SR>      (SR) You you want to nail me down as to who I am?

 SR>      (XX) It guarantees that you are only one person and
 SR>      doesn't make me feel  so nervous.

 SR>      (SR) So you want me to identify with my body so YOU don't
 SR>      feel so nervous?

 SR>      (XX) Well, doesn't being anybody and everybody make YOU
 SR>      feel nervous Stanley?

 SR>      (SR)  Not so nervous as being stuck with one identity!

 SR>      (XX) Why are you so nervous about having only one
 SR>      identity, Stanley? Didn't you hear Sue tell you that
 SR>      *pain* made her sure she only had one body?

 SR>      (SR) I should know, I wrote about that recently.

 SR>      (xx) What did you write?

 SR>      (SR) Ah yes, here it is:

 SR> There is a necessity in the soul's pathology. Or, put more
 SR> precisely, there is a an inescapable pathology in each god;
 SR> and, since we have our being in psyche, there is no way we can
 SR> escape being in the perspective of one or another archetype,
 SR> one or another pathology. The archetypes are the metaphors for
 SR> our fate, the essence of which is the sense of inescapability;
 SR> and it is here we come face to face with the gods, not in a
 SR> mystic awareness or as though we had a general admission ticket
 SR> to Olympus. We never experience an archetype in a thoughtful,
 SR> reflective way, as though  presenting itself for our
 SR> understanding. Yes, we can *think* about the archetypes, but
 SR> that's not the way we experience them.

Yes, I think <G> I am with you and not old XX on that Stanley.  I 
think that
is what I say above, a simple experience, are we on the same track 
here.  Is
this the resolution of this old mind matter difficulty that has 
reared its
ancient head here?

 SR> I experience them where I am nailed -  nailed to something
 SR> absolutely concrete and particular. The metaphor for this is
 SR> place. The gods appear in a place and they place us.
 SR> Psychologically it is always a good question to ask, 'where am
 SR> I?', 'where am I at?' 'where am I located'. A good question
 SR> because the soul always locates you, it places you: in your
 SR> stomach, at school, arguing with your boss in his office, caged
 SR> in a dream, the fantasy of tomorrows meeting. There are as many
 SR> places of the soul as there are persons, each person a place.

Yes and we have imported the metaphor of place into this electronic 
'space'
<G>, no getting away from it cyberspace, desktops, Staff Rooms, 
Mail Rooms,
I find myself wanting to light campfires, dim or brighten the 
light, open
the window in the meeting places here in digital text.

 SR> In ancient times and among primitive people, a spirit, a nymph,
 SR> a goddess was always located in a definite place. This tree
 SR> belonged to this particular spirit, this grove to that nymph.
 SR> And for us, what we euphemistically call out moods are, if we
 SR> look closely, quite definite places of the soul, each quite
 SR> distinct, each with its own characteristically felt domain.

What happens then is that here we co-create a 'mood' in our 
dialogue.  It
has a definite place if I look closely.  I see an old English 
panelled
ceiling to floor book filled library, but there is disturbance, the 
library
is a relic, not always respected by all, kids leave plastic toys 
lying
about, Reg rushes in and asks us all to come and look at the plans 
for an
extension to the house.  The cleaner has quit and is writing a novel.

When I see that place it is just ridiculous to think I am here at 
Mt Lyford
typing.  A sacrilege.

 SR> The archetypes pin us in a location, bind us to a circumstance,
 SR> say, in a relationship. I am never pinned down by the problem
 SR> of relationships *in general*. It is always THIS particular
 SR> person in exactly THIS circumstance that nails me to necessity.
 SR> It is where I am  gripped most personally that I am most
 SR> archetypal.  It is where I am most struck down, nailed to the
 SR> spot, powerless to escape, the ever returning problem that
 SR> grips my stomach, the nightmare that terrifies, the
 SR> relationship I cannot wrench free off, the self-abuse I must
 SR> repeat, the haunting memories of childhood, the overwhelming
 SR> ecstasy of love-making, the obsession I cannot shake off, the
 SR> sudden love-affair that couples my heart, the moment of my
 SR> death. These moments, where my life is absolutely on the line,
 SR> is where I meet the gods and know that my life is in their
 SR> hands. Even when I am trapped in the spirit's fantasy of
 SR> freedom - especially there, where I am most ignorant of
 SR> necessity - I am locked in my fate, the soul's pathology.

Yes, is that what Christians mean when they say Jesus is a *personal*
saviour?

 SR> In this sense the archetype is anti-psychological because it
 SR> resists being seen through. It pins me to the particular. When
 SR> I would move to the many it traps me in the one, when I would
 SR> see through it into the imagination, it yields only an
 SR> opaqueness that calls itself fact. It ties us to our
 SR> obsessions: to a single body, a single pain, a single
 SR> interpretation. The archetype nails us to our mortality. I am
 SR> most certain that I have only one body when there is no escape
 SR> from physical pain. The gods fulfil their ancient function of
 SR> reminding us of our mortality by pinning us to the particular.
 SR> And here the soul's connection with death is the way out: to
 SR> die to the singular is the price of admission to psyche.

Die to the singular, particular pain & experience, enter into it 
fully, see
his or her world, the place of the pain, and be in it utterly, fully,
completely and the RESPONSE will emerge.  One becomes two.  
Dialectics
again.

 SR>                     Best,    Stanley


And to you, my Psybernetic companion.


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (549)   Sat 29 Jan 94  2:25                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270 74c1f5fb
@REPLY: 3:770/270 741cd9f1


 WL>> I am still
 WL>> on the track of anonymity though.

 RS> Yes for some time actually, we have spoken of this before in
 RS> private quite a bit, but we dropped it.  Why is that I wonder?

 WL>> Somehow it appeals to enter as
 WL>> another. To make cyberspace the psychodrama stage, referring 
back to
 WL>> Reg's descriptions of role reversal, in another message.

 RS> Well err....  let me tell you a little secret Walter, more
 RS> recently I have also been on this track again too. I have been
 RS> thinking about how this could be achieved on Psybernet, both
 RS> technically and otherwise. What are the implications etc.?
 RS> Would having such a "stage" chase people away from the rest of
 RS> the board? Would it clash with the ethos we are creating? I
 RS> have also been doing a little more than just thinking.

 RS> Whilst you were away, I actually took the liberty of creating a
 RS> conference and logging on and writing messages back and forth
 RS> to myself using different alias's. At one part I even had it
 RS> open so people could log on and try it out, but I got cold feet
 RS> and upped the access level on it until I got a chance to talk
 RS> it through with you. I had it open for about 24 hrs and no body
 RS> (or should I say no soul or no one?) logged on in that time
 RS> (somewhat ironic I thought). I have sussed out quite a number
 RS> of possibilities which I am quite keen to experiment with
 RS> further.

Sounds fine to me, does that mean I can write in there using 
another name
and others would not know it was me?

 WL>> I expect our imagination is contaminated, and not *real* 
imagination,
 WL>> I do have a faith that there is a pure spring of the stuff, I 
trust
 WL>> dreams like that, they are not out of *our* will, they come 
from far
 WL>> beyond any ego control.

 RS> Here, here, yea right on Walter.

 WL>> They could easily take a dive back down as this is quite
 WL>> exposing.

 RS> Yes, there is something about all this that is very exposing, I
 RS> think one of the main reasons I upped the access and deleted
 RS> the messages I had been writing to myself in what I called "The
 RS> ALTERMATE Experience", was to do with this, aside from the fact
 RS> I had not talked it through, I figured people would easily
 RS> Identify my alters as being me and laugh or scoff at them. Much
 RS> the same as a new protagonist who enters the Psychodrama Stage
 RS> for the first time often feels, until they start to trust the
 RS> group, the director and the process itself.   Something to do
 RS> with warm-up I think.. <Big Cheesy Grin>

 WL>> Thus the ethical implications are very important in this 
sphere of
 WL>> anonymity in cyberspace.  I am keen to learn where others have
 WL>> written on this, I am sure they have.

 RS> There are some boards around that allow alias's, but they
 RS> somehow don't quite make the grade in my book. I hope this does
 RS> not sound too grandiose, but for something like this to work it
 RS> needs really good facilitation, by someone with adequate skills
 RS> in directing, production etc. That can really warm people up to
 RS> a high level of spontaneity... like me or you <G>

 RS> I think the biggest question that needs to be answered is:
 RS> should the protagonists have to identify themselves as who they
 RS> are before they actually enter the "stage" as they do in a
 RS> Psychodrama group? I personally don't think they should, which
 RS> is a change from my original thoughts on all this.

AH, I like it and feel excited and  . . . anxious.  One thing that 
I have
learnt from experience is that being a facilitator *and* a 
participant is no
good.  On this occasion I'd like to participate.  What do you think 
of the
dual role here?

 WL>> OK, it is in the heart of this Walterish chap, writing here. 
Some of
 WL>> the alters feel different.  One is impatient with the 
discussion.

 RS> Yes, I have that too, it is what prompted me to actually create
 RS> the ALTERMATE Experience, before that "The Alterworld".

 RS> Trouble is, there are so many more and they had one hell of an
 RS> argument about all this.

 RS> I am also thinking a lot about: What are the differences
 RS> between roles; (social, psychodramatic & psychosomatic); alter
 RS> egos; personalities and just for you Stanley in case you are
 RS> listening; archetypes?

Ah it doesn't matter.  I could log in as Socretes, A TREE, Marx 
Bros, Walter
Logeman, Agnes Hill, The Headmaster.

Is there a limit to the amount of aliases one can have (technically 
I mean)
(<G>).


I like the initiative Reg, lets do it.


Love


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:31 2000
Date: (583)   Mon 31 Jan 94  2:57                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 39f15bb7
@REPLY: 3:770/270 400ebe46

 RS> Hello Walter,

 RS>>> One
 RS>>> ****
 RS>>> If we have the access set at only 10 anyone can log on as an
 RS>>> alias and write to their hearts content.

 WL>> Presumably they could also log on under their own name and pick
 WL>> an alias.

 RS> Yes, RA allows several options, Real names only, Handles only,
 RS> or choose an alias, that is currently what it is set to.

 WL>> Ah, yes.  With the level of access I have it is an easy matter
 WL>> to pop into the messages after upload and use the '!' command
 WL>> to change the name, back to the alter.

 RS> Yes, but that is only available to sysops, besides which it
 RS> does not sound such a good system to me, imagine being asked to

 RS> Or have I got you wrong here, are you talking about putting !
 RS> marks around the word !ALL! like so or the RA option to change
 RS> a message attribute, because if so it is not actually ! it is *

I am speaking about the latter and ! gives you a list of options, 
that
is the one to use.  A Vienese Doctor might do that soon!

 WL>> There are other options
 WL>> too, a bit more complex.

 RS> Yes and I have just discovered that the SX reader has provision
 RS> for alias's too.

Yes, but don't forget that it is REGISTERED on the basis of names.
Agnes Hill for example uses SX, but her version is not registered.
Hector Santos will give me a code for her if I request it free of
charge.  But that is too much hassle too!

 WL>>  Can people readily change them?

 RS> Yep, on the change your config menu, that is if and when we
 RS> activate them.

 WL>>  Might be a useful adjunct for those of us who get
 WL>>  stuck in a mould and find transitions difficult.

 RS> Sorry, do you mean to have a handle or the ALTERMATE Experience?

I meant if I got stuck in an alter it may as well use a handle 
option.



 RS> Love & Regards
 RS>  Reg

 RS> Love & Regards
 RS>  Reg


Ah!  Love by macros!

Why not?


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:31 2000
Date: (568)   Sun 30 Jan 94  1:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 bbb9ccd6
@REPLY: 3:770/270 002538ea

 RS> Oops I think I just cut too much from the message, I hope you
 RS> can follow me. We are talking about The ALTERMATE Experience. I
 RS> take it that it is ok to be writing all this here in the
 RS> Psybernet Conference <G> I figure that others may be lurking
 RS> who have helpful suggestions. We could of course take all this
 RS> up in The ALTERMATE Experience.

Here is fine by me.

 WL>> does that mean I can write in there using
 WL>> another name and others would not know it was me?

 RS> Yes and No. <G>

 RS> There are three basic ways that I can see this working on a
 RS> technical level at this stage, or should I say point in time
<G>>.


 RS> One
 RS> ****
 RS> If we have the access set at only 10 anyone can log on as an
 RS> alias and write to their hearts content.

Presumably they could also log on under their own name and pick an
alias.

 RS> Two
 RS> ****
 RS> We could place a flag on The ALTERMATE Experience or a higher
 RS> security level, that would mean only validated users would have
 RS> access. They would log on under there usual name, but could
 RS> write in The ALTERMATE Experience as either themselves or be
 RS> prompted to choose an Alias on that occasion. The drawback of
 RS> this is that if there are few callers in a day they can easily
 RS> be identified in our various log files or even I think in
 RS> "Todays Callers" which everyone can see, from memory (mine, not
 RS> the computers) <G>

We could eliminate 'todays callers', that would take care of the 
worst
of it.  To have validated users only, seems to offer a bit more
protection, god knows from what, but it *feels* better to me.  But
why?  I like the change to having the Psybernet Conference available
but that is because it is to become an Echo.  Do you envisage The
ALTERMATE Experience being an echo?  All will become clear in time I
suppose, it seems to be doing that, all this was too confusing in the
days of 'The Theatre' etc.

 RS> There are also some idiosyncratic glitches involving SX from
 RS> what I can see with this method, I think the Spaniard wants
 RS> everyone to stay as they are.

Ah, yes.  With the level of access I have it is an easy matter to pop
into the messages after upload and use the '!' command to change the
name, back to the alter.  There are other options too, a bit more
complex.

 RS> Three
 RS> ******
 RS> We could of course just allow silly old handles, but then they
 RS> are restricted to one alter ego, which would be pretty boring
 RS> and not much better than 'real' life <G>

Would these handles be public knowledge?  Can people readily change
them?  Might be a useful adjunct for those of us who get stuck in a
mould and find transitions difficult.

 RS> No doubt there are many more options or combinations of the
 RS> above, perhaps this is enough for now.

 RS> Let me know what your preferences are and I will adjust the
 RS> setup accordingly. I do particularly need to know how
 RS> restrictive or unrestricted you think we should be. As I have
 RS> already said, I am more for the less restrictive options. We
 RS> can always tighten it, if there are problems.

Go for more of the less then, why not.  Have it available to new
users.  I could set up a sx for each alter, and buy a new hard disk.
<G>

 WL>> Is there a limit to the amount of aliases one can have
 WL>> (technically I mean) (<G>).

 RS> Not if we adopt the method whereby users log on as an alias. We
 RS> would just get a bigger user list. We can auto delete them if
 RS> they don't log in a prescribed time anyway.

 RS> Not if they just choose an alias in The ALTERMATE Experience.
 RS> After logging on as their usual self.

 RS> Yes, if we go the Handle way, not my recommendation. Too boring
 RS> and restrictive, as far as I know.


 WL>> I like the initiative Reg, lets do it.

 RS> It is all there waiting to be opened again with whatever
 RS> security system we decide on.

Yep why not.  See if we can enable the ! to change the name after an
off-line reader forces a true name.

See you soon,


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:31 2000
Date: (576)   Sun 30 Jan 94 19:54                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter, Sue & Reg
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


Hello Everyone

WL>>> I could become someone else, with a different body,
WL>>>*imaginatively*,a
WL>>> role reversal, I would experience the different body, if I 
became a
WL>>> woman I might 'experience' female organs and even 
menstruation.  PMT
WL>>> even!  If that can be done, then it is the *imaginative* 
aspect of
WL>>> personality that really counts.

Well said, Walter, I'm right with you!!!

 ST>> I guess we differ here, but I don't think you can.

     WL>>> I would like to *do* this.

 ST>> Why is that?  I suppose I have a particular dislike of this
 ST>> line of thinking because it smacks of yet another instance of a
 ST>> man taking women's reality away from them.

Dear Sue, with this line of thinking you wouldn't be losing your 
woman,
but gaining a man. If this line of thinking  would be good for the 
gander
it would also be good for the goose!!! And I don't mind you taking 
some
animus reality for your own use.

 WL> I was thinking of all sorts of role reversals not just gender
 WL> ones.  Taking on other *bodies*, gender need not be a bigger
 WL> part in that for me than other aspects of personality or
 WL> circumstance.  I an still on the track of anonymity though.
 WL> Somehow it appeals to enter as another.  To make cyberspace the
 WL> psychodrama stage, referring back to Reg's descriptions of role
 WL> reversal, in another message.

I think Reg's ideas on this are absolutely great. Now we are really
entering an imaginative realm. Interesting the way this whole 
discussion
about anonymity has taken off.  What is anonymity?  It isn't having 
NO
name, its not being tied down to one. And this means the release of 
all
'one's' other persons.. I really think psyberspace is the place 
where this
can fruitfully happen simply because we don't have to be tagged to 
one-
body identity.


 WL> I have a sense of the alters within me.  They are well hid, but
 WL> they are there and *they* have the last word.  I suppose they
 WL> are the product of my imagination, and their embryonic
 WL> existence the product of my lack of imagination.  If some of
 WL> them are women, I expect that is little to do with sexism, in
 WL> me or the culture.  All this seems a bit deeper down than that!

I'm exactly the same.
They have the last word, Walter, because they do not belong to me. 
Anyway,
who is the 'me' they do not belong to?  All one is saying is that 
all the
figures of the soul do not belong to one figure. The fact of their
embryonic existence is due to the 'me' who thinks he's the only one 
- the
God Complex - Old Big Mouth: Kronos himself who swallowed all his 
children
as they were born for fear they would usurp him. And they did have 
the
last word, didn't they, when Zeus made the Old Boy cough them all up.

 WL> I expect our imagination is contaminated, and not *real*
 WL> imagination, I do have a faith that there is a pure spring of
 WL> the stuff, I trust dreams like that, they are not out of *our*
 WL> will, they come from far beyond any ego control.  My male &
 WL> female alters for all their coming to the surface with some
 WL> embarrassed talk of PMT etc, are quite beyond my input.  They
 WL> could easily take a dive back down as this is quite exposing.

Oh! Lovely!  Your distinction beteen real and unreal imagination is 
like
Coleridge's, who distinguished between 'fancy' and 'imagination' 
Coleridge
was a great thinker as well as being a poet. Fancy, he said was 
conscious
daydreaming, wishfull thinking. Imagination was constituative of 
reality.
itself. Owen Barfield wrote a great book on Colerridge which fully
acknowledged him as one of the great thinkers of his time. Look him 
up on
your CD, Walter.

 WL> The other thing is that they seem to exist *in my body*  or at
 WL> least in *a* body.  From my work with multiples I know they
 WL> experience different bodies in different alters.  They *look*
 WL> different too.  There may be *one* body, with its bones and
 WL> flesh and mortality, but that body can *be* in different ways
 WL> and experience itself differently.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Of course! When we say 'they may look the same...' 
what we
are saying is they look the same to US - from the OUTSIDE.



 WL> Could they though, their very attempts would be a revelation of
 WL> themselves. One of the things commonly said about role reversal
 WL> in psychodrama is that all the enactments are *you*.

Better, all enactments are real.

 ST>>> What you write is what you write.  And
 ST>>> if I reply, even if I am gravely misled as to your identity, 
my
 ST>>> words will strike the heart of who you REALLY are.

Yes, and who I am when I write it is who I am. So you cannot really 
be
mislead as to anyone's identity.  Instead of saying 'This is John
pretenting to be Muriel', why don't we say, 'this is Muriel with a 
John
who thinks he is more real!'

                         Best   Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:31 2000
Date: (577)   Sun 30 Jan 94 19:54                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Reg,



 RS> Whilst you were away, I actually took the liberty of creating a
 RS> conference and logging on and writing messages back and forth
 RS> to myself using different alias's. At one part I even had it
 RS> open so people could log on and try it out, but I got cold feet
 RS> and upped the access level on it until I got a chance to talk
 RS> it through with you. I had it open for about 24 hrs and no body
 RS> (or should I say no soul or no one?) logged on in that time
 RS> (somewhat ironic I thought). I have sussed out quite a number
 RS> of possibilities which I am quite keen to experiment with
 RS> further.

Reg, you are a true innovator. I think your experiment is daring and
exciting. I know it opens up all kinds of ethical difficulties. The
technical problems are really dependant on what ethical stand we 
take. The
ethical difficulties boil down to this: is one allowed to be more 
than one
person. I think this question is at the very heart of psychology. The
question is as important as this: are we psyches or are we social 
units
that have to have an identity card. How we answer that on the BBS 
will
determine whether we exist for the soul or whether we serve the 
current
structure of society, as they would have said at another time: God or
Caesar?

 RS> Yes, there is something about all this that is very exposing, I
 RS> think one of the main reasons I upped the access and deleted
 RS> the messages I had been writing to myself in what I called "The
 RS> ALTERMATE Experience", was to do with this, aside from the fact
 RS> I had not talked it through, I figured people would easily
 RS> Identify my alters as being me and laugh or scoff at them. Much
 RS> the same as a new protagonist who enters the Psychodrama Stage
 RS> for the first time often feels, until they start to trust the
 RS> group, the director and the process itself.   Something to do
 RS> with warm-up I think.. <Big Cheesy Grin>

If you get around to more experiments on this I am keen. You know I 
love
playing roles.

 RS> I think the biggest question that needs to be answered is:
 RS> should the protagonists have to identify themselves as who they
 RS> are before they actually enter the "stage" as they do in a
 RS> Psychodrama group? I personally don't think they should, which
 RS> is a change from my original thoughts on all this.

My view is that people shouldn't have to identify themselves first.
If I want to speak as 'Charley the Slob' I have to *BE* Charley the 
Slob
not Stanley being Charley the Slob. I would want you to communicate 
to me
AS THAT!  And why shouldn't I live a whole life as Charley the Slob 
on the
BBS.  What the law?  Does it Hurt anyone?  Who knows how wonderful 
it many
be for me to have Charley come out of the closet - not just as a mere
role, but as a real person. To think that I am misleading anyone is 
to
adhere to an uptight restrictiveness that's got to have us all in 
neat
little boxes otherwise civilisation will collapse. And, having 
found that
I can live something like a life as Charley the Slob, maybe he will 
bring
to life others of me who are not so slobbish - who knows. The more 
the
merrier, I say!  There's no population problem here - the planet 
can stand
millions of us. That really would be THE ALTERMATE EXPERIENCE.


                    Congratulations

                                   Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:31 2000
Date: (578)   Sun 30 Jan 94 19:54                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter & Reg
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter & Reg



 WL>>> I am still
 WL>>> on the track of anonymity though.

 WL>>> Somehow it appeals to enter as
 WL>>> another. To make cyberspace the psychodrama stage,

I wonder if I were really sure that I was anonymous, that is, not
connected to Stanley the Nice Guy, I wonder if 'others' of me could 
really
let go? Stanley the Ripper, for instance, or Stanley the Demigod

 WL> Sounds fine to me, does that mean I can write in there using
 WL> another name and others would not know it was me?

OOoo!  OOoo!  you sound like you might if you were planning to have a
nosh-up in the dorm after lights-out.

  RS>> Trouble is, there are so many more and they had one hell of an
 RS>> argument about all this.

 RS>> I am also thinking a lot about: What are the differences
 RS>> between roles; (social, psychodramatic & psychosomatic); alter
 RS>> egos; personalities and just for you Stanley in case you are
 RS>> listening; archetypes?

 WL> Ah it doesn't matter.  I could log in as Socretes, A TREE, Marx
 WL> Bros, Walter Logeman, Agnes Hill, The Headmaster.

Oh Gosh, yes, Reg.  They'd probably all have a terrible argument 
about
your questions.  I can just imagine.

     You're just a role!
     No I'm not, I'm an archetype
     Go on, you bloody snob.
     You're just an fffing ego.
     I like that, look whose talking.
     You're just a figment of my imagination.
     Oh yeah, smarty-pants
     Just cause your a man you think your God
     I'm not a man, so there!
     Well, what are you then?
     I'm an archetype!
          And so on.

                              Best, Stanley


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:31 2000
Date: (579)   Sun 30 Jan 94 19:54                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 29 January, 1994,  WL> Mt Lyford
  Psybernet Conference, public.
  Hello   Walter


 SR>> BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.  The last refuge of the literal ME.  'I
 SR>> am my body for Chrissake! you said Sue. And, above 'the heart
 SR>> of who I really am is the heart in my body'.  Which heart?  My
 SR>> romantic heart?. St.Augustin's heart?  Harvey's pump? The
 SR>> hero's great-heartedness? Richard Coeur Lion?, The heart of the
 SR>> matter? My tender-heartedness?. And which body? Yesterdays
 SR>> body?  Tomorrows body? My dream body last night. The body of my
 SR>> depression? My Astral body. .

 WL> Ah! to figure *which* heart I access something, and while that
 WL> something is not only my body it is not something to DISSECT.
 WL> The experience of the accessing is one
 WL> psycho-physical-numinous-mundane simple little act.

Yes of course, not to figure *which* heart, but only to think of 
all the
possible hearts. Dissection is the last thing the heart can do with.
Doesn't the heart often present itself, though, as complex - as 
when my
heart is in a turmoil? Or a breaking Heart; should I come or should 
I go;
she loves me, she loves me not. Is your 
'psycho-physical-numinous-mundane
simple little act' a romantic heart?

                    'My Cybernetic Companion'
                                     warmed my simple heart anyway. 
       
                                             Thank you
                                                       Stanley

                         



--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (624)   Mon 7 Feb 94  4:59                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53484e8b
@REPLY: 3:770/270 e5bc6096

On 6 Feb 94 08:40pm, Reg Smith wrote to Walter Logeman:

 RS> ... Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
 RS> --- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 RS>  * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876+V42b
 RS> (3:770/270)

How did this old origin line get back in?, it is a real old one, it 
is too
big , ah never mind.


Just curious


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (612)   Sun 6 Feb 94  0:16                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 52f2d458
@REPLY: 3:770/270 1a5f5242

 > Yes, he has since done that, but he did it with an * not an
 > !, the ! is to
 > do with Kludges whatever they are?

How come it worked for me then, I'm going back to see what I did!  
I'll let you know.


This message has a purpose other than the above communication.

Testing the polling.


Walter.





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (627)   Mon 7 Feb 94 10:58                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c4a10684
@REPLY: 3:770/270 53484e8b


Reg is replying to Walter who replied to Reg on 7 Feb 94 04:59am


 RS>> ... Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
 RS>> --- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 RS>> * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876+V42b
 RS>> (3:770/270)

 WL> How did this old origin line get back in?, it is a real old
 WL> one, it is too big , ah never mind.

Not sure, it may be something in the RA config or FD setup, or Silver
express or Xmail or .......... <G> I will have a look sometime and 
see
what I can come up with. It may even be from an old message in a SX 
packet
or something like that.

 WL> Just curious

Me too, let me know if you find out before me whare it is coming 
from.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Living well is the best revenge!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (617)   Sun 6 Feb 94 17:49                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5ecc592b
@REPLY: 3:770/270.1 2d5449d8

 >>> Yes, he has since done that, but he did it with an * not an
 >>> !, the ! is to
 >>> do with Kludges whatever they are?

 WL>> How come it worked for me then, I'm going back to see what I
 WL>> did!  I'll
 WL>> let you know.

 RS> I don't think it did <G>


Do you know what this is:

!!

That is me blown over and they are the soles of my feet!

You are right!  How silly of me.


 WL>> This message has a purpose other than the above communication.

 WL>> Testing the polling.

 RS> Well that purpose was achieved, ie I received this message when
 RS> I polled. I am just hoping all the other stuff comes through.

Yes, is it a security problem?

OR is it a message pointer problem.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (586)   Mon 31 Jan 94  2:57                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 08ff7bd9

 WL>> I expect our imagination is contaminated, and not *real*
 WL>> imagination, I do have a faith that there is a pure spring of
 WL>> the stuff, I trust dreams like that, they are not out of *our*
 WL>> will, they come from far beyond any ego control.  My male &
 WL>> female alters for all their coming to the surface with some
 WL>> embarrassed talk of PMT etc, are quite beyond my input.  They
 WL>> could easily take a dive back down as this is quite exposing.

 SR> Oh! Lovely!  Your distinction between real and unreal
 SR> imagination is like Coleridge's, who distinguished between
 SR> 'fancy' and 'imagination' Coleridge was a great thinker as well
 SR> as being a poet. Fancy, he said was conscious daydreaming,
 SR> wishful thinking. Imagination was constitutive of reality.
 SR> itself. Owen Barfield wrote a great book on Coleridge which
 SR> fully acknowledged him as one of the great thinkers of his
 SR> time. Look him up on your CD, Walter.

I like that Coleridge!  Has some good ideas. <G>

Here are some pickings off my CD:

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------
Samuel Taylor Coleridge  1772-1834


The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from
the order of time and space.

 Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 13




The imagination that reconciling and mediatory power, which
incorporating the reason in images of the sense and organizing (as it
were) the flux of the senses by the permanence and self-circling
energies of the reason, gives birth to a system of symbols, 
harmonious
in themselves, and consubstantial with the truths of which they are
the conductors.

 The Statesman's Manual [1816]




The secondary imagination dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, in order 
to
re-create; or where this process is rendered impossible, yet still at
all events it struggles to idealize and to unify. It is essentially
vital, even as all objects (as objects) are essentially fixed and
dead.

 Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 13


The poet, described in ideal perfection, brings the whole soul of man
into activity, with the subordination of its faculties to each other,
according to their relative worth and dignity. He diffuses a tone and
spirit of unity, that blends, and (as it were) fuses, each into each,
by that synthetic and magical power imagination.

 Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 14




[Imagination] reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of
opposite or discordant qualities: of sameness, with difference; of 
the
general, with the concrete; the idea, with the image; the individual,
with the representative; the sense of novelty and freshness, with old
and familiar objects; a more than usual state of emotion, with more
than usual order; judgment ever awake and steady self-possession, 
with
enthusiasm and feeling profound or vehement; and while it blends and
harmonizes the natural and the artificial, still subordinates art to
nature; the manner to the matter; and our admiration of the poet to
our sympathy with the poetry.

 Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 14

Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is licensed from Little, Brown and
Company, Inc.  Copyright 1882, 1891 by John Bartlett.  Copyright 
1910,
1914, 1919, 1942, by Anna Sprague DeWolf and Louisa Bartlett
Donaldson.  Copyright 1937, 1948, (c) 1955, 1965, 1968, 1980 by Little,
Brown and Company, Inc.  All rights reserved.

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------


 SR> 'This is John pretending to be Muriel', why don't we say, 'this
 SR> is Muriel with a John who thinks he is more real!'

So we'd have to keep Muriel out of the Women's Conference, and have
John in?

Actually the ethics are simple really.  You have real name only 
areas,
real gender only areas, and we all know what those two things are
99.99% of the time.  We don't need to speak of the exceptions till
they arise, and then they are usually easily sorted out *in 
practice*.

The ethical stand is not to go where you have no access.

Even in Love & War?

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (584)   Mon 31 Jan 94  2:57                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 96212f4a

 SR> I wonder if I were really sure that I was anonymous, that is,
 SR> not connected to Stanley the Nice Guy, I wonder if 'others' of
 SR> me could really let go? Stanley the Ripper, for instance, or
 SR> Stanley the Demigod

 WL>> Sounds fine to me, does that mean I can write in there using
 WL>> another name and others would not know it was me?

 SR> OOoo!  OOoo!  you sound like you might if you were planning to
 SR> have a nosh-up in the dorm after lights-out.

Yes we'll have lots of virtual food! Virtual grapes, virtual 
chocolate
fish.

 SR> Oh Gosh, yes, Reg.  They'd probably all have a terrible
 SR> argument about your questions.  I can just imagine.

 SR>      You're just a role!
 SR>      No I'm not, I'm an archetype
 SR>      Go on, you bloody snob.
 SR>      You're just an fffing ego.
 SR>      I like that, look whose talking.
 SR>      You're just a figment of my imagination.
 SR>      Oh yeah, smarty-pants
 SR>      Just cause your a man you think your God
 SR>      I'm not a man, so there!
 SR>      Well, what are you then?
 SR>      I'm an archetype!
 SR>           And so on.



That is so funny!


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (585)   Mon 31 Jan 94  2:57                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 75ecf3f9

Hi Stanley,

 SR> Is your 'psycho-physical-numinous-mundane simple 
 SR> little act' a romantic heart? 

 SR>                     'My Cybernetic Companion'
 SR>                                      warmed my simple heart 
 SR>                                      anyway. Thank you
 SR>                                                        Stanley

No it was a simple heart too at the time.  Right now it is too, 
<smile>.


See you soon,


Walter.

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:33 2000
Date: (658)   Thu 10 Feb 94  1:22                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ad0ba0ab

Reg is replying to Stanley who replied to Reg on 9 Feb 94 08:53pm

Hello Stanley,


 RS>> Ah, now that is slightly different to be Charlie in all areas,
 RS>> the possibility of harm is actually there, it is to do with
 RS>> breech of trust, truth and deception etc. How would someone who
 RS>> for instance that had experienced a lot of betrayal in their
 RS>> life react when they discovered that their Psybernet Consultant
 RS>> or an important group member was not Charlie at all but someone
 RS>> else. The ALTERMATE Experience is quite different because we
 RS>> are saying that some of the people there are not using the same
 RS>> name they use elsewhere. There is no deliberate trickery, or
 RS>> deception involved, no ulterior motive or anything like that.
 RS>> You enter at your own risk so to speak.

 SR> I get your point. The experiment is limited to the ALTERMATE
 SR> CONFERENCE. I really was not thinking of the whole thing in
 SR> terms of the other conferences. I sort of took that for granted

Ah right, sorry if I took you up the wrong way, I think my reply was
perhaps also an attempt to reassure others that we take all these 
matters
seriously enough to create safe place and spaces, (well we do our 
best).


 RS>> Well it was something like that, sounded good anyway. <G>

 SR>  It was probably the 'Alchemist's Retort'.

Ah yes, a retort is a more closed than a crucible, thinking back to 
my
high school chemistry days. How interesting, I set out to become an
industrial chemist and ended up among other things a psychotherapist.

 SR>  In another sense,
 SR>  you see, the whole BBS thing is a kind of a retort isn't it?
 SR>  There are boundaries and limitations set by the very nature of
 SR>  the medium.

Yes and to stay with that metaphor the ALTERWORLD is the crucible 
and the
other areas are retorts or perhaps the whole BBS is the retort.

HEY SHIT! this is really interesting, remember way back then to the 
first
messages in this echo when there was an active thread called:

"The Right Metaphor"  perhaps we are getting closer to naming it.

 SR>  Are we afraid of things getting out of hand?

No not really, just a question of finding the right balance, Walter 
is a
good influence on me like that, a few slivers of his liberalism do 
fall
onto me from time to time. <G>

 SR>  your imagined situations of betrayal and the legal problems of
 SR>  libel are perhaps rushing ahead a little ?. Odious 
anticipations
 SR>  bred of a feverishly creative mind  ?

I am probably more sensitive to the betrayal aspect than anything 
else,
but yes I do sometimes over allow for contingencies.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... As long as I live, I shall be, myself, no other, just me.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:33 2000
Date: (629)   Mon 7 Feb 94 23:38                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 8f6c363e
@REPLY: 3:770/270 c4a10684

 RS>  * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics
 RS>  +64-3-365-6876+V42b (3:770/270)


I think it is the SX Door, it should respect echos that have an 
origin set
and only add this default ome if there is no other.  I'll check & 
confirm
this when I am next in Xpadm.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:33 2000
Date: (651)   Wed 9 Feb 94 20:53                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

8 Feb 94

Dear Reg,


 SR>> Now we are
 SR>> really entering an imaginative realm. Interesting the way this
 SR>> whole discussion about anonymity has taken off.

 RS> Yes.

 SR>> What is anonymity?  It isn't having NO name, its not being 
tied down
 SR>> to one.

 RS> According to my dictionary it is, it comes from the Greek
 RS> 'anonumos' meaning nameless, but you are right also Stanley in
 RS> the sense that we have been talking about it here.


SR>> And this means the release of all 'one's' other persons..

 RS> Mmmmm...  back to my old question again, (see other message)
 RS> are they really other *persons*? I ask myself this a lot.
 RS> Walter says don't worry about it, but the distinction does seem
 RS> important to me. Certainly in The ALTERMATE Experience the
 RS> distinction is not important, but on a theoretical level it is.

     I think it is important to us because of our nervousness of 
giving
too much power and autonomy to the alters\persons\roles within. To 
regard
them as persons in their own right is to give them what they claim. 
They
have all the characteristics of 'persons': they demand to be heard, 
they
demand their rights, they are born and they die, they keep secrets 
from
each other, they love and hate each other, they each have a different
memory or version of the past, they quarrel with each other and the 
fight
for dominance, they are honest or they deceive each other, they have
different goals and ambitions, different sources of pleasure and 
pain.
     The one who is worried about all this is the one who wants to 
stay
king.  The idea that there is one real or basic personality to 
which the
others are sub-or introjected characters is a piece of theoretical 
bigotry
invented by the King or God archetype.


 SR>> I really think psyberspace is the place where this can
 SR>> fruitfully happen simply because we don't have to be tagged to
 SR>> one-body identity.

 RS> No, we don't *have* to be, but there are many people who argue
 RS> that we should. What are your arguments, people out there, as
 RS> to why we should? I want to know so that I can convince myself
 RS> more fully about all this...... <G>

I can't give  you any arguments as to why we should have one 
body-tagged
identity except social and legal one's. Psychologically, I can't 
think of
one damn reason why. Except that multiplicity seems to frighten 
people.

 WL>>> I have a sense of the alters within me.  They are well hid, 
but
 WL>>> they are there and *they* have the last word.

Yes, indeed, because they run one's life.  Listen to that though!!!!.
They run *whose* life ???   Who is it who thinks his life is run by 
       
     them?  What we call egotism is this one who considers himself IT



                              Best
                                                                    
       
                                   Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:33 2000
Date: (650)   Wed 9 Feb 94 20:53                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


Hi Walter


 WL> I like that Coleridge!  Has some good ideas. <G>

 WL> Here are some pickings off my CD:

 WL> ------------------%------------quote-----------------%----------
 WL> ---- Samuel Taylor Coleridge  1772-1834


 WL> The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated
 WL> from the order of time and space.

 WL>  Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 13


 WL> The imagination that reconciling and mediatory power, which
 WL> incorporating the reason in images of the sense and organizing
 WL> (as it were) the flux of the senses by the permanence and
 WL> self-circling energies of the reason, gives birth to a system
 WL> of symbols, harmonious in themselves, and consubstantial with
 WL> the truths of which they are the conductors.

 WL>  The Statesman's Manual [1816]


 WL> The secondary imagination dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, in
 WL> order to re-create; or where this process is rendered
 WL> impossible, yet still at all events it struggles to idealize
 WL> and to unify. It is essentially vital, even as all objects (as
 WL> objects) are essentially fixed and dead.

 WL>  Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 13


 WL> The poet, described in ideal perfection, brings the whole soul
 WL> of man into activity, with the subordination of its faculties
 WL> to each other, according to their relative worth and dignity.
 WL> He diffuses a tone and spirit of unity, that blends, and (as it
 WL> were) fuses, each into each, by that synthetic and magical
 WL> power imagination.

 WL>  Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 14


 WL> [Imagination] reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of
 WL> opposite or discordant qualities: of sameness, with difference;
 WL> of the general, with the concrete; the idea, with the image;
 WL> the individual, with the representative; the sense of novelty
 WL> and freshness, with old and familiar objects; a more than usual
 WL> state of emotion, with more than usual order; judgment ever
 WL> awake and steady self-possession, with enthusiasm and feeling
 WL> profound or vehement; and while it blends and harmonizes the
 WL> natural and the artificial, still subordinates art to nature;
 WL> the manner to the matter; and our admiration of the poet to our
 WL> sympathy with the poetry.

 WL>  Biographia Literaria [1817], ch. 14

 WL> Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is licensed from Little, Brown
 WL> and Company, Inc.  Copyright 1882, 1891 by John Bartlett.
 WL> Copyright 1910, 1914, 1919, 1942, by Anna Sprague DeWolf and
 WL> Louisa Bartlett Donaldson.  Copyright 1937, 1948, (c) 1955, 1965,
 WL> 1968, 1980 by Little, Brown and Company, Inc.  All rights
 WL> reserved.

 WL> ------------------%---------end
 WL> quote----------------%--------------

  YOU UTTERLY OVERWHELM ME WITH  YOUR LITERARY PERSPICACITY  AND    
       
                    SCHOLARLY RESOURCEFULNESS

 SR>> Instead of saying
 SR>> 'This is John pretending to be Muriel', why don't we say, 'this
 SR>> is Muriel with a John who thinks he is more real!'

 WL> So we'd have to keep Muriel out of the Women's Conference, and
 WL> have John in?

Now there is a point. I think it might be advisable to keep John 
out of
everything. He sounds as though he is really up himself - well - up 
Muriel
anyway!   I think if I were  Muriel with an alter-ego like John who
thought he was more real than I was...what I'd do is play along 
with him,
let him dress up as a man, take him along to a men's group and lose 
him.


 WL> Actually the ethics are simple really.  You have real name only
 WL> areas, real gender only areas, and we all know what those two
 WL> things are 99.99% of the time.  We don't need to speak of the
 WL> exceptions till they arise, and then they are usually easily
 WL> sorted out *in practice*.

Yes, I really think sort things out in practice.  Most of the
contingencies one prepares for in these kinds of things never 
happen. The
one's that actually happen are quite unforseen.

                    Best    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:33 2000
Date: (648)   Wed 9 Feb 94 20:53                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 8 Feb 94

  Hello Reg


 SR>> I wonder if I were really sure that I was anonymous, that is,
 SR>> not connected to Stanley the Nice Guy, I wonder if 'others' of
 SR>> me could really let go? Stanley the Ripper, for instance, or
 SR>> Stanley the Demigod

 RS> I think it depends on what you mean by 'really let go' Stanley.
 RS> I don't know whether you have ever been a protagonist in a
 RS> classical Psychodrama, if you have, please forgive me if I
 RS> sound as if I am talking down to you.
No Reg, I never have.
 RS>In such a situation and
 RS> with the right sort of warm-up it is definitely possible to
 RS> 'really let go' by my definition, ie to warm up to being
 RS> someone else in a very full on manner. That is why it is
 RS> important that the director is well trained. The enactment is
 RS> of course controlled to some degree through role reversal etc.
 RS> and so it should, otherwise it could be dangerous. So I don't
 RS> think total anonymity is actually required.
I suppose I have the fantasy that the anonymity of the BBS might  
allow me
to let go in a way I might not be able to with others present. But 
I can
see what you mean that with sufficient warm-up one would go further 
than
one imagines. You guys talk so much about warm-ups. It must be a very
important part of your whole procedure.
 RS>I might also add
 RS> that I don't think it is possible to warm up to the same degree
 RS> via this medium, I would not be experimenting with The
 RS> ALTERMATE Experience if I believed it was.
If not warm-up getting one into it on the BBS, what would - 
anonymity?
Sort of easing one's way into it rather than being blown into it by 
heat?


                    Best    Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:33 2000
Date: (642)   Tue 8 Feb 94 10:17                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: ANONYMITY
St: Rcvd
@MSGID: 3:770/270.1 2d57674d
@REPLY: 3:770/270 8f6c363e
@TID: xMail 1.00 noreg
@EID: cef6 c491f201

07 Feb 94 23:38, Walter Logeman wrote to Reg Smith:

 WL> I think it is the SX Door, it should respect echos that have 
an origin set
 WL> and only add this default ome if there is no other.  I'll 
check & confirm
 WL> this when I am next in Xpadm.

OK, I'll see you round, or square, or triangle, or whatever shape 
you prefer,
can't have shape discrimination now can we? <G>

Reg

--- xMail 1.00
 * Origin: Reg's, Christchurch N.Z.  (3:770/270.1)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:33 2000
Date: (649)   Wed 9 Feb 94 20:53                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 8 Feb 94


  Hello Reg




 SR>> If I want to speak as 'Charley the Slob' I have to *BE*
 SR>> Charley the Slob not Stanley being Charley the Slob. I would
 SR>> want you to communicate to me AS THAT!

 RS> And I most certainly would.

 SR>> And why shouldn't I
 SR>> live a whole life as Charley the Slob on the BBS.  What the
 SR>> law?  Does it Hurt anyone?

 RS> Ah, now that is slightly different to be Charlie in all areas,
 RS> the possibility of harm is actually there, it is to do with
 RS> breech of trust, truth and deception etc. How would someone who
 RS> for instance that had experienced a lot of betrayal in their
 RS> life react when they discovered that their Psybernet Consultant
 RS> or an important group member was not Charlie at all but someone
 RS> else. The ALTERMATE Experience is quite different because we
 RS> are saying that some of the people there are not using the same
 RS> name they use elsewhere. There is no deliberate trickery, or
 RS> deception involved, no ulterior motive or anything like that.
 RS> You enter at your own risk so to speak.

I get your point. The experiment is limited to the ALTERMATE 
CONFERENCE.
I really was not thinking of the whole thing in terms of the other
conferences. I sort of took that for granted


 SR>> Who knows how wonderful it may be
 SR>> for me to have Charley come out of the closet - not just as a
 SR>> mere role, but as a real person.

 RS> It might be wonderful for you, but destructive to another (see
 RS> above)

I did mean come out of the closet as a real other person in the 
Altermate
Conference. I can quite see why you couldn't extend the idea to the 
other
conferences.


 SR>> And, having found that I can live something like a
 SR>> life as Charley the Slob, maybe he will bring to life others of
 SR>> me who are not so slobbish - who knows. The more the merrier, I
 SR>> say!  There's no population problem here - the planet can stand
 SR>> millions of us. That really would be THE ALTERMATE EXPERIENCE.

 RS> The principles are fine Stanley, but as Walter put it somewhere
 RS> else:

 RS> 'The alchemist must have some type of crucible'.

 RS> Well it was something like that, sounded good anyway. <G>

 It was probably the 'Alchemist's Retort'. In another sense, you 
see, the
whole BBS thing is a kind of a retort isn't it? There are 
boundaries and
limitations set by the very nature of the medium.  Are we afraid of 
things
getting out of hand? Your imagined situations of betrayal and the 
legal
problems of libel are perhaps rushing ahead a little ?.   Odious
anticipations bred of a feverishly creative mind  ?


                    Best    Stanley.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (694)   Sat 12 Feb 94 23:20                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 ST>>> I was interested greatly by a skirmish on FEMINISM a while 
back
 ST>>> on this very issue - the use of pseudonyms....

WL>BTW, Sue, do you have a record of that discussion, I never saw 
it.  I'd 
WL>very interested.

Certainly not on my PC, sorry.  I get so overwhelmed with 
messages that I keep them turning over pretty ruthlessly - seems 
to suit the ephemeral nature of the communication, as well.  I 
could check back on Prompt/2, but somehow I doubt it'll be 
included in the last 50ish messages to arrive there, it being 
some time ago that the debate was going on.  And that feed is 
still as dead as a doornail, need I add.




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (665)   Thu 10 Feb 94 19:53                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 062b7467
@REPLY: 3:770/270 280e6b78

Hi Reg & Stanley,

I am enjoying hanging about while you two do all the work!



 RS>           "It is all in the warm-up".

 SR>> If not warm-up getting one into it on the BBS, what would -
 SR>> anonymity? Sort of easing one's way into it rather than being
 SR>> blown into it by heat?

 RS> I can't follow this last bit too well, but I get the drift, I
 RS> think:

 RS> An alias in the ALTERWORLD is a good place to start writing
 RS> messages if you are shy, even more so if you want to explore
 RS> what it is like to write messages as someone or something else,
 RS> to enact their roles etc.

I think it is still 'warm-up'.  I think it is possible to be as 
warmed up
in cyberspace as on the psychodrama stage.  Think of all writers, 
working
away in the alter worlds they create, think of the fire!  Karl Marx 
in the
British Museum, boils on his bum, writing vitriolic abuse about
capitalists.  Nietzche, foaming at the mouth, and in modern times, 
Michael
Crighton inventing dinosaur parks and even more recently venting 
his anti-
social perspectives in a novel.


However, although I use the term 'warm-up' a lot, it is the notion 
of pre-
existing dynamics that I like.  What would happen if we used other
metaphors:

FiSubject:         warm-up
Air:          inspired, blowing up, storming, 'in the air'
Water:        flow, bubbling, waves,
Earth:        'A good tree cannot produce bad fruit'  (Quoting one of
              Reg's tag lines)  fertile, well tilled, ripe, on the 
map.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (661)   Thu 10 Feb 94  1:22                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 280e6b78

Reg is replying to Stanley who replied to Reg on 9 Feb 94 08:53pm


 SR> I suppose I have the fantasy that the anonymity of the BBS
 SR> might  allow me to let go in a way I might not be able to with
 SR> others present.

Tis not a fantasy Stanley, that be a vision of what can be, (see 
you in
the ALTERWORLD.)


 SR> But I can see what you mean that with
 SR> sufficient warm-up one would go further than one imagines.

Not so likely on a BBS as when we meet in the flesh, but then again 
I am
becoming a little better at writing.

 SR> You guys talk so much about warm-ups. It must be a very 
important
 SR> part of your whole procedure.

Yes, we have a little saying that has become a bit of a cliche:

          "It is all in the warm-up".

 SR> If not warm-up getting one into it on the BBS, what would -
 SR> anonymity? Sort of easing one's way into it rather than being
 SR> blown into it by heat?

I can't follow this last bit too well, but I get the drift, I think:

An alias in the ALTERWORLD is a good place to start writing 
messages if
you are shy, even more so if you want to explore what it is like to 
write
messages as someone or something else, to enact their roles etc.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... An optimist is a guy without much experience...
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (660)   Thu 10 Feb 94  1:22                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 214900c1

Reg is replying to Stanley who replied to Reg on 9 Feb 94 08:53pm


Hello Stanley,

SR>>> And this means the release of all 'one's' other persons..

 RS>> Mmmmm...  back to my old question again, (see other message)
 RS>> are they really other *persons*? I ask myself this a lot.
 RS>> Walter says don't worry about it, but the distinction does seem
 RS>> important to me. Certainly in The ALTERMATE Experience the
 RS>> distinction is not important, but on a theoretical level it is.

 SR>      I think it is important to us because of our nervousness
 SR>      of giving too much power and autonomy to the
 SR>      alters\persons\roles within.

Who is nervous Stanley, you or the general paranoid populace? <G>
And why must it always come down to power, which archetype is that?

 SR>      To regard them as persons in
 SR>      their own right is to give them what they claim.

I do not think that is a bad thing at all, unless of course they 
are going
around wreaking havoc, raping, pillaging etc.

I find it interesting that you talk about *them* Stanley, the 
traditional
Role Theorist would focus more on *him* or *her* as a total being 
that
enacts many hundreds of different roles, I am getting clearer every 
time I
write about this, I think, but then again:

"Listen Fred would you stop bloody doubting me like that all the 
time"!

Now who is Fred? Is it Reg enacting the role of "confused doubter", 
or is
he another 'person' that takes over Reg's body from time to time?
I tend to think it is Reg, enacting a particular role, Fred does not
actually exist at all. If I believed he did, then I would run the 
danger
of being labelled as suffering from a multiple personality.

 SR       They have
 SR>      all the characteristics of 'persons': they demand to be
 SR>      heard, they demand their rights, they are born and they
 SR>      die, they keep secrets from each other, they love and hate
 SR>      each other, they each have a different memory or version
 SR>      of the past, they quarrel with each other and the fight
 SR>      for dominance, they are honest or they deceive each other,
 SR>      they have different goals and ambitions, different sources
 SR>      of pleasure and pain. The one who is worried about all
 SR>      this is the one who wants to stay king.  The idea that
 SR>      there is one real or basic personality to which the others
 SR>      are sub-or introjected characters is a piece of
 SR>      theoretical bigotry invented by the King or God archetype.

Ah, *now* I see where you are coming from, or is it Tom Smith that 
can see
that? <G>

 SR> I can't give  you any arguments as to why we should have one
 SR> body-tagged identity except social and legal one's.
 SR> Psychologically, I can't think of one damn reason why. Except
 SR> that multiplicity seems to frighten people.

Yes, it sure does, fear of losing our sanity and all that. Some of 
the
funniest jokes I have heard were told me by patients when I was psych
nursing, the best being a young schizophrenic man I knew quite 
well, he
was feeling bored and restless, he said to me: "I think I might go 
into
town to the missing persons bureaux and tell them I can't find 
myself".

 SR> Yes, indeed, because they run one's life.  Listen to that
 SR> though!!!!. They run *whose* life ???   Who is it who thinks
 SR> his life is run by them?  What we call egotism is this one who
 SR> considers himself IT

What about a team effort, Gestalt, Yin and Yang and all that? Even
Jungians go in for that a bit, don't they, <G>.

Well I'll being seeing you round and you and you and you and you 
and you
and you and you and you and you and you and you and you and you and 
as for
*you* don't ever darken my door or computer screen again, no not you
Stanley that other guy. <G>


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Blessings never come in pairs; misfortunes never alone.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:36 2000
Date: (747)   Fri 18 Feb 94 23:27                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 ST> My trouble is, I would want to
 ST> be a totally arrogant, offensive male type of person, just to
 ST> see how people would react.


WL>I can't wait, the trouble is that I would never know if it was 
you 
WL>being the bastard!

You would probably be able to tell.  I doubt I would be able to 
disguise myself that effectively.  Ranting feminist = ranting 
chauvinist, and all that!

WL>We could all have a go.  We could even be as politically
WL>unsound as the rest of the BBS world!

God, imagine that!  I could twit filter myself out, wouldn't that be 
something?

WL>Long live bigotry.  I find this s
WL>funny!

It is a bit of a gas, really.  Just imagine - I could find my own 
messages so offensive that I would feel compelled not only to twit 
filter them but also to lay a complaint with the sysops and ask to 
have the offending user removed entirely from the BBS.

One of the things that strikes me whenever I play at being a full-on 
bigot is just how easy it is!  Is that because we are all raging 
bigots just below the surface and only keep it disguised by a thin 
veneer of maturity and tolerance, or is it just inherently so 
simplistic that any idiot can do it?

I must admit I find it pretty boring after a very short time.  No 
nuances in that world ...

WL>Yes, did you see my u/l of the message about 'Joan' or someone who
WL>'changed people's lives'.

Yes, I did.  And just coincidentally only a day or two later I came 
across Lindsy Van Gelder herself and in person on CI$, no less!  She 
was participating in a thread on the Animal Rights area of the Earth 
forum pertaining to feminine/emotional vs masculine/logical.  She 
sounds like an incredibly interesting person with a long history of 
being tangled up in issues, and has very sensible thoughts.

Actually, I must UL that to Psybernet as a file.  There was some 
good 
stuff in it, mostly from her.

WL>Reminds me of my brother who helped raise mon
WL>at a fair for an aged persons home by 'pretending' to tell 
fortunes.  He
WL>did it so well people asked him back each year.

Is that your brother who died in Australia?  I guess he was giving 
them what they wanted, despite the `pretence'.  I have a friend who 
does tarot and runes and a whole pile of that sort of stuff with 
tongue firmly in cheek, and she is always commenting on how 
desperate 
people are to cling to every word she says and then to come back for 
another session.  She is a bit of a witch, really.

WL>See you soon,

Tomorrow evening, in fact!




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:37 2000
Date: (760)   Sun 20 Feb 94 21:23                         
From: Sarah Wadeson
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 60
@MSGID: 3:770/270 352cb2f5

 ST> It was excellent to meet and talk with you last night.  I really
 ST> enjoyed it. We should convince Kate and Walter to repeat some 
time in
 ST> the near future!

I really enjoyed meeting you too. Thank you ! And Monty. Yeah good 
idea
to convince Kate and Walter, I'll be a starter. Or maybe we could 
just
organise it and then let them know. <g>

 ST> I'm sure you'll rapidly get the hang of everything you need to 
know.
 ST> It's actually not as complex as it looks, at least to carry 
out the
 ST> basic functions.

I am getting the hang of it all of a sudden, the basics that is. 
And it
does all seem dreadfully complicated. For now my goal is to be 
independant
with it all. Actually my goal is to log on to Alterworld without 
Walter
knowing who I am. <g> I wrote a message to the Women's Conference 
this
morning, to Brooke who was then Paula, it was kind of to you as 
well but I
wrote to her because I knew you wouldn't need much persuasion. It 
would be
good to get that Women's Conference flowing....

 ST> Wonderful, isn't it?  Unfortunately I'm trying to formulate this
reply
 ST> with children jabbering in both ears and my brain is spinning. 
 That
is
 ST> part of my weekends, when I do most of my Psybernetting and 
other
comms
 ST> stuff.

You have my sympathies. I can't say empathy because I don't know 
what its
like. I've never had children, although I do like them, I don't 
think I
want any of my own though. Not at the moment, anyway. <g>
I do love these grins <g>, I just want to flash them about 
everywhere <g>

 ST> Names are interesting.  I felt very much that way about my name,
Susan,
 ST> and that probably accounts for my acceptance of the shortened 
form of
 ST> Sue when that was put upon me by somebody I scarcely knew 
during my
 ST> teens.  I even tinkered with calling myself Sam when I was 
about 17 -
I
 ST> cringe when I remember that!

 ST> Somewhere along the way, though, I rediscovered the name Susan 
for
 ST> myself in both its forms - it ceased to feel unlike me, or did I
simply
 ST> recognise it as the name I was gifted with by my parents and 
that I
 ST> have answered to for all these years?  I am still invariably 
called
 ST> Sue, but I have a feeling I will revert to Susan when I am old 
- that

You seem very much *Sue* to me.

 ST> used to be 40 but it's now sitting at about 70.  Funny how the
 ST> boundaries push out the closer you get to them!

I never thought of it like that but yes! it is funny.
That has happened to me too. Its funny too how many people are so
terrified of growing old and will do absolutely anything to put it 
off.
For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to be *old*, I think 
that
says more about my childhood than anything. Turns out its all an
illusion...I used to think that meant I would have a perfect life. 
Funny
how tomorrow never comes but you thank god for it anyway! <g>I no 
longer
desire to be anywhere but here (I try) although I do look forward 
to the
passing years and the wisdom they will bring. I have always and 
still do
feel *young*. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not and it is 
hard
to define what it means for me without going into a whole lot of 
other
stuff. Another time, if you are interested.
In regard to Ruby....
 ST> Do you remember how that happened?  And why it was that 
particular
 ST> name?  It used to be very popular a couple of generations ago, 
but
has
 ST> died off - unlike many names it hasn't experienced a 
renaissance,
 ST> either.  I don't think I've met another Ruby but you for 20 
years!

I was involved in a women's spirituality group and we were spending 
the
weekend at Kaikoura.I had a dream in which the name Ruby was given 
to me,
so it *was* a case of Ruby finding me. I mentioned it to the other 
women
and they immediately started calling me Ruby.It was through their
recognition of her that I came to realise her importance.As time 
has gone
by and she has grown and healed, I have identified more and more 
with her
rather than Sarah. And Sarah has become more whole in the process. 
I'm not
quite sure *how*, I just know that it is so. It is always 
interesting to
observe how people react to it, ie do they feel more comfortable with
Sarah or with Ruby, who do they see me as...I think Sarah is a hell 
of a
lot safer for people to know..and I always warm to those who accept 
Ruby
readily. Its as if they are willing to know who I really am.

SW>>As for coming to flames,
SW>>well, who knows!!! Perhaps that would be all the more 
interesting <g>
SW>>Let the chips fall where they will.

 ST> Flaming can be quite fun, but my feeling is that it's best in 
a area
 ST> from which you can exit gracefully should the sh*t hit the 
fan.  But
 ST> then, you can't always predict these things, as you say - the 
chips
 ST> fall where they will!  That's half the fun of cyberspace.

I imagine it would be possible to exit gracefully from most 
places.<???>
I hope it doesn't come to that. I was half joking when I said 
that...my
feeling is more that I intend to be *real* rather than provoking 
anyone
for the sake of flames. It is all so unpredictable, isn't it.


 ST> Interesting.  I suppose I have always been the opposite, in 
that I
have
 ST> thought of myself as primarily an intellectual person with 
little or
 ST> nothing in the way of heart life.  Others have seen me this 
way also,
 ST> until I entered therapy with a person who enabled me to meet the
heart.
 ST>  But yes, like you, I did at times have a sneaking suspicion 
that I
was
 ST>  capable of more.  I guess I didn't really want it, though.

 ST> Now, it is wonderful to be fully both, or as fully of each as 
I can
be
 ST> in the moment.

That's wonderful, I like the way you have described it as "meeting 
the
heart", I also like your reference to the moment, that is important 
to me
too,<g>

SW>>I am unsure as to what it is that sets us apart from other 
"lower"
life
SW>>forms. I wonder if they are really lower.

 ST> I ask these questions too.  Some worthwhile debate goes on in 
the
Animal
 ST> Rights area of the Earth forum on CompuServe.  Walter may DL 
some of
 ST> that for you at some point, perhaps?

That would be good.<take note Walter if you are reading this<g> >

 ST> My thought at present is that the whole thing hinges around your
 ST> definition of `lower'.  What you say following is to the point 
...

SW>>After all, the human is the on
SW>>creature to murder and abuse its own kind. Even sharks kill 
because
they
SW>>must. And what other animal fears its own kind as much as we 
fear each
SW>>other?

 ST> Yes, there is something truly distorted about that, isn't 
there?  We
 ST> are the only ones who play power games over each other, and who
inflict
 ST> hurt for the pure enjoyment of it.  I was left saddened by a 
man on
the
 ST> Animal Rights area who made a comment about many people who hunt
doing
 ST> so for the sheer pleasure of killing.  That such an attitude 
could be
 ST> expressed publicly and regarded as unexceptional I find
overwhelmingly
 ST> disturbing.

Me too.

SW>>Is that an intellectual question?

 ST> Yes, but also a question of the heart.

Thank you, I didn't realise that until just now.

 ST> See you on here soon

Yes, and Monty too I hope, I noticed that he has just logged 
on...tell him
I look forward to reading his messages and responding to them.

Till next time,

               Ruby
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 60
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:37 2000
Date: (758)   Sun 20 Feb 94 13:36                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: RUBY
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Sent

Jumping in on your reply to Reg ...

It was excellent to meet and talk with you last night.  I really 
enjoyed it. 
We should convince Kate and Walter to repeat some time in the near 
future!

SW>I've been wanting to reply for some time now bu
SW>have been unable to do so without Walter's help ,being very new 
to all
SW>this and knowing very little about computers.

I'm sure you'll rapidly get the hang of everything you need to 
know.  It's 
actually not as complex as it looks, at least to carry out the basic 
functions.

SW>I feel quite
SW>unreachable and unavailable for any other demands. Great feeling!

Wonderful, isn't it?  Unfortunately I'm trying to formulate this 
reply with 
children jabbering in both ears and my brain is spinning.  That is 
part of 
my weekends, when I do most of my Psybernetting and other comms 
stuff.

SW>Firstly ,you can call me Ruby, as do all those I am willing to 
have know
SW>me. Officially it is Sarah but when I say it out loud it doesn't 
sound
SW>like me at all, in my heart

Names are interesting.  I felt very much that way about my name, 
Susan, 
and that probably accounts for my acceptance of the shortened form 
of Sue 
when that was put upon me by somebody I scarcely knew during my 
teens.  I 
even tinkered with calling myself Sam when I was about 17 - I 
cringe when 
I remember that!

Somewhere along the way, though, I rediscovered the name Susan for 
myself in 
both its forms - it ceased to feel unlike me, or did I simply 
recognise it 
as the name I was gifted with by my parents and that I have 
answered to for 
all these years?  I am still invariably called Sue, but I have a 
feeling I 
will revert to Susan when I am old - that used to be 40 but it's 
now sitting 
at about 70.  Funny how the boundaries push out the closer you get 
to them!

SW>,so somehow, somewhere along the way, I foun
SW>Ruby. Or maybe it was her that found me..... 

Do you remember how that happened?  And why it was that particular 
name?  It 
used to be very popular a couple of generations ago, but has died 
off - 
unlike many names it hasn't experienced a renaissance, either.  I 
don't 
think I've met another Ruby but you for 20 years!

SW>As for coming to flames,
SW>well, who knows!!! Perhaps that would be all the more 
interesting <g>
SW>Let the chips fall where they will.

Flaming can be quite fun, but my feeling is that it's best in a 
area from 
which you can exit gracefully should the sh*t hit the fan.  But 
then, you 
can't always predict these things, as you say - the chips fall 
where they 
will!  That's half the fun of cyberspace.

SW>I realise now. In fact, dare I say it, I am
SW>probably far more "intellectual" than I like to think. For some 
reason, 
SW>have always shied away from defining myself in this 
way...perhaps it is
SW>because I desire to dwell more in my heart and live my life from 
this
SW>place, although it never feels like nearly as much as I know I 
am capabl
SW>of.

Interesting.  I suppose I have always been the opposite, in that I 
have 
thought of myself as primarily an intellectual person with little 
or nothing 
in the way of heart life.  Others have seen me this way also, until 
I 
entered therapy with a person who enabled me to meet the heart.  
But yes, 
like you, I did at times have a sneaking suspicion that I was 
capable of 
more.  I guess I didn't really want it, though.

Now, it is wonderful to be fully both, or as fully of each as I can 
be in 
the moment.

SW>I am unsure as to what it is that sets us apart from other 
"lower" life
SW>forms. I wonder if they are really lower.

I ask these questions too.  Some worthwhile debate goes on in the 
Animal 
Rights area of the Earth forum on CompuServe.  Walter may DL some 
of that 
for you at some point, perhaps?

My thought at present is that the whole thing hinges around your 
definition 
of `lower'.  What you say following is to the point ...

SW>After all, the human is the on
SW>creature to murder and abuse its own kind. Even sharks kill 
because they
SW>must. And what other animal fears its own kind as much as we 
fear each
SW>other?

Yes, there is something truly distorted about that, isn't there?  
We are the 
only ones who play power games over each other, and who inflict 
hurt for the 
pure enjoyment of it.  I was left saddened by a man on the Animal 
Rights 
area who made a comment about many people who hunt doing so for the 
sheer 
pleasure of killing.  That such an attitude could be expressed 
publicly and 
regarded as unexceptional I find overwhelmingly disturbing.

 SW>> What is the intellect?

I think it is not actually anything more than a concept we use to 
describe. 
But to describe what?  Our ability to form concepts and describe!

SW>Is that an intellectual question?

Yes, but also a question of the heart.

 SW>> there are 2 sides to everything...

I think of it as being like a kaleidoscope.  The number and nature 
of the 
sides shifts constantly.

See you on here soon


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:37 2000
Date: (749)   Fri 18 Feb 94 23:27                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: REG SMITH
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 ST> but from what I know of
 ST> Protestants they do. Anglicans definitely do, but then they
 ST> aren't really Protestants, of course.

RS>No I guess not, they came about didn't they because some guy 
called Henr
RS>wanted to do what many of the current royals are doing a lot 
of lately<G

That's right.  The only difference was that he was hell bent on 
having male offspring, and the first unfortunate wife didn't do 
the honorable thing in that regard.  If only she had eaten cheese 
and stood on her head!

RS>Where did all the others come from, just out of curiosity, are 
they most
RS>splinter groups too <G>.

They are, actually.  Luther had no intention of founding a 
separate denomination, he just wanted Catholicism to clean up its 
act with regard to things like the abuse of indulgences and so 
on.  I think Calvin and Zwingli were a bit more separatist, 
possibly.  Methodism is a direct offshoot of the Anglican Church 
- Wesley was a C of E preacher, I recall.  Ultimately they are 
all offshoots of the original Catholic strand, you could say.  
But there have always been side branches and offshoots of various 
sorts.  Just read the New Testament to see that - even in the 
immediate apostolic era there were identifiably distinct 
Christian sects.

God vs Caesar ...

RS>> Why must there be a choice? Why not serve both?

 ST> Yes, I wonder that too.  My problem with serving Caesar is 
that
 ST> much of what goes on in society as it is currently 
structured
 ST> is unhealthy, oppressive and antihuman.

RS>Yes, sad and true, but I am an ever hopeful, or is it 
stubborn? <G>.

Bit of both?  Hope is stubborn, I find.

RS>My
RS>favourite hero has always been Robin Hood

RS>Whether the fact that my father comes from a small town or 
village calle
RS>Hucknal, somewhere near Sherwood Forrest

Have you been there?

I will shortly UL a file containing an article about Robin Hood 
which appeared in `The Sheet', the newsletter of the Christchurch 
Historical Society.  I'll call it ROBHOOD.DOC.  You might find it 
interesting.

ST> My trouble is, I would want to
 ST> be a totally arrogant, offensive male type of person, just 
to
 ST> see how people would react.

RS>I think that would be fine, just don't expect not to be taken 
to task by
RS>some militant feminist. <G>

Don't worry.  When you're arrogant and bigotted and have a mean 
little ego people like that are no problem to deal with.

RS>my involvement in men's groups taught me much abo
RS>that, most of all it taught me that when the crunch really 
comes, most
RS>want to revert to what they have grown up with, taking votes 
etc.

Yes, I've observed that.  Conservative little beasties, a lot of 
them.  They're like children in that regard.

RS>I also
RS>think that there are some basic differences in how men and 
women operate
RS>in consensual situations. (I hope you don't mind the 
generalisation here

No.  I use them quite a bit.  You can't avoid them, really, just 
so long as they are allowed to be generalisations and don't get 
promoted to the status of gospel.

RS>I think it wor
RS>better for women than men, the men's greater tendency towards
RS>competitiveness being the biggest factor, they will alternate 
between
RS>active competition to get what they want or they become 
passive, being t
RS>scared to act with any authority through fear of being seen as
RS>competitive.

What I have observed would fit in with this, too.  Why do you 
think they are afraid of appearing competitive?  Do you mean the 
men's group type people who are trying to move away from that 
type of attitude and behaviour?

RS>Walter and I do it all the time <G>

Compete or go passive?

RS>I am leaving that
RS>comment there Walter for I know you will read this I just want 
to see yo
RS>reaction. <G>

I'm watching too!  =8}3-<

ST> How my thoughts wander!!!

RS>Yes, but it is all tied in somehow I think, even if we can not 
yet see i
RS>all.

It must be, otherwise one thing wouldn't lead to another in our 
minds, would it?





Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:37 2000
Date: (748)   Fri 18 Feb 94 23:27                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>I went for a walk today and 'role reversed' with Agness Hill.

How did you learn her name?

WL>I can't say I w
WL>conscious, as Agnes, of reproduction or organs, she was involved 
with th
WL>bird.

No, and I don't think women are either.  They are just parts of us 
and we don't go round having some huge awareness of them.  Nor of 
PME, as it is now called (PMT and PMS are rightly obsolete, I 
learned at an FPA workshop last week).  I just AM.

WL>However, she has a female body, and mind I am quite sure of it.

How?

WL>God knows if she has it by her nature, nurture or will of the 
gods <G>.

Perhaps by the will of the Walter?

WL>Actually she is a victim of the sexism of her culture, full on. 

Tell me about that.  How does it affect her?  And what does she do 
about it?

WL>I am
WL>beginning to disagree with Sandy Stone.  (See earlier message).

You know me with old messages.  Can you remind me of the gist?

WL>I hope this is OK with you Sue, I know you have anger about all 
of this
WL>gender stuff,

Bloody right.

WL>and don't blame you for that.

I would be deeply affronted if you did, I can tell you.  Why should 
I be blamed for other people's fear, cruelty and dishonesty?

WL>I have an aversion to femal
WL>impersonators.

Ditto.  The whole concept sux.

WL>Benny Hill

A truly unfunny pathetic little man.  He got what was coming in 
the end, and it wasn't him ... oops, pardon me.

WL>(Eeek, I wonder if there is any relationship

Holy cow, you'd better check with Agnes on that one.  Just hope she 
has the whakapapa to hand ...

WL>I even hate Dame Edna,

Good for you.

WL>though I used to laugh,

If I ever did it was out of embarrassment that somebody could make 
such a dick(ess) of themselves.

WL>I just don't now.

You just grow up somewhere along the line, don't you?  Somehow you 
become able to see things more clearly and find yourself less 
influenced by the mindless pressure.  That's speaking for myself, 
anyway.

WL>I thin
WL>Barry Humphries is a misogynist

Yes.  The only things I have ever heard about him came from a 
friend in a twelve-step programme in Wellington who had a bit to do 
with BH when he was here on a tour quite a few years ago.  Being a 
member of the same programme BH rolled up to several meetings, and 
my friend Peter said he was a combination of pathetic, juvenile, 
crude, up himself and downright awful.  I think he - Peter - was 
quite disillusioned, in fact.

WL>and that it is a tragedy of our time tha
WL>the only older, female, comedian I can think of is a man, 

Just let that statement stand.  That says it all.

But isn't it logical?  There are only three kinds of people - 
younger men, older men and bimbos.  It would be immoral for a bimbo 
to play the part of an older female, so obviously it would have to 
be a man.

WL>playing, well 
WL>. . being, a rather obnoxious woman.

Erm ... it's really the man who is obnoxious.

 ST>  Some of my
 ST> `persons' include the Psychiatrist, the Seal, the Monkey,
 ST> Sophie, and a small person who wants rainbow socks.

WL>( Agnes noticed only the last one

The monkey is a little hurt that she didn't notice him as well!  On 
the other hand, the psychiatrist isn't - she just sees it as yet 
further proof that everybody in the world is mad except her.

 & will get her some! )

She would think that was great.  But she would never let herself 
hope to get anything from anybody.

WL>Any way, I can hear
WL>them in the ALTERWORLD laughing at our antics here, our serious
WL>discussions about whether they exist or not.  They know 
WL>perfectly well that they do!

I know that my people do.  And you have met the monkey already.  He 
might come round with us tomorrow night, but only if you promise to 
say hello to him.

WL>Let us see if we can beat the Ecumenical Council for keeping a 
WL>debate going!  Perhaps they enjoyed it as much as I enjoy this. 

I suspect some of them might have, although overall it seemed to 
have been a rather grimly serious business.  Lives and worlds were 
at stake in those times.

WL>Perhaps they
WL>even chuckled as they flamed each other about  . . . 

Hope some of them did!  It's hard to get any sense of that from 
academic church history, but surely they must have had some fun in 
the process.  I suppose it's one of those frustrating things we 
will never know.

WL>was it
WL>transubstantiation you were looking for?

No, that - to the best of my knowledge, and I'm at Steve's and 
don't have references about me - that was not an issue during the 
early centuries.  In fact, I would hazard a guess that it has 
really only been a focused issue from the time of the Reformation. 
It was one of the principal bones of contention for the Reformers, 
about the exact nature of the eucharistic consecration.

But I will check out that other term and post here on it - it was 
to do with the Trinity, not the Eucharist.  The debate rested on 
the nature of the `three in one' - three persons but one substance, 
I think it was.  It all hinged on the translation of the Greek 
terms used for `person' and `substance', and the fine distinction 
between the two.

WL>Ah, good on them.

Yep, they did good according to their times and beliefs.

WL>This is definitely from me!

Walter pretending to be Walter, huh?  Tricky stuff, but I sussed 
you out!




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:38 2000
Date: (820)   Tue 22 Feb 94 21:13                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Monday 21 Feb

  Hello Reg

SR>>>> And this means the release of all 'one's' other persons..

 RS>>> Mmmmm...  back to my old question again, (see other message)
 RS>>> are they really other *persons*? I ask myself this a lot.

Yes, one does ask oneself a lot this question because it is most 
central.


 SR>>      I think it is important to us because of our nervousness
 SR>>      of giving too much power and autonomy to the
 SR>>      alters\persons\roles within.

 RS> Who is nervous Stanley, you or the general paranoid populace?
 RS><G>> And why must it always come down to power, which archetype 
is     
RS>that?

I think maybe each archetype is a power and each  one stands behind 
each
of our persons within. They are powers only in the sense that they 
are
autonomous, independent, self-willed.

 SR>>      To regard them as persons in
 SR>>      their own right is to give them what they claim.


 RS> I find it interesting that you talk about *them* Stanley, the
 RS> traditional Role Theorist would focus more on *him* or *her* as
 RS> a total being that enacts many hundreds of different roles, I
 RS> am getting clearer every time I write about this, I think, but
 RS> then again:

That's the difficulty, Reg. That *total* being. One must always 
invent a
total being or basic personality who is *acting* them. With that 
model
they are only roles not persons. That robs them of their individual 
power.
And that philosophical move is meant to. It de-guts all the psychic
persons except one. The boss-man who says all the others are only 
roles.


 RS> "Listen Fred would you stop bloody doubting me like that all
 RS> the time"!

 RS> Now who is Fred? Is it Reg enacting the role of "confused
 RS> doubter", or is he another 'person' that takes over Reg's body
 RS> from time to time? I tend to think it is Reg, enacting a
 RS> particular role, Fred does not actually exist at all. If I
 RS> believed he did, then I would run the danger of being labelled
 RS> as suffering from a multiple personality.

That's the same move:  'Fred does not really exist. It's really me
pretending'. That keeps Reg's Number One's power and autonomy and 
makes
Fred unreal. But if Fred is unreal why won't he go away?

 SR>>       They have
 SR>>      all the characteristics of 'persons': they demand to be
 SR>>      heard, they demand their rights, they are born and they
 SR>>      die, they keep secrets from each other, they love and hate
 SR>>      each other, they each have a different memory or version
 SR>>      of the past, they quarrel with each other and the fight
 SR>>      for dominance, they are honest or they deceive each other,
 SR>>      they have different goals and ambitions, different sources
 SR>>      of pleasure and pain. The one who is worried about all
 SR>>      this is the one who wants to stay king.  The idea that
 SR>>      there is one real or basic personality to which the others
 SR>>      are sub-or introjected characters is a piece of
 SR>>      theoretical bigotry invented by the King or God archetype.

 RS> Ah, *now* I see where you are coming from, or is it Tom Smith
 RS> that can see that? <G>

Good man!  I like you Tom Smith!

 SR>> I can't give  you any arguments as to why we should have one
 SR>> body-tagged identity except social and legal one's.
 SR>> Psychologically, I can't think of one damn reason why. Except
 SR>> that multiplicity seems to frighten people.

 RS> Yes, it sure does, fear of losing our sanity and all that. Some
 RS> of the funniest jokes I have heard were told me by patients
 RS> when I was psych nursing, the best being a young schizophrenic
 RS> man I knew quite well, he was feeling bored and restless, he
 RS> said to me: "I think I might go into town to the missing
 RS> persons bureaux and tell them I can't find myself".

          Or like the client who came into the session room once 
and said
to me, 'How am I?'

 SR>> Yes, indeed, because they run one's life.  Listen to that
 SR>> though!!!!. They run *whose* life ???   Who is it who thinks
 SR>> his life is run by them?  What we call egotism is this one who
 SR>> considers himself IT

 RS> What about a team effort, Gestalt, Yin and Yang and all that?
 RS> Even Jungians go in for that a bit, don't they, <G>.

Oh yes, that's called cooperation Eh?  But in my experience Ying 
and Yang
can have the most terrible rows. I say, Hey you two!  What about 
some team
effort. And they *both* bash me up till I'm punch-drunk.


 RS> Well I'll being seeing you round and you and you and you and
 RS> you and you and you and you and you and you and you and you and
 RS> you and you and as for *you* don't ever darken my door or
 RS> computer screen again, no not you Stanley that other guy. <G>

Dear most respected Reg.  All I can say is that none of us never take
nothing personal.

               Love Stanley


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:38 2000
Date: (941)   Sat 26 Feb 94 18:16                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 cff2f641

Hello Sue,

I think I was talking about role reversal in the context of a 
psychodrama,
but even as I sit here, I role reverse with you, to some degree, a 
much
greater degree now that we are communicating more.

RS>> I do not imagine I am you, I become
RS>> you in that moment. I walk like, talk like, think like and
RS>> most of all feel like Sue

 ST> But how do you know that what you are walking, talking
 ST> thinking and feeling like is in any way like me?

Ah, because I watch closely your every move, *how* you stand, sit 
etc.
*how* you speak, not just content, you then reverse roles with me or
whoever and I enact your role as accurately as I can, you respond 
and then
there is role reversal again, I feed it all back and so on, thus 
the level
of spontaneity increases until you and I are no longer just playing 
roles,
we are enacting them in larger than form. We are actually there, 
perhaps
we are on a snow covered mountain, you will actually feel the cold 
of the
snow. You will hear the whistle of the wind and far off a kea calls.
Perhaps you feel the coldness and hear that bird as you read this. 
Perhaps
not, it will depend on your ability to role reverse with people on
mountains and keas etc.

 ST> You could only go from what you pick up by watching and 
listening,
 ST> plus interviewing me about my inner state, or whatever.

Yes and that can be one hell of a lot of data, I am also despite my 
gender
<G> capable of being at least a little bit intuitive and it helps 
that I
have always liked seals.

 ST> But how unreliable human communication is!

Yes and just like it is in everyday life there are also many other 
checks
and balances built into the method, such as the protagonist must 
know to
tell the auxiliary that they have not portrayed the role accurately 
if
that is the case, as you do below.

The Psychiatrist.

 ST> Well, my one is female, and she wears those kinky long black
 ST> leather boots and carries a long black leather horse whip.
 ST> The overall effect is not so kinky, though - more like a Nazi
 ST> prison guard.  Her speciality is telling me I'm mad in the
 ST> sense of having a serious deep-seated mental problem.  She
 ST> thinks every body else is mad as well, incidentally, except
 ST> her.

In a psychodrama, for a better or deeper warm-up to the role of
Psychiatrist you would not talk *about* her, but as her. The 
auxiliary ego
would then experience the psychiatrist more fully and thus there 
would be
a greater degree of role reversal.

ST>>  the Seal

RS>> What do you do as a seal?

 ST> Good question, but it's actually not me that does it.  It is
 ST> the seal that does it.

Do I detect a reluctance within you to reverse roles with the seal? 
or
have we gone off track here?

Again in a psychodrama you would become the seal, you would look at 
me
with dark luminous eyes.

You do however, make a good point, perhaps I made a mistake, I 
should have
said "What do you do seal? but then this is not a psychodrama, we are
merely chatting about the method, more specifically one aspect of 
it ....
role reversal. I do not have a contract with you to direct you in 
on-line
dramas in this echo. Something like that is more likely to happen 
in the
ALTERWORLD or a group. I hope you do not feel too chopped off here, 
if you
do please e-mail me and let me know and I will respond.

Bye for now 
 Reg

... Each day a day goes by.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:38 2000
Date: (826)   Wed 23 Feb 94  2:16                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 38514cfd

 SR> Dear most respected Reg.  All I can say is that none of us
 SR> never take nothing personal.

Hidin behind Stanley then are we?  I've seen you before, flogin cheap
psychomumbo on the Portabeller road.


yer old mate.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:39 2000
Date: (946)   Sat 26 Feb 94 21:24                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 e3670a61

Hello Stanley,


 RS>> I find it interesting that you talk about *them* Stanley, the
 RS>> traditional Role Theorist would focus more on *him* or *her* as
 RS>> a total being that enacts many hundreds of different roles, I
 RS>> am getting clearer every time I write about this, I think, but
 RS>> then again:

 SR> That's the difficulty, Reg. That *total* being.

I don't actually see it as a difficulty, but I am thinking more 
about how
Moreno put it, ie that our personality evolves from the development 
of the
roles not the other way round.

 SR> One must always invent a total being or basic personality who is
 SR> *acting* them.

The total being is not *invented* at all, it actually exists, I am 
a real
person and have been since the day I incarnated into this 
particular body,
I am not a figment of my imagination <G>. You have also not grasped 
the
distinction I made in earlier messages between *enacting* and 
*acting* I
am not pretending to be in the role of typist at the moment I am 
actually
doing it I am enacting the role of typist.

 SR> With that model they are only roles not persons.

When you say *only* roles it seems as if you want to dismiss them 
Stanley
as if they are not important. To me, the roles are first and 
foremost, if
we don't develop them we would stay as we were from the day we were 
born.
We would do little more than suck, cry and shit ourselves.

 SR> That robs them
 SR> of their individual power. And that philosophical move is meant
 SR> to. It de-guts all the psychic persons except one. The boss-man
 SR> who says all the others are only roles.

No that is not my perspective at all.

 RS>> "Listen Fred would you stop bloody doubting me like that all
 RS>> the time"!

 RS>> Now who is Fred? Is it Reg enacting the role of "confused
 RS>> doubter", or is he another 'person' that takes over Reg's body
 RS>> from time to time? I tend to think it is Reg, enacting a
 RS>> particular role, Fred does not actually exist at all. If I
 RS>> believed he did, then I would run the danger of being labelled
 RS>> as suffering from a multiple personality.

 SR> That's the same move:  'Fred does not really exist. It's really
 SR> me pretending'.

Yes.

 SR> That keeps Reg's Number One's power and
 SR> autonomy and makes Fred unreal.

Yes and it also keeps Reg sane.

 SR> But if Fred is unreal why won't he go away?

Because he is just a name given to a particular collection of Reg's 
roles,
it does not matter what the fuck we call him, it is all Reg, but he 
may
warm-up differently if we call him Fred and have him log onto the 
BBS.


 SR>>>      They have
 SR>>>      all the characteristics of 'persons': they demand to be
 SR>>>      heard, they demand their rights, they are born and they
 SR>>>      die, they keep secrets from each other, they love and 
hate
 SR>>>      each other, they each have a different memory or version
 SR>>>      of the past, they quarrel with each other and the fight
 SR>>>      for dominance, they are honest or they deceive each 
other,
 SR>>>      they have different goals and ambitions, different 
sources
 SR>>>      of pleasure and pain. The one who is worried about all
 SR>>>      this is the one who wants to stay king.  The idea that
 SR>>>      there is one real or basic personality to which the 
others
 SR>>>      are sub-or introjected characters is a piece of
 SR>>>      theoretical bigotry invented by the King or God 
archetype.

 RS>> Ah, *now* I see where you are coming from, or is it Tom Smith
 RS>> that can see that? <G>

 SR> Good man!  I like you Tom Smith!

Sorry, Tom died last week, this is Reg here enacting his role of 
cheeky
smart arsed provoker. <G>

 SR>>> I can't give  you any arguments as to why we should have one
 SR>>> body-tagged identity except social and legal one's.
 SR>>> Psychologically, I can't think of one damn reason why. Except
 SR>>> that multiplicity seems to frighten people.

I am not ant-multiplicity in any way, neither am I frightened of 
it, but I
am naming things a bit differently from you.

 RS>> Yes, it sure does, fear of losing our sanity and all that. Some
 RS>> of the funniest jokes I have heard were told me by patients
 RS>> when I was psych nursing, the best being a young schizophrenic
 RS>> man I knew quite well, he was feeling bored and restless, he
 RS>> said to me: "I think I might go into town to the missing
 RS>> persons bureaux and tell them I can't find myself".

 SR>           Or like the client who came into the session room
 SR>           once and said to me, 'How am I?'

Was he making a joke? if he was I think he was doing fine.

 SR>>> Yes, indeed, because they run one's life.  Listen to that
 SR>>> though!!!!. They run *whose* life ???   Who is it who thinks
 SR>>> his life is run by them?  What we call egotism is this one who
 SR>>> considers himself IT

 RS>> What about a team effort, Gestalt, Yin and Yang and all that?
 RS>> Even Jungians go in for that a bit, don't they, <G>.

 SR> Oh yes, that's called cooperation Eh?

I think as a psychodramatist I am meant to call it catharsis of
integration, but as I said before, who gives a fuck what we call 
it, so
long as we know what each other is talking about.

 SR> But in my experience
 SR> Yin and Yang can have the most terrible rows. I say, Hey you
 SR> two!  What about some team effort. And they *both* bash me up
 SR> till I'm punch-drunk.

That's because you are not showing them who is boss <G>.

 RS>> Well I'll being seeing you round and you and you and you and
 RS>> you and you and you and you and you and you and you and you and
 RS>> you and you and as for *you* don't ever darken my door or
 RS>> computer screen again, no not you Stanley that other guy. <G>

 SR> Dear most respected Reg.  All I can say is that none of us
 SR> never take nothing personal.

Well I hope that is still the case, as I have been a little 
provocative in
this message.

Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Disease is the retribution of an outraged nature.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:44 2000
Date: (1731)   Fri 25 Mar 94 11:33                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 Hello Reg,

 RS>>> I find it interesting that you talk about *them* Stanley, the
 RS>>> traditional Role Theorist would focus more on *him* or *her* 
as
 RS>>> a total being that enacts many hundreds of different roles, I
 RS>>> am getting clearer every time I write about this, I think, but
 RS>>> then again:

 SR>> That's the difficulty, Reg. That *total* being.

 RS> I don't actually see it as a difficulty, but I am thinking more
 RS> about how Moreno put it, ie that our personality evolves from
 RS> the development of the roles not the other way round.


So you mean that the personality evolves out of the many roles. If 
the
personality develops out of the roles, wouldn't that suggest that the
personality wasn't there before the roles. Does this mean that what 
you
are calling 'the personality' is simply the totality of the roles 
as one
would talk about a 'company' of actors. One speaks of 'the company' 
as one
would speak of 'the personality'  If so, then one would say that 'the
company' doesn't exist without the actors. The actors actually 
constitute
the company;  and without the actors the company is nothing. 'The 
company'
is the fictive title of a number of actors who have got together 
for the
purpose of performing the play?


 SR>> One must always invent a total being or basic personality who 
is
 SR>> *acting* them.

 RS> The total being is not *invented* at all, it actually exists, I
 RS> am a real person and have been since the day I incarnated into
 RS> this particular body, I am not a figment of my imagination.<G>.

Quite right, my dear boy, you are a figment of mine <G>.

 RS> You have also not grasped the distinction I made in earlier
 RS> messages between *enacting* and *acting* I am not pretending to
 RS> be in the role of typist at the moment I am actually doing it I
 RS> am enacting the role of typist.

I'm sorry Reg I don't remember your distinction. So, 'enacting' is
actually performing the role and 'acting' is pretending to?  Is it 
like
this: to enact is to actually believe you are a typist; and to act a
typist is to know you are really not a typist?


 RS>>> "Listen Fred would you stop bloody doubting me like that all
 RS>>> the time"!
 RS>>> Now who is Fred? ? I tend to think it is Reg, enacting a
 RS>>> particular role, Fred does not actually exist at all. If I
 RS>>> believed he did, then I would run the danger of being labelled
 RS>>> as suffering from a multiple personality.

 SR>> That's the same move:  'Fred does not really exist. It's really
 SR>> me pretending'.

 RS> Yes.

 SR>> That keeps Reg's Number One's in power and
 SR>> and makes Fred unreal.

 RS> Yes and it also keeps Reg sane.

Good work! Then the move to make Fred unreal is to keep Reg 
believing he
is sane and prevent anyone saying he is a multiple personality. In 
other
words, to keep everybody and Reg under fantasy that he is normal !!!

You seem to be quite sure you exist, Reg, which I find amazing.  
Well, no
not that -  because I too am  quite sure I exist. But what I find 
amazing
is that I AM so sure !!!

                                   Please Love Me,
                                                  Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:45 2000
Date: (1755)   Sat 26 Mar 94 15:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 2a8dce18
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

 RS> I don't actually see it as a difficulty, but I am thinking more
 RS> about how Moreno put it, ie that our personality evolves from
 RS> the development of the roles not the other way round.


 SR> So you mean that the personality evolves out of the many roles.
 SR> If the personality develops out of the roles, wouldn't that
 SR> suggest that the personality wasn't there before the roles.
 SR> Does this mean that what you are calling 'the personality' is
 SR> simply the totality of the roles as one would talk about a
 SR> 'company' of actors. One speaks of 'the company' as one would
 SR> speak of 'the personality'  If so, then one would say that 'the
 SR> company' doesn't exist without the actors. The actors actually
 SR> constitute the company;  and without the actors the company is
 SR> nothing. 'The company' is the fictive title of a number of
 SR> actors who have got together for the purpose of performing the
 SR> play?

I just love this meta-psychological speculation!  Now should I ask 
your
pardon for jumping in to this discussion which is doing fine 
without me?
I trust you will.

Moreno as I understand did say that roles are prior to the 
development of
personality, I have just spent a couple of hours hunting out the 
reference
but alas no luck.  I'd love a Moreno CD!  (Would make that 
wonderful book-
binding of your Stanley a little redundant.)  I was looking for the
article by Lynette Clayton on the subject.  Mine is in the 
psychodrama
library, do you know where that is these days Reg?  I might go and 
browse
through all the papers I donated, I'd like to make a copy of some 
of them.
Time for a scanner?

But what does all that mean?  The sum & the parts. Ah!  Here I am 
again
the great synthesiser, jumping in with a BOTH/AND solution.

The one is many and the many are one.           There, that is it.

To see the world in a grain of sand
Infinity in an hour.
                                        William Blake 
(approximation?)

In the enactment of a role, which is not typist right now I'll tell 
you,
but more of a winged warrior, flying in with flurry not fury. I am 
*who* I
am I am a totality.  Nothing else is present.  That is why it is so
disconcerting to move out of cyberspace, into EDR (every day 
reality) I
have to go from being here on the wing to the potatoes in the 
kitchen  ---
the role transitions are more rapid than I have come across anywhere.
This warrior has it ALL, a history, thoughts feelings and actions, 
sub
roles (which would be as full in their expression as the 'whole' 
role, and
would resent being 'sub' anything.  He is totally ME. there is 
nothing of
ME that is not contained in the warrior.  And jet he in turn is a 
sub role
of a larger ME.  Tough for him.

I am thinking of all the theoreticians who have followed Blake who 
put it
well, systems theorists, Joy Brough's hologram paradigm, and was 
there not
a Greek god who summed all this up Janus who could look in both 
directions
at once.  Infinity one way and infinity the other.  So how is that 
for
solving the chicken & egg problem?

The art of the therapist is to be this Janus I think.  I sit there 
and
listen to how someone was abused and see how they are also that 
abuser etc
(not literally but in the essence of the roles).  BUT for that 
moment I
must be with the victim of the abuse.  They alone are in my room.

Ah, one more thing.  I see myself say literally, & here in is the 
whole
problem is it not?  Literally brings in that 'fictional' aspect 
again.
Roles are always non literal.  They are descriptions of behaviour, 
little
poems.  Winged warrior!!!  as much a poem as 'typist'.  Without these
little poems we do not exist.  Anyone who then goes on to mutter 
about
time space continuums is a philistine.

Ahh, the winged warrior just flew off . . .

I suddenly realised that all this started on the theme of allowing
aliases.  Well, in one way you can't stop them can you!  So should we
allow the WW to log on as the WW.  We have resolved this, Reg & I:  
Yes,
but he will not be validated, the Sysop is a philistine!  He uses 
space
time continuum considerations.  WW can read all the conferences but 
write
only in the alter world as himself.  Here (In the Psybernet Echo) 
he has
to pretend he is Walter.  Such is life in EDR!


Walter

PS I have been reading on the Internet about 'memes' ideas which 
have life
of their own and use people and even software etc, for their life.

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:46 2000
Date: (1775)   Sun 27 Mar 94 13:23                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2c01fe63

Hello Stanley,

Subject: personality

 RS>> I don't actually see it as a difficulty, but I am thinking more
 RS>> about how Moreno put it, ie that our personality evolves from
 RS>> the development of the roles not the other way round.

 SR> So you mean that the personality evolves out of the many roles.

Yes.

 SR> If the personality develops out of the roles, wouldn't that
 SR> suggest that the personality wasn't there before the roles.

Well yes and I guess the obvious question to be asked then is: Does a
newborn baby have a personality? My answer would be yes and it is 
somewhat
new and undeveloped as is the rest of the baby. The almost embryonic
personality of the baby  would be based on the very few roles that it
comes into the world with. I think there are also a few other 
factors that
need to be considered along with this: When does the spirit 
actually enter
the baby? or is it the other way round, has the spirit entered the 
body of
the baby, before, during or after it's birth? Does the spirit come 
with
any remnants of any previous incarnations?

 SR> Does this mean that what you are calling 'the personality' is
 SR> simply the totality of the roles as one would talk about a
 SR> 'company' of actors.

I don't know offhand what Moreno would say about that, but I think 
that
there are other factors involved as I indicate above.

 SR> One speaks of 'the company' as one would
 SR> speak of 'the personality'  If so, then one would say that 'the
 SR> company' doesn't exist without the actors. The actors actually
 SR> constitute the company;  and without the actors the company is
 SR> nothing. 'The company' is the fictive title of a number of
 SR> actors who have got together for the purpose of performing the
 SR> play?

If we view it all logically as you seem to be doing then I guess so.

 SR>>> One must always invent a total being or basic personality 
who is
 SR>>> *acting* them.

 RS>> The total being is not *invented* at all, it actually exists, I
 RS>> am a real person and have been since the day I incarnated into
 RS>> this particular body, I am not a figment of my imagination.<G>.

 SR> Quite right, my dear boy, you are a figment of mine <G>.

True! And I am more! Whilst I reside in this particular body that is.

 RS>> You have also not grasped the distinction I made in earlier
 RS>> messages between *enacting* and *acting* I am not pretending to
 RS>> be in the role of typist at the moment I am actually doing it I
 RS>> am enacting the role of typist.

 SR> I'm sorry Reg I don't remember your distinction.

That's quite OK, dear Stanley what else can I expect from a man 
with a
broken leg <G> (I hope you get the joke, if not you will be 
offended, so
make sure you ask me to explain if you don't), but from what you say
below, I think you have grasped it, it just did not appear that way 
in the
previous message.

 SR> So, 'enacting' is actually performing the role and 'acting' is
 SR> pretending to?

Yes, but just to confuse matters I will sometimes, like many others 
use
them interchangeably.

 SR> Is it like this: to enact is to actually believe you
 SR> are a typist; and to act a typist is to know you are really 
not a
 SR> typist?

Yes.

 SR>>> That keeps Reg's Number One's in power and
 SR>>> and makes Fred unreal.

 RS>> Yes and it also keeps Reg sane.

 SR> Good work! Then the move to make Fred unreal is to keep Reg
 SR> believing he is sane and prevent anyone saying he is a multiple
 SR> personality.

Yes.

 SR> In other words, to keep everybody and Reg under
 SR> fantasy that he is normal !!!

Oh no, I would not say I am *normal*, well at least not in any 
total sort
of way, but I am most definitely *sane*. I am not normal in that I 
do not
feel, think and act in accordance with what the statistical norm of 
what
an Australian born, white heterosexual male is meant to act and I am
bloody proud of it, it has come with many years of hard work. No 
doubt I
will be quite *normal* in some respects, If you have not figured it 
by
now, I have an aversion to labelling anyone normal or abnormal. 
Come to
think of it I have an aversion to labelling full stop. I think 
everyone's
personality is multiple to some degree or another, whether it is so 
marked
that they start to disassociate is another matter.

 SR> You seem to be quite sure you exist, Reg, which I find amazing.
 SR>  Well, no not that -  because I too am  quite sure I exist. But
 SR>  what I find amazing is that I AM so sure !!!

 SR> Please Love Me.

No worries mate.

Love & Regards
 Reg

Love & Regards 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (1996)   Sun 3 Apr 94 18:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 WL> I just love this meta-psychological speculation!  Now should I
 WL> ask your pardon for jumping in to this discussion which is
 WL> doing fine without me? I trust you will.


 WL> But what does all that mean?  The sum & the parts. Ah!  Here I
 WL> am again the great synthesiser, jumping in with a BOTH/AND
 WL> solution.

 WL> The one is many and the many are one.           There, that is
 WL> it.

 WL> To see the world in a grain of sand
 WL> Infinity in an hour.
 WL>                                         William Blake
 WL>  (approximation?)

Walter, by placing Reg and myself in the 
meta-psychological-speculation
jar and going off into all these grains of sand and everything you 
are
playing a naughty poet-type person who can play havoc with us poor
philosophers.
 But we forgive you I'm sure.


 WL> This warrior has it ALL, a history, thoughts feelings
 WL> and actions, sub roles (which would be as full in their
 WL> expression as the 'whole' role, and would resent being 'sub'
 WL> anything.  He is totally ME. there is nothing of ME that is not
 WL> contained in the warrior.  And jet he in turn is a sub role of
 WL> a larger ME.  Tough for him.

'...Winged Warrior. Flying in with a flurry not fury'.  Wonderful
alliteration!    You've stolen a march on Gerard Manley Hopkins.
And the ME, ME, ME Total ME is better than Walt Whitman .
And my dear, dear, Walter, what on earth is all this Warrior 
business?
This is a long, long way from The Lamb. Something drastic must have
happened to you while I have been away!  Have you been 
accosted\accosting
in some dark alley?

 WL> The art of the therapist is to be this Janus I think.  I sit
 WL> there and listen to how someone was abused and see how they are
 WL> also that abuser etc (not literally but in the essence of the
 WL> roles).  BUT for that moment I must be with the victim of the
 WL> abuse.

Yes, Janus was a Roman god - the god of doorways strangely enough. 
His
visage looking both ways was always placed over the doorway of a 
Roman
household, so that he could keep his eyes on comings and goings I 
suppose.
As a therapeutic Janus you must keep your eye on the fictional 
abuser as
well as the factual victim before you - for the moment, as you say.

 WL> Ah, one more thing.  I see myself say literally, & here in is
 WL> the whole problem is it not?  Literally brings in that
 WL> 'fictional' aspect again. Roles are always non literal.  They
 WL> are descriptions of behaviour, little poems.  Winged warrior!!!
 WL>  as much a poem as 'typist'.

Abuser as much as victim ?

 WL> Without these little poems we do not exist.
 WL> Anyone who then goes on to mutter about time space
 WL>  continuums is a philistine.

 Any philistine-type person who says he isn't a poem should be 
placed in a
meta-psychological jar and peed on.

 WL> Ahh, the winged warrior just flew off . . .

Come back, come back, we've only just met. It felt like the 
beginning of a
beautiful relationship!

 WL> PS I have been reading on the Internet about 'memes' ideas
 WL> which have life of their own and use people and even software
 WL> etc, for their life.

Isn't that strange. I've just been talking to Reg about his 
Axiodrama and
saying that ideas are people that demand to be heard. I'd like to 
know
more about memes.

                         Best,
                                   Achilles (WW) of the Pitiless 
Bronze
                                   Son of Peleus
                                   Slayer of Hector.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (1998)   Sun 3 Apr 94 18:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 RS> Hello My Dear Reg
 RS> Subject: personality

 RS> Well yes and I guess the obvious question to be asked then is:
 RS> Does a newborn baby have a personality? My answer would be yes
 RS> and it is somewhat new and undeveloped as is the rest of the
 RS> baby. The almost embryonic personality of the baby  would be
 RS> based on the very few roles that it comes into the world with.
 RS> I think there are also a few other factors that need to be
 RS> considered along with this: When does the spirit actually enter
 RS> the baby? or is it the other way round, has the spirit entered
 RS> the body of the baby, before, during or after it's birth? Does
 RS> the spirit come with any remnants of any previous incarnations?

You are simply gorgeous, Reg. No one except yourself could have put 
in one
short paragraph so many completely unanswerable questions.

 SR>> One speaks of 'the company' as one would
 SR>> speak of 'the personality'  If so, then one would say that 'the
 SR>> company' doesn't exist without the actors. The actors actually
 SR>> constitute the company;  and without the actors the company is
 SR>> nothing. 'The company' is the fictive title of a number of
 SR>> actors who have got together for the purpose of performing the
 SR>> play?

 RS> If we view it all logically as you seem to be doing then I
 RS> guess so.

Oh dear, I didn't mean to be logical, I'm sorry. It seems you've 
joined
Walter in his poetical, anti-meta-psychological campaign. And I 
thought
you loved me !  When I asked you about that you said: "No worries, 
Mate".
I'll never believe anybody again!!!

                              REGARDS.

                                   Stanley Richards
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (2057)   Tue 5 Apr 94 15:29                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 9c1d760d

Hello Stanley,

 SR> You are simply gorgeous, Reg. No one except yourself could have
 SR> put in one short paragraph so many completely unanswerable
 SR> questions.

I don't know that they are so unanswerable Stanley, but certainly 
they are
not easy questions to answer. I think I put them out as food for 
thought
and to say this is not a simple matter we are talking about, it seems
quite complex to me.

 SR>>> One speaks of 'the company' as one would
 SR>>> speak of 'the personality'  If so, then one would say that 
'the
 SR>>> company' doesn't exist without the actors. The actors actually
 SR>>> constitute the company;  and without the actors the company is
 SR>>> nothing. 'The company' is the fictive title of a number of
 SR>>> actors who have got together for the purpose of performing the
 SR>>> play?

 RS>> If we view it all logically as you seem to be doing then I
 RS>> guess so.

 SR> Oh dear, I didn't mean to be logical, I'm sorry.

I am not sure if you are replying with humour Stanley for I see no 
<G>.
Have I offended you with my comment that you seemed to be viewing 
things
logically? If so, that was not my intention and I am sorry for 
that. When
I read through your analogy again I think perhaps I missed 
something first
time round, I think I understand it more now, but have forgotten the
original context <G>.

 SR> It seems you've joined Walter in his poetical,
 SR> anti-meta-psychological campaign. And I thought you loved me !

Oh yes, I still love you Stanley. As for joining Walter in an 
"anti-meta-
psychological campaign", I am afraid I do not quite understand what 
you
are getting at. According to my dictionary anti means against, meta 
means
sense of change of position and psychological is to do with the 
study of
the psyche. So does this mean I am against anyone changing their mind
about anything? <G>.

 SR> When I asked you about that you said: "No worries, Mate".

To be honest Stanley I think I have lost the gist of this thread, I 
will
have to reset my pointers and do a big DL so I can read through the 
thread
in sequence and get back on board, when I have done so I could very 
well
change my mind about anything I have said <G>.

 SR> I'll never believe anybody again!!!

No me either and least of all myself <G>.

Love & Regards
 Reg
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (2043)   Mon 4 Apr 94 20:24                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 103
@MSGID: 3:770/270 3dc3706d
@REPLY: 3:770/270 0cb3b2c0

Hi Walt,

just jumping in on your message to Stanley...

 SR>> Abuser as much as victim ?

 WL> Yes, all poems.  AND I would say things like 'You were 
tricked', 'you
 WL> were abused', 'what happened to you was terrible'.  I do not 
like the
 WL> alternative 'you feel, or you think you were abused', unless 
they do
 WL> *think* they were abused of course, ie if they have an element 
of
 WL> doubt.

Oh yes, good for you Walter, I am glad to hear that.
I think that has far more impact on the healing.
Then there is no doubt that you *really* believe them, and not only 
that,
you are making yourself available for the consequences.
I think that takes alot of courage on the therapist's part.

To my way of thinking and feeling, to hear 'you *think*...' or 'you
*feel*...', about something that is my truth, is to be abandoned, 
to know
that they are afraid of my truth, they cannot handle it.

And to be given the reflection that I need makes it *more* strongly 
my
truth.
And I know how powerful it is to claim an event as one's own, to 
admit
that 'this happened to me, this really happened to me.' and then to 
have
it believed and met....powerful.

 WL> Now is all this to deny that the gods have won?  I don't think 
<g>
 WL> so.
 WL> I am not sure.

I am not quite sure of the context here, but none-the-less, my answer
is.....NEVER! <G>

See you soon,

                       RUBY.

...do you not think, my friend, that you are something beyond the
ordinarily human, a miracle?




 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 103
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (2042)   Mon 4 Apr 94 16:24                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 0cb3b2c0

 SR> Warrior business? This is a long, long way from The Lamb.
 SR> Something drastic must have happened to you while I have been
 SR> away!

Well I have been listening to 'Chicken-Man' as I drive Rebecca to 
school,
he is the original 'winged warrior'.  However one of the archetypal
stories that has always GOT me is Superman and Clark Kent. So my 
winged
warrior came in that way.  The story of the Man of Steel is highly
relevant to the question of anonymity.  Kent and Superman are each 
others
alters, or as they are known in Metropolis, secret identities.  No 
winged
warrior no lamb.

I just found myself writing to you both in a flurry.  I named the 
role,
and that is leading somewhere, right back to the lamb for goodness 
sake!


 WL>> Roles are always non literal.  They
 WL>> are descriptions of behaviour, little poems.  Winged warrior!!!
 WL>> as much a poem as 'typist'.

 SR> Abuser as much as victim ?

Yes, all poems.  AND I would say things like 'You were tricked', 
'you were
abused', 'what happened to you was terrible'.  I do not like the
alternative 'you feel, or you think you were abused', unless they do
*think* they were abused of course, ie if they have an element of 
doubt.
The other time I might say those things is when I think that they are
somewhat unjustified.  It comes up with spouses:  'You think he is
deliberately making life a misery for you.'  I may have sussed that 
is an
over-reaction and that next week they will be bosom buddies, hence 
I add
the 'You think'.

Now is all this to deny that the gods have won?  I don't think <g> 
so.  I
am not sure.  It is the job of the therapist to work within the
ontological framework that is in the clients best interest.  Ha!  I 
can
just see that in a code of ethics or in a 'contract'.  I will work 
within
your ontological concepts unless I think that may be of harm to you 
or
others!  That is what I do.

 WL>> Without these little poems we do not exist.
 WL>> Anyone who then goes on to mutter about time space
 WL>>  continuums is a philistine.

I see how I leave a little chink for the philistine.  Clark Kent 
can write
in the Psybernet Echo but Superman must go to the ALTERWORLD.

 SR>  Any philistine-type person who says he isn't a poem should be
 SR>  placed in a  jar and peed on.

You obviously have been put into a meta-psychological jar and peed 
on and
this is a recovered memory!  It happened in the last message as 
well I
think, you are still attracting these things in your life now.

 WL>> Ahh, the winged warrior just flew off . . .

 SR> Come back, come back, we've only just met. It felt like the
 SR> beginning of a beautiful relationship!

I've hardly got to know him too!

 WL>> PS I have been reading on the Internet about 'memes' ideas
 WL>> which have life of their own and use people and even software
 WL>> etc, for their life.

 SR> Isn't that strange. I've just been talking to Reg about his
 SR> Axiodrama and saying that ideas are people that demand to be
 SR> heard. I'd like to know more about memes.

Well this strange mirroring of themes is one of the forces at work 
for ze
Herr Doktor from Vienna to make with an analyziz.

Yes ideas are people, it is what you have said all along, archetypes,
memes, out to grab us, competing for our attention.  Some are like 
cancer,
others like viruses others like the grace of god.  The herrenvolk 
meme is
a nasty little critter for example.  
It-is-the-behaviour-not-the-person
meme is benign.

Taking sides with memes, oh dear.

 SR>                                    Achilles (WW) of the
 SR>                                    Pitiless Bronze Son of Peleus
 SR>                                    Slayer of Hector.

What about a special echo for WW?

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:50 2000
Date: (2060)   Tue 5 Apr 94 15:29                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2c8a8c00
@REPLY: 3:770/270 3dc3706d

Hello Ruby,

 RW> Hi Walt,

 RW> just jumping in on your message to Stanley...

And I am jumping in too, although I do feel very much involved and 
in the
thick of something here.

 WL>> Yes, all poems. AND I would say things like 'You were 
tricked', 'you
 WL>> were abused', 'what happened to you was terrible'. I do not 
like the
 WL>> alternative 'you feel, or you think you were abused', unless 
they do
 WL>> *think* they were abused of course, ie if they have an 
element of
 WL>> doubt.

 RW> Oh yes, good for you Walter,
 RW> I am glad to hear that.
 RW> I think that has far more impact on the healing.
 RW> Then there is no doubt that you *really* believe them, and not
 RW> only that, you are making yourself available for the
 RW> consequences. I think that takes a lot of courage on the
 RW> therapist's part.

I want to make it very clear that in this context I go along with 
what
Walter is saying and your supporting him here Ruby. I have said 
before on
this BBS and elsewhere that the person who has been abused needs 
their
reality validated in every which way possible. I can not help 
thinking,
however, that Walter has taken something out of context here and 
maybe
even you too Ruby. Neither of you are directly quoting me, but I 
know you
have both read my messages in this echo on this subject. Whether 
this is
through misunderstanding, deliberate, or otherwise, I of course do 
not
know as an absolute truth <G>. I know what I think and I know what 
I feel
in response to it, that is my reality <G>.

I also know that I went on to say a lot of other things in response 
to you
Ruby and we seemed to get somewhere. The most significant 
conclusion being
that honesty and truth was paramount. We also seemed to clarify 
where we
both stood in relation to God, or should that be where God stood in
relation to us <G>. It was in that context that the validation of 
reality
came up. So I am surprised that you respond here as you do. It 
makes me
start to doubt our conclusion, to think it was a *bullshit* one, 
which is
what I was saying needed to be avoided in the long run, but It did 
seem
very real to me at the time. I think it takes more courage to speak 
ones
truth regardless of the consequences than to go along with 
something you
do not agree with. That is my truth.

 RW> To my way of thinking and feeling, to hear 'you *think*...' or
 RW> 'you *feel*...', about something that is my truth, is to be
 RW> abandoned, to know that they are afraid of my truth, they
 RW> cannot handle it.

It can mean that Ruby. It might however simply mean that they do 
not agree
with you or believe you, in which case I suppose you go to somebody 
who
does.

The other side to all this is how to respond to a person who is 
saying
they have not been abused or have not abused somebody else for that 
matter
when you know or suspect they have. Do we validate or challenge that
reality? If we follow any blanket rule we will create or perpetuate a
double standard. I think it all ties back in with what I was saying 
about
triangling, which I believe is a dynamic very much alive on this 
BBS. I
don't think it is so good to just be a yes person with anybody, if 
they
are in denial about something that needs to be challenged. That 
again is
to be truthful and that takes much courage, especially when it is 
to go
against the majority or a popular trend.

I can also see a great difficulty here because you and I were talking
originally about an actual situation and Walter has responded not
specifically to me, but has brought it into a discussion with 
Stanley.
Likewise, I am addressing this to you and so it goes. It is just so 
mucky
it makes me want to withdraw from the medium altogether.


Love & Regards
 Reg

... Living well is the best revenge!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:50 2000
Date: (2094)   Wed 6 Apr 94  3:08                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 90206e23
@REPLY: 3:770/270 3dc3706d

 RW> just jumping in on your message to Stanley...

Let the Wild Rumpus start!

 SR>>> Abuser as much as victim?

 WL>> Yes, all poems.  AND I would say things like 'You were 
tricked',

....

 RW> to be given the reflection that I need makes it *more*
 RW> strongly my truth.
 RW> And I know how powerful it is to claim an event as one's own,
 RW> to admit that 'this happened to me, this really happened to
 RW> me.' and then to have it believed and met....powerful.

What do you think of the other aspect of this discussion, that even 
though
I say this 'happened' etc, that it is the *experience* that is 
thing the
therapy is about, and that naming the experience is different from 
naming
the facts.  I was just coming to understand that when Stanley 
couldn't
beleive his ears, would I go that far with an Abuser!  (He would he 
just
did not expect me to!)  I do that being a poet is more relevant 
than being
a scientist.  I said to someone the other day:  'You were kept in the
dark!' Now I know I did not say: you feel, or you think ... but 
really I
named the experience in a new and poetic way not the facts so much.
(poetic is a bit of a grandiose term for such a simple thing, never 
mind.)
All these words, tricked, abandoned, and the roles that go with them;
trickster, cruel abandoner etc. are poems, abstractions that name
something in the soul, that soul work is the real healing I think.

I hope this is not just intellectual.  It isn't for me, I get really
worked up about all this!  It all ties in with the pain I have felt 
around
the BLOODY media & the recovered memories stuff.  I think often a
recovered memory is just what we are speaking of here, a wonderful 
thing
that happens in the soul, psyche, person whatever, when they go: 
Aaah,
that was rape! or that was cruel, or he stole my childhood.  
Somehow a
whole complex un named experience is captured with a few simple 
words.
The words are important and they must be the right words and tie in 
with
the experience.  That this is the nature of the work is just not 
captured
by the idea that therapsts are dealing with facts, history or seeking
evidence.

 WL>> Now is all this to deny that the gods have won?  I don't 
think <g>
 WL>> so.
 WL>> I am not sure.

 RW> I am not quite sure of the context here, but none-the-less, my
 RW> answer is.....NEVER! <G>

Well I think so.  The 'here and now' soul work is different 
altogether
than the work of scientists and lawyers, whose job is to focus on 
facts.
That is all I mean by the gods have won.  I expect you agree, and 
that you
mean something quite different.

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:50 2000
Date: (2095)   Wed 6 Apr 94 18:58                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 87333b38
@REPLY: 3:770/270 0bf3af49

Dear Ruby,

Getting this message up to the BBS is becoming a bit of a drawn out
process for me. I have pulled a muscle or something in my neck so 
am now
in quite a bit of physical pain just to make my life awkward <G>. I 
can
only cope with short spells at the keyboard. It may also be that 
once I
get this one up you will experience a bit of a lull in my 
correspondence.

 RW> Sorry about the format of this, there is something wrong
 RW> with the word processor making the lines too short and I
 RW> am unable to fix it.

It hasn't come up too badly this end, apart from the odd word being 
thrown
onto the next line.

 RW> When I read your messages I put my head in my hands and
 RW> thought, how on earth am I going to reply to you?
 RW> It would be so much easier to talk, but I shall do my
 RW> best within this medium with all its limits and
 RW> frustrations that you (and now I) have been grappling
 RW> with.

Sure is difficult when things are not buzzing along nicely eh?

 RW> There is so much I want to say, yet I am keeping in mind
 RW> as I write that it takes very few words to speak the
 RW> truth.

True <G>.

 RW> And if there is anything in what you read that hurts you
 RW> or moves you or changes you or that you like or do not
 RW> like or agree with or disagree with, I can only hope that
 RW> you will write back and not abandon this altogether.

I think this theme of withdrawal is somewhat prevalent in this 
cybernetic
world. Certainly it is very present on this BBS and has been for some
time. It does not surprise me, for it is a universal theme, some 
call it
the fight / flight dynamic. It is one of our survival mechanisms, 
we cope
by moving toward or away. The words of the pop song come to mind: 
"Should
I stay or should I go?" The fact that I might get caught up in it 
does not
surprise me either, for I too am human and proud of it <G>. Rest 
assured
however, it is just not within me these days to withdraw from 
something
that I have been very much a part of without reaching some 
conclusion or
giving some word of explanation. I think that would be an unhealthy
response and destructive to me and others. Certainly your message 
does
have an affect on me Ruby and it is a positive one. I don't think 
it would
really matter what you said to me (within reason), the fact that 
you keep
responding to me is very positive and appreciated.

 RW> It is terrible for me not knowing if you will stay with
 RW> me or not, that my words here may determine your
 RW> decision.

I am sorry if I have put you in that situation, please rest assured 
that
if I do withdraw from this medium it will not be because of what 
you have
said or done. As I write this I have no intention of withdrawing, 
but I do
need to retain the freedom to do that.

 RS>> Walter has taken something
 RS>> out of context here
 RS>> and maybe even you too Ruby. Neither of you are
 RS>> directly quoting me,
 RS>> but I know you have both read my messages in this
 RS>> echo on this subject.
 RS>> Whether this is through misunderstanding,
 RS>> deliberate, or otherwise, I
 RS>> of course do not know as an absolute truth <G>. I
 RS>> know what I think and
 RS>> I know what I feel in response to it, that is my
 RS>> reality <G>.

 RW> Yes, I probably did take it out of context, as I was not
 RW> following the thread between Walter and Stanley, and
 RW> understood little of the rest of the message, but does
 RW> that matter?

Yes and no.

No it does not matter in that we are all human and will make 
mistakes,
many of them quite unintentionally, I think the real guts of our 
current
difficulties on the BBS have stemmed at least in part from some of my
unintentional mistakes. For instance, I have apparently written some
messages somewhere on the BBS that a user found offensive. I do not 
know
the particular messages in question and the user will not tell me, 
so I am
left guessing. She has told Walter and he thinks that because she 
spoke to
him in confidence then he should not tell me either, which is fair 
enough.
The result is that I am still left guessing. I can appreciate that 
some
people are simply not ready, willing or able to communicate 
directly about
what is painful to them, least of all publicly, but it is so 
wonderful
when they do. It prevents getting caught up in these mucky triangles.

Yes it does matter in that it does have an affect on me when I am
misquoted or get taken up the wrong way etc. I end up feeling hurt, 
angry
and frustrated.

 RW> I chose to respond to that particular part of it because
 RW> it was a topic you and I had touched upon and that I was
 RW> familiar with.

Yes, I can appreciate that and I can see that it was a relevant 
topic, for
you and me and many others too <G>. When we write anything here we 
are to
use my psychodrama jargon, protagonists and auxiliaries for the 
world.

 RW> As far as you and I are concerned, I thought we had laid
 RW> that topic to rest, if I remember rightly I had
 RW> misunderstood you initially but that we had sorted it
 RW> out...

Yes and this is where my surprise came in, I got it into my head 
that what
Walter was saying was undermining the conclusions we had reached, .

 RW> This also raises the issue, is it alright for something
 RW> to re- surface in this way?

Most definitely, but I do think in terms of building on whatever has
already been built. I did not have a sense that was happening in 
what you
and Walter were saying.

 RW> Anyway I don't think that is the issue here...I think you
 RW> somehow feel betrayed by me, is that right?

No, definitely not betrayed. Yesterday I felt surprised and a little
confused. Later I came to realise that I felt hurt, angry and 
frustrated.
Today I feel none of these in regard to this matter.

 RW> It was not my intention to get at you in any way by what
 RW> I said here to Walter.
 RW> You said you know what you think and you know what you
 RW> feel...but what *do* you think and feel Reg, I don't
 RW> think
 RW> you have told me, other than between the lines. This is
 RW> not said in a sarcastic way but with a genuine desire, I
 RW> really want to know.

I have actually, I felt surprised and communicated that. And yes I 
was
saying some other things between the lines too, but is that not 
always the
way it is with the world. The challenge is to make it all visible 
and do
something constructive with it.

 RS>> I also know that I went on to say a lot of other
 RS>> things in response to
 RS>> you Ruby and we seemed to get somewhere.

 RW> Yes I think so too.

Ah...... sigh of relief <G>.

 RS>> The most significant conclusion being that honesty and truth 
was
 RS>> paramount.

 RW> Yes, and you are putting that into practice here.
 RW> I think you have a great deal of courage and integrity,
 RW> confronting all this here as you are doing, and I admire
 RW> and respect you for that.

Thankyou.

 RS>> We also seemed
 RS>> to clarify where we both stood in relation to God,
 RS>> or should that be
 RS>> where God stood in relation to us <G>. It was in
 RS>> that context that the
 RS>> validation of reality came up. So I am surprised
 RS>> that you respond here
 RS>> as you do.

 RW> Was I saying anything new?
 RW> I think I was only elaborating on something I had already
 RW> talked about with you, and I am sorry if you thought I
 RW> was discounting your truth, that was not my intention.

No, I did not think you were discounting my truth. No need to 
apologise
for that. Unfortunately I did not read it as an elaboration, 
whether this
is my mistake or whether you had not communicated clearly is probably
irrelevant. On the other hand it is also perhaps very relevant to the
whole theme of reality and the validation of it. There was a long
discussion about reality, individual perception of reality and the
validation of it some months back on the BBS. Anne Wilson Shaef 
writes
some interesting and useful things on this topic in her book "Women's
Reality". If we accept that we all have our own unique reality or
perception of the world we get somewhere. I think problems occur 
when we
start to say that our reality is a universal truth. To me the 
recognition
and acknowledgment of difference is one of the key elements in 
effective
communication and relationships.

 RW> I think it is alright for issues such as these to be re-
 RW> visited, perhaps each time this happens our understanding
 RW> deepens.

Yes and I know mine has here through all this.

 RS>> It makes me start to doubt our conclusion, to think
 RS>> it was a
 RS>> *bullshit* one, which is what I was saying needed to
 RS>> be avoided in the
 RS>> long run, but It did seem very real to me at the
 RS>> time. I think it takes
 RS>> more courage to speak ones truth regardless of the
 RS>> consequences than to
 RS>> go along with something you do not agree with. That
 RS>> is my truth.

 RW> I don't think our conclusion was in any way *bullshit*.
 RW> It was certainly real for me.
 RW> I value your truth Reg, especially when I see that you
 RW> are putting this truth into practice here.

Thanks.

 RW> This is so difficult!
 RW> Is this really the issue?
 RW> There are just no set rules for this kind of thing, I
 RW> think it is pointless to even continue the discussion
 RW> along the same lines now, because what it really comes
 RW> down to is that you think I am betraying you when I am
 RW> not, and *really* what can I do or say to change that?

As I said above I do not feel betrayed by you. Perhaps I did 
yesterday,
but did not know it <G>. Certainly if I did, what you say might be 
true.
But then again surely this is what needs to be sorted out. The
clarification of what one feels and thinks from what another feels 
and
thinks.

 RW>>> To my way of thinking and feeling, to hear 'you
 RW>> *think*...' or
 RW>>> 'you *feel*...', about something that is my truth,
 RW>> is to be
 RW>>> abandoned, to know that they are afraid of my
 RW>> truth, they
 RW>>> cannot handle it.

 RS>> It can mean that Ruby. It might however simply mean
 RS>> that they do not
 RS>> agree with you or believe you, in which case I
 RS>> suppose you go to somebody who does.

 RW> It *may* mean that they do not believe me or do not agree
 RW> with me, but the *abandonment* is still my reality.

True, but is not abandonment a feeling? To my way of thinking it is 
not a
universal fact. Often we can feel abandoned when in fact we have 
not been
literally abandoned by another. Your reality is one of abandonment, 
but
that might not be Jill or Joe Bloggs perception of the situation.

 RW> ......I really don't know if there is an answer here.
 RW> I think I would go with my gut feeling, and respond from
 RW> my heart to that person, and that means following my
 RW> truth.

Yes, this is a wise course of action at times, to follow ones 
heart, but
at other times following the head may be more wise. Getting them 
working
together as a team and balancing thinking, feeling and acting, is 
probably
even better still. I know that I have gotten into some awful messes 
in my
life when I have not had such a balance.

 RW> Again, there are no set rules, we can only truly discuss
 RW> this if it is personal to us, which it was, and we did.

Yes.

 RS>> I can also see a great difficulty here because you
 RS>> and I were talking
 RS>> originally about an actual situation and Walter has
 RS>> responded not
 RS>> specifically to me, but has brought it into a
 RS>> discussion with Stanley.

 RW> Yes I see what you mean.
 RW> If we can only confront this on a personal level,
 RW> we only run into difficulties when we start talking in
 RW> general terms.

Yes mostly, but it is difficult eh?

 RS>> Likewise, I am addressing this to you and so it
 RS>> goes. It is just so
 RS>> mucky it makes me want to withdraw from the medium
 RS>> altogether.

 RW> It does not have to be mucky Reg,

Perhaps not, but nonetheless it is <G>.

 RW> it may be painful and
 RW> there may be moments when it would seem easier to
 RW> withdraw, but as I have responded to this message I have
 RW> found myself really valuing your honesty and feeling
 RW> quite committed to the process

Yes, likewise.

 RW> If we can see the darkness through to light, night
 RW> through to day, I believe there is much to be gained.

Yes, very well put, anything metaphorical will always get through 
to me
Ruby, thankyou.

 RW> It is interesting that this discussion began when I wrote
 RW> about my fear of abandonment...and this is what I now
 RW> face, with you.

Yes, I was thinking about this yesterday and trying to reach some 
sort of
conclusion, I was not able to then, but right now I am thinking:

"It is terrible if we just replicate the same old patterns".

That is probably the therapist in me speaking, which as we know is 
not the
hat I am wearing here. I don't actually think we are just repeating 
old
patterns and I am also thinking:

"If Ruby successfully negotiates her way through an experience of
abandonment, she will emerge just that much more stronger and more 
able
to cope with situations that are prone to the perpetuation of such a
dynamic."

For some reason, I am not sure why, I need to say again that, we 
need to
keep clear the nature of what basis we are relating on to one another
here. I may change my ideas on this, being the fickle being I am. I 
am
also one involved in a constant process of change, but as I see it 
now, we
are two friends engaged in a cybernetic encounter. Neither of us is
therapist or consultant here, neither of us is the facilitator of 
this
echo, I have relinquished that role some time ago. When you meet me 
here
you meet Reg, citizen of cyberspace in all his magnificent and 
imperfect
glory <G>. It might be true that I am also a therapist and 
counsellor in
my non virtual life and certainly Reg as a total being is present 
in that
situation, but he will relate or function somewhat differently in 
that
setting than here. It might also be that I am one of the sysops of 
this
BBS and there are certain responsibilities that go with that role. 
Walter
and I have had some discussion about this dualism, but have not 
reached
any definitive conclusions. I do not have a job description as such,
perhaps I need one Walter. I think too there is an ethical question 
here,
amongst all this sticky mess. I don't know that this is the best 
place and
time to pose it. Perhaps I will when my neck is not so sore, right 
now I
want to finish this message and get it in the mail <G>.

 RW> You wrote about staying with your truth in the face of
 RW> adversity, and this is what you are now doing here.

Yes, I guess so and it is not particularly easy to do that in the 
face of
criticism, but that has not stopped me in the past and probably 
won't in
the future. Perhaps it is just one of the many crosses I bear <G>.

 RW> There is deeper meaning to all of this.
 RW> Please don't abandon the process Reg.

Ah yes,. the process. In psychodrama circles, we have a saying,
unfortunately it has become something of a cliche:

"Trust the process".

Well I will for as long as it seems healthy to do that, but if it 
appears
destructive or abusive I most definitely will abandon it.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:50 2000
Date: (2062)   Tue 5 Apr 94 20:54                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 150
@MSGID: 3:770/270 0bf3af49
@REPLY: 3:770/270 2c8a8c00

Dear Reg,

Sorry about the format of this, there is something wrong
with the word processor making the lines too short and I
am unable to fix it.

But anyway...

My heart feels very heavy as I begin this...
When I read your messages I put my head in my hands and
thought, how on earth am I going to reply to you?
It would be so much easier to talk, but I shall do my
best within this medium with all its limits and
frustrations that you (and now I) have been grappling
with.
There is so much I want to say, yet I am keeping in mind
as I write that it takes very few words to speak the
truth.
And if there is anything in what you read that hurts you
or moves you or changes you or that you like or do not
like or agree with or disagree with, I can only hope that
you will write back and not abandon this altogether.
It is terrible for me not knowing if you will stay with
me or not, that my words here may determine your
decision.
So, I endeavour to speak from my heart and remain
detached from the outcome...

 WL>>> Yes, all poems. AND I would say things like 'You
 WL> were tricked', 'you
 WL>>> were abused', 'what happened to you was terrible'
 WL>. I do not like the
 WL>>> alternative 'you feel, or you think you were
 WL> abused', unless they do
 WL>>> *think* they were abused of course, ie if they
 WL> have an element of doubt.

 RW>> Oh yes, good for you Walter,
 RW>> I am glad to hear that.
 RW>> I think that has far more impact on the healing.
 RW>> Then there is no doubt that you *really* believe
 RW> them, and not
 RW>> only that, you are making yourself available for
 RW> the
 RW>> consequences. I think that takes a lot of courage
 RW>> on the therapist's part.

 RS> I want to make it very clear that in this context I
 RS> go along with what
 RS> Walter is saying and your supporting him here Ruby
 RS>. I have said before
 RS> on this BBS and elsewhere that the person who has
 RS> been abused needs
 RS> their reality validated in every which way possible
 RS>. I can not help
 RS> thinking, however, that Walter has taken something
 RS> out of context here
 RS> and maybe even you too Ruby. Neither of you are
 RS> directly quoting me,
 RS> but I know you have both read my messages in this
 RS> echo on this subject.
 RS> Whether this is through misunderstanding,
 RS> deliberate, or otherwise, I
 RS> of course do not know as an absolute truth <G>. I
 RS> know what I think and
 RS> I know what I feel in response to it, that is my
 RS> reality <G>.

Yes, I probably did take it out of context, as I was not
following the thread between Walter and Stanley, and
understood little of the rest of the message, but does
that matter?
I chose to respond to that particular part of it because
it was a topic you and I had touched upon and that I was
familiar with.
As far as you and I are concerned, I thought we had laid
that topic to rest, if I remember rightly I had
misunderstood you initially but that we had sorted it
out...
This also raises the issue, is it alright for something
to re- surface in this way?
Anyway I don't think that is the issue here...I think you
somehow feel betrayed by me, is that right?
It was not my intention to get at you in any way by what
I said here to Walter.
You said you know what you think and you know what you
feel...but what *do* you think and feel Reg, I don't
think
you have told me, other than between the lines. This is
not said in a sarcastic way but with a genuine desire, I
really want to know.

 RS> I also know that I went on to say a lot of other
 RS> things in response to
 RS> you Ruby and we seemed to get somewhere.

Yes I think so too.

 RS> The most significant
 RS> conclusion being that honesty and truth was
 RS> paramount.

Yes, and you are putting that into practice here.
I think you have a great deal of courage and integrity,
confronting all this here as you are doing, and I admire
and respect you for that.

 RS> We also seemed
 RS> to clarify where we both stood in relation to God,
 RS> or should that be
 RS> where God stood in relation to us <G>. It was in
 RS> that context that the
 RS> validation of reality came up. So I am surprised
 RS> that you respond here
 RS> as you do.

Was I saying anything new?
I think I was only elaborating on something I had already
talked about with you, and I am sorry if you thought I
was discounting your truth, that was not my intention.
I think it is alright for issues such as these to be re-
visited, perhaps each time this happens our understanding
deepens.

 RS> It makes me start to doubt our conclusion, to think
 RS> it was a
 RS> *bullshit* one, which is what I was saying needed to
 RS> be avoided in the
 RS> long run, but It did seem very real to me at the
 RS> time. I think it takes
 RS> more courage to speak ones truth regardless of the
 RS> consequences than to
 RS> go along with something you do not agree with. That
 RS> is my truth.

I don't think our conclusion was in any way *bullshit*.
It was certainly real for me.
I value your truth Reg, especially when I see that you
are putting this truth into practice here.

This is so difficult!
Is this really the issue?
There are just no set rules for this kind of thing, I
think it is pointless to even continue the discussion
along the same lines now, because what it really comes
down to is that you think I am betraying you when I am
not, and *really* what can I do or say to change that?

 RW>> To my way of thinking and feeling, to hear 'you
 RW> *think*...' or
 RW>> 'you *feel*...', about something that is my truth,
 RW> is to be
 RW>> abandoned, to know that they are afraid of my
 RW> truth, they
 RW>> cannot handle it.

 RS> It can mean that Ruby. It might however simply mean
 RS> that they do not
 RS> agree with you or believe you, in which case I
 RS> suppose you go to somebody who does.

It *may* mean that they do not believe me or do not agree
with me, but the *abandonment* is still my reality.

 RS> The other side to all this is how to respond to a
 RS> person who is saying
 RS> they have not been abused or have not abused
 RS> somebody else for that
 RS> matter when you know or suspect they have. Do we
 RS> validate or challenge
 RS> that reality? If we follow any blanket rule we will
 RS> create or
 RS> perpetuate a double standard. I think it all ties
 RS> back in with what I
 RS> was saying about triangling, which I believe is a
 RS> dynamic very much
 RS> alive on this BBS. I don't think it is so good to
 RS> just be a yes person
 RS> with anybody, if they are in denial about something
 RS> that needs to be
 RS> challenged. That again is to be truthful and that
 RS> takes much courage,
 RS> especially when it is to go against the majority or
 RS> a popular trend.

I really don't know if there is an answer here.
I think I would go with my gut feeling, and respond from
my heart to that person, and that means following my
truth.
Again, there are no set rules, we can only truly discuss
this if it is personal to us, which it was, and we did.

 RS> I can also see a great difficulty here because you
 RS> and I were talking
 RS> originally about an actual situation and Walter has
 RS> responded not
 RS> specifically to me, but has brought it into a
 RS> discussion with Stanley.

Yes I see what you mean.
If we can only confront this on a personal level,
we only run into difficulties when we start talking in
general terms.

 RS> Likewise, I am addressing this to you and so it
 RS> goes. It is just so
 RS> mucky it makes me want to withdraw from the medium
 RS> altogether.

It does not have to be mucky Reg, it may be painful and
there may be moments when it would seem easier to
withdraw, but as I have responded to this message I have
found myself really valuing your honesty and feeling
quite committed to the process
If we can see the darkness through to light, night
through to day, I believe there is much to be gained.
It is interesting that this discussion began when I wrote
about my fear of abandonment...and this is what I now
face, with you.
You wrote about staying with your truth in the face of
adversity, and this is what you are now doing here.

There is deeper meaning to all of this.
Please don't abandon the process Reg.

Ruby.




 RS> Love & Regards
 RS>  Reg

 RS> ... Living well is the best revenge!
 RS> --- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 RS>  * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics
+64-3-365-6876+V42b
 RS> (3:770/270)
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 150
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2116)   Thu 7 Apr 94 12:15                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 152
@MSGID: 3:770/270 22c4de5f
@REPLY: 3:770/270 87333b38
06: 58pm

Dear Reg,

 RW>> When I read your messages I put my head in my hands
 RW> and
 RW>> thought, how on earth am I going to reply to you?
 RW>> It would be so much easier to talk, but I shall do
 RW> my
 RW>> best within this medium with all its limits and
 RW>> frustrations that you (and now I) have been
 RW>> grappling with.

 RS> Sure is difficult when things are not buzzing along
 RS> nicely eh?

Yep. <G>
Difficult, but rewarding too I think.

 RW>> And if there is anything in what you read that
 RW>> hurts you
 RW>> or moves you or changes you or that you like or do
 RW>> not
 RW>> like or agree with or disagree with, I can only
 RW>> hope that
 RW>> you will write back and not abandon this
 RW>> altogether.

 RS> Rest assured however, it is just not within me these
 RS> days to withdraw from something that I have been
 RS> very much a part of
 RS> without reaching some conclusion or giving some word
 RS> of explanation. I
 RS> think that would be an unhealthy response and
 RS> destructive to me and
 RS> others.

I rest assured. <G>

I would have been surprised if you had withdrawn
abruptly, that would have been most out of character I
think, from what I have come to know of you here.

 RS> I don't think it would really matter
 RS> what you said to
 RS> me (within reason), the fact that you keep
 RS> responding to me is very
 RS> positive and appreciated.

Thank you.
But of course it matters what I say...I don't understand
you on this one. <G>

 RW>> It is terrible for me not knowing if you will stay
 RW> with
 RW>> me or not, that my words here may determine your
 RW>> decision.

 RS> I am sorry if I have put you in that situation,
 RS> please rest assured that
 RS> if I do withdraw from this medium it will not be
 RS> because of what you
 RS> have said or done. As I write this I have no
 RS> intention of withdrawing,
 RS> but I do need to retain the freedom to do that.

It is not terrible for me now, but it was in that moment,
and if you do withdraw, I won't take it personally or be
mortally wounded, although I will, of course, miss
you.<G>
There is a vast difference between sudden absence, and a
stated withdrawal, and it was my fear that you would
suddenly vanish, in the middle of *the process*, and
*that* (for me) is abandonment.

 RS>>> Walter has taken something
 RS>>> out of context here
 RS>>> and maybe even you too Ruby. Neither of you are
 RS>>> directly quoting me,
 RS>>> but I know you have both read my messages in this
 RS>>> echo on this subject.
 RS>>> Whether this is through misunderstanding,
 RS>>> deliberate, or otherwise, I
 RS>>> of course do not know as an absolute truth <G>. I
 RS>>> know what I think and
 RS>>> I know what I feel in response to it, that is my
 RS>>> reality <G>.

 RW>> Yes, I probably did take it out of context, as I
 RW>> was not
 RW>> following the thread between Walter and Stanley,
 RW>> and
 RW>> understood little of the rest of the message, but
 RW>> does that matter?

 RS> Yes and no.

 RS> No it does not matter in that we are all human and
 RS> will make mistakes,
 RS> many of them quite unintentionally,

Well....I don't believe there is any such thing as a
*mistake*, to me it is more just what happens.
And I am glad I responded as I did to Walter's comment,
because of what it has brought about.

 RS> I think the real guts of our current
 RS> difficulties on the BBS have stemmed at least in
 RS> part from some of my
 RS> unintentional mistakes.

I don't see it that way.
If it wasn't you it would be somebody else, how can this
*not* happen where humans are involved?
Unless we all wrote about totally mundane topics, without
revealing a scrap of who we were, there is no way that
this *couldn't* happen.

 RS> For instance, I have apparently written some
 RS> messages somewhere on the BBS that a user found
 RS> offensive. I do not know
 RS> the particular messages in question and the user
 RS> will not tell me, so I
 RS> am left guessing. She has told Walter and he thinks
 RS> that because she
 RS> spoke to him in confidence then he should not tell
 RS> me either, which is
 RS> fair enough. The result is that I am still left
 RS> guessing. I can
 RS> appreciate that some people are simply not ready,
 RS> willing or able to
 RS> communicate directly about what is painful to them,
 RS> least of all
 RS> publicly, but it is so wonderful when they do. It
 RS> prevents getting
 RS> caught up in these mucky triangles.

I knew nothing about the above, but now that you have
mentioned it, a lot makes sense that previously didn't.

I think it is between you and the person you mentioned
and Walter, and made all the more difficult by having
both on-line and off-line communication...I think this is
where it does get *mucky*.
I would hazard a guess that the issue lies with your last
message to her, I haven't read it but I will, I can say
no more until then. But this is not the issue is it?
Obviously you have offended her and she has withdrawn and
perhaps there is nothing more you can do about that, what
about apologising? I don't know, I haven't read the
message or messages, I don't know the context of all
this.

 RS> Yes it does matter in that it does have an affect on
 RS> me when I am
 RS> misquoted or get taken up the wrong way etc. I end
 RS> up feeling hurt,
 RS> angry and frustrated.

As I recall, there was nothing quoted or misquoted.
I do not mean to be harsh here, and I am not discounting
your hurt, frustration and anger, but I think it was you
that took it the wrong way.

 RW>> I chose to respond to that particular part of it
 RW>> because
 RW>> it was a topic you and I had touched upon and that
 RW>> I was
 RW>> familiar with.

 RS> Yes, I can appreciate that and I can see that it was
 RS> a relevant topic,
 RS> for you and me and many others too <G>.

Yes. And Walter has since explained it beautifully and I
do support him in that, I wonder if you have read his
message to me. It has deepened my understanding although
it is such that I can only glimpse the truth in it, if
you know what I mean. And I am glad I responded and you
responded and Walter responded so there have been no
mistakes and understanding has been deepened.
Of course it all could have happened quite differently
and we all could have fled and been none-the-wiser, and
its not over yet, is it.
And there is a multitude of emotional history attached to
all of this and it is not about any one issue, is it. And
it is by no means simple. But its alright, I think its
really alright, and I am glad this has all surfaced.
But you are in pain and not really alright, and I want to
acknowledge that as well.

 RW>> As far as you and I are concerned, I thought we had
 RW>> laid
 RW>> that topic to rest, if I remember rightly I had
 RW>> misunderstood you initially but that we had sorted
 RW>> it out...

 RS> Yes and this is where my surprise came in, I got it
 RS> into my head that
 RS> what Walter was saying was undermining the
 RS> conclusions we had reached, .

Oh I don't think so. Not undermining them.
Perhaps if I only knew him on-line, as I do you, then I
would wonder about the context.
Is this where it is difficult? The on-line/off-line
thing. I decided to just *talk* to Walter, it is too much
to live in the same house *and* write to each other,
strange somehow. What happens if we come to flames? Nah,
too divided for me. I am a purist through and through.<G>


 RW>> This also raises the issue, is it alright for
 RW> something
 RW>> to re- surface in this way?

 RS> Most definitely, but I do think in terms of building
 RS> on whatever has
 RS> already been built. I did not have a sense that was
 RS> happening in what
 RS> you and Walter were saying.

I was building on something that had been touched upon
*off-line*.

 RW>>>> To my way of thinking and feeling, to hear 'you
 RW>>>> *think*...' or
 RW>>>> 'you *feel*...', about something that is my
 RW>>>> truth, is to be
 RW>>>> abandoned, to know that they are afraid of my
 RW>>>> truth, they
 RW>>>> cannot handle it.

 RS>>> It can mean that Ruby. It might however simply
 RS>>> mean that they do not
 RS>>> agree with you or believe you, in which case I
 RS>>> suppose you go to somebody who does.

 RW>> It *may* mean that they do not believe me or do not
 RW> agree
 RW>> with me, but the *abandonment* is still my reality.

 RS> True, but is not abandonment a feeling? To my way of
 RS> thinking it is not
 RS> a universal fact. Often we can feel abandoned when
 RS> in fact we have not
 RS> been literally abandoned by another. Your reality is
 RS> one of
 RS> abandonment, but that might not be Jill or Joe
 RS> Bloggs perception of the
 RS> situation.

Fuck Jill or Joe Bloggs perception!
If it is *my* situation, and *I* feel abandoned, I do not
want or need any other person projecting their own
reality onto mine.
It happened to me yesterday, I was talking about my job
and said "I can't do it anymore, I can't cope, I can't
deal with all that shit anymore."
And my friend said, "Yes you can."

In her perception, I could cope, and when I protested and
told her how it felt, she said all she had meant was that
I was a strong person etc etc.
Needless to say, no matter what another thinks or feels,
I am the one who knows my own truth and I do need that
validated. When I share my truth in this way, I do not
seek to know what the other person thinks or feels about
it, I just want acknowledgement.
So when I say I feel abandoned, that is my reality.
If another person has the courage and the committment to
acknowledge that, there is some kind of relief for me,
and I can start to feel maybe not so abandoned as I was
before.
I don't know if you understand or not...it feels
important that you do, or perhaps this is all just my own
'stuff.'
If you read Walter's message, I think it makes sense
there. I don't think I am explaining it clearly.

 RS>>> Likewise, I am addressing this to you and so it
 RS>>> goes. It is just so
 RS>>> mucky it makes me want to withdraw from the medium
 RS>>> altogether.

 RW>> It does not have to be mucky Reg,

 RS> Perhaps not, but nonetheless it is <G>.

Yes, I don't know why I said that.<G>
In your reality it is mucky, and in mine too.

 RW>> It is interesting that this discussion began when I
 RW>> wrote
 RW>> about my fear of abandonment...and this is what I
 RW>> now face, with you.

 RS> Yes, I was thinking about this yesterday and trying
 RS> to reach some sort
 RS> of conclusion, I was not able to then, but right now
 RS> I am thinking:

 RS> "It is terrible if we just replicate the same old
 RS> patterns".

 RS> That is probably the therapist in me speaking, which
 RS> as we know is not
 RS> the hat I am wearing here. I don't actually think we
 RS> are just repeating
 RS> old patterns and I am also thinking:

 RS> "If Ruby successfully negotiates her way through an
 RS> experience of
 RS> abandonment, she will emerge just that much more
 RS> stronger and more able
 RS> to cope with situations that are prone to the
 RS> perpetuation of such a
 RS> dynamic."

One of my old patterns is to abandon the other person
before they abandon me, and I have not done that for a
few years. <G>  And working through that I have become a
lot more able to 'stay with' I think, although I am able
to stay with others' darkness alot more easier than with
my own.
I think for me to voice that fear here somehow dissolved
its power over me.
That's often the way, isn't it. <G>


 RS> For some reason, I am not sure why, I need to say
 RS> again that, we need to
 RS> keep clear the nature of what basis we are relating
 RS> on to one another
 RS> here. I may change my ideas on this, being the
 RS> fickle being I am. I am
 RS> also one involved in a constant process of change,
 RS> but as I see it now,
 RS> we are two friends engaged in a cybernetic
 RS> encounter. Neither of us is
 RS> therapist or consultant here, neither of us is the
 RS> facilitator of this
 RS> echo, I have relinquished that role some time ago.
 RS> When you meet me here
 RS> you meet Reg, citizen of cyberspace in all his
RS>  magnificent and imperfect
 RS> glory <G>. It might be true that I am also a
 RS> therapist and counsellor in
 RS> my non virtual life and certainly Reg as a total
 RS> being is present in
 RS> that situation, but he will relate or function
 RS> somewhat differently in
 RS> that setting than here. It might also be that I am
 RS> one of the sysops of
 RS> this BBS and there are certain responsibilities that
 RS> go with that role.

Yes, I hear you loud and clear Reg. <G>
We are 2 friends engaged in cybernetic encounter...I like
the way you have put that.
In no way do I see it any differently.

Go well!
I hope your neck comes right, what a bastard.
Take care,

         Ruby.

...truth may walk through the world un-armed.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 152
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2155)   Fri 8 Apr 94  2:40                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 4275fc0b
@REPLY: 3:770/270 2c8a8c00

You were saying to RuFrom:

 RS> I can also see a great difficulty here because you and I were
 RS> talking originally about an actual situation and Walter has
 RS> responded not specifically to me, but has brought it into a
 RS> discussion with Stanley. Likewise, I am addressing this to you
 RS> and so it goes. It is just so mucky it makes me want to
 RS> withdraw from the medium altogether.

I can see that what has happened has hurt you enormously.  I was 
replying
to Stanley though I do recall the earlier discussions we have had 
on the
subject, it has been a major theme for me & on this board, I have 
recently
called it the war between gods and humans, humans deal with facts 
and so
they say "that happened" they would use video cameras to prove it 
etc.
Gods just do not show up on video, but are also at work, in our 
psyche
etc.  Thus it makes more sense to say 'you experience'.  This fits 
with my
view of the psyche but is at odds with how I see abuse!  Hence the 
war.  I
have not been reading the correspondence between you and Ruby, I have
glanced at bits, and heard bits from Ruby and from you, but the 
response
was to the thing that Stanley presented in the context of that 
discussion.

The facts here do not matter either, or they do. . .

What I mean is that even though I am explaining how I see it I really
don't care too much about the facts.  What has happened here has 
bought up
the feeling of wanting to leave the medium.  That is a here and now 
thing.
So mucky, yes.  I feel tied up in knots, though this one here is 
clear to
me.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2157)   Fri 8 Apr 94 22:07                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 91d759e4
@REPLY: 3:770/270 4275fc0b

Hello Walter,

 WL> You were saying to RuFrom:

 RS>> I can also see a great difficulty here because you and I were
 RS>> talking originally about an actual situation and Walter has
 RS>> responded not specifically to me, but has brought it into a
 RS>> discussion with Stanley. Likewise, I am addressing this to you
 RS>> and so it goes. It is just so mucky it makes me want to
 RS>> withdraw from the medium altogether.

 WL> I can see that what has happened has hurt you enormously.

Well I am not sure whether it was just this particular strand of the
thread that precipitated these feelings. I see and experience many
strands of different ropes all tangled and knotted together. I 
somehow
feel amongst them all and want to be disentangled from them. At the 
same
time I see the value in the strands. If only we can untangle the 
mess we
will still have something of value. It is like that when I go 
fishing and
the fine nylon makes itself into a birds nest. I want to sit and 
untangle
it all and preserve it somehow, when I know that the practical 
thing to do
is cut it off and take it home to the rubbish bin, but I feel sad 
when I
have to do that, more often than not I will sit and untangle it.

 WL> I was replying to Stanley though I do recall the earlier
 WL> discussions we have had on the subject, it has been a major
 WL> theme for me & on this board, I have recently called it the war
 WL> between gods and humans, humans deal with facts and so they say
 WL> "that happened" they would use video cameras to prove it etc.

Some would, but not you and I eh? <G>.

 WL> Gods just do not show up on video,

That is open to debate <G>. I have seen some very interesting 
things on
those paranormal type TV programs.

 WL> but are also at work, in our
 WL> psyche etc.  Thus it makes more sense to say 'you experience'.
 WL> This fits with my view of the psyche but is at odds with how I
 WL> see abuse!

How do you see abuse?

 WL> Hence the war.  I have not been reading the
 WL> correspondence between you and Ruby, I have glanced at bits,
 WL> and heard bits from Ruby and from you, but the response was to
 WL> the thing that Stanley presented in the context of that
 WL> discussion.

Yes, I can see that now, but didn't at the time.

 WL> The facts here do not matter either, or they do. . .

I think it all matters, it is all relevant.

 WL> What I mean is that even though I am explaining how I see it I
 WL> really don't care too much about the facts.  What has happened
 WL> here has bought up the feeling of wanting to leave the medium.

Yes, but as I say above that is not the only factor.

 WL> That is a here and now thing. So mucky, yes.  I feel tied up in
 WL> knots, though this one here is clear to me.

And to be tied up in knots is painful eh?
When there is clarity the pain is manageable.

Bye for now
 Reg
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2165)   Sat 9 Apr 94 16:58                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6fedf9f0
@REPLY: 3:770/270 22c4de5f

Hello Ruby,

Sorry about the delay in getting this reply up, but as you know I 
have had
a lot on my mind lately <G>.

 RS>> Sure is difficult when things are not buzzing along
 RS>> nicely eh?

 RW> Yep. <G>
 RW> Difficult, but rewarding too I think.

Oh yes, but sometimes I wonder whether the rewards are worth it,
particularly when they are mostly in the 'well that was a valuable 
lesson
learned' category. I wonder whether the pain is worth the gain, if 
you get
my drift.

 RW> Thank you.
 RW> But of course it matters what I say...I don't understand
 RW> you on this one. <G>

Oh yes, quite true, it matters. What I was meaning was that when 
people
keep on going despite difficulties, I can be incredibly tolerant.

 RW> There is a vast difference between sudden absence, and a
 RW> stated withdrawal, and it was my fear that you would
 RW> suddenly vanish, in the middle of *the process*, and
 RW> *that* (for me) is abandonment.

Yes, I understand you on that.

 RW> Well....I don't believe there is any such thing as a
 RW> *mistake*, to me it is more just what happens.
 RW> And I am glad I responded as I did to Walter's comment,
 RW> because of what it has brought about.

I have a different view of 'mistakes' from you. I do believe we 
make them,
but I also get what you are saying: Sometimes a mistake can have a
positive consequence in the long run, so in fact it was not a mistake
after all. I am pleased to see you value the process so much.

 RS>> I think the real guts of our current
 RS>> difficulties on the BBS have stemmed at least in
 RS>> part from some of my
 RS>> unintentional mistakes.

 RW> I don't see it that way.
 RW> If it wasn't you it would be somebody else, how can this
 RW> *not* happen where humans are involved?

Quite true. I do however, feel like a scape goat when that happens 
and
that is horrible.

 RW> Unless we all wrote about totally mundane topics, without
 RW> revealing a scrap of who we were, there is no way that
 RW> this *couldn't* happen.

Yes, this is a really interesting point, I like whatever I am 
involved in
to be real, earthy and gutsy etc. That is why I sometimes jump in 
with
things that seem a bit over the top or off the wall, but there is 
often a
price and popularity is not usually the reward. I think part of the
difficulty in all this however, is all the dual roles we are caught 
up in.
For example I have got going sometimes as if I am a regular user of 
the
system and 'forgotten' my responsibilities as a sysop, which are 
not in
any way clearly spelled out anyway. I think the medium lends itself 
to
this sort of thing. It is something to do with not having a clear 
warm-up
to a particular set of roles.

 RW> and made all the more difficult by having
 RW> both on-line and off-line communication...I think this is
 RW> where it does get *mucky*.

Yes this a big factor, mainly I think because of time lags and people
missing out on big chunks of information. Everyone is not fully 
involved
in the whole process. It is like they are trying to run a computer 
program
with half the files missing. This can only mean problems somewhere 
at some
stage. If you just read the last message of a thread you will have a
totally different perception of the situation than if you had 
followed
through the whole process and that is what I don't like about this 
medium
as it stands. A particular message although offensive in itself, 
may be
somewhat more or less offensive if read in sequence. This is what I 
am
getting at when I say something is taken out of context. It is 
worse than
judging a book by it's cover.

 RW> ..... But this is not the issue is it?

No it is not perhaps the central issue, but it is a good example of 
how
one can put hundreds of hrs into creating something worthwhile and 
have it
all destroyed by some silly mistakes. It is also perhaps an even 
better
example of how this medium lends itself to skewed processes. The 
partial
anonymity of the medium can serve to warm us up to inappropriate 
sets of
roles.

 RW> .........I think it was you that took it the wrong way.

I am starting to see that, but do you know that even now I do not 
feel
heard by you or Walter on this thing about the medium distorting
perceptions and the partiality of the medium being the biggest 
factor in
this. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall on this one.


 RS>> I can see that it was a relevant topic,
 RS>> for you and me and many others too <G>.

 RW> Yes. And Walter has since explained it beautifully and I
 RW> do support him in that, I wonder if you have read his
 RW> message to me.

Yes I have.

 RW> It has deepened my understanding although
 RW> it is such that I can only glimpse the truth in it, if
 RW> you know what I mean. And I am glad I responded and you
 RW> responded and Walter responded so there have been no
 RW> mistakes and understanding has been deepened.

Wonderful to hear that.

 RW> Of course it all could have happened quite differently
 RW> and we all could have fled and been none-the-wiser, and
 RW> its not over yet, is it.

No and will it ever be?

 RW> And there is a multitude of emotional history attached to
 RW> all of this and it is not about any one issue, is it.

No.

 RW>  And it is by no means simple.

No it is not simple.

 RW> But its alright, I think its
 RW> really alright, and I am glad this has all surfaced.

Yes, so am I.

 RS>> Yes and this is where my surprise came in, I got it
 RS>> into my head that
 RS>> what Walter was saying was undermining the
 RS>> conclusions we had reached, .

 RW> Oh I don't think so. Not undermining them.

No not for you, but that is what I was thinking in that particular 
moment.

 RW> Perhaps if I only knew him on-line, as I do you, then I
 RW> would wonder about the context.
 RW> Is this where it is difficult? The on-line/off-line
 RW> thing.

I think it is a big factor.

 RS>> .... I do think in terms of building
 RS>> on whatever has
 RS>> already been built. I did not have a sense that was
 RS>> happening in what
 RS>> you and Walter were saying.

 RW> I was building on something that had been touched upon
 RW> *off-line*.

Oh great, I love it when people build on things.


 RS>> ..... is not abandonment a feeling? To my way of
 RS>> thinking it is not
 RS>> a universal fact. Often we can feel abandoned when
 RS>> in fact we have not
 RS>> been literally abandoned by another. Your reality is
 RS>> one of abandonment, but that might not be Jill or Joe
 RS>> Bloggs perception of the situation.

 RW> Fuck Jill or Joe Bloggs perception!
 RW> If it is *my* situation, and *I* feel abandoned,

Yes exactly. You *FEEL* abandoned in some situations and that is your
reality and that needs acknowledgment and validation.

 RW> I do not want or need any other person projecting their own
 RW> reality onto mine.

No of course you don't. You want what you *Feel* acknowledged, 
which is
what I have been saying all along.

I can however, not understand how you would think that what I was 
saying
in any way meant the Bloggs' would be projecting anything on to you.
Bloody oath you don't want them projecting anything on to you. They 
do
however, have their unique perception of everything just as you and 
I do.

 RW> It happened to me yesterday, I was talking about my job
 RW> and said "I can't do it anymore, I can't cope, I can't
 RW> deal with all that shit anymore."
 RW> And my friend said, "Yes you can."

 RW> In her perception, I could cope, and when I protested and
 RW> told her how it felt, she said all she had meant was that
 RW> I was a strong person etc etc.

Your friend would perhaps have been more helpful to you if she 
sharpened
her communication skills.

If she had said: "I think you can cope"  then that is a lot different
from: "You can cope". It is a statement about her reality and not 
yours,
and yet it does not project anything on to you when said in that way.
Equally she could have validated your reality by saying something 
like:

"So you can't cope eh?"

And you are then free to say something like:

"No I can't, it is bloody horrible for me."

She is then left in the roles of good friend and listener.

Mind you it is tricky to know just how far one should go with this 
as she
is your fiend and not your counsellor.

 RW> Needless to say, no matter what another thinks or feels,
 RW> I am the one who knows my own truth and I do need that
 RW> validated. When I share my truth in this way, I do not
 RW> seek to know what the other person thinks or feels about
 RW> it, I just want acknowledgment.

Yes, I know what you are saying.

 RW> So when I say I feel abandoned, that is my reality.

Yes it is.

 RW> If another person has the courage and the commitment to
 RW> acknowledge that, there is some kind of relief for me,
 RW> and I can start to feel maybe not so abandoned as I was
 RW> before.

Yes it is bloody terrible to feel abandoned eh?

 RW> I don't know if you understand or not...

Yes, I do understand you on all this.

 RW> it feels important that you do, or perhaps this is all just my 
own
 RW> 'stuff.' If you read Walter's message, I think it makes sense
 RW> there. I don't think I am explaining it clearly.

I think you are quite clear here Ruby on this, I have the sense of 
being
with you in this moment, more so in fact than when reading the 
message
between you and Walter. Again I wonder about all this public 
discussion
and dualism.

 RW> One of my old patterns is to abandon the other person
 RW> before they abandon me, and I have not done that for a
 RW> few years. <G>  And working through that I have become a
 RW> lot more able to 'stay with' I think, although I am able
 RW> to stay with others' darkness a lot more easier than with
 RW> my own. I think for me to voice that fear here somehow dissolved
 RW> its power over me. That's often the way, isn't it. <G>


Yes it is in deed.

Love & Regards 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2168)   Sat 9 Apr 94 23:57                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 154
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1e7b03ef
@REPLY: 3:770/270 6fedf9f0

Hello Reg,

Good to hear from you. <G>

 RW>> Difficult, but rewarding too I think.

 RS> Oh yes, but sometimes I wonder whether the rewards
 RS> are worth it,
 RS> particularly when they are mostly in the 'well that
 RS> was a valuable
 RS> lesson learned' category. I wonder whether the pain
 RS> is worth the gain,
 RS> if you get my drift.

I get your drift <G>, you are still in pain and this is
difficult and you are wondering if the price has been too
high for the lesson, so to speak.
'Well that was a valuable lesson' makes me cringe a
little, it kind of discounts the absolute sheer hell gone
through to reach the place where one can even form such
sentences and I guess it is also a bit of a cliche in new
age circles.
I believe that the rewards are worth it, as well as
bringing with them a kind of special wisdom.
Besides which, if I did not believe that I think I would
most probably go insane.<G>
Like I said in my message to you in the Alterworld, night
follows day follows night follows day and on and on and
so it goes...this has been a powerful theme for me
lately, not just here in cyberspace but in aspects of my
everyday life, many many deaths, and all very painful but
at the same time incredible and necessary too I think.

 RS> I have a different view of 'mistakes' from you. I do
 RS> believe we make
 RS> them, but I also get what you are saying: Sometimes
 RS> a mistake can have a
 RS> positive consequence in the long run, so in fact it
 RS> was not a mistake
 RS> after all. I am pleased to see you value the process
 RS> so much.

Sometimes I feel quite alone in that, I fear being
abandoned (as you know <G>) in the middle of it, that the
very struggle of working it out will destroy the
relationship.
As far as mistakes go, what is a 'positive consequence'?
Again I am brought back to the value of death and
darkness, how our culture denies and flees from both.
And God knows there is enough of it out there.

 RS>>> I think the real guts of our current
 RS>>> difficulties on the BBS have stemmed at least in
 RS>>> part from some of my
 RS>>> unintentional mistakes.

So, thank you for your 'mistakes'.
They have helped me find...

...balm for old wounds
...courage
...hope in the darkness
...deeper understanding...

I really don't think they were mistakes, Reg.
Perhaps meant to happen! <G> Who knows...

 RW>> Unless we all wrote about totally mundane topics,
 RW> without
 RW>> revealing a scrap of who we were, there is no way
 RW>> that this *couldn't* happen.

 RS> Yes, this is a really interesting point, I like
 RS> whatever I am involved
 RS> in to be real, earthy and gutsy etc. That is why I
 RS> sometimes jump in
 RS> with things that seem a bit over the top or off the
 RS> wall, but there is
 RS> often a price and popularity is not usually the
 RS> reward.

And this is what you want? Popularity?
Fuck, I gave up on that about 20 years ago <G> <G>.
(Not said nastily but with humour and warmth and a
twinkle in the eye <G>)

 RS>I think part of
 RS> the difficulty in all this however, is all the dual
 RS> roles we are caught
 RS> up in. For example I have got going sometimes as if
 RS> I am a regular user
 RS> of the system and 'forgotten' my responsibilities as
 RS> a sysop, which are
 RS> not in any way clearly spelled out anyway.

So is it possible to forget something you never knew in
the first place?
I see how you are being harsh with yourself, and I want
to say, be gentle, be very gentle, you've been through
enough.

 RS> I think the medium lends
 RS> itself to this sort of thing. It is something to do
 RS> with not having a
 RS> clear warm-up to a particular set of roles.

Well, that sounds a bit (dare I say it!) intellectual to
me. I think the medium is fine, its alright, we're doing
alright aren't we? <G>
I think the most important thing is to just bring our
human-ness and let the gods <G> sort out the rest.

 RS> Everyone is not fully involved
 RS> in the whole process. It is like they are trying to
 RS> run a computer
 RS> program with half the files missing. This can only
 RS> mean problems
 RS> somewhere at some stage. If you just read the last
 RS> message of a thread
 RS> you will have a totally different perception of the
 RS> situation than if
 RS> you had followed through the whole process and that
 RS> is what I don't
 RS> like about this medium as it stands. A particular
 RS> message although
 RS> offensive in itself, may be somewhat more or less
 RS> offensive if read in
 RS> sequence. This is what I am getting at when I say
 RS> something is taken
 RS> out of context. It is worse than judging a book by
 RS> it's cover.

Yes, but again, no mistakes, just what happens. I do have
faith in the process, whether the messages are read
backwards or upside down and responded to in french,
there will still be a deeper meaning to it all and a
diamond in there somewhere.
That is not to discount your frustration, I just see it
differently from you, that's all.
Right now, I think this medium is an amazing thing, it
has made an impact on my life, imperfections and all.

 RW>> ..... But this is not the issue is it?

 RS> No it is not perhaps the central issue, but it is a
 RS> good example of how
 RS> one can put hundreds of hrs into creating something
 RS> worthwhile and have
 RS> it all destroyed by some silly mistakes.

What has been destroyed?
And if you can show me what has been destroyed, I'll show
you what has risen from the ashes.

 RS> It is also
 RS> perhaps an even
 RS> better example of how this medium lends itself to
 RS> skewed processes.

I don't think there has been anything 'skewed' about this
process.

 RW>> ....I think it was you that took it the wrong way.

 RS> I am starting to see that, but do you know that even
 RS> now I do not feel
 RS> heard by you or Walter on this thing about the
 RS> medium distorting
 RS> perceptions and the partiality of the medium being
 RS> the biggest factor in
 RS> this. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall on
 RS> this one.

Well talk some more because I want to understand.
Something just occurred to me too, when I read
'partiality of the medium'. There would be no way of
working this out on line, would there. I mean, if it
wasn't for being able to *talk*, that would be terrible.
And then again, if it wasn't for the medium, none of this
would have happened and we never would have deepened our
understanding about anything, or maybe we would have done
it in a different way, who knows, anyway, I've had it
with post mortems. <G>

 RW>> Of course it all could have happened quite
 RW>> differently
 RW>> and we all could have fled and been none-the-wiser,
 RW>> and
 RW>> its not over yet, is it.

 RS> No and will it ever be?

I suspect not, I was going to say, yes, when I die, but
then I thought, oh I suppose then I'll just bloody well
come back and start all over again.
What a depressing thought.
You see I can be a nasty little cynic, but its not me,
its one of my alters <G>.

 RS>>> ..... is not abandonment a feeling? To my way of
 RS>>> thinking it is not
 RS>>> a universal fact. Often we can feel abandoned when
 RS>>> in fact we have not
 RS>>> been literally abandoned by another. Your reality
 RS>>> is
 RS>>> one of abandonment, but that might not be Jill or
 RS>>> Joe Bloggs perception of the situation.

 RW>> Fuck Jill or Joe Bloggs perception!
 RW>> If it is *my* situation, and *I* feel abandoned,

 RS> Yes exactly. You *FEEL* abandoned in some situations

I FEEL abandoned when I AM abandoned.

 RS> and that is your
 RS> reality and that needs acknowledgment and validation

Yes.

 RW>> I do not want or need any other person projecting
 RW>> their own reality onto mine.

 RS> No of course you don't. You want what you *Feel*
 RS> acknowledged, which is
 RS> what I have been saying all along.

Really? Oh, what a relief! (not being sarcastic but truly
relieved, and wondering how I managed to miss it <G>)

 RS> I can however, not understand how you would think
 RS> that what I was saying
 RS> in any way meant the Bloggs' would be projecting
 RS> anything on to you.
 RS> Bloody oath you don't want them projecting anything
 RS> on to you. They do
 RS> however, have their unique perception of everything
 RS> just as you and I do.

Ha, ha, <G> <G> You're so funny Reg.

 RS> Your friend would perhaps have been more helpful to
 RS> you if she sharpened
 RS> her communication skills.

Mmmm, I'm sure she would be most obliging if I suggested
that. <G>. But true, yes, she would.

 RS> If she had said: "I think you can cope"  then that
 RS> is a lot different
 RS> from: "You can cope". It is a statement about her
 RS> reality and not yours,
 RS> and yet it does not project anything on to you when
 RS> said in that way.
 RS> Equally she could have validated your reality by
 RS> saying something like:

 RS> "So you can't cope eh?"

 RS> And you are then free to say something like:

 RS> "No I can't, it is bloody horrible for me."

 RS> She is then left in the roles of good friend and
 RS> listener.

 RS> Mind you it is tricky to know just how far one
 RS> should go with this as
 RS> she is your friend and not your counsellor.

Most definately. But that is the sort of way I would
respond. It is bloody horrible to have to fight for
acknowledgement like that, I hate it.
Sometimes I feel as if some people speak a different
language than me.

 RW>> So when I say I feel abandoned, that is my reality.

 RS> Yes it is.

 RW>> If another person has the courage and the
 RW>> commitment to
 RW>> acknowledge that, there is some kind of relief for
 RW>> me,
 RW>> and I can start to feel maybe not so abandoned as I
 RW>> was before.

 RS> Yes it is bloody terrible to feel abandoned eh?

Thank you for the acknowledgement <G>.
Yes, it is terrible to feel abandoned.
And terrible to be abandoned.

 RW>> I don't know if you understand or not...

 RS> Yes, I do understand you on all this.

Yes I believe you do Reg.
 
 RW>> it feels important that you do, or perhaps this is
 RW>> all just my own
 RW>> 'stuff.' If you read Walter's message, I think it
 RW>> makes sense
 RW>> there. I don't think I am explaining it clearly.

 RS> I think you are quite clear here Ruby on this, I
 RS> have the sense of being
 RS> with you in this moment, more so in fact than when
 RS> reading the message
 RS> between you and Walter. Again I wonder about all
 RS> this public discussion
 RS> and dualism.

What do you wonder about it all?

And on that note... 
Farewell, till next time,

Love,
     Ruby.




 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 154
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:52 2000
Date: (2176)   Sun 10 Apr 94 16:45                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 bf603b0c
@REPLY: 3:770/270 1e7b03ef

Hello Ruby,

Well I notice that we are back to writing under the title of 
anonymity.
This must be about the longest thread in history on a BBS. I don't 
know
what happened to our other title, Life The Universe etc. or 
whatever it
was. Perhaps it died of natural causes <G>. I find this 
interesting, that
we are back on to the thread of anonymity, but then again perhaps 
we never
left it. I am currently giving much thought to how, when, where, 
why and
to whom I write. I do want to keep corresponding with you, but not 
in this
particular echo. In fact I am thinking at the moment of just 
writing in
the Alterworld and Private Local Mail, plus of course the sysop 
area etc.
I will respond to you here, on this occasion, but this may be my last
message in this echo at least for a while. My reason for this is that
writing here there and everywhere is too fragmenting for me. It 
does not
suit my style and I want and need to be more focussed.

 RW> 'Well that was a valuable lesson' makes me cringe a
 RW> little, it kind of discounts the absolute sheer hell gone
 RW> through to reach the place where one can even form such
 RW> sentences and I guess it is also a bit of a cliche in new
 RW> age circles.

Yes, it makes me cringe too, I don't like cliches either, 
especially new
age ones <G>. Dare I say however, that it was not uttered as one and
certainly I had no intention of discounting anything.

 RW> I believe that the rewards are worth it, as well as
 RW> bringing with them a kind of special wisdom.
 RW> Besides which, if I did not believe that I think I would
 RW> most probably go insane.<G>

Best you keep believing it then <G>.

 RW> Sometimes I feel quite alone in that, I fear being
 RW> abandoned (as you know <G>) in the middle of it, that the
 RW> very struggle of working it out will destroy the
 RW> relationship.

Yes it is tricky stuff, but I think relationships are usually only
destroyed when the parties go about it  in an ineffective manner or 
with
limited resources etc.

 RW> .... what is a 'positive consequence'?

Anything that is not negative, neutral or somewhere in between <G>.

 RW> Again I am brought back to the value of death and
 RW> darkness, how our culture denies and flees from both.
 RW> And God knows there is enough of it out there.

True.

 RW> So, thank you for your 'mistakes'.
 RW> They have helped me find...

 RW> ...balm for old wounds
 RW> ...courage
 RW> ...hope in the darkness
 RW> ...deeper understanding...

 RW> I really don't think they were mistakes, Reg.
 RW> Perhaps meant to happen! <G> Who knows...


Ok, I will see if I can make some more <G>.

 RW>>> Unless we all wrote about totally mundane topics,
 RW>> without
 RW>>> revealing a scrap of who we were, there is no way
 RW>>> that this *couldn't* happen.

 RS>> Yes, this is a really interesting point, I like
 RS>> whatever I am involved
 RS>> in to be real, earthy and gutsy etc. That is why I
 RS>> sometimes jump in
 RS>> with things that seem a bit over the top or off the
 RS>> wall, but there is
 RS>> often a price and popularity is not usually the
 RS>> reward.

 RW> And this is what you want? Popularity?
 RW> Fuck, I gave up on that about 20 years ago <G> <G>.
 RW> (Not said nastily but with humour and warmth and a
 RW> twinkle in the eye <G>)

Perhaps I might better have said:

"The absence of Unpopularity" <G>.

Surely only those with sociopathic tendencies would want that <G>.

 RW> So is it possible to forget something you never knew in
 RW> the first place?

No, of course not smarty pants <G>.

 RS>> I think the medium lends
 RS>> itself to this sort of thing. It is something to do
 RS>> with not having a clear warm-up to a particular set of roles.

 RW> Well, that sounds a bit (dare I say it!) intellectual to me.

No it isn't, just the wrong time and place to use some jargon <G>.

 RW> I think the medium is fine, its alright, we're doing
 RW> alright aren't we? <G>

I suppose so. But it could be better! <G>.

 RW> I think the most important thing is to just bring our
 RW> humanness and let the gods <G> sort out the rest.

I do like that concept, I have been saying something similar since 
I first
became involved in using this medium. I do however, think that 
there needs
to be a degree of containment. Some time back in this echo we 
talked of
alchemists retorts and crucibles.

 RW> .........whether the messages are read
 RW> backwards or upside down and responded to in French,
 RW> there will still be a deeper meaning to it all and a
 RW> diamond in there somewhere.

Overall I do agree with you on this Ruby, especially about the 
diamond.
I do however, still hold to the belief that it is not such a good 
idea to
jump in without getting some sense of what has been happening 
beforehand.
Not only do I not think it a good idea, but it is potentially 
destructive,
unless those involved are as hard as diamond that is <G>.

 RW> I just see it differently from you, that's all.

Ah, the valuing of difference, the world could do with more of 
that. EH?

 RW> Right now, I think this medium is an amazing thing, it
 RW> has made an impact on my life, imperfections and all.

Yes mine too, but that will not stop me from wanting it to better 
or more
user friendly as they say these days.

 RS>> No it is not perhaps the central issue, but it is a
 RS>> good example of how
 RS>> one can put hundreds of hrs into creating something
 RS>> worthwhile and have
 RS>> it all destroyed by some silly mistakes.

 RW> What has been destroyed?

I was talking more of potentiality there Ruby, not what was.

 RW> And if you can show me what has been destroyed, I'll show
 RW> you what has risen from the ashes.

Oh yes, the good old bloody phoenix. I have always liked and 
identified
with the image of the phoenix.

 RS>> It is also
 RS>> perhaps an even
 RS>> better example of how this medium lends itself to
 RS>> skewed processes.

 RW> I don't think there has been anything 'skewed' about this
 RW> process.

I do, trust a Libran to see it as balanced <G>.


 RW> who knows, anyway, I've had it with post mortems. <G>

Yes me too. Let the phoenix rise and fly, but make sure it does not
drop anything on you as it goes by <G>.

 RW> ...... I was going to say, yes, when I die, but
 RW> then I thought, oh I suppose then I'll just bloody well
 RW> come back and start all over again.
 RW> What a depressing thought.

Oh no! It is not like that, not a complete start from the 
beginning, next
time round you will have the benefit of all that which you have 
done this
time and before. And the handicap too unfortunately <G>.

 RW> You see I can be a nasty little cynic, but its not me,
 RW> its one of my alters <G>.

Oh shit! Not this discussion again, please read Stanley and I on 
this one.
But yes I know what you are saying <G>.

 RW>>> I do not want or need any other person projecting
 RW>>> their own reality onto mine.

 RS>> No of course you don't. You want what you *Feel*
 RS>> acknowledged, which is
 RS>> what I have been saying all along.

 RW> Really? Oh, what a relief! (not being sarcastic but truly
 RW> relieved, and wondering how I managed to miss it <G>)

I am <CUL> cracking up laughing as I read all this, I hope that is 
ok for
you to know that I find this whole thing funny despite it being a 
very
serious thing we are talking about.

 RS>> I can however, not understand how you would think
 RS>> that what I was saying
 RS>> in any way meant the Bloggs' would be projecting
 RS>> anything on to you.
 RS>> Bloody oath you don't want them projecting anything
 RS>> on to you. They do
 RS>> however, have their unique perception of everything
 RS>> just as you and I do.

 RW> Ha, ha, <G> <G> You're so funny Reg.

Takes a funny person to recognise one <G>.

 RW> Sometimes I feel as if some people speak a different
 RW> language than me.

Yes, likewise. It is also interesting to watch how some people who 
are
normally very effective and clear communicators etc. can completely 
'lose
it' when feeling levels are very high.

 RS>> Yes it is bloody terrible to feel abandoned eh?

 RW> Thank you for the acknowledgment <G>.
 RW> Yes, it is terrible to feel abandoned.
 RW> And terrible to be abandoned.

Yes and I like it that we have been able to start inserting <G>'s 
into our
dialogue on all this.

 RS>> Again I wonder about all this public discussion and dualism.

 RW> What do you wonder about it all?

I was thinking in the moment I wrote that, it might be simpler to 
have
more 1:1 dialogues with people. To only correspond with people in 
private
mail and forget all the echos. Like comparing individual therapy to 
group
therapy. Today I am valuing them all. They all have a place, but as 
I said
at the beginning of my message and part way through, I need to start
limiting how, when, where, why and with whom I correspond.






Love & Regards 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:52 2000
Date: (2315)   Wed 13 Apr 94 21:48                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f26f21af
@REPLY: 3:770/270 0ac5b085

Hello Ruby,

Much has happened in my life since I last wrote. You will already 
have
caught up on some of the changes via Walter or by my other messages
perhaps.

Anonymity

 RW> ........... and I thought it was quite
 RW> appropriate as we are largely anonymous to one another.
 RW> Although we meet each other here, I could still walk past
 RW> you in the street and not know you, and this is an
 RW> interesting theme for me as far as this whole medium is
 RW> concerned, and one which I am wanting to explore in terms
 RW> of discussion and ideas.
 RW> I was thinking about that today, not discounting the
 RW> value of this and how it is so possible to really *meet*
 RW> here, but just how one-dimensional it is in terms of what
 RW> *isn't* and can't be visible here. I don't know about
 RW> you, but there is a whole lot more to me in terms of
 RW> creativity and music and all sorts of things. So in that
 RW> light I do feel very unknown. I catch myself thinking at
 RW> times, what is Reg *really* like? and this is a challenge
 RW> for me, perhaps we are more real here than in everyday
 RW> life, even just in terms of you and I, without this I
 RW> would not know you and do I really know you anyway.
 RW> And there is nothing I have to compare it to.

Hope this does not sound to blunt or cryptic to so many thoughts and
ideas. The real self lies deeply within, the task as it were might 
be to
make the real self more visible and that takes more than a lifetime.


 RW> I also want to keep our correspondence going, but I only
 RW> want to do that where it is visible, so an ongoing thread
 RW> with you in private mail wouldn't work for me.

No that is not what I was suggesting. At the time I was thinking 
that we
mainly correspond in the ALTERWORLD, but with the recent changes, 
that is
no longer a good idea. I suggest we continue here in the meantime 
at a
less frequent rate as well as heading for closure in the ALTERWORLD.

 RW> I don't have a *clear* understanding on this really, but
 RW> it is something about boundaries and safety and the whole
 RW> learning experience and process that is entered into
 RW> here, that just wouldn't work unless it was visible and
 RW> open and a part of this 'virtual community.'

Yes, I know and can appreciate where you are coming from there.

 RS>> certainly I had no intention of discounting
 RS>> anything.

 RW> Oh I was on your side on this one, and probably didn't
 RW> make myself clear. <G> I wasn't meaning that I thought
 RW> you had discounted anything, nor that you had made me
 RW> cringe, just that I didn't like the saying that some
 RW> other bastard had made up.

I like how you have responded here Ruby.


 RW> Forgive my ignorance, but what are 'sociopathic
 RW> tendencies', do I have them, should I have them and how
 RW> does one go about getting them? <G> <G> <G>

You definitely do not want to develop any sociopathic tendencies 
Ruby.
Sociopath is generally a label given to those who have no social
conscience. They would sell their grandmother if they thought they 
could
get a good price, perhaps even for a lousy price. I guess in some 
ways it
is a euphemism or a broader for the old term Psychopath.


 RW> Ah, but is there any such thing as the wrong time and
 RW> place?

Yes in that you did not know what I meant. No in that it prompted 
you to
ask and have hopefully learned something <G>.


 RW> (Starhawk)

Wonderful quotes Ruby, who is Starhawk?


 RW> And what makes you so sure of all this, oh Grand Master
 RW> Reg? <G>

Ha, absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing Ruby.

 RW> AUTOBIOGRAPHY IN FIVE SHORT CHAPTERS. by Portia Nelson

Very relevant quotes Ruby, I will tell you another story about a 
man who
came to a hole in the road when I have more time. <aside> ...that 
will
keep her intrigued <G>.

 RW> I think it is important to have an intention or a purpose
 RW> that is stated and clear.

I was practically brainwashed into that line of thought by one of my
trainers. Whilst it has much value I think at times it is counter
productive. I am much more flexible re this today.

 RW> I would like to know what yours
 RW> is, in terms of our correspondence anyway.

It has changed considerably since we first started and I think that 
is
great. It has also changed again of late, as my circumstances have
changed. Right now in this moment I am not sure, when I am more 
clear I
will let you know, I suspect it may change again too.

 RW> This message has been written over a whole day, quite a
 RW> lot has happened in between the words. I don't know
 RW> whether to grin or not, I am not in the best of spaces,
 RW> it feels like every aspect of my life is in turmoil,
 RW> right now I feel like booking a ticket to Europe and just
 RW> taking off and leaving it all behind. I am not sure if
 RW> that is a good thing or not <sigh>, anyway, I keep saying
 RW> to myself, over and over, trust the process, trust the
 RW> process...

I could say something like: Oh Ruby I am sorry to hear of your 
turmoil,
but as I write this now, several days later, I am sure you are in a
different space. I don't suppose it is Europe <G>, but I somehow 
trust you
will be where you need to be. If that is not the case then I also 
trust
that the road of life will not be too steep, if there are hills 
there will
also be plains and valleys.

Love & Regards 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:52 2000
Date: (2277)   Mon 11 Apr 94 22:38                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 156
@MSGID: 3:770/270 0ac5b085
@REPLY: 3:770/270 bf603b0c

Hello Reg,

 RS> Well I notice that we are back to writing under the
 RS> title of anonymity.
 RS> This must be about the longest thread in history on
 RS> a BBS. I don't know
 RS> what happened to our other title, Life The Universe
 RS> etc. or whatever it
 RS> was. Perhaps it died of natural causes <G>. I find
 RS> this interesting,
 RS> that we are back on to the thread of anonymity, but
 RS> then again perhaps
 RS> we never left it.

Yes I noticed that too, and I thought it was quite
appropriate as we are largely anonymous to one another.
Although we meet each other here, I could still walk past
you in the street and not know you, and this is an
interesting theme for me as far as this whole medium is
concerned, and one which I am wanting to explore in terms
of discussion and ideas.
I was thinking about that today, not discounting the
value of this and how it is so possible to really *meet*
here, but just how one-dimensional it is in terms of what
*isn't* and can't be visible here. I don't know about
you, but there is a whole lot more to me in terms of
creativity and music and all sorts of things. So in that
light I do feel very unknown. I catch myself thinking at
times, what is Reg *really* like? and this is a challenge
for me, perhaps we are more real here than in everyday
life, even just in terms of you and I, without this I
would not know you and do I really know you anyway.
And there is nothing I have to compare it to.

 RS> I am currently giving much thought to how, when,
 RS> where, why and to whom I write. I do want to keep
 RS> corresponding with
 RS> you, but not in this particular echo. In fact I am
 RS> thinking at the
 RS> moment of just writing in the Alterworld and Private
 RS> Local Mail, plus
 RS> of course the sysop area etc. I will respond to you
 RS> here, on this
 RS> occasion, but this may be my last message in this
 RS> echo at least for a
 RS> while. My reason for this is that writing here there
 RS> and everywhere is
 RS> too fragmenting for me. It does not suit my style
 RS> and I want and need
 RS> to be more focussed.

I also want to keep our correspondence going, but I only
want to do that where it is visible, so an ongoing thread
with you in private mail wouldn't work for me.
I don't have a *clear* understanding on this really, but
it is something about boundaries and safety and the whole
learning experience and process that is entered into
here, that just wouldn't work unless it was visible and
open and a part of this 'virtual community.'
Somehow to do it all in private seems exclusive and
hidden and I want to avoid that.
So that leaves me wondering, where is the place for us to
meet? Local Conference? Alterworld, yes, but I am not
usually Ruby there. I'll leave it up to you, and trust
the process.

 RW>> 'Well that was a valuable lesson' makes me cringe a
 RW>> little, it kind of discounts the absolute sheer
 RW>> hell gone
 RW>> through to reach the place where one can even form
 RW>> such
 RW>> sentences and I guess it is also a bit of a cliche
 RW>> in new
 RW>> age circles.

 RS> Yes, it makes me cringe too, I don't like cliches
 RS> either, especially new
 RS> age ones <G>. Dare I say however, that it was not
 RS> uttered as one and
 RS> certainly I had no intention of discounting
 RS> anything.

Oh I was on your side on this one, and probably didn't
make myself clear. <G> I wasn't meaning that I thought
you had discounted anything, nor that you had made me
cringe, just that I didn't like the saying that some
other bastard had made up.

 RW>> And this is what you want? Popularity?
 RW>> Fuck, I gave up on that about 20 years ago <G> <G>.
 RW>> (Not said nastily but with humour and warmth and a
 RW>> twinkle in the eye <G>)

 RS> Perhaps I might better have said:
 RS> "The absence of Unpopularity" <G>.
 RS> Surely only those with sociopathic tendencies would
 RS> want that <G>.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are 'sociopathic
tendencies', do I have them, should I have them and how
does one go about getting them? <G> <G> <G>

 RS>>> I think the medium lends
 RS>>> itself to this sort of thing. It is something to
 RS>>> do with not having a clear warm-up to a particular
 RS>>> set of roles.

 RW>> Well, that sounds a bit (dare I say it!)
 RW>> intellectual to me.

 RS> No it isn't, just the wrong time and place to use
 RS> some jargon <G>.

Ah, but is there any such thing as the wrong time and
place?

 RW>> I think the medium is fine, its alright, we're
 RW>> doing
 RW>> alright aren't we? <G>

 RS> I suppose so. But it could be better! <G>.

Yes, and I suppose one could say that about almost
everything.
And how do you think it could be made better? not just in
terms of theory, but in actual practice.

 RW>> .........whether the messages are read
 RW>> backwards or upside down and responded to in
 RS>> French,
 RW>> there will still be a deeper meaning to it all and
 RW>> a diamond in there somewhere.

 RS> Overall I do agree with you on this Ruby, especially
 RS> about the diamond.
 RS> I do however, still hold to the belief that it is
 RS> not such a good idea
 RS> to jump in without getting some sense of what has
 RS> been happening
 RS> beforehand.

I think I am that sort of person. <unsure sort of grin>

 RW>> I just see it differently from you, that's all.

 RS> Ah, the valuing of difference, the world could do
 RS> with more of that. EH?

Indeed it could, and I am inspired to QUOTE on this one.

"...that when we look at each other we see ourselves
mirrored and yet transformed by each others unique
independant being, that we value the mystery of each
others being, which can never fully be known, that we
honour in each other the richness of difference, honour
that which we cannot predict in each other, that which
makes us free."

And I'll just toss this one in for good measure...

"...out of despair into action, risk and hope, and we
have reason to hope. The forces of destruction seem
great, but against them we have the power to choose, our
human will and imagination, our courage, our passion, our
willingness to act and to love.
And we are not strangers to this world.
We are part of the circle.
When we plant, when we weave, when we write, when we give
birth, when we organize, when we heal, when we do what
we're afraid to do, we are not separate. We are of the
world and of each other, and the power within us is
great. Though we can be hurt, we can heal, though each
one of us can be destroyed, within us is the power of
renewal."

(Starhawk)

 RS>>> No it is not perhaps the central issue, but it is
 RS>>> a good example of how
 RS>>> one can put hundreds of hrs into creating
 RS>>> something worthwhile and have
 RS>>> it all destroyed by some silly mistakes.

 RW>> What has been destroyed?

 RS> I was talking more of potentiality there Ruby, not
 RS> what was.

So what is it that can potentially be destroyed?
It seems to me that *anything* can potentially be
destroyed and I am not sure what you are referring to
here.

 RS>>> It is also
 RS>>> perhaps an even
 RS>>> better example of how this medium lends itself to
 RS>>> skewed processes.

 RW>> I don't think there has been anything 'skewed'
 RW>> about this process.

 RS> I do, trust a Libran to see it as balanced <G>.

Well there you go, what would you do without me? <G>

 RW>> who knows, anyway, I've had it with post mortems.

 RS> Yes me too. Let the phoenix rise and fly, but make
 RS> sure it does not
 RS> drop anything on you as it goes by <G>.

I've heard that this brings good luck, so I would welcome
it if it occurred, especially from a phoenix. <G>
This happened to me on New Years Day, last year, (a
seagull not a phoenix), and needless to say it was one of
the worst years of my life <G>, although in all honesty
it was the first year that I felt truly alive and living
my truth, so to speak.

 RW>> ...... I was going to say, yes, when I die, but
 RW>> then I thought, oh I suppose then I'll just bloody
 RW>> well come back and start all over again.
 RW>> What a depressing thought.

 RS> Oh no! It is not like that, not a complete start
 RS> from the beginning,
 RS> next time round you will have the benefit of all
 RS> that which you have
 RS> done this time and before. And the handicap too
 RS> unfortunately <G>.

And what makes you so sure of all this, oh Grand Master
Reg? <G>

 RW>>>> I do not want or need any other person projecting
 RW>>>> their own reality onto mine.

 RS>>> No of course you don't. You want what you *Feel*
 RS>>> acknowledged, which is
 RS>>> what I have been saying all along.

 RW>> Really? Oh, what a relief! (not being sarcastic but
 RW>> truly
 RW>> relieved, and wondering how I managed to miss it)

 RS> I am <CUL> cracking up laughing as I read all this,
 RS> I hope that is ok
 RS> for you to know that I find this whole thing funny
 RS> despite it being a
 RS> very serious thing we are talking about.

Oh yes it is absolutely alright that you are cracking up
laughing, I find it funny too and was laughing in a
relieved sort of way as I wrote it.
What a process this has been, how wonderful that we can
now laugh about it. <G>

 RW>> Sometimes I feel as if some people speak a
 RW>> different language than me.

 RS> Yes, likewise. It is also interesting to watch how
 RS> some people who are
 RS> normally very effective and clear communicators etc.
 RS> can completely
 RS> 'lose it' when feeling levels are very high.

Yep, I think that's me <G>, sometimes I completely lose
myself and feel paralysed and cannot find the words. It
happens less and less these days but God I hate it when
it does, its as if I suddenly lose my voice, my vision,
my sanity almost, and again the theme of abandonment
comes in, the worst kind, to abandon oneself, not
intentionally, but like an old trap that springs up,
perhaps a pattern that no longer serves me but is bloody
hard to banish altogether.
And again, I must quote...

AUTOBIOGRAPHY IN FIVE SHORT CHAPTERS. by Portia Nelson

1) I walk down the street. There is a deep hole in the
sidewalk. I fall in. I am lost...I am helpless. It isn't
my fault. It takes forever to find a way out.

2) I walk down the same street. There is a deep hole in
the sidewalk. I pretend I don't see it. I fall in again.
I can't believe I am in the same place. But it isn't my
fault. It still takes a long time to get out.

3) I walk down the same street. There is a deep hole in
the sidewalk. I see it is there. I still fall in...its a
habit. My eyes are open. I know where I am. It is my
fault. I get out immediately.

4) I walk down the same street. There is a deep hole in
the sidewalk. I walk around it.

5) I walk down another street.

 RS>>> Again I wonder about all this public discussion
 RS>>> and dualism.

 RW>> What do you wonder about it all?

 RS> I was thinking in the moment I wrote that, it might
 RS> be simpler to have
 RS> more 1:1 dialogues with people. To only correspond
 RS> with people in
 RS> private mail and forget all the echos. Like
 RS> comparing individual
 RS> therapy to group therapy. Today I am valuing them
 RS> all. They all have a
 RS> place, but as I said at the beginning of my message
 RS> and part way
 RS> through, I need to start limiting how, when, where,
 RS> why and with whom I
 RS> correspond.

Yes, I wrote about that earlier. I am still not sure. I
think it is important to have an intention or a purpose
that is stated and clear. I would like to know what yours
is, in terms of our correspondence anyway.
And I hope that you do feel free to reply to this
wherever you like, I don't mean to put you off private
mail, there is a place for that, it just doesn't quite
sit with me, and I guess this is something that will
become clearer the more it is discussed.

Ah, the end of your quotes. <G>
This message has been written over a whole day, quite a
lot has happened in between the words. I don't know
whether to grin or not, I am not in the best of spaces,
it feels like every aspect of my life is in turmoil,
right now I feel like booking a ticket to Europe and just
taking off and leaving it all behind. I am not sure if
that is a good thing or not <sigh>, anyway, I keep saying
to myself, over and over, trust the process, trust the
process...

See you soon,

Ruby.

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 156
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:53 2000
Date: (2351)   Fri 15 Apr 94 16:22                         
From: Frazer Greenwood
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 534d5cbc
@REPLY: 3:770/270 0cb3b2c0

 > Well I have been listening to 'Chicken-Man' as I drive
 > he is the original 'winged warrior'.  However one of the

Pronounced... "Winged Wawwiour"

Cheer's

Frazer Greenwood

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 71 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:58 2000
Date: (3116)   Sun 24 Apr 94 22:40                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 375
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1acf6d75
@REPLY: 3:770/270 f26f21af

Dear Reg,

Seems like a long time since I met you here.
Just a quick reply to tell you about...

 RW>> (Starhawk)

 RS> Wonderful quotes Ruby, who is Starhawk?

A San Francisco witch, ritualist and political activist
who is a primary theorist in the Women's Spirituality and
wiccan movement, also the anti-nuclear and peace
movements.
She is well-known internationally through her books,
articles, workshops etc etc, actually I am surprised you
never heard of her.
Her book, THE SPIRAL DANCE: A REBIRTH OF THE ANCIENT
RELIGION OF THE GREAT GODDESS was many women's first
introduction to wicce and remains the primary sourcebook
on ritual etc.
Other books...
DREAMING THE DARK: MAGIC, SEX AND POLITICS.
TRUTH OR DASUBJECT: ENCOUNTERS WITH POWER, AUTHORITY AND
MYSTERY.
All make for fascinating reading...the quotes were from
TRUTH OR DARE which is Walters, I'm sure he won't mind if
you borrow it, and I have the other two, you're welcome
to read them if you're interested.

 RS> Very relevant quotes Ruby, I will tell you another
 RS> story about a man who
 RS> came to a hole in the road when I have more time.
 RS> <aside> ...that will
 RS> keep her intrigued <G>.

Come on then, I'm still waiting.
Or are you just having me on again, I never can tell,
this medium gives so little away <G>.

With bated breath, anticipation, and intrigue,


Ruby.




 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 375
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:58 2000
Date: (3152)   Mon 25 Apr 94 12:11                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 09e014fc
@REPLY: 3:770/270 1acf6d75

Hello and welcome back Ruby,

Pleased to hear your trip went

Subject: Starhawk

 RW> She is well-known internationally through her books,
 RW> articles, workshops etc etc, actually I am surprised you
 RW> never heard of her.

Now that you tell me more I think I have, but don't think I have 
read any
of her books.

 RW> you're welcome to read them if you're interested.

Yes I would like that some time.

Subject: Holes In Roads

 RW> Come on then, I'm still waiting.
 RW> Or are you just having me on again, I never can tell,
 RW> this medium gives so little away <G>.

No I was quite serious. Here is what I was talking about, it is a 
clip
from my thesis (the one I actually came out here to work on, but 
could not
resist checking the mail while at the computer) <G>. I was writing 
about
the power of metaphor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
---

The Hole In The Road
---------------------
Sam (not his real name) has a history of imprisonment for crimes of
violence and theft, associated with alcoholism. After seeing him once
weekly for several months and introducing him to the habit of 
speaking
more metaphorically he told me this story.

Sam: My life has been a bit like walking along a road, I come to a 
big
hole and there is no way of getting any further so I just give up 
and go
back.

Reg: Back to the last pub?

Sam: (Laughing) Yes. (Then seriously again) I'm starting to think 
that
next time I come to this hole I am going to get some logs and build a
bridge, I want to find out what's up the road.

The image remained very clear to both of us. In subsequent  sessions,
either of us only needed to say hole in the road and we instantly 
knew
what the other meant. Concretising such metaphors will usually create
powerful warm-ups, but this is not always possible, workable or for 
that
matter necessary........

---------------------------------------------------------------------
--


Well must get back to it actually.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Fri Aug 27 23:00:00 1993
From: Reg Smith
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: FASHION & LOVE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 fedc6baa

Reg is replying to SUE who replied to REG on 12 Feb 94 11:20pm


Hello Sue,


RS>> Something becomes fashionable or a norm and everyone forgets 
it's
RS>> initial purpose.

 ST> Absolutely.  I tend to not follow fashions of various sorts on
 ST> a point of principle.  So much of what is said, thought, eaten,
 ST> drunk, worn and purchased is so in the absence of any inherent,
 ST> compelling reason. Increasing age enables me to see the
 ST> futility of much the flip-flopping that goes on.

Yes and it can be a very expensive business too, I am not so worried
personally about it, never really have been, but it is very 
important to
the kids, so we indulge them when we can.

I said something about subjective/objective, but accidentally deleted
it and you said:

 ST> Yes, it's about being a human being, and not limiting yourself
 ST> to some arbitrarily defined way of thinking or functioning.  I
 ST> find the same thing with the so-called `feminine' and
 ST> `masculine' dichotomy - in my saner moments I find it difficult
 ST> to understand why things have to be cut up in this arbitrary
 ST> way.

Yes, I have read you on this before here, I never responded at the 
time
for some reason, well that is a lie actually, I know the reason: I 
was
bored with the predominance of the gender issues to be truthful and 
also
perhaps a little fearful of being drawn into conflict on a topic 
where my
head and heart (perhaps it was even lower than that) were a little at
odds. Intellectually I do not like the distinctions either, but in
practice I want to cling to some of the old values.


On the subject of intellect and emotion, I earlier said:

RS>> a 'head tripper' and told he is out of touch or subjected to 
some
RS>> other form of unhelpful labelling.

 ST> I can vouch for that - I've had a lot of that thrown at me
 ST> during my life. Then once I start to have some feelings and
 ST> expressing them I get all the `hysterical', `premenstrual' shit
 ST> thrown at me.  You can't win.

Yes, it/I/we/you (did not know which to write so put them all) feel 
like
that at times, ie like you can't win.

RS>> As I see it, he needs to *feel* think and act
RS>> all at the same time,

 ST> Sounds sensible to me.  We are built with the capacity to do
 ST> both quite naturally, and it's only our curious way of cutting
 ST> things up that has ever divided them.

Mmmm.... Yes and I think it is good to identify which is which, I am
constantly amazed at how few people make the distinctions in 
language.
I ask them what they feel in a particular situation and they say:

 'I think that bla bla bla......'


And I say:

'I did not ask you what you thought, you have told me that already, I
asked you what you felt'

Sometimes they simply do not know the difference.


 ST>> Maybe I've had so much linear education myself that I can't let
 ST>> go of the idea that it has a certain amount of value if
 ST>> approached in a particular way.

RS>> Yes, I think I was trying to say something similar and perhaps a
RS>> little more as well.

 ST> What, I ask inquisitively?

 Sorry if I created a sense of intrigue, I honestly can not 
remember what
it was now, it seems such a long time ago.


RS>> Mmmm ...  perhaps those 'Mother earth type feminists' I used 
to mix
RS>> with have all died out, gone to ground so to speak, have you 
never
RS>> met any of them? The ones that looked and acted like a sort of 
cross
RS>> between a 'flower child of the sixties' and Germain Greer 
before she
RS>> burnt out.

 ST> I know the ones.  I suspect that was a bit of a fashion, albeit
 ST> it a counter-cultural one.  And lesbianism/feminism has come a
 ST> long way over the years.

Yes, I see it all as part of a necessary process, parts of it I 
simply do
not like, but then who likes grieving anyway <G>


RS>> Yes so do I, but I know very few who have maintained them long 
term
RS>> and they seem very 'stormy', sometimes more so than hets. 
Maybe I
RS>> just mix with a different type of lesbian to you.

 ST> Perhaps you do.  The ones I have known who have been in
 ST> relationships have not been at all `stormy', although every
 ST> relationship has tempests which are hidden from the observing
 ST> eye.  And I can't say they have been any less long-term than
 ST> hets - I think that one has more to do with individual
 ST> differences and difficulties than orientation per se.

Mmm...  perhaps, it was an observation and not backed up by any 
empirical
research <G>.

 ST> I am reading something currently - `Getting the Love
 ST> You Want' by Harville Hendrix.

Mmmmm.... the title does not do much for me, I am influenced a 
little here
by Eric Fromme, who contended that this *having* and *getting* was a
materialistic  approach. He contended that such things as love and
happiness were not things we could *get* but rather a process we 
need to
*experience*, we need to experience *being* with ourselves and 
others,
which
you yourself infer elsewhere in another message I think. I think the
particular book I am thinking of was called 'Having and Being', 
probably
gone out of fashion now <G>.

 ST> I guess my position would be
 ST> that we should give up on the romantic myth of it all being a
 ST> bed of roses and us getting every need and wish fulfilled
 ST> without the slightest bit of work and so on, but I doubt we can
 ST> ever eradicate the idea of wanting and requiring it to be
 ST> fulfilling and rewarding *as well as* challenging and
 ST> growth-promoting. After all, why the hell would people do it
 ST> if there was nothing good in it?

Yes, a good point, a question I ask myself often. I think it is 
something
to do with process. I always quote Robert Service on this one:

'Tis not so much having the Gold, but finding it'.

 ST> I see it as ultimately being
 ST> both painful and glorious. But yes, that qualification aside, I
 ST> think the `romantic myth' is a very dangerous thing and creates
 ST> a great deal of suffering.

Yes.

 ST> What I like about Hendrix is that he tackles marriage/couple
 ST> therapy from both emotional and behavioural angles.  He
 ST> recognises the vital importance of identifying and working on
 ST> unresolved childhood issues, but also sees the value of working
 ST> on the development of loving behaviours as a way to turn the
 ST> relationship round from outright conflict to an atmosphere of
 ST> affection and trust.

A man after my own heart, fits well with my own approach, even with a
lousy title his book sounds good.

 ST> I sincerely hope you make it, Reg, although I hope *it* is more
 ST> than just a cease-fire.

I don't know whether you got the meaning of what I was saying 
before, you
speak of *making it*, as if the journey will have an end, yet to me 
being
on the journey is *making it* as Service put it 'Tis not so much 
having
the gold, but finding it'.

 ST> Eighteen years is a bloody long time to be so close to 
somebody and
 ST> yet so far away.

Yes it is rather, but in light of what I am saying above, you must
remember that the journey is not being made alone, that makes a big
difference.

 ST> It's such a complex task, and we - most of us - come to it 
with so
 ST> little understanding and skill.  You learn on the job!

I don't know that *skill* has a lot to do with it, I have any 
amount of
*skill*, it is the ability and willingness to apply the skill that 
is the
more critical factor I think.  Ask any teacher how they get on 
trying to
teach their own kids anything <G>


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Everything changes except change itself.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (698)   Sat 12 Feb 94 23:20                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: REG SMITH
Subject: FASHION & LOVE
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>>Linear is poison.

 ST> Hmmmm.  I can see what you're saying, and I have respect for
 ST> it.  But ...

RS>Yes me too and I was going to say something about Walters 
description of
RS>linear when I first read it, but I thought nah, I have been 
writing too
RS>many messages lately

Never a vice, in my opinion!

RS>so
RS>many things get rejected for good reason, but with the passage 
of time
RS>this ought not be the case, particularly when to do so is rather 
akin to
RS>the thing or action that was rejected in the first place.

I quite agree, simply because ...

RS>Something
RS>becomes fashionable or a norm and everyone forgets it's initial 
purpose.

Absolutely.  I tend to not follow fashions of various sorts on a 
point of 
principle.  So much of what is said, thought, eaten, drunk, worn and 
purchased is so in the absence of any inherent, compelling reason.  
Increasing age enables me to see the futility of much the 
flip-flopping that 
goes on.

RS>I remember once being told that we need to endeavour to be
RS>totally subjective and objective at the same time, on first 
hearing this
RS>thought that the person was talking rubbish,

That would be my initial reaction also, but ...

RS>but I have come to understa
RS>the wisdom of this.

Yes, it's about being a human being, and not limiting yourself to 
some 
arbitrarily defined way of thinking or functioning.  I find the 
same thing 
with the so-called `feminine' and `masculine' dichotomy - in my 
saner 
moments I find it difficult to understand why things have to be cut 
up in 
this arbitrary way.

RS>Understanding is another good example, in therapy
RS>circles understanding is seen as really bad,

There certainly seems to be a tendency that way in many areas.

RS>'you are supposed to *feel*
RS>everything, particularly men,' the one who want's to understand 
is seen 
RS>a 'head tripper' and told he is out of touch or subjected to 
some other
RS>form of unhelpful labelling.

I can vouch for that - I've had a lot of that thrown at me during 
my life.  
Then once I start to have some feelings and expressing them I get 
all the 
`hysterical', `premenstrual' shit thrown at me.  You can't win.

RS>As I see it, he needs to *feel* think and a
RS>all at the same time,

Sounds sensible to me.  We are built with the capacity to do both 
quite 
naturally, and it's only our curious way of cutting things up that 
has ever 
divided them.

RS>yet some would relegate him to a life of thoughtle
RS>emotion. Such a man will probably end up killing himself or 
someone else
RS>or both, either in one hit or the bottle or whatever. Oops, 
sorry I am
RS>drifting off topic, or am I?

Not to my mind.

RS>and does it really matter.

Absolutely not to my mind.

 ST> Maybe I've had so much linear education myself that I can't let
 ST> go of the idea that it has a certain amount of value if
 ST> approached in a particular way.

RS>Yes, I think I was trying to say something similar and perhaps a 
little
RS>more as well.

What, I ask inquisitively?

RS>(should 'as well' be two words? my spell checker won't all
RS>it as one)

Yes, it should.  If your electronic spell checker won't tell what 
you want 
to know, you can check it out with a simple test - write the word in 
question down both ways and see which one looks weird.  `ASWELL' 
looks more 
like a name when you do it that way.

RS>Mmmm ...  perhaps those 'Mother earth type feminists' I used to 
mix with
RS>have all died out, gone to ground so to speak, have you never 
met any of
RS>them? The ones that looked and acted like a sort of cross 
between a
RS>'flower child of the sixties' and Germain Greer before she burnt 
out.

I know the ones.  I suspect that was a bit of a fashion, albeit it a 
counter-cultural one.  And lesbianism/feminism has come a long way 
over the 
years.

 ST> them days when boys was boys and girls was
 ST> girls, and all that shit.

RS>And you could tell the difference at fifty paces eh? <G>

That's the one!

RS>Yes so do I, but I know very few who have maintained them long 
term and
RS>they seem very 'stormy', sometimes more so than hets. Maybe I 
just mix a
RS>with a different type of lesbian to you.

Perhaps you do.  The ones I have known who have been in 
relationships have 
not been at all `stormy', although every relationship has tempests 
which are 
hidden from the observing eye.  And I can't say they have been any 
less 
longterm than hets - I think that one has more to do with individual 
differences and difficulties than orientation per se.

RS>I have read a book lately (yes I do read books as well as computer
RS>messages) called "Marriage Dead or Alive" and this guy reckons 
that
RS>the reason why so many marriages don't work out is that we 
subscribe to
RS>and adhere to this big myth that marriage should be fulfilling, 
rewardin
RS>etc.  and that we should give it up, not marriage, but the 
notions of th
RS>myth.
RS>I think he was a Jungian of sorts, quite interesting.

I am reading something similar currently - `Getting the Love You 
Want' by 
Harville Hendrix.  I guess my position would be that we should give 
up on 
the romantic myth of it all being a bed of roses and us getting 
every need 
and wish fulfilled without the slightest bit of work and so on, but 
I doubt 
we can ever eradicate the idea of wanting and requiring it to be 
fulfilling 
and rewarding *as well as* challenging and growth-promoting.  After 
all, why 
the hell would people do it if there was nothing good in it?  I see 
it as 
ultimately being both painful and glorious. But yes, that 
qualification 
aside, I think the `romantic myth' is a very dangerous thing and 
creates a 
great deal of suffering.

What I like about Hendrix is that he tackles marriage/couple 
therapy from 
both emotional and behavioural angles.  He recognises the vital 
importance 
of identifying and working on unresolved childhood issues, but also 
sees the 
value of working on the development of loving behaviours as a way 
to turn 
the relationship round from outright conflict to an atmosphere of 
affection 
and trust.  I've not been a great fan of the behavioural `exercise' 
approach 
in and of itself, but what he says makes a lot of sense.  I can see 
its 
applicability in my own situation, which is a good test.

RS>Cathy and I have been at war now for eighteen years and I keep 
hoping an
RS>working toward the day that we can maintain a long-term cease 
fire. <G>

I sincerely hope you make it, Reg, although I hope *it* is more 
than just a 
cease-fire.  Eighteen years is a bloody long time to be so close to 
somebody 
and yet so far away.  And I suppose at depth you both want the same 
thing.  
It's such a complex task, and we - most of us - come to it with so 
little 
understanding and skill.  You learn on the job!

 ST> Did it ever occur to them to ask the women, or themselves, what
 ST> they were angry about?  Or is anger in a woman *wrong* by
 ST> definition?

RS>Not by definition, but they have been socially conditioned not 
to be, fo
RS>quite a few generations.

Ain't that the truth!









Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



>From wlogeman@ch.cyberxpress.co.nz Sat Aug 28 00:00:00 1993 (699)   Sat 12 Feb 94 23:20                         
(imported from txt file)
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: ANONYMITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 ST>> I suppose I have a particular dislike of this
 ST>> line of thinking because it smacks of yet another instance of a
 ST>> man taking women's reality away from them.

SR>Dear Sue, with this line of thinking you wouldn't be losing your 
woman,
SR>but gaining a man.

Not sure I can agree on that.

SR>If this line of thinking  would be good for the gande
SR>it would also be good for the goose!!! And I don't mind you 
taking some
SR>animus reality for your own use.

I don't see this as anything to do with anima and animus.  I don't 
think 
trying to imagine what it feels like to have testicles has anything 
to do 
with my animus, nor do I think I take that - animus - from anyone or 
anywhere.




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:37 2000
Date: (751)   Fri 18 Feb 94 23:27                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: REG SMITH
Subject: Re: FASHION & LOVE
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 ST> I
 ST> find the same thing with the so-called `feminine' and
 ST> `masculine' dichotomy - in my saner moments I find it difficult
 ST> to understand why things have to be cut up in this arbitrary
 ST> way.

RS>Yes, I have read you on this before here, I never responded at 
the time
RS>for some reason, well that is a lie actually, I know the reason: 
I was
RS>bored with the predominance of the gender issues to be truthful

Why was that?

RS>and also
RS>perhaps a little fearful of being drawn into conflict on a topic 
where m
RS>head and heart (perhaps it was even lower than that) were a 
little at
RS>odds.

Why are they at odds?

RS>Intellectually I do not like the distinctions either, but in
RS>practice I want to cling to some of the old values.

Can you expand?

RS>Mmmm.... Yes and I think it is good to identify which is which, 
I am
RS>constantly amazed at how few people make the distinctions in 
language.
RS>I ask them what they feel in a particular situation and they say:

RS> 'I think that bla bla bla......'


RS>And I say:

RS>'I did not ask you what you thought, you have told me that 
already, I
RS>asked you what you felt'

RS>Sometimes they simply do not know the difference.

I have done that myself.  I think in my case I did know the 
difference 
perfectly well but mostly I actually didn't know what I was feeling 
so I 
figured I would fudge my way around it by saying what I thought.  
That was 
an ineffective way to avoid being labelled a head-tripper etc.

 ST> I am reading something currently - `Getting the Love
 ST> You Want' by Harville Hendrix.

RS>Mmmmm.... the title does not do much for me,

I thought it was a bit dopey when I saw it as well, but I proceeded 
to read 
it as I had been asked to.  The title gives a false impression of 
what the 
book contains.

RS>I am influenced a little he
RS>by Eric Fromme, who contended that this *having* and *getting* 
was a
RS>materialistic  approach. He contended that such things as love and
RS>happiness were not things we could *get* but rather a process we 
need to
RS>*experience*, we need to experience *being* with ourselves and 
others,

Yes, that puts it well.  What Hendrix is really talking about is 
`giving' 
and `receiving', and how those are essential to a relationship 
becoming 
truly fruitful for both partners.  The `getting' terminology is a 
blunt 
paraphrase for the cover, I suspect.  I bet he didn't dream it up - 
publishers like to push things like that on authors because they 
are more 
immediately eyecatching.

 ST> What I like about Hendrix is that he tackles marriage/couple
 ST> therapy from both emotional and behavioural angles.  He
 ST> recognises the vital importance of identifying and working on
 ST> unresolved childhood issues, but also sees the value of working
 ST> on the development of loving behaviours as a way to turn the
 ST> relationship round from outright conflict to an atmosphere of
 ST> affection and trust.

RS>A man after my own heart, fits well with my own approach, even 
with a
RS>lousy title his book sounds good.

Yes, I found it very helpful.  I mentioned it to Walter and he said 
he had 
looked at it and disliked something about it.  He didn't expand on 
that at 
the time - I wonder if he would do so here?




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:04 2000
From: Walter Logeman
Subject: Depth
To: All
Date: Sat 28 Aug 1993
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1



Hello,

I am writing my first message since the message base was corrupted. 
 I
hope it will get to the Psybernet Conference and *stay* there for a 
while.


One of the reasons the conference is a bit sparse <g> at this time of
writing is that Reg and I made a big shift.  We sort of put the 
lawn where
the drive way was.  Now we have the consequences to deal with.  But 
I am
really pleased.  We used to have a Depth Conference.  Now I am 
starting a
Depth thread in this conference, depth is one of the words that I 
use to
define what Psybernet  *is*.


We also had a Parenting Conference, we realised that we wanted 
depth in
the parenting discussions and that parenting could easily be 
discussed in
the depth conference.  Hence ONE Psybernet Conference.


All the info that we had on the board, 1.3 megabytes is not lost.  
Here is
the introduction to the old Depth conference (slightly abridged), 
to kick
of the Depth thread, which I for one will keep writing in:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
----
FROM:    Walter Logeman                Area # 4 (      Depth       )
TO:      All                           Jun-25-93 10:07pm
SUBJECT: Depth and Psybernet

                                  DEPTH

Welcome to the Depth Conference.  Today, as Reg and I were 
reviewing the
conferences it struck me that we needed this one.  It is all 
conjecture of
course, if you notice the date on this message you may be aware 
that to
date *only* Reg and I have been harnessing the horses of 
Psyberspace (in
this particular form anyway).  I feel very pleased to have it here. 
 To me
the word 'depth' covers what I mean by psyche or soul.

I am still on track, I hope, writing the first message into this
Conference.  Conferences, unlike the Groups, that they are the 
fertilizer
for on Psybernet, are a little intellectual, a little theoretical.  
I like
it that way, the conference is on the path to the groups where the 
very
opposite is true.  Theory can be usefully diverted from groups into
conferences.  This conference and the others are places where we can
endeavour to connect, relate, experience rather than score point or
present cases, or present evidence for arguments.  Stanley, what do 
say?
Daniel?  Yes I have been discussing all this for a while with these 
two
and it is a relief to have a big rave.


Here then, in the Depths of Psybernet, is the space to conference 
about
the unconscious, archetypes, myths, dreams and all of 
psychopathology.

Dare I say, have a good time?

Walter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Well now that it is a thread, and not a conference, I trust that 
depth
will permeate all the threads of the Psybernet Conference.

I will make sure that all the info from the old Conference becomes
available again, probably thru a file, and with some new messages, 
quoting
the high lights.  If you still wish to reply to old Depth mail that 
is
fine too, perhaps a brief summary of the discussion would help for 
new
readers.


Walter.



--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
From: SUE TOWNSEND
Subject: Re: A MIXED BAG.
Date: Sat 28 Aug 1993

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Walter

WL>> What is your preferred way of editing a document?
WL>
WL> ST> Perhaps the best way would be for me to go through it and 
make
WL> ST> changes, and you could read it with the original document 
open 
WL>in
WL> ST> another window?
WL>
WL>Yes that would be fine.

I'm still intending to do it, but as I said on the phone last 
night, work 
and other stresses are rather excessive at present.

WL>I have just completed writing a message entitled Psybernet 
WL>Consultancy in
WL>this conference.  This is an  outline what I do, how does that 
look?  

I saw that and think it looks fine.  It gives a clear idea of what 
you're offering.

WL>I am
WL>working on a file that goes into detail about all of that.  I am 
at
WL>present also working out criteria for consultants to work in 
WL>Psybernet.

I'll look forward to seeing those.

WL>> I am a straggling writer you know.
WL>
WL> ST> Oh, I wouldn't say that ...
WL>
WL>You realise I mean struggling?  (spelling checkers can be stupid.)

No, =8}  I didn't.  And spelling checkers are more trouble than 
they're 
worth, I find, probably because what I write for a living tends to 
be full 
of technical words and names and so on.

WL>I struggle less in this arena than inb other writing I do.

Out of curiosity, what else do you do in the way of writing?

WL> ... for me it is the meditative space I can be in while
WL>relating.  I am here in solitude, in a cosy mountain hut, 
watching 
WL>the sun
WL>go down over the glowing mountains.  I am sharing the solitude,
WL>paradoxically with you and perhaps hundreds of others.

That's a nice way of experiencing it.  I suppose I am finding it 
less 
meditative because of my recent negative experiences with the 
medium, so I 
come to it with a less relaxed attitude.  I would like to find a 
safe 
space to reclaim that in, as I fear that without that sense of 
safety one 
would not find it fruitful in the long term.

WL>WL>>I love the sense of creating something that is on the edge of 
WL>human
WL>WL>>evolution, thinking that this might make a difference.
WL>
WL>
WL> ST> I think something got cut off the end here.  Were you going 
to 
WL>say
WL> ST> you have the sense that their contact with you leads them 
to see 
WL>the
WL> ST> world in a different way, or something along those lines?
WL>
WL>Yes.  I do not take it all that personally though.  It is the
WL>psychotherapeutic methods and traditions that have evolved to a 
high
WL>degree.  I practice a traditional art.

I often wonder about that.  I suppose it is traditional in a certain 
sense, but wouldn't it also be correct to say that therapy and its 
many 
allied helping disciplines are really relatively recent arrivals 
within 
the sum of human endeavour?  Before they came into being where did 
one go 
for wisdom - to the priest or elder?  The witch?  The mystic?  I'm 
sure 
Stanley would have some thoughts on this too.  Or perhaps you do 
indeed 
practice a traditional art in that what you do contains some 
elements of 
the methods used by those precursors?   

That's all for now.  I am not in a state to write much or 
meaningfully at 
present, but want to keep in touch and not drift away into the ether.

See you soon

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (34)   Thu 2 Sep 93  0:09                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: A MIXED BAG.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello Sue,

I am about to start on some replies, I read your last batch a few 
days ago
and have been busy on the BBS but with such things as the file 
areas, or
Libraries as we call them.  If you check them out you will see they 
are
more accessible, more to do yet and I want to put more material in 
them, I
have a bit on hand.  One that is there is the one you speak of in 
this
message:

WL>> ST> Perhaps the best way would be for me to go through it and 
make
WL>> ST> changes, and you could read it with the original document 
open
WL>> in
WL>> ST> another window?
WL>>
WL>>Yes that would be fine.

 ST> I'm still intending to do it, but as I said on the phone last 
night,
 ST> work and other stresses are rather excessive at present.

No rush, I may even get another crack at it before you do, I will 
keep the
latest version in the Psybernet Introductory Library, that is the 
one new
users (non-subscribers) can see.

WL>>I have just completed writing a message entitled Psybernet
WL>>Consultancy in
WL>>this conference.  This is an  outline what I do, how does that 
look?

 ST> I saw that and think it looks fine.  It gives a clear idea of 
what
 ST> you're offering.

It has gone again but I will get it back there *soon*.



 ST> Out of curiosity, what else do you do in the way of writing?

I write letters and reports in my work, that is ok.  I have completed
several papers for membership of NZAP.  I straggled & struggled with
those,  and don't really like them.  I have an aborted psychodrama 
thesis,
which I will never finish, at least as a thesis, though perhaps as a
report of a group...?  If I do  thesis it will be on a different 
topic.  I
have about 100 snippets of stuff not complete and without purpose or
direction.  At least here I can do that and send them up-.

WL>> ... for me it is the meditative space I can be in while
WL>>relating.  I am here in solitude, in a cosy mountain hut, 
watching
WL>>the sun
WL>>go down over the glowing mountains.  I am sharing the solitude,
WL>>paradoxically with you and perhaps hundreds of others.

 ST> That's a nice way of experiencing it.  I suppose I am finding 
it less
 ST> meditative because of my recent negative experiences with the 
medium,
 ST> so I come to it with a less relaxed attitude.  I would like to 
find a
 ST> safe space to reclaim that in, as I fear that without that 
sense of
 ST> safety one would not find it fruitful in the long term.

Yes, once bitten twice shy.
WL>>Yes.  I do not take it all that personally though.  It is the
WL>>psychotherapeutic methods and traditions that have evolved to a 
high
WL>>degree.  I practice a traditional art.

 ST> I often wonder about that.  I suppose it is traditional in a 
certain
 ST> sense, but wouldn't it also be correct to say that therapy and 
its
 ST> many allied helping disciplines are really relatively recent 
arrivals
 ST> within the sum of human endeavour?  Before they came into 
being where
 ST> did one go for wisdom - to the priest or elder?  The witch?  The
 ST> mystic?  I'm sure Stanley would have some thoughts on this 
too.  Or
 ST> perhaps you do indeed practice a traditional art in that what 
you do
 ST> contains some elements of the methods used by those precursors?

Yes the tradition goes back a long way.

 ST> That's all for now.  I am not in a state to write much or
 ST> meaningfully at present, but want to keep in touch and not 
drift away
 ST> into the ether.

That is great.

See you soon

Walter

... Psybernet ... Psychological Cybernetics On-line soon.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:07 2000
Date: (63)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:17                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: A MIXED BAG.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello Sue,

I am about to start on some replies, I read your last batch a few 
days ago
and have been busy on the BBS but with such things as the file 
areas, or
Libraries as we call them.  If you check them out you will see they 
are
more accessible, more to do yet and I want to put more material in 
them, I
have a bit on hand.  One that is there is the one you speak of in 
this
message:

WL>> ST> Perhaps the best way would be for me to go through it and 
make
WL>> ST> changes, and you could read it with the original document 
open
WL>> in
WL>> ST> another window?
WL>>
WL>>Yes that would be fine.

 ST> I'm still intending to do it, but as I said on the phone last 
night,
 ST> work and other stresses are rather excessive at present.

No rush, I may even get another crack at it before you do, I will 
keep the
latest version in the Psybernet Introductory Library, that is the 
one new
users (non-subscribers) can see.

WL>>I have just completed writing a message entitled Psybernet
WL>>Consultancy in
WL>>this conference.  This is an  outline what I do, how does that 
look?

 ST> I saw that and think it looks fine.  It gives a clear idea of 
what
 ST> you're offering.

It has gone again but I will get it back there *soon*.



 ST> Out of curiosity, what else do you do in the way of writing?

I write letters and reports in my work, that is ok.  I have completed
several papers for membership of NZAP.  I straggled & struggled with
those,  and don't really like them.  I have an aborted psychodrama 
thesis,
which I will never finish, at least as a thesis, though perhaps as a
report of a group...?  If I do  thesis it will be on a different 
topic.  I
have about 100 snippets of stuff not complete and without purpose or
direction.  At least here I can do that and send them up-.

WL>> ... for me it is the meditative space I can be in while
WL>>relating.  I am here in solitude, in a cosy mountain hut, 
watching
WL>>the sun
WL>>go down over the glowing mountains.  I am sharing the solitude,
WL>>paradoxically with you and perhaps hundreds of others.

 ST> That's a nice way of experiencing it.  I suppose I am finding 
it less
 ST> meditative because of my recent negative experiences with the 
medium,
 ST> so I come to it with a less relaxed attitude.  I would like to 
find a
 ST> safe space to reclaim that in, as I fear that without that 
sense of
 ST> safety one would not find it fruitful in the long term.

Yes, once bitten twice shy.
WL>>Yes.  I do not take it all that personally though.  It is the
WL>>psychotherapeutic methods and traditions that have evolved to a 
high
WL>>degree.  I practice a traditional art.

 ST> I often wonder about that.  I suppose it is traditional in a 
certain
 ST> sense, but wouldn't it also be correct to say that therapy and 
its
 ST> many allied helping disciplines are really relatively recent 
arrivals
 ST> within the sum of human endeavour?  Before they came into 
being where
 ST> did one go for wisdom - to the priest or elder?  The witch?  The
 ST> mystic?  I'm sure Stanley would have some thoughts on this 
too.  Or
 ST> perhaps you do indeed practice a traditional art in that what 
you do
 ST> contains some elements of the methods used by those precursors?

Yes the tradition goes back a long way.

 ST> That's all for now.  I am not in a state to write much or
 ST> meaningfully at present, but want to keep in touch and not 
drift away
 ST> into the ether.

That is great.

See you soon

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (7)   Sun 29 Aug 93  0:14                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: SUICIDE
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL> ST> I have come to the personal position - not set in concrete, 
but 
WL>a
WL> ST> conviction of a certain type - that a person has the right 
to 
WL>take
WL> ST> their own life.  Nobody comes to such a decision lightly, 
and it 
WL>is
WL> ST> much more complex than the old 'cry for help' theory can 
account 
WL>for.
WL> ST>  If an individual feels that their life is no longer worth 
WL>pursuing,
WL> ST>  they have the right, in my mind, to make whatever decision 
they 
WL>must
WL> ST>  as a consequence of that feeling.  There are compelling 
WL>arguments
WL> ST>  concerning the suffering of those who are left in terms of 
WL>grief and
WL> ST>  guilt, and so on, but I still think one has the right to 
have 
WL>that
WL> ST>  much power over one's own life.  A therapist has the 
dilemma of
WL> ST>  being required to allow the client that power, while at the 
WL>same
WL> ST>  time doing whatever can be done to promote the choice of 
life, 
WL>but
WL> ST>  the most essential thing is that they do not interfere with 
WL>that
WL> ST>  reclaiming of power.  At present that is what I view the 
WL>suicidal
WL> ST>  impulse as being in essence.  What do you think?
WL>
WL>Yep, I have had several clients, and one most dramatically 
recently, 
WL>shift
WL>from wanting to die to wanting to live.  This does happen and 
thus 
WL>makes
WL>it worth while attempting to prevent suicide.

I'm sure it does, and I think you can't ever predict how close to 
the 
surface the desire to live is in a person who has to all intents and 
purposes decided to end it all.  It must be a real balancing act 
dealing 
with it face to face.

WL>On the other hand if they really were going to do it and wanted 
to, 
WL>why tell me about it?

I remember interviewing Allan for an article on this for the Tablet 
some 
time ago, and he said Lifeline gets a lot of calls from people who 
are 
about to kill themselves and just want somebody to know about it 
before 
they do it.  It's an immense decision to have made, and I would 
guess they 
have the normal human desire to share it with somebody else - to 
know that 
somebody somewhere knows and possibly cares in some way, even if no 
more 
can come of it than that.

WL>I think people have the right to die and to assist people with 
WL>euthanasia,
WL>I hope that it happens when it needs to, and I expect it does,  
you 
WL>don't hear much about it though, and that is not so strange!

I know it does happen all the time.  When my father was in his last 
stages 
of life in hospital, the surgeon told us that the liberal doses of 
morphine he was being given would gently depress his respiration to 
the 
point where he would die, and that this would make it happen sooner 
than 
if he was left to his own devices, as it were.  I got the 
impression that 
this was normal and unquestioned practice, and we as a family were 
certainly happy with it.  It would be difficult to make a charge of 
euthanasia stick to it, but I suppose technically it was hastening 
death. 
Where do you draw the line with issues like this?  So much of it 
falls 
into the grey area.

Bye for now

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (8)   Sun 29 Aug 93  0:14                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL> ST> It was *Manufacturing Consent* -
WL> ST> a brilliant Canadian film on Noam Chomsky,
WL>
WL> ST>  - if you DIDN'T see it today, and I didn't see you there -
WL> ST> and there was just the one showing - go lean on the counter 
at
WL> ST> Alice's and threaten not to shift till they get it in for 
you.
WL>
WL>
WL>I'll do that, cause I did miss it.

Let me know if you track it down and watch it - I'll be interested 
to hear 
what you thought.

WL>WL>> SR> I am no champion of oppression. But it worries me 
whether, 
WL>in our
WL>WL>> SR> enthusiasm, we are not creating a kind of political 
WL>correctness w
WL>WL>> SR> could be as oppressive as the oppression it seeks to 
WL>eradicate.
WL>
WL> ST> We might be, but we sure as hell have to do something.  The 
task 
WL>is
WL> ST> not to create a new oppression, but to disrupt the power 
bloc 
WL>and
WL> ST> force it to crumble.

I think we sure as hell have to do something too.  Maybe every 
paradigm 
has its own forms of oppressiveness, but if you believe in human 
progress 
then the defusing of power and its abuses must surely lead us in 
the right 
direction.  If you don't believe in human progress, then that 
creates an 
entirely new set of problems.  I think personally that I do - I 
regard 
this as arising from the religious part of me, and by this I do not 
mean 
'organised religion' but something more to do with faith in a much 
broader 
sense.

WL>WL>>It does seem that to be vigilant about something, means that 
some 
WL>peop
WL>WL>>won't like it.  Like the words of a song:
WL>WL>>
WL>WL>>'Everybody likes to see justice done . . . to somebody else'
WL>
WL> ST> Yes.  The prophets come to mind - those sorely misjudged 
figures 
WL>of
WL> ST> the Old Testament who today would be treated with 
psychotropic 
WL>drugs.
WL>
WL>Who are you thinking of here?

Now, there's a question.  I was really just thinking of them in 
general 
terms, but you've prompted me to consider going back and looking at 
them 
again.  Haven't thought about them since my distant days of studying 
exegesis!

WL>You go on to reflect on what therapy is:
WL>
WL> ST> Sometimes they want a lifeline to
WL> ST> some reality greater than themselves, which is mediated to 
them
WL> ST> through the realness and the honesty of the therapist.  It 
is, 
WL>at
WL> ST> depth, a spiritual search, and not just a quest for an 
image of 
WL>the
WL> ST> self.
WL>
WL>I said to a client recently that I had an image of his therapy 
as a
WL>weaving.  The trouble with the weaving was that all the wool was 
WL>tangled
WL>by ECT and various mis diagnosis.  What we had done that day was 
WL>loosened
WL>some of the tangles, not even unraveled them let alone woven more 
WL>rug.  It
WL>heartened him a little as he felt we had just wasted the whole 
WL>session.
WL>It also made him see I was in for the long haul, and willing to 
hang 
WL>in.
WL>But on the other side, he saw again what a long haul it would be.
WL>
WL>Now what do you make of all that in the light of the statement 
you 
WL>made
WL>Sue?  Was I in touch with a higher reality when I saw the image, 
it
WL>clearly presented itself to me, quite without my willing it, I 
just
WL>noticed it and blurted it out. I just call it naming a role!  
That is 
WL>what
WL>it is called in the Psychodrama tradition.  At the end of it 
though 
WL>he is
WL>forming a new image of himself, what do you think?

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about - a spiritual 
encounter or 
revelation.  And to take the 'religious' terminology a bit further 
- when 
you blurted that out to him you were 'inspired'.  If you 
agree with that, then - 'inspiration' means 'breath', and 'breath' 
is 
'pneuma' or 'spirit'.  It is naming a role, too - I tread lightly 
here 
because I know little about psychodrama - but I believe all these 
methods 
are just different ways of making sense of the same *spiritual* 
phenomena. 
And at the end of it he is able to begin to reweave a new image of 
himself, and what is that but 'resurrection' or new life?  I also 
see in 
it the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity - faith 
in you 
as a helper willing to hang in for the long haul, hope that the 
session, 
and the rest of the process to come, despite the length of the 
haul, was 
not and will not be a total waste of time, and charity as we 
discussed 
before - the love and enjoyment aspects of the encounter.  I hope 
you 
don't think I'm a religious nut, because I'm far from that - I just 
spent 
a lot of time studying theology and reading and thinking, and I 
think the 
eternal religious symbols and transformations are valid and real 
because 
they talk about what goes on with people.  Dogma was added later.

WL>>I think that there is a dynamic at work that is not the 'cult of 
WL>the
WL>WL>>child' as Hillman might say, but the 'cult of the rapist'.  
Or 
WL>perhaps
WL>WL>>these two feed each other  . . .
WL>
WL> ST> Music to my ears.  It is so difficult to get people to 
recognise
WL> ST> this.
WL>
WL>I don't think it can be done actually.  People are just 
hypnotised by 
WL>the
WL>whole culture, it is no longer necessary to have chains, they 
are in 
WL>our
WL>heads.  Any one who tries to *get* anyone to see it is already 
shot 
WL>down
WL>by the hypnotic system.

Man, you ain't kidding.  Just watch television for half an hour.  
Or skim 
through the junk mail that comes in your letterbox.  And getting 
them to 
see it is what I tried and failed to do on NZ_CHAT.

WL>In ritualistic sexual abuse children can be 
WL>told
WL>from an early age that social workers and judges etc. are out to 
kill
WL>their parents or have bombs inside them or . . .  this is an 
extreme 
WL>form
WL>of what goes on all the time.

Yes, that's a hideous metaphor for the whole thing, in a way.

WL>There are labels for people who see, 
WL>and
WL>they are often driven mad.  Who sees that the world is so crazy 
that
WL>*producing things* is valued higher than *working with people* eg 
WL>being a
WL>parent, teacher etc.?

Absolutely.  It's really bizarre when you sit back and look at it 
all.  I 
have a friend, a woman in her early thirties who is a former drug 
addict 
and prostitute, who is in and out of Sunnyside with monotonous 
regularity 
because she is periodically convinced *they* are chasing her with 
guns.  
She is not able to earn a living in any effective way and she is 
labelled 
by society as useless and mad.  And yet to my way of thinking she 
is the 
sanest person I've ever met - she has a degree of emotional honesty, 
generosity and loyalty that leaves me both envious and grateful to 
have 
the privilege of her friendship.  She is the greatest *lover*, in 
the true 
sense of that word, I have ever met.  Who is crazy and who is sane?

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (37)   Fri 3 Sep 93  0:19                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Sue & Walter
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

WL>> ST>  ..... we sure as hell have to do something.  The task  is 
not
WL>>to create a new oppression, but to disrupt the power bloc
WL>>and  force it to crumble.

 ST> I think we sure as hell have to do something too.  Maybe every
 ST> paradigm has its own forms of oppressiveness, but if you
 ST> believe in human progress then the defusing of power and its
 ST> abuses must surely lead us in the right direction.  If you
 ST> don't believe in human progress, then that creates an entirely
 ST> new set of problems.  I think personally that I do - I regard
 ST> this as arising from the religious part of me, and by this I do
 ST> not mean 'organised religion' but something more to do with
 ST> faith in a much broader sense.

WL>> ST> Yes.  The prophets come to mind - those sorely misjudged
figures


WL>>You go on to reflect on what therapy is    It is,
WL>>at  depth, a spiritual search, and not just a quest for an 
image of
WL>>the self.


 ST> Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about - a spiritual
 ST> encounter or revelation.  And to take the 'religious'
 ST> terminology a bit further - when you blurted that out to him
 ST> you were 'inspired'.  If you agree with that, then -
 ST> 'inspiration' means 'breath', and 'breath' is 'pneuma' or
 ST> 'spirit'. ........... these methods are just different ways of
.ST>  making sense of the
 ST> same *spiritual* phenomena. And at the end of it he is able to
 ST> begin to reweave a new image of himself, and what is that but
 ST> 'resurrection' or new life?  I also see in it the three
 ST> theological virtues of faith, hope and charity -

WL>>.  People are just hypnotised by  the
WL>>whole culture, it is no longer necessary to have chains, they 
are in
WL>>our heads.  Any one who tries to *get* anyone to see it is 
already
WL>>shot  down  by the hypnotic system.


Dear Sue and Walter,
                         I have selected out some passages from your
dialogue with each other. The quotations above are interesting, I 
think,
because they illustrate  a perspective which you both seem to share 
and
which I think have a common archetypal source - notwithstanding that
superficially you come from very different theoretical places..

          You speak, Sue, of therapy as 'a spiritual search', a
'spiritual encounter or revelation', of it leading to a 
'resurrection',
of the 'theological virtues of faith, hope and charity'.  You speak 
,in
the same breath, of the belief in human progress, of the need to 
over-
come power-blocks, not with organized religion, but with a broad 
faith -
a faith in an historical movement, I take it, of which 
psychotherapy is
a part. And you Walter speak of the necessity to disrupt power blocks
and force them to crumble, of the chains we must break 'in our heads'
created by the system. You both seem to speak, using different words,
of the same vision.

   . When I listen to both of you I have the strangest sense of
the Protestant and the Dialectical Materialist in bed together!  I 
hear
the echoes of history ending in the Second Coming or the 
Blessedness of
the Classless Society, of humanity's story as the gradual unfolding 
of
the Apotheosis, the overcoming of evil, the power-blocks. I hear 
distant
murmurs of the ancient Myth of the Golden Age; above all the story of
history as PROGRESS!  The single literal line, the single meaning 
of it
all, the Pilgrims Progress towards the Great End Station in the Sky -
each stage of history better than the last until the last stage 
when we
sit on the right hand of God. I hear echoes of the ancient Manichean
struggle of the Demonic Power versus the Power of Light, that most
terrible Eastern example of black and white religious dichotomy which
infected Christianity and which split our world into an adversarial
contest between the spiritual super-powers of absolute good and 
absolute
evil. I hear the more modern cry - but still from the same archetype:
'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your 
chains,
the chains of the evil system. We know who the enemy is. The power
struggle is clearly marked. The meaning of history plainly 
discernable.

     I'm sure you are right Sue, in saying that the belief in 
progress -
both our collective and personal progress - belongs to the religious
part of you; and the language you use is absolutely appropriate to 
the
spiritual quest.  You may use different words, Walter - and your
background is certainly different - but the paradigm is analogous, 
the
archetypal pattern the same.

          It is all in our blood. We can hardly think of our personal
life or the life of humanity without looking through these lenses. 
This
is the archetype that dominates.  You want to know where POWER 
is?....
That's it!   This is the historical oppressor which weighs us all 
down.

               But you know, it's only one of the stories that psyche
tells.  Knowing that there are others is what makes us 'poly' rather
than 'mono', psychological rather then theological.

     Don't forget too, that it is only since the advent of 
Christianity
that pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul) have been conflated. So 
lets be
backward and differentiate the spiritual quest from the psychological
opus.

                            Love from the Anti-Christ,
                                                       Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (35)   Thu 2 Sep 93  0:09                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello Sue,


 ST> I think we sure as hell have to do something too.  Maybe every
 ST> paradigm has its own forms of oppressiveness, but if you 
believe in
 ST> human progress then the defusing of power and its abuses must 
surely
 ST> lead us in the right direction.  If you don't believe in human
 ST> progress, then that creates an entirely new set of problems.  
I think
 ST> personally that I do - I regard this as arising from the 
religious
 ST> part of me, and by this I do not mean 'organised religion' but
 ST> something more to do with faith in a much broader sense.

Ah!  I *do* believe in human progress.  I do not feel like a 
humanist or a
political animal when I say that though.  More, like you Sue, it is 
to do
with tuning into . . . the depth.  I seems so crucial that certain 
forces in
our culture and psyche do retain the upper hand.  Crucial, in the 
image I
have, if a certain species of awareness is not retained, it could die
forever.  All of the potential branches of the evolution of the 
psyche that
stem from that point would be cut off.  That is what I meant when I 
wrote
elsewhere that I like to be at that watershed in the world, on that 
edge
where things can go either way, right there giving a little shove, 
that
grows into a swelling tide.

WL>>WL>>It does seem that to be vigilant about something, means 
that some
WL>>peop
WL>>WL>>won't like it.  Like the words of a song:
WL>>WL>>
WL>>WL>>'Everybody likes to see justice done . . . to somebody else'
WL>>
WL>> ST> Yes.  The prophets come to mind - those sorely misjudged 
figures
WL>>of
WL>> ST> the Old Testament who today would be treated with 
psychotropic
WL>>drugs.
WL>>
WL>>Who are you thinking of here?

 ST> Now, there's a question.  I was really just thinking of them in
 ST> general terms, but you've prompted me to consider going back and
 ST> looking at them again.  Haven't thought about them since my 
distant
 ST> days of studying exegesis!

I have never studied any of them I wouldn't know a prophet from a 
miracle.
I suppose Noah was a prophet, and John the Baptist?  (Just in 
different
testaments?)



WL>>You go on to reflect on what therapy is:
WL>>
WL>> ST> Sometimes they want a lifeline to
WL>> ST> some reality greater than themselves, which is mediated to 
them
WL>> ST> through the realness and the honesty of the therapist.  It 
is,
WL>>at
WL>> ST> depth, a spiritual search, and not just a quest for an 
image of
WL>>Sue?  Was I in touch with a higher reality when I saw the 
image, it
WL>>clearly presented itself to me, quite without my willing it, I 
just
WL>>noticed it and blurted it out. I just call it naming a role!  
That is
WL>>what
WL>>it is called in the Psychodrama tradition.  At the end of it 
though
WL>>he is
WL>>forming a new image of himself, what do you think?

 ST> Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about - a spiritual 
encounter
 ST> or revelation.  And to take the 'religious' terminology a bit 
further
 ST> - when you blurted that out to him you were 'inspired'.  If you
 ST> agree with that, then - 'inspiration' means 'breath', and 
'breath' is
 ST> 'pneuma' or 'spirit'.  It is naming a role, too - I tread 
lightly here
 ST> because I know little about psychodrama - but I believe all 
these
 ST> methods are just different ways of making sense of the same
 ST> *spiritual* phenomena. And at the end of it he is able to 
begin to
 ST> reweave a new image of himself, and what is that but 
'resurrection'
 ST> or new life?  I also see in it the three theological virtues of
 ST> faith, hope and charity - faith in you as a helper willing to 
hang in
 ST> for the long haul, hope that the session, and the rest of the 
process
 ST> to come, despite the length of the haul, was not and will not 
be a
 ST> total waste of time, and charity as we discussed before - the 
love
 ST> and enjoyment aspects of the encounter.  I hope you don't 
think I'm a
 ST> religious nut, because I'm far from that - I just spent a lot 
of time
 ST> studying theology and reading and thinking, and I think the 
eternal
 ST> religious symbols and transformations are valid and real 
because they
 ST> talk about what goes on with people.  Dogma was added later.

Was I really?  I *like* you putting it all like that, it is a 
resurrection
of the spirit of the whole business, as you say without the dogma.


WL>>  Who sees that the world is so crazy that
WL>>*producing things* is valued higher than *working with people* eg
WL>>being a
WL>>parent, teacher etc.?

 ST> Absolutely.  It's really bizarre when you sit back and look at 
it
 ST> all.  I have a friend, a woman in her early thirties who is a 
former
 ST> drug addict and prostitute, who is in and out of Sunnyside with
 ST> monotonous regularity because she is periodically convinced 
*they*
 ST> are chasing her with guns. She is not able to earn a living in 
any
 ST> effective way and she is labelled by society as useless and 
mad.  And
 ST> yet to my way of thinking she is the sanest person I've ever 
met -
 ST> she has a degree of emotional honesty, generosity and loyalty 
that
 ST> leaves me both envious and grateful to have the privilege of her
 ST> friendship.  She is the greatest *lover*, in the true sense of 
that
 ST> word, I have ever met.  Who is crazy and who is sane?

Great stuff.  Can she see it that way?  I know someone like that 
and I
endeavour to acknowledge her degrees, but she says it is all very 
well for
you, you've got the real ones.  She has the enemy within.


Regards,
Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (45)   Sat 11 Sep 93 18:23                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 WL> Does you observation change if I reaffirm that I feel committed
 WL> to the psyche, in its multiplicity?  I see that the psyche is
 WL> under the sway of the culture.  Some aspects of it are allowed,
 WL> encouraged.  Others are totally attacked and yet others exist,
 WL> but like the emperors nakedness are only seen by the odd little
 WL> kid  (Sue &/or me).  So I say again, perhaps making my self a
 WL> little clearer, that unless you have some social analysis you
 WL> cant really see the psyche, it is marked 'Top Secret'.

Dear Walter,
             This is just the very point: this difference you make
between Culture and the Psyche. Some aspects of the psyche ARE are
suppressed by culture, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - that is, if you put
those suppressive aspects in a special bin called Culture or Society
whose manifestations therefore are NOT psychic but which EFFECT 
psyche.

          You have then two separate orders of being: Psyche and
Society. . Am I right in thinking that this theoretical move of yours
serves a definite purpose. It enables you to see a march of culture
wherein certain emerging movements are ethically valuable and 
others are
retrogressive. You would say, I think, that these ethical values 
are not
relative, as they it would be if they belonged to psyche, but 
constitute
an absolute value. With psychological events thus taking place 
WITHIN an
UNpsychological social nexus which provides obvious values, it is now
possible to evaluate which psychic events are forward moving and
therefore ethically good, and which are stationary or backward 
moving or
suppressive. You are now able to take certain social movements as
NORMATIVE.  As such this is an ethical move, the point of which is 
to be
able to JUDGE the value psychic events. That would be why you say 
that
psychological events have to be seen against a sociological 
perspective.
At very least this is a move towards a metaphysical  system. And 
this is
why I say your move is basically a theological one

          In this scheme, the ethical value - ie that which enables 
you
to determine which movements are forward and which retrogressive - 
may
be
fixed or 'emerging'. It makes little difference. The question 
remains:
how to you come by those values. As David Hume showed once for all, 
you
cannot deduce values from facts. So where do you get them?  The
consensus of the people; revelation from God; your own special 
intuition
into the Platonic 'good'; does nature speak it;  or are those 
values so
obvious that the subject is not debatable - infallible Common 
Sense? If
the values are said to be explicit as Nature evolving into the 
greater
complexity, we have to assume without question that complexity has
greater value than simplicity. That would be an assumption because
neither the FACT of complexity or simplicity provides us with a 
value;
and if we invent the value, why these values and not others?

          Have you noticed an interesting thing?  When we refer to
individual cases there is no difference between us - It's at the
theoretical level that our troubles begin. You once said to me 
something
like: 'What you actually do is better than your theory'. Maybe what 
we
do is better than BOTH our theories.


 WL> I see this when I work with clients who (say) blame themselves
 WL> for 'upsetting' the family by disclosing the incest.  In such a
 WL> moment I see the cult of the rapist being protected and covered
 WL> over by the out-post in the head of the victim.
 WL> Once this is seen, and named then the psyche can be more rich
 WL> in its multiplicity.

Yes, Yes, of course. I'm right with you. That would be my most 
immediate
reaction - but as a 'situational ethics'. I wouldn't dream of 
thinking
that I could derive the value of my response from a social normative
value - because I know it can't be done.  Theoretically you can 
drive a
bus through the holes in it.

SR>> pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul)

 WL> I thought that Sue in her correspondence had grounded the
 WL> spiritual in the psychological.  She showed how the spiritual
 WL> language could describe the image I saw as I worked with my
 WL> client.

I know, I know. I was naughty. I used her language to illustrate my
hobby-horse

 WL> It is *directive* in a way isn't it to share *my* image of the
 WL> clients work with them.  Yet, the image was drawing attention
 WL> to the psychological opus. It was that the client could not
 WL> see.  That very work is under attack and possibly an endangered
 WL> species.

I know you want to save the species Walter. And you are such a 
darling
for wanting to so ferociously

 WL> Love from .....
 WL>                                               Charles Darwin

Come out of there St.Thomas Aquinas. I know a theologian when I see
one!!!. It's no used you growing a beard and pretending you are still
working on 'The Origin of the Species' when all the time you are 
still
busy writing Sumna Theologica  -

                        Your best friend
                                          David Hume
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (38)   Mon 6 Sep 93  1:14                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

 SR>                But you know, it's only one of the stories that 
psyche
 SR> tells.  Knowing that there are others is what makes us 'poly' 
rather
 SR> than 'mono', psychological rather then theological.

 SR>      Don't forget too, that it is only since the advent of
 SR>  Christianity that pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul) have been
 SR>  conflated. So lets be backward and differentiate the 
spiritual quest
 SR>  from the psychological opus.

 SR>                             Love from the Anti-Christ,
 SR>                                                        Stanley



Dear Stanley,

Does you observation change if I reaffirm that I feel committed to 
the
psyche, in its multiplicity?  I see that the psyche is under the 
sway of the
culture.  Some aspects of it are allowed, encouraged.  Others are 
totally
attacked and yet others exist, but like the emperors nakedness are 
only seen
by the odd little kid  (Sue &/or me).  So I say again, perhaps 
making my
self a little clearer, that unless you have some social analysis 
you cant
really see the psyche, it is marked 'Top Secret'.

I see this when I work with clients who (say) blame themselves for
'upsetting' the family by disclosing the incest.  In such a moment 
I see the
cult of the rapist being protected and covered over by the out-post 
in the
head of the victim.

Once this is seen, and named then the psyche can be more rich in its
multiplicity.


SR> pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul)

I thought that Sue in her correspondence had grounded the spiritual 
in the
psychological.  She showed how the spiritual language could 
describe the
image I saw as I worked with my client.

Are you saying that such an image comes from *my* particular 
archetypal
perspective?  Ie the same one as Sue's language?

It is *directive* in a way isn't it to share *my* image of the 
clients work
with them.  Yet, the image was drawing attention to the 
psychological opus.
It was that the client could not see.  That very work is under 
attack and
possibly an endangered species.

Love from .....


                                              Charles Darwin


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02





from something



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:07 2000
Date: (69)   Wed 15 Sep 93  1:29                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

15 September, 1993, 1:00 AM
106 Chester Street East
Psybernet Conference, Public.


Hello Stanley,


 WL>> Does you observation change if I reaffirm that I feel committed
 WL>> to the psyche, in its multiplicity?  I see that the psyche is
 WL>> under the sway of the culture.  Some aspects of it are allowed,
 WL>> encouraged.  Others are totally attacked and yet others exist,
 WL>> but like the emperors nakedness are only seen by the odd little
 WL>> kid  (Sue &/or me).  So I say again, perhaps making my self a
 WL>> little clearer, that unless you have some social analysis you
 WL>> cant really see the psyche, it is marked 'Top Secret'.

 SR> Dear Walter,
 SR>              This is just the very point: this difference you 
make
 SR> between Culture and the Psyche. Some aspects of the psyche ARE 
are
 SR> suppressed by culture, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - that is, if 
you put
 SR> those suppressive aspects in a special bin called Culture or 
Society
 SR> whose manifestations therefore are NOT psychic but which EFFECT
 SR> psyche.

Kate just said:  You have the false self and the true self, the 
false being
the introjects from the society. In simple terms, she says, it is 
not a hard
& fast boundary.  Sometimes, in say a movie, the culture will 
mirror an
aspect of our deeper true self.  The false self is always made up 
out of
societal introjects.

I would not call it 'self' there but I agree with her if I called 
it psyche.


 SR>           You have then two separate orders of being: Psyche and
 SR> Society. . Am I right in thinking that this theoretical move 
of yours
 SR> serves a definite purpose. It enables you to see a march of 
culture
 SR> wherein certain emerging movements are ethically valuable and 
others
 SR> are retrogressive. You would say, I think, that these ethical 
values
 SR> are not relative, as they it would be if they belonged to 
psyche, but
 SR> constitute an absolute value. With psychological events thus 
taking
 SR> place WITHIN an UNpsychological social nexus which provides 
obvious
 SR> values, it is now possible to evaluate which psychic events are
 SR> forward moving and therefore ethically good, and which are 
stationary
 SR> or backward moving or suppressive. You are now able to take 
certain
 SR> social movements as NORMATIVE.  As such this is an ethical 
move, the
 SR> point of which is to be able to JUDGE the value psychic 
events. That
 SR> would be why you say that psychological events have to be seen
 SR> against a sociological perspective. At very least this is a move
 SR> towards a metaphysical  system. And this is why I say your 
move is
 SR> basically a theological one

You summarise something well here but not my perspective.  I

I do not have any knowledge of good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, 
pro- or
regressive, functional or dysfunctional, politically correct or 
incorrect.
I do not come at the psyche or the socius like that.  I was 
thinking about
this while listening to the psyche of a client today and watching 
the socius
emerge around it all.  It made perfect sense to distinguish the two 
and to
hear from him how the two were related.  He knew exactly which was 
his 'true
self' as Kate would say.  I knew he was right too!

You see I have gone back to a situation again.  Perhaps that is it, 
I am
just *not* a theoretician.  i don't think that it is any good.  It 
is a
disease.  Marks said that the point was not to understand but to 
change the
world.  They went further:  the only way to understand it is to 
change it,
someone called that praxis?  I do not espouse a theory but a 
practice, a
process.  That comes from Moreno, he went much further in the Marxist
direction.  No theory about the facts at all.  Nothing about Class 
being the
primary contradiction.  He stuck with the notion of contradiction 
though.
Through a process of warm-up to spontaneity the criteria on which 
to focus
would emerge out of the group.

It applies to individual work to.  If the warm-up is deep then the 
question
of theory just does not arise, the 'theatre of truth' is there.  It 
has
nothing to do with the stuff Hume speaks of that is just 
mathematics of
language, syllogisms.

It is true though that there is a theological basis to all this.  
as Moreno
said:

God is dead, and enters the world through the psychodrama stage.

In the spontaneity in my sessions too, and yours I bet.

 SR> The question remains:
 SR> how to you come by those values. As David Hume showed once for 
all,
 SR> you cannot deduce values from facts. So where do you get them? 
 The
 SR> consensus of the people; revelation from God; your own special
 SR> intuition into the Platonic 'good'; does nature speak it;  or 
are
 SR> those values so obvious that the subject is not debatable -
 SR> infallible Common Sense? If the values are said to be explicit 
as
 SR> Nature evolving into the greater complexity, we have to assume
 SR> without question that complexity has greater value than 
simplicity.
 SR> That would be an assumption because neither the FACT of 
complexity or
 SR> simplicity provides us with a value; and if we invent the 
value, why
 SR> these values and not others?

Which values?  The values that emerge in the session.  Through the 
process.
I suppose I uphold such cliches as:  Trust the processs & the body 
does not
lie.

But I am contradicting my idea that the therapist must have some 
social
analysis.  Not really.  To make sense of the psyche we use myth, 
notions of
archetypes, poetry.  This is not to impose on the psyche but to 
give it
life, even to see it.  Notions of class race gender power etc 
assist inthe
perception of socius.


 SR>           Have you noticed an interesting thing?  When we 
refer to
 SR> individual cases there is no difference between us - It's at the
 SR> theoretical level that our troubles begin. You once said to me
 SR> something like: 'What you actually do is better than your 
theory'.
 SR> Maybe what we do is better than BOTH our theories.


 WL>> I see this when I work with clients who (say) blame themselves
 WL>> for 'upsetting' the family by disclosing the incest.  In such a
 WL>> moment I see the cult of the rapist being protected and covered
 WL>> over by the out-post in the head of the victim.
 WL>> Once this is seen, and named then the psyche can be more rich
 WL>> in its multiplicity.

 SR> Yes, Yes, of course. I'm right with you. That would be my most
 SR> immediate reaction - but as a 'situational ethics'. I wouldn't 
dream
 SR> of thinking that I could derive the value of my response from a
 SR> social normative value - because I know it can't be done.
 SR> Theoretically you can drive a bus through the holes in it.

Kate says:  It is from your fucking knowing!  Your intuition.  Your 
heart.
Not a theory, but knowing.

She does get very impatient with these discussions!

I am not really sure what you mean at this point.  I see the value 
arising
out of the work, in my room, through the process.  And yes I agree 
really
with Kate.  Perhaps i was right in lie with what I meant, & Kate 
does when i
spoke of the little boy in the Emperors new Clothers, he did not 
have a
theory!

SR>>> pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul)

 WL>> I thought that Sue in her correspondence had grounded the
 WL>> spiritual in the psychological.  She showed how the spiritual
 WL>> language could describe the image I saw as I worked with my
 WL>> client.

 SR> I know, I know. I was naughty. I used her language to 
illustrate my
 SR> hobby-horse

 WL>> It is *directive* in a way isn't it to share *my* image of the
 WL>> clients work with them.  Yet, the image was drawing attention
 WL>> to the psychological opus. It was that the client could not
 WL>> see.  That very work is under attack and possibly an endangered
 WL>> species.

 SR> I know you want to save the species Walter. And you are such a 
darling
 SR> for wanting to so ferociously

 WL>> Love from .....
 WL>>                                               Charles Darwin

 SR> Come out of there St.Thomas Aquinas. I know a theologian when 
I see
 SR> one!!!. It's no used you growing a beard and pretending you 
are still
 SR> working on 'The Origin of the Species' when all the time you 
are still
 SR> busy writing Sumna Theologica  -

I remain Yours Truly,

Charles Darwin,

I study what is in front of me and trust the patterns in nature, 
and there
sure is some amazing process going on.  If God's hand is at work 
there so be
it I don't really care.


 SR>                         Your best friend
 SR>                                           David Hume


David, what are you doing hanging around a BBS like Psybernet. I 
thought you
had very little time for soul, psyche or any sort of non-empirical 
nonsense.
you started quite a trend you know.  In the psychological world we 
have the
behaviourists to thank you for.  Psychiatrists too perhaps.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:07 2000
Date: (53)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

 SR>                But you know, it's only one of the stories that 
psyche
 SR> tells.  Knowing that there are others is what makes us 'poly' 
rather
 SR> than 'mono', psychological rather then theological.

 SR>      Don't forget too, that it is only since the advent of
 SR>  Christianity that pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul) have been
 SR>  conflated. So lets be backward and differentiate the 
spiritual quest
 SR>  from the psychological opus.

 SR>                             Love from the Anti-Christ,
 SR>                                                        Stanley



Dear Stanley,

Does you observation change if I reaffirm that I feel committed to 
the
psyche, in its multiplicity?  I see that the psyche is under the 
sway of the
culture.  Some aspects of it are allowed, encouraged.  Others are 
totally
attacked and yet others exist, but like the emperors nakedness are 
only seen
by the odd little kid  (Sue &/or me).  So I say again, perhaps 
making my
self a little clearer, that unless you have some social analysis 
you cant
really see the psyche, it is marked 'Top Secret'.

I see this when I work with clients who (say) blame themselves for
'upsetting' the family by disclosing the incest.  In such a moment 
I see the
cult of the rapist being protected and covered over by the out-post 
in the
head of the victim.

Once this is seen, and named then the psyche can be more rich in its
multiplicity.


SR> pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul)

I thought that Sue in her correspondence had grounded the spiritual 
in the
psychological.  She showed how the spiritual language could 
describe the
image I saw as I worked with my client.

Are you saying that such an image comes from *my* particular 
archetypal
perspective?  Ie the same one as Sue's language?

It is *directive* in a way isn't it to share *my* image of the 
clients work
with them.  Yet, the image was drawing attention to the 
psychological opus.
It was that the client could not see.  That very work is under 
attack and
possibly an endangered species.

Love from .....


                                              Charles Darwin
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (91)   Tue 21 Sep 93 22:59                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Just checked to see what became of our 'Metaphor, Hillman and 
University"
discussion, and discovered that this is it!  There is a lineage 
back to Jean
Paul and Oscar!  I thought the theme was familiar!

Just a snippet,

Bye for now.


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (92)   Wed 22 Sep 93  0:06                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Dear Walter,

 WL> David, what are you doing hanging around a BBS like Psybernet.
 WL> I thought you had very little time for soul, psyche or any sort
 WL> of non-empirical nonsense.

          A good question. All right, I'll come clean. I am not 
really
David Hume.  I am the reincarnation of Madam Blavatski in disguise. 
As
you probable know, I founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. I 
don't
know if you have read my 'Secret Doctrine', but in that work I 
explain
everything, but everything!
          Actually, I positively loathe David Hume. I don't know 
why I
have this compulsion to dress up like him. I only get away with it
because he was almost as fat as I am. The truth is, I really hate all
knit-picking philosophers. The one thing they refuse to do is rely on
their INTUITION.  They are all dead from the head down. They have no
perception, no simple trust in their KNOWING.  Of course, every one 
of
them are men. Wouldn't you guess!
          Although I am a reverse transvestite, this should not be 
held
against me.. My knowledge comes to me from the Spiritual Forces of 
the
Universe with which I am in direct experiential contact. This is 
not a
matter of theory you understand, but of direct seeing into NATURE.
          Now, when it comes to your ideas about the 'true self' 
and the
'false self'.  I think it is clever but superficial. Why do you 
have to
turn everything into a theory?   I'm sure you are much too 
influenced by
the patriarchal obsession with SYSTEMS!  I knew better than this a
century ago. Why do you turn every plain sign in nature into an IDEA?
          Why do you not go by what is MANIFEST!.  Obvious!  
Staring you
in the face.  The world is manifestly approaching ECPYROSIS - the 
great
conflagration where the universe is consumed by fire, as happens 
every
150897987789, years preluding the rebirth of a spiritual and creative
cosmos. Heraclitus knew all about this and so did the wise men of
ancient India. It is coming.  The signs are unmistakable for anyone 
who
can see. For instance, I burned my toast this morning for the third
consecutive day. I get so impatient with people who refuse to see 
plain
facts. They always want to DISCUSS.  How in the name of the Dali Lama
can you discuss facts. Of course such people don't really want to
discuss, they only want to keep us prisoners in our heads.

                    with love and increasing warmth,

                                          Blavatski.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (96)   Fri 24 Sep 93 13:26                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 WL> The knowing I speak of has to do with the heart, it is a love
 WL> affair, it is not part of a religion at all.  Once a religion
 WL> is made, poof . . . nothing is known at all.  Knowing is seeing
 WL> into someone's eyes, feeling their breath and the tremble as
 WL> they speak, and even this seeing and feeling is with the unseen
 WL> eyes and ears.  There may be words but the stillness is
 WL> greater.  This knowing has nothing to do with belief, I am
 WL> against all belief.  Belief is to take the words of others and
 WL> speak them as if they were based on your own experience.

Oh Walter, quite beautiful. You have won my heart.
So much infinitely better than debate.  You may eat me !!!

 WL> Be still for a moment.

Right.

 WL> Sanity and insanity.

Yes

 WL> Breathe, and touch the line between sanity and insanity in your
 WL> self.

Aaaaah (in)  H huuuuuuuu!(out)
Yes, I'm touching it.

 WL> Can you see it?  Is there a fine line?  Are you afraid?

Yes, but my fear is on the other side of the line - I can't really 
feel
it.

 WL> I feel my heart pound.

Half a mow!  Now you've started talking about yourself.  You can't 
just
leave me here.

 WL> I am scared that they will take me away!

Are you, yes

 WL> Now I feel stronger, they cannot really hurt me, even if they
 WL> drug me, lock me away.

Wheww! That was a close one!

 WL> Insanity is to have my experience named in away that does not
 WL> fit for me, that would make me go berserk, especially in their
 WL> eyes.
 WL> Sanity and insanity is not within me but is an assault from the
 WL> outside.

Well I'm glad you got that all worked out.  I feel terrible!
                         Best,
                                Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (97)   Fri 24 Sep 93 17:04                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Stanley,


 WL>> The knowing I speak of has to do with the heart, it is a love
 WL>> affair, it is not part of a religion at all.  Once a religion
 WL>> is made, poof . . . nothing is known at all.  Knowing is seeing
 WL>> into someone's eyes, feeling their breath and the tremble as
 WL>> they speak, and even this seeing and feeling is with the unseen
 WL>> eyes and ears.  There may be words but the stillness is
 WL>> greater.  This knowing has nothing to do with belief, I am
 WL>> against all belief.  Belief is to take the words of others and
 WL>> speak them as if they were based on your own experience.

 SR> Oh Walter, quite beautiful. You have won my heart.
 SR> So much infinitely better than debate.  You may eat me !!!

Thank you.

 WL>> Be still for a moment.

 SR> Right.

 WL>> Sanity and insanity.

 SR> Yes

 WL>> Breathe, and touch the line between sanity and insanity in your
 WL>> self.

 SR> Aaaaah (in)  H huuuuuuuu!(out)
 SR> Yes, I'm touching it.

 WL>> Can you see it?  Is there a fine line?  Are you afraid?

 SR> Yes, but my fear is on the other side of the line - I can't 
really
 SR> feel it.

 WL>> I feel my heart pound.

 SR> Half a mow!  Now you've started talking about yourself.  You 
can't
 SR> just leave me here.

Ohhh!  I do apologise for that, I started entering into my own 
being from
here on and have left you hanging!  I must not do that, I trust I 
do not do
that in face to face encounters . . . still learning about this.


 WL>> I am scared that they will take me away!

 SR> Are you, yes

 WL>> Now I feel stronger, they cannot really hurt me, even if they
 WL>> drug me, lock me away.

 SR> Wheww! That was a close one!

 WL>> Insanity is to have my experience named in away that does not
 WL>> fit for me, that would make me go berserk, especially in their
 WL>> eyes.
 WL>> Sanity and insanity is not within me but is an assault from the
 WL>> outside.

 SR> Well I'm glad you got that all worked out.  I feel terrible!

Is that because I made that invitation and left you there?  Infact, 
perhaps
by naming MY experience, made it easy to appear that I am imposing 
on you!
not my intention.

Please say more of what you experience, I will stick with you here, 
and
respond to my own invitations in separate messages!


Will send this post haste!

Warmest wishes,

Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (95)   Wed 22 Sep 93 18:38                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello Blah Blah Blavatsky

You are welcome here Madam Blah!  The first woman to have single 
handedly
created a religion where there was none!  You were no doubt 
attracted by the
fact that Psybernet has *nine* letters just like your name, and like
Theosophy and not only that but the -net and the -sky go together, 
in that
people throw nets into the sky just as you have thrown yourself into
Psybernet!

Could I crown you the Queen of EBS?  ( E being for esoteric ).  Ah  
you must
forgive me, I am making fun.  That is not Theosophical of me.

 SR>  My knowledge comes to me from the
 SR>  Spiritual Forces of the Universe with which I am in direct
 SR>  experiential contact. This is not a matter of theory you 
understand,
 SR>  but of direct seeing into NATURE.

You mean like C J Jung?

 SR>  Heraclitus
 SR>  knew all about this and so did the wise men of ancient India. 
It is
 SR>  coming.  The signs are unmistakable for anyone who can see. For
 SR>  instance, I burned my toast this morning for the third 
consecutive
 SR>  day. I get so impatient with people who refuse to see plain 
facts.

Ah yes, synchronycity!

I woke up three times in the night!  *And* three times three is the 
number
of letters in Psybernet.

But I speak in jest to humour you.

The knowing I speak of has to do with the heart, it is a love 
affair, it is
not part of a religion at all.  Once a religion is made, poof . . . 
nothing
is known at all.  Knowing is seeing into someone's eyes, feeling 
their
breath and the tremble as they speak, and even this seeing and 
feeling is
with the unseen eyes and ears.  There may be words but the 
stillness is
greater.  This knowing has nothing to do with belief, I am against 
all
belief.  Belief is to take the words of others and speak them as if 
they
were based on your own experience.

Be still for a moment.

Sanity and insanity.

Breathe, and touch the line between sanity and insanity in your self.

Can you see it?  Is there a fine line?  Are you afraid?

I feel my heart pound.

I am scared that they will take me away!

Now I feel stronger, they cannot really hurt me, even if they drug 
me, lock
me away.

Insanity is to have my experience named in away that does not fit 
for me,
that would make me go berserk, especially in their eyes.

Sanity and insanity is not within me but is an assault from the 
outside.

 SR>  Of course such people don't really want to
 SR>  discuss, they only want to keep us prisoners in our heads.


Yes you are probably right.


Walter,


(With a nod to Osho Rajneesh, who I love but can not surrender to.  
Who
scares the hell out of me with his Madness!)

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (118)   Thu 7 Oct 93  2:20                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello Stanley,


 SR>      Yes Walter, I think you are right. Insanity is produced 
by the
 SR> environment and it is named by the environment too,  But what 
about
 SR> madness?  One could make a case for an archetypal madness. 
Plato spoke
 SR> of that - (in Greek 'mania'). He said there is the divine 
madness of
 SR> the poet who is possessed by the Muses and who use his voice to
 SR> speak; and there is the divine madness of Eros.
 SR>      There was also the divine madness produced by Dionysos in 
the
 SR> maenads, the women who were liberated by him (see our Group
 SR> Conference). I am inclined to think that possession by any 
single
 SR> archetype is a madness. Sometimes, when such possession fits the
 SR> social mores it is quite approved of, say like the Christ 
archetype
 SR> in the Middle Ages or like or perhaps, as Hillman has 
suggested, the
 SR> Child Archetype in modern psychotherapy.

I have been sitting infront of this message applying this to myself.
Introspection.  I am possessed at the moment.  I dream of Internet 
and
Psybernet.  Last night I dreamt of a scheme where we communicated 
only
through subject headings.  The messages were blank and BLACK, and 
exactly
three screens long.  We got good at crisp messages <g>.  But it is 
true, of
all the books I am reading <G> the one on the Internet grabs me the 
most.  I
want to connect to the WORLD.  This is an obsession.  I neglect 
doing my
accounts and vacuuming.  Madness?  Am I conscripted to do the work 
of some
archetypal force?  Who is this critter?

The mania I feel is not insanity.  I could be *called* that, but it 
does not
feel insane in here.

Notice, Stanley that I have made a methodological switch on you 
again.  From
your speculation and refection to my introspection!  Does that 
infuriate
you?



See you,
Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (112)   Wed 6 Oct 93 17:14                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Dear Walter,


 SR>> Oh Walter, quite beautiful. You have won my heart.
 SR>> So much infinitely better than debate.  You may eat me !!!

 WL> Thank you.

 WL>>> Be still for a moment.

 SR>> Right.

 WL>>> Sanity and insanity.

 SR>> Yes

 WL>>> Breathe, and touch the line between sanity and insanity in 
your
 WL>>> self.

 SR>> Aaaaah (in)  H huuuuuuuu!(out)
 SR>> Yes, I'm touching it.

 WL>>> Can you see it?  Is there a fine line?  Are you afraid?

 SR>> Yes, but my fear is on the other side of the line - I can't 
really
 SR>> feel it.

 WL>>> I feel my heart pound.

 SR>> Half a mow!  Now you've started talking about yourself.  You 
can't
 SR>> just leave me here.

 WL> Ohhh!  I do apologise for that, I started entering into my own
 WL> being from here on and have left you hanging!  I must not do
 WL> that, I trust I do not do that in face to face encounters . . .
 WL> still learning about this.

I'm so sorry Walter. As I explained to you (live) I should have put 
in a
<g>. You didn't really leave me hanging.


 WL>>> I am scared that they will take me away!

 WL>>> Now I feel stronger, they cannot really hurt me, even if they
 WL>>> drug me, lock me away.

 WL>>> Insanity is to have my experience named in away that does not
 WL>>> fit for me, that would make me go berserk, especially in their
 WL>>> eyes.
 WL>>> Sanity and insanity is not within me but is an assault from 
the
 WL>>> outside.

     Yes Walter, I think you are right. Insanity is produced by the
environment and it is named by the environment too,  But what about
madness?  One could make a case for an archetypal madness. Plato 
spoke
of that - (in Greek 'mania'). He said there is the divine madness 
of the
poet who is possessed by the Muses and who use his voice to speak; 
and
there is the divine madness of Eros.
     There was also the divine madness produced by Dionysos in the
maenads, the women who were liberated by him (see our Group 
Conference).
I am inclined to think that possession by any single archetype is a
madness. Sometimes, when such possession fits the social mores it is
quite approved of, say like the Christ archetype in the Middle Ages 
or
like or perhaps, as Hillman has suggested, the Child Archetype in 
modern
psychotherapy.

                    Best
                         Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (109)   Sun 3 Oct 93 22:07                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Dear Walter,

 WL> David, what are you doing hanging around a BBS like Psybernet.
 WL> I thought you had very little time for soul, psyche or any sort
 WL> of non-empirical nonsense.

          A good question. All right, I'll come clean. I am not 
really
David Hume.  I am the reincarnation of Madam Blavatski in disguise. 
As
you probable know, I founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. I 
don't
know if you have read my 'Secret Doctrine', but in that work I 
explain
everything, but everything!
          Actually, I positively loathe David Hume. I don't know 
why I
have this compulsion to dress up like him. I only get away with it
because he was almost as fat as I am. The truth is, I really hate all
knit-picking philosophers. The one thing they refuse to do is rely on
their INTUITION.  They are all dead from the head down. They have no
perception, no simple trust in their KNOWING.  Of course, every one 
of
them are men. Wouldn't you guess!
          Although I am a reverse transvestite, this should not be 
held
against me.. My knowledge comes to me from the Spiritual Forces of 
the
Universe with which I am in direct experiential contact. This is 
not a
matter of theory you understand, but of direct seeing into NATURE.
          Now, when it comes to your ideas about the 'true self' 
and the
'false self'.  I think it is clever but superficial. Why do you 
have to
turn everything into a theory?   I'm sure you are much too 
influenced by
the patriarchal obsession with SYSTEMS!  I knew better than this a
century ago. Why do you turn every plain sign in nature into an IDEA?
          Why do you not go by what is MANIFEST!.  Obvious!  
Staring you
in the face.  The world is manifestly approaching ECPYROSIS - the 
great
conflagration where the universe is consumed by fire, as happens 
every
150897987789, years preluding the rebirth of a spiritual and creative
cosmos. Heraclitus knew all about this and so did the wise men of
ancient India. It is coming.  The signs are unmistakable for anyone 
who
can see. For instance, I burned my toast this morning for the third
consecutive day. I get so impatient with people who refuse to see 
plain
facts. They always want to DISCUSS.  How in the name of the Dali Lama
can you discuss facts. Of course such people don't really want to
discuss, they only want to keep us prisoners in our heads.

                    with love and increasing warmth,

                                          Blavatski.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (123)   Sat 9 Oct 93 16:07                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 WL> Does you observation change if I reaffirm that I feel committed
 WL> to the psyche, in its multiplicity?  I see that the psyche is
 WL> under the sway of the culture.  Some aspects of it are allowed,
 WL> encouraged.  Others are totally attacked and yet others exist,
 WL> but like the emperors nakedness are only seen by the odd little
 WL> kid  (Sue &/or me).  So I say again, perhaps making my self a
 WL> little clearer, that unless you have some social analysis you
 WL> cant really see the psyche, it is marked 'Top Secret'.

Dear Walter,
             This is just the very point: this difference you make
between Culture and the Psyche. Some aspects of the psyche ARE are
suppressed by culture, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - that is, if you put
those suppressive aspects in a special bin called Culture or Society
whose manifestations therefore are NOT psychic but which EFFECT 
psyche.

          You have then two separate orders of being: Psyche and
Society. . Am I right in thinking that this theoretical move of yours
serves a definite purpose. It enables you to see a march of culture
wherein certain emerging movements are ethically valuable and 
others are
retrogressive. You would say, I think, that these ethical values 
are not
relative, as they it would be if they belonged to psyche, but 
constitute
an absolute value. With psychological events thus taking place 
WITHIN an
UNpsychological social nexus which provides obvious values, it is now
possible to evaluate which psychic events are forward moving and
therefore ethically good, and which are stationary or backward 
moving or
suppressive. You are now able to take certain social movements as
NORMATIVE.  As such this is an ethical move, the point of which is 
to be
able to JUDGE the value psychic events. That would be why you say 
that
psychological events have to be seen against a sociological 
perspective.
At very least this is a move towards a metaphysical  system. And 
this is
why I say your move is basically a theological one

          In this scheme, the ethical value - ie that which enables 
you
to determine which movements are forward and which retrogressive - 
may
be
fixed or 'emerging'. It makes little difference. The question 
remains:
how to you come by those values. As David Hume showed once for all, 
you
cannot deduce values from facts. So where do you get them?  The
consensus of the people; revelation from God; your own special 
intuition
into the Platonic 'good'; does nature speak it;  or are those 
values so
obvious that the subject is not debatable - infallible Common 
Sense? If
the values are said to be explicit as Nature evolving into the 
greater
complexity, we have to assume without question that complexity has
greater value than simplicity. That would be an assumption because
neither the FACT of complexity or simplicity provides us with a 
value;
and if we invent the value, why these values and not others?

          Have you noticed an interesting thing?  When we refer to
individual cases there is no difference between us - It's at the
theoretical level that our troubles begin. You once said to me 
something
like: 'What you actually do is better than your theory'. Maybe what 
we
do is better than BOTH our theories.


 WL> I see this when I work with clients who (say) blame themselves
 WL> for 'upsetting' the family by disclosing the incest.  In such a
 WL> moment I see the cult of the rapist being protected and covered
 WL> over by the out-post in the head of the victim.
 WL> Once this is seen, and named then the psyche can be more rich
 WL> in its multiplicity.

Yes, Yes, of course. I'm right with you. That would be my most 
immediate
reaction - but as a 'situational ethics'. I wouldn't dream of 
thinking
that I could derive the value of my response from a social normative
value - because I know it can't be done.  Theoretically you can 
drive a
bus through the holes in it.

SR>> pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul)

 WL> I thought that Sue in her correspondence had grounded the
 WL> spiritual in the psychological.  She showed how the spiritual
 WL> language could describe the image I saw as I worked with my
 WL> client.

I know, I know. I was naughty. I used her language to illustrate my
hobby-horse

 WL> It is *directive* in a way isn't it to share *my* image of the
 WL> clients work with them.  Yet, the image was drawing attention
 WL> to the psychological opus. It was that the client could not
 WL> see.  That very work is under attack and possibly an endangered
 WL> species.

I know you want to save the species Walter. And you are such a 
darling
for wanting to so ferociously

 WL> Love from .....
 WL>                                               Charles Darwin

Come out of there St.Thomas Aquinas. I know a theologian when I see
one!!!. It's no used you growing a beard and pretending you are still
working on 'The Origin of the Species' when all the time you are 
still
busy writing Sumna Theologica  -

                        Your best friend
                                          David Hume
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (125)   Sat 9 Oct 93 16:07                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
  9 October, 1993, 1.30 pm
 Psybernet Conference, Public.


 Hello Walter,

 SR>>      Yes Walter, I think you are right. Insanity is produced by
the
 SR>> environment and it is named by the environment too,  But what
about
 SR>> madness?  One could make a case for an archetypal madness. 
Plato
spoke
 SR>> of that - (in Greek 'mania'). He said there is the divine 
madness
of
 SR>> the poet who is possessed by the Muses and who use his voice to
 SR>> speak; and there is the divine madness of Eros.
 SR>>      There was also the divine madness produced by Dionysos 
in the
 SR>> maenads, the women who were liberated by him (see our Group
 SR>> Conference). I am inclined to think that possession by any 
single
 SR>> archetype is a madness. Sometimes, when such possession fits 
the
 SR>> social mores it is quite approved of, say like the Christ
archetype
 SR>> in the Middle Ages or like or perhaps, as Hillman has 
suggested,
the
 SR>> Child Archetype in modern psychotherapy.

 WL> I have been sitting infront of this message applying this to
 WL> myself. Introspection.  I am possessed at the moment.  I dream
 WL> of Internet and Psybernet.  Last night I dreamt of a scheme
 WL> where we communicated only through subject headings.  The
 WL> messages were blank and BLACK, and exactly three screens long.
 WL> We got good at crisp messages <g>.  But it is true, of all the
 WL> books I am reading <G> the one on the Internet grabs me the
 WL> most.  I want to connect to the WORLD.  This is an obsession.
 WL> I neglect doing my accounts and vacuuming.  Madness?  Am I
 WL> conscripted to do the work of some archetypal force?  Who is
 WL> this critter?

          A passion. How absolutely wonderful!  Perfectly spiffing! 
 A
glorious passion over which one has absolutely no control. Nothing 
like
it in the world! . Oh! to be grabbed - to be the envy of all sensible
people. One thing the gods are not - they are not mean.  Down on your
knees, Walter, and say: 'I don't know which god you are, but thank 
you,
thank you!  Thank you for filling my life with passion and vision.  
To
hell with the accounts and vacuuming.

          The dream? I don't know, I'm sure! The messages themselves
were blank and BLACK, yet they were good and crisp subject 
headings. So
when the subject headings are clear the messages are screened and 
blank.
Or is it that BLACK messages come when the subject is clear. Or are 
we
'headed' when we are subjected to messages that are only clear. Or 
is it
that when we scheme we are 'headed' and clear?  Or are we blank and
BLACK when we are scheming and headed?       Maybe we are the 
subjects
of The Three, 'EXACTLY'  three:  (father, Son and Holy Ghosts)  
when we
are scheming and communicating with crisp messages. When we are
communicating through The Three maybe we only need subject headings;
maybe everything else is screened out so that messages are crisp and
clear  At the same time their BLACKNESS looks bigger than their
blankness. Maybe BLACKNESS is the BLACK side  of being crisp and 
clear
when one is all headed and scheming and communicating.


 WL> The mania I feel is not insanity.  I could be *called* that,
 WL> but it does not feel insane in here.

          No right on!.  Insanity is not mania..Insanity is far too
mundane a word. Insanity does not have a divine (archetypal) origin.
The madness we speak of does: it is divine possession. But, as you 
say:
who is the critter who has conscripted you?   Wonderful description 
of
it: 'CONSCRIPTED'  Exactly!  . Such conscription is the source of all
human passion I'm sure.  Yours is not 'I want to conquer the world'.
It's 'I want to CONNECT with the world'.  There's that word that Reg.
didn't like, isn't it?;  'connection'.
          And 'The World'  What is 'The world'?  Anima Mundi?
Everything  The All-Encompassing?  All - Pan?    The Pan-theon?
Whatever the world is, it is endless multiplicity, 'poly' in the 
largest
sense of the word.  And it is not internal, it's OUT THERE. the
Objective Psyche in all its diversity.  What is your vision of what 
'The
World' means?



 WL> Notice, Stanley that I have made a methodological switch on you
 WL> again.  From your speculation and refection to my
 WL> introspection!  Does that infuriate you?

NO,NO,NO, not in the least. Best thread there's been.

                         Best,
                                   Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (132)   Sun 17 Oct 93 12:26                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

  13 October, 1993
 RS> Psybernet Conference, Public.

Hello Reg


 RS> I am fascinated by the dialogue going on between you and Walter
 RS> on this subject of sanity, I read it with great interest, but
 RS> fear if I get too involved in it myself then I will come close
 RS> to losing mine (sanity that is) trying to cope with keeping up
 RS> with yet more mail. I will comment on this bit however:

 SR>>  There's that word
 SR>>  that Reg. didn't like, isn't it?;  'connection'.

 RS> Hey Stanley, I didn't say I did not like the word at all, you
 RS> wicked man misquoting me like that and to a potential audience
 RS> of the whole world <GRIN>. I said that it had negative
 RS> connotations for many people and In my next message I said on
 RS> second thoughts it was not negative, but more sexual
 RS> connections that *some* people placed on it. I was also
 RS> speaking about a particular situation, I can't actually
 RS> remember the exact context, but it is likely I was talking
 RS> about how our choice of words creates certain warm-ups. Go
 RS> ahead and connect with the entire cosmos for until you are as
 RS> one you will never be free!

You are quite right to scold me.  I was far too loose in my 
quotation of
you. Please forgive me.

                              Best,
                                    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (144)   Sat 23 Oct 93 14:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

 Hello Stanley,


I'll do some selective quoting to summarise the message I am 
replying to:

 SR>>> I am inclined to think that possession by any single
 SR>>> archetype is a madness.

 WL>> I want to connect to the WORLD.  This is an obsession.
 WL>> I neglect doing my accounts and vacuuming.  Madness?  Am I
 WL>> conscripted to do the work of some archetypal force?  Who is
 WL>> this critter?

 SR>  Down on your knees,
 SR>  Walter, and say: 'I don't know which god you are, but thank
 SR>  you, thank you!  Thank you for filling my life with passion
 SR>  and vision.  To hell with the accounts and vacuuming.


 WL>> The mania I feel is not insanity.  I could be *called* that,
 WL>> but it does not feel insane in here.

 SR>           No right on!.  Insanity is not mania..Insanity is far
 SR>  too mundane a word. Insanity does not have a divine
 SR>  (archetypal) origin. The madness we speak of does: it is
 SR>  divine possession. But, as you say: who is the critter who has
 SR>  conscripted you?   Wonderful description of it: 'CONSCRIPTED'
 SR>  Exactly!  . Such conscription is the source of all human
 SR>  passion I'm sure.  Yours is not 'I want to conquer the world'.
 SR>  It's 'I want to CONNECT with the world'.  There's that word
 SR>  that Reg. didn't like, isn't it?;  'connection'. And 'The
 SR>  World'  What is 'The world'?  Anima Mundi? Everything  The
 SR>  All-Encompassing?  All - Pan?    The Pan-theon? Whatever the
 SR>  world is, it is endless multiplicity, 'poly' in the largest
 SR>  sense of the word.  And it is not internal, it's OUT THERE.
 SR>  the Objective Psyche in all its diversity.  What is your
 SR>  vision of what 'The World' means?


I have written a message with a new title 'Connecting to the 
Cosmos'.  I
like 'world' better, now that I think about it.   Lurking in this
discussion is the theme of 'The Many and the One'.  Connecting to the
cosmos is a seeking of the One.  I am not conscripted into that 
army.  I
am sometimes seduced into hanging around the barracks.  The no holds
barred urge is to go really deep, and out widely into the world, 
not to
the masses but to those who are chipping away at the same coal face.
Wonderful paradox isn't it to be esoteric and introverted and yet
connected to the world.

OUT there, IN here.  Another old theme, (where is the Ontology
Conference?) Yes, my urge is to the world, revolutionary, 
evolutionary,
but also in here, I cant figure that one out.  I saw a book by,  a 
Jungian
woman, forget her name, Psyche and Matter, what does she say about 
how
they relate?

 WL>> Notice, Stanley that I have made a methodological switch on you
 WL>> again.  From your speculation and refection to my
 WL>> introspection!  Does that infuriate you?

 SR> NO, NO, NO, not in the least. Best thread there's been.

What do you think then, about my tendency to go 1st person and 
yours to go
to a more neutral person,  do you know what I mean?  I know that I 
enjoy
your responses, I am not sure if I want you change anything.  I'm 
not sure
I like my own introspections.  I know that I don't like the 
subjective
pourings out of peoples feelings that is divorced from the sort of 
pushing
of the evolutionary envelope that I am attempting with all of this.
Recovery groups?  The medium is the message and the style of our 
writing
will determine a lot of what we uncover, what do you think?

All for now,

Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (141)   Wed 20 Oct 93 16:41                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

20 October, 1993
Psybernet Conference, Public.

Hello Stanley,

 SR>>>  There's that word
 SR>>>  that Reg. didn't like, isn't it?;  'connection'.

 RS>> Hey Stanley, I didn't say I did not like the word at all, you
 RS>> wicked man misquoting me like that and to a potential audience
 RS>> of the whole world <GRIN>. I said that it had negative
 RS>> connotations for many people and In my next message I said on
 RS>> second thoughts it was not negative, but more sexual
 RS>> connections that *some* people placed on it. I was also
 RS>> speaking about a particular situation, I can't actually
 RS>> remember the exact context, but it is likely I was talking
 RS>> about how our choice of words creates certain warm-ups. Go
 RS>> ahead and connect with the entire cosmos for until you are as
 RS>> one you will never be free!

 SR> You are quite right to scold me.  I was far too loose in my
 SR> quotation of you. Please forgive me.

You are forgiven my friend, go now and loosely misquote no more!

It has been said that: "Self praise is no recommendation", but Hey 
World!
What do you all think of Stanley and Reg's ability to quell what 
might
possibly have been the beginning of a Flame. You what? You do not 
know
about flames?  Well read the message under that title in this 
conference.




Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (162)   Tue 2 Nov 93 22:11                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
 Psybernet Conference, Public.

 Hello Walter,

 WL>>> I want to connect to the WORLD.  This is an obsession.
 WL>>> I neglect doing my accounts and vacuuming.  Madness?  Am I
 WL>>> conscripted to do the work of some archetypal force?  Who is
 WL>>> this critter?


 WL>>> The mania I feel is not insanity.  I could be *called* that,
 WL>>> but it does not feel insane in here.

.SR>>  The  World'  What is 'The world'?  Anima Mundi? Everything
.SR>>  All-Encompassing?  All - Pan?    The Pan-theon? Whatever the
 SR>>  world is, it is endless multiplicity, 'poly' in the largest
 SR>>  sense of the word.  And it is not internal, it's OUT THERE.
 SR>>  the Objective Psyche in all its diversity.  What is your
 SR>>  vision of what 'The World' means?


 WL> I have written a message with a new title 'Connecting to the
 WL> Cosmos'.  I like 'world' better, now that I think about it.
 WL> Lurking in this discussion is the theme of 'The Many and the
 WL> One'.  Connecting to the cosmos is a seeking of the One.  I am
 WL> not conscripted into that army.  I am sometimes seduced into
 WL> hanging around the barracks.  The no holds barred urge is to go
 WL> really deep, and out widely into the world, not to the masses
 WL> but to those who are chipping away at the same coal face.
 WL> Wonderful paradox isn't it to be esoteric and introverted and
 WL> yet connected to the world.

          Yes, Walter, the word 'Cosmos' does more suggest unity, 
more
specifically 'design'. The Greek word 'Kosmos' meant a well ordered,
intellectually comprehensible whole.  A typical Greek idea.  Funny to
think our word 'cosmetic' comes from that. I suppose the idea of '
beautiful design' is the root idea.  Nice thought though!  It has a 
more
intellectual flavour than 'world' or 'mundus'.

          We easily talk of the plurality of 'worlds' these days. The
commercial 'world' has picked up on that very well: 'Tile World', 
'New
World' 'Woodburner World', 'Pet world', then there is the world of
fashion, the world of sport, the  world of underwear not to mention 
the
computer world and so on ad nauseam.  We are right into the whole
fantasy of 'the many' here.
     Our actual, practical modern 'world' makes the whole notion of 
'The
One' seem very outdated and antiquated. We are working pluralists.
That's how we *work* in practice;  how we *think* is often thoroughly
dominated by 'The One':   Conscription by Him, the Commanding Chief 
of
the Clones where we are all barracked in the same dismal army of the
mind, still caught in the same dreams of universal conquest, or 
what is
more insidious,  universal brotherhood.  Civitas Die as the great 
melt-
down!
          Ah yes! The world is not the masses - The masses are all 
about
bread and circuses, or their modern equivalents: the economics and 
the
tele. The masses are the nightmare of the world that has lost its
subjectivity. That's why your idea of being in touch with the world 
by
being thoroughly introverted is so wonderful. Your dreamworld is NOT
private.
          That's the biggest jump of all.


 WL> OUT there, IN here.  Another old theme, (where is the Ontology
 WL> Conference?) Yes, my urge is to the world, revolutionary,
 WL> evolutionary, but also in here, I cant figure that one out.  I
 WL> saw a book by,  a Jungian woman, forget her name, Psyche and
 WL> Matter, what does she say about how they relate?

               Look, that's Marie-Louis von Franz. isn't it?  Heavy
Stuff!  Yes, IN HERE and OUT THERE. None of us can make that one out
because we're all trying to cope with Descartes fiction of objective
space where obviously you can't be introverted *and* out there in the
world at the same time.  Obviously you can't. In Descartes space you
can't because there is only one homogeneous field in which everything
takes place. Space is absolutely continuous.  Logically no object 
can be
in two places at once. Any object in that space is *either* here *or*
there; relating to our problem: *either* inside *or* outside.  Where
does that leave dream events, fantasies, ideas, imaginations...or 
me or
you?  All these things have to take place inside heads.  And heads 
talk
to each other through objective space by means of particles of
communication.  A lovely fiction!  But what a trap!


 WL> What do you think then, about my tendency to go 1st person and
 WL> yours to go to a more neutral person,  do you know what I mean?
 WL>  I know that I enjoy your responses, I am not sure if I want
 WL>  you change anything.  I'm not sure I like my own
 WL>  introspections.  I know that I don't like the subjective
 WL>  pourings out of peoples feelings that is divorced from the
 WL>  sort of pushing of the evolutionary envelope that I am
 WL>  attempting with all of this.

I think I know what you mean.  I guess it's OK eh?  I know I like to
hover in that twilight place between the subjective 'inner' of 1st
person and literal 'outer' of one who has BELIEFS, the extraverted
psychological materialist.  Your responses, Walter, don't seem 
quite 1st
person.  I am sure you like to hover yourself too.  Right?  Yes?  
Yes?


.WL> The medium is
 WL>  the message and the style of our writing will determine a lot
 WL>  of what we uncover, what do you think?

Oh yes. A thousand times.  Style is everything.  I would like to 
die as
Cyrano did, saying: "I may have done it all wrong. But I did it with
PANACHE !!!!!

                    BEST,
                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:14 2000
Date: (189)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

I have enjoyed this message.

SR>          Have you noticed an interesting thing?  When we refer to
SR>individual cases there is no difference between us - It's at the
SR>theoretical level that our troubles begin. You once said to me 
SR>something
SR>like: 'What you actually do is better than your theory'. Maybe 
what 
SR>we
SR>do is better than BOTH our theories.

Yay - trees and animals forever!

SR> WL> I thought that Sue in her correspondence had grounded the
SR> WL> spiritual in the psychological.  She showed how the spiritual
SR> WL> language could describe the image I saw as I worked with my
SR> WL> client.
SR>
SR>I know, I know. I was naughty. I used her language to illustrate 
my
SR>hobby-horse

Tsk, tsk.  But do tell more about this hobby horse, and how you 
come to 
be riding it!

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:14 2000
Date: (188)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

SR>WL>> ST>  ..... we sure as hell have to do something.  The task  
is 
SR>not
SR>WL>>to create a new oppression, but to disrupt the power bloc
SR>WL>>and  force it to crumble.
SR>
SR>Dear Sue and Walter,
SR>                         I have selected out some passages from 
your
SR>dialogue with each other. The quotations above are interesting, I 
SR>think,
SR>because they illustrate  a perspective which you both seem to 
share 
SR>and
SR>which I think have a common archetypal source - notwithstanding 
that
SR>superficially you come from very different theoretical places..
SR>
SR>          You speak, Sue, of therapy as 'a spiritual search', a
SR>'spiritual encounter or revelation', of it leading to a 
SR>'resurrection',
SR>of the 'theological virtues of faith, hope and charity'.  You 
speak 
SR>,in
SR>the same breath, of the belief in human progress, of the need to 
SR>over-
SR>come power-blocks, not with organized religion, but with a broad 
SR>faith -
SR>a faith in an historical movement, I take it, of which 
psychotherapy 
SR>is
SR>a part. And you Walter speak of the necessity to disrupt power 
blocks
SR>and force them to crumble, of the chains we must break 'in our 
heads'
SR>created by the system. You both seem to speak, using different 
words,
SR>of the same vision.
SR>
SR>   . When I listen to both of you I have the strangest sense of
SR>the Protestant and the Dialectical Materialist in bed together!

Not a combination conducive to sound slumber, I would have thought. 
 But 
no, I wouldn't see us as two people with differing vocabulary for 
describing the same vision.  I doubt it's as intellectual as that - 
rather more a matter of practicality and feeling, overlaid with 
different 
life experiences.  And could you please elaborate about the exact 
nature 
of the archetype, which you mention but do not specify to my 
satisfaction?

SR> I hear
SR>the echoes of history ending in the Second Coming or the 
Blessedness 
SR>of
SR>the Classless Society, of humanity's story as the gradual 
unfolding 
SR>of
SR>the Apotheosis, the overcoming of evil, the power-blocks. I hear 
SR>distant
SR>murmurs of the ancient Myth of the Golden Age; above all the 
story of
SR>history as PROGRESS!  The single literal line, the single 
meaning of 
SR>it
SR>all, the Pilgrims Progress towards the Great End Station in the 
Sky -
SR>each stage of history better than the last until the last stage 
when 
SR>we
SR>sit on the right hand of God. I hear echoes of the ancient 
Manichean
SR>struggle of the Demonic Power versus the Power of Light, that most
SR>terrible Eastern example of black and white religious dichotomy 
which
SR>infected Christianity and which split our world into an 
adversarial
SR>contest between the spiritual super-powers of absolute good and 
SR>absolute
SR>evil. I hear the more modern cry - but still from the same 
archetype:
SR>'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your 
SR>chains,
SR>the chains of the evil system. We know who the enemy is. The power
SR>struggle is clearly marked. The meaning of history plainly 
SR>discernable.

Would that we two humble souls were so exalted to be in possession 
of, or 
be possessed by(!), such noble sentiments!  I thought we were just 
having 
a bitch about things }8=>

SR>It is all in our blood. We can hardly think of our personal
SR>life or the life of humanity without looking through these 
lenses. 
SR>This
SR>is the archetype that dominates.  You want to know where POWER 
SR>is?....
SR>That's it!   This is the historical oppressor which weighs us all 
SR>down.

Again, am I thick, but I'm not quite clear about what, precisely, 
you are 
identifying as the archetype.  And - thick again! - are you saying 
that 
it, presumably this quest you identify for the Golden Age where the 
workers have shed their chains, is the power bloc "which weighs us 
all 
down"?  Interesting!

SR>But you know, it's only one of the stories that psyche
SR>tells.  Knowing that there are others is what makes us 'poly' 
rather
SR>than 'mono', psychological rather then theological.

Do you think we are 'mono'?  I can't speak for Walter, but I 
certainly 
don't feel that I am - more like a zoo at feeding time.

SR>Don't forget too, that it is only since the advent of 
SR>Christianity
SR>that pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul) have been conflated. So 
lets 
SR>be
SR>backward and differentiate the spiritual quest from the 
psychological
SR>opus.

Erm, okay.  But - I have for a long time been under the impression 
that it 
was Christianity which was primarily responsible for the splitting 
asunder 
of pneuma and psyche, not their conflation.  Or at least, it comes 
under 
much criticism for doing so a la "that most terrible Eastern 
example of 
black and white religious dichotomy which infected Christianity and 
which 
split our world into an adversarial contest between the spiritual 
super-powers of absolute good and absolute evil".  O my god, I'm ...

Yours confusedly

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (193)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL> WL>> Does you observation change if I reaffirm that I feel 
committed
WL> WL>> to the psyche, in its multiplicity?  I see that the psyche 
is
WL> WL>> under the sway of the culture.  Some aspects of it are 
allowed,
WL> WL>> encouraged.  Others are totally attacked and yet others 
exist,
WL> WL>> but like the emperors nakedness are only seen by the odd 
little
WL> WL>> kid  (Sue &/or me).

Oooooooh, thank you.  I like to think of myself as an odd little kid.

WL>So I say again, perhaps making my self a
WL> WL>> little clearer, that unless you have some social analysis 
you
WL> WL>> cant really see the psyche, it is marked 'Top Secret'.

I see it this way, as of recent years.  I suppose for myself I have 
experienced it as a discovery of things previously unseen and 
unseeable 
because they were too threatening to the world view I had developed 
in 
order to survive.  I see it in other women who are strongly 
resistant to 
feminist (I hate that term) ideas because they have adapted to the 
######### in order to continue existing in the face of what Paula 
once 
called in the women's conference their 'invisibility'.  I was 
pleased by 
that way of referring to it.

WL>Kate just said:  You have the false self and the true self, the 
false 
WL>being
WL>the introjects from the society.

Yay for Kate.  Does she think, or do you, that there are introjects 
which 
contribute to the true?

WL>In simple terms, she says, it is not 
WL>a hard
WL>& fast boundary.  Sometimes, in say a movie, the culture will 
mirror 
WL>an
WL>aspect of our deeper true self.  The false self is always made 
up out 
WL>of
WL>societal introjects.
WL>
WL>I would not call it 'self' there but I agree with her if I 
called it 
WL>psyche.

Why would you not call it 'self'?  Is there a particular reason or 
is to 
to do with the way Jung or somebody else uses it?

WL>I do not have any knowledge of good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, 
WL>pro- or
WL>regressive, functional or dysfunctional, politically correct or 
WL>incorrect.
WL>I do not come at the psyche or the socius like that.

How do you  mean this?  I was interested that during the course of 
our 
last telephone conversation you said of a particular issue we were 
discussing "I can't say why but I just know it's not right", or 
words to 
that effect.  Does that not presuppose a knowledge of good and bad, 
or 
right and wrong?

WL>I was thinking 
WL>about
WL>this while listening to the psyche of a client today and 
watching the 
WL>socius
WL>emerge around it all.  It made perfect sense to distinguish the 
two 
WL>and to
WL>hear from him how the two were related.  He knew exactly which 
was 
WL>his 'true
WL>self' as Kate would say.  I knew he was right too!

What is the place of *psychic instinct* in this?  Do we perhaps 
have an 
instinct which enables us to recognise sincerity/'realness'?  This 
discussion brings to mind some of the ideas of Noam Chomsky, who 
believes 
that we have a certain amount of our cognitive capacity and content 
hard-wired.

His especial interest is the Lanugae Acquisition Device, our 
ability to 
develop language, which stands in contradistinction to the common 
view 
that we 'learn' how to speak.  In his opinion, and I must say I 
find the 
evidence compelling, we come equipped with a cognitive capacity to 
develop 
a syntax, or a set of rules, for the language(s) we are immersed in 
during 
early childhood, despite the incredible inconsistency and 
fragmentariness 
of the data set we are exposed to, and the extraordinarily different 
syntaxes, at a superficial level, of different languages.  An 
example of a 
varying rule is the order of subject/verb/object - compare English, 
Japanese and Latin.

Yet no matter how different the rules may appear to be on the 
surface, the 
'laws' according to which they are derived seem to be remarkably 
consistent temporally and geographically to an extent that Chomsky 
thinks 
inexplicable in any other way.
 
One of the sources of evidence to support this general view of 
cognitive 
development cited among psycholinguists is the ability babies of 
only a 
few weeks old demonstrate in the recognition of congruence of 
emotion. 
Does this sort of thing apply to other human capacities?

WL>You see I have gone back to a situation again.  Perhaps that is 
it, I 
WL>am
WL>just *not* a theoretician.  i don't think that it is any good.  
It is 
WL>a
WL>disease ...

WL>Through a process of warm-up to spontaneity the criteria on 
which to 
WL>focus
WL>would emerge out of the group.
WL>
WL>It applies to individual work to.  If the warm-up is deep then 
the 
WL>question
WL>of theory just does not arise, the 'theatre of truth' is there.

I like that phrase.  Too much theory, or at times any theory at all 
can 
pull the curtains of the theatre shut again.

WL>It is true though that there is a theological basis to all this. 
 as 
WL>Moreno
WL>said:
WL>
WL>God is dead, and enters the world through the psychodrama stage.

God is both alive and dead, it depends where you look and who you 
look 
for.

WL>SR> Maybe what we do is better than BOTH our theories.
WL> WL>> I see this when I work with clients who (say) blame 
themselves
WL> WL>> for 'upsetting' the family by disclosing the incest.  In 
such a
WL> WL>> moment I see the cult of the rapist being protected and 
covered
WL> WL>> over by the out-post in the head of the victim.
WL> WL>> Once this is seen, and named then the psyche can be more 
rich
WL> WL>> in its multiplicity.
WL>
WL> SR> Yes, Yes, of course. I'm right with you. That would be my 
most
WL> SR> immediate reaction - but as a 'situational ethics'. I 
wouldn't 
WL>dream
WL> SR> of thinking that I could derive the value of my response 
from a
WL> SR> social normative value - because I know it can't be done.
WL> SR> Theoretically you can drive a bus through the holes in it.
WL>
WL>Kate says:  It is from your fucking knowing!  Your intuition.  
Your 
WL>heart.
WL>Not a theory, but knowing.
WL>
WL>She does get very impatient with these discussions!

Good for her!!!!!!!!!

WL>I study what is in front of me and trust the patterns in nature, 
and 
WL>there
WL>sure is some amazing process going on.  If God's hand is at work 
WL>there so be
WL>it I don't really care.

Nice.  I come from a very strongly intellectual theory-ridden past, 
and 
now find myself short of words to describe ... Perhaps I shall say 
"I 
study what is in front of me and trust the patterns ... "

Eus*



* Ancient goddess of trees and common sense




___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (194)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>The knowing I speak of has to do with the heart, it is a love 
affair, 
WL>it is not part of a religion at all.

But it is part of a religion if you take it in there with you.

WL>Once a religion is made, poof . . . 
WL>nothing is known at all.

Hmmmm ... I understand what you're saying, but as above - no 
religion is a 
thing made and that's all there is to it.  There may be a certain 
corpus 
of doctrine or whatever, but even the most codified religions 
contain 
comfortably (more or less, depending on the time in history and 
other 
factors) within their boundaries a vast shifting mass of energy, a 
dynamism that includes a million contradictions and illogicalities 
but/and(?) also much that is a love affair of the heart.  No 
religion 
exists solely as what is written in the 'Book' - it retains that as 
the 
core of its identity when called upon to defend itself, maybe, but 
its 
life, its vitality, does not come from that.  Within the Catholic 
Church, 
which is the one I know most about, a constant process of debate and 
reflection goes on at a formal theological level to determine just 
what is 
doctrine, let alone its meaning and applicability, while lay people 
carry 
on with their perpetual business of thinking, believing, loving, 
hoping, 
accepting, rejecting and anything else you may like to imagine.

WL>Knowing is seeing into someone's eyes, feeling their 
WL>breath and the tremble as they speak, and even this seeing and 
WL>feeling is with the unseen eyes and ears.  There may be words 
but the 
WL>stillness is greater.

Nice.

WL>This knowing has nothing to do with belief, I am against 
WL>all
WL>belief.  Belief is to take the words of others and speak them as 
if 
WL>they were based on your own experience.

I don't use the word 'belief' in that way.  I see it as meaning 
'knowing' 
in a way that does not rely on evidence, quantification, proof.  It 
means 
knowing with hope, knowing with trust - arrggghhh, those goddam 
theological virtues creeping in again there.

WL>Breathe, and touch the line between sanity and insanity in your 
self.
WL>
WL>Can you see it?  Is there a fine line?  Are you afraid?

No, I'm not any more.  If I go any madder than I am already that's 
their 
problem.  They'll have to construct a new category to put me into.

WL>Insanity is to have my experience named in away that does not 
fit for 
WL>me,
WL>that would make me go berserk, especially in their eyes.

Yep, like pornograpby and advertising.  They both do that.  Kills ya.

WL>Sanity and insanity is not within me but is an assault from the 
WL>outside.

And sanity is often the worse assault.  What price to earn that 
particular 
label!

Eus

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (196)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

SR>          A passion. How absolutely wonderful!  Perfectly 
spiffing!  
SR>A
SR>glorious passion over which one has absolutely no control. 
Nothing 
SR>like
SR>it in the world! . Oh! to be grabbed - to be the envy of all 
sensible
SR>people. One thing the gods are not - they are not mean.  Down on 
your
SR>knees, Walter, and say: 'I don't know which god you are, but 
thank 
SR>you,
SR>thank you!  Thank you for filling my life with passion and 
vision.  
SR>To
SR>hell with the accounts and vacuuming.

Yes, but so long as he takes responbility for them in the end when 
the 
passion has reached its natural cooling off point, and they don't 
get left 
for a woman to do.

Yours in domestic liberation

Eus

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:16 2000
Date: (210)   Mon 22 Nov 93 21:57                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

 Dear Sue,                     16 Nov.

          How nice to have someone answer my rumblings of so long 
ago.


SR>>WL>> ST>  ..... we sure as hell have to do something.  The task 
 is
SR>>not
SR>>WL>>to create a new oppression, but to disrupt the power bloc
SR>>WL>>and  force it to crumble.
SR>>
SR>>Dear Sue and Walter,
SR>>                         I have selected out some passages from 
your
SR>>dialogue with each other. The quotations above are interesting, I
SR>>think,
SR>>because they illustrate  a perspective which you both seem to 
share
SR>>and
SR>>which I think have a common archetypal source - notwithstanding 
that
SR>>superficially you come from very different theoretical places..
SR>>
SR>>          You speak, Sue, of therapy as 'a spiritual search', a
SR>>'spiritual encounter or revelation', of it leading to a
SR>>'resurrection',
SR>>of the 'theological virtues of faith, hope and charity'.  You 
speak
SR>>,in
SR>>the same breath, of the belief in human progress, of the need to
SR>>over-
SR>>come power-blocks, not with organized religion, but with a broad
SR>>faith -
SR>>a faith in an historical movement, I take it, of which 
psychotherapy
SR>>is
SR>>a part. And you Walter speak of the necessity to disrupt power 
blocks
SR>>and force them to crumble, of the chains we must break 'in our 
heads'
SR>>created by the system. You both seem to speak, using different 
words,
SR>>of the same vision.
SR>>
SR>>   . When I listen to both of you I have the strangest sense of
SR>>the Protestant and the Dialectical Materialist in bed together!

 ST> Not a combination conducive to sound slumber, I would have
 ST> thought.  But no, I wouldn't see us as two people with
 ST> differing vocabulary for describing the same vision.  I doubt
 ST> it's as intellectual as that - rather more a matter of
 ST> practicality and feeling, overlaid with different life
 ST> experiences.  And could you please elaborate about the exact
 ST> nature of the archetype, which you mention but do not specify
 ST> to my satisfaction?

          Well Sue. Here goes.  I don't think your vision is 
intellectual.
I think it is, like Walter's, archetypal; I mean to say, a vision 
in the
broadest, deepest sense.  All the echos I list below come from a root
metaphor called these days, euphemistically, progress, and with it 
the
need to enlist our energies in the struggle to make and to strive 
towards
a better world. When I fill out all the reverberations of the 
archetype
you say that your humble soul is not possessed by such noble 
sentiments
and that you are just having a bitch about things.
          Oh! dear. You do yourself an injustice. I've listened to 
you.
You are by no means 'just having a grumble'.  If it is a grumble, 
it is a
very high level and passionate grumble.  You have a vision of the 
world
freed from a certain kind of cruel oppression. It is the kind of 
vision, a
visionof similar quality, powered by a sense of injustice, that has 
more
than once turned history on its head.

SR>> I hear
SR>>the echoes of history ending in the Second Coming or the 
Blessedness
SR>>of
SR>>the Classless Society, of humanity's story as the gradual 
unfolding
SR>>of
SR>>the Apotheosis, the overcoming of evil, the power-blocks. I hear
SR>>distant
SR>>murmurs of the ancient Myth of the Golden Age; above all the 
story of
SR>>history as PROGRESS!  The single literal line, the single 
meaning of
SR>>it
SR>>all, the Pilgrims Progress towards the Great End Station in the 
Sky -
SR>>each stage of history better than the last until the last stage 
when
SR>>we
SR>>sit on the right hand of God. I hear echoes of the ancient 
Manichean
SR>>struggle of the Demonic Power versus the Power of Light, that 
most
SR>>terrible Eastern example of black and white religious dichotomy 
which
SR>>infected Christianity and which split our world into an 
adversarial
SR>>contest between the spiritual super-powers of absolute good and
SR>>absolute
SR>>evil. I hear the more modern cry - but still from the same 
archetype:
SR>>'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your
SR>>chains,
SR>>the chains of the evil system. We know who the enemy is. The 
power
SR>>struggle is clearly marked. The meaning of history plainly
SR>>discernable.

 ST> Would that we two humble souls were so exalted to be in
 ST> possession of, or be possessed by(!), such noble sentiments!  I
 ST> thought we were just having a bitch about things }8=>

SR>>It is all in our blood. We can hardly think of our personal
SR>>life or the life of humanity without looking through these 
lenses.
SR>>This
SR>>is the archetype that dominates.  You want to know where POWER
SR>>is?....
SR>>That's it!   This is the historical oppressor which weighs us all
SR>>down.

 ST> Again, am I thick, but I'm not quite clear about what,
 ST> precisely, you are identifying as the archetype.  And - thick
 ST> again! - are you saying that it, presumably this quest you
 ST> identify for the Golden Age where the workers have shed their
 ST> chains, is the power bloc "which weighs us all down"?
 ST> Interesting!

I'm sorry. No, I meant to say that it is the 'quest' which is the 
real
power, rather than the powers with which the quest is in conflict. 
I meant
to say that we can be in the grip of an archetype, driven by its 
energy,
dominated by its vision, lived by its perspective, fighting its 
wars. As
it would be, for example, if I were a man caught in the patriarchal
perspective, blindly opposed to any other vision.  When we are 
caught in a
perspective, unconsciously doing its bidding - that's the real power
weighing us down.  When I get the patriarchal archetype as a 
fantasy, or
when I can get the Myth of the Golden Age as a fantasy, I revert 
them to
products of the soul, of the imagination.  Then I come into 
possession of
their origins and to the origins of my obsessions. To that extent 
they
lose their power over me.

SR>>But you know, it's only one of the stories that psyche
SR>>tells.  Knowing that there are others is what makes us 'poly' 
rather
SR>>than 'mono', psychological rather then theological.

 ST> Do you think we are 'mono'?  I can't speak for Walter, but I
 ST> certainly don't feel that I am - more like a zoo at feeding
 ST> time.

I hope Monty didn't hear you say that!  I can always see other 
people's
monos, their obsessions, the archetypes they are caught in.  To my 
own,
like everyone else, I am utterly blind. My obsession are reasonable
attitudes.


SR>>Don't forget too, that it is only since the advent of
SR>>Christianity
SR>>that pneuma and psyche (spirit and soul) have been conflated. 
So lets
SR>>be
SR>>backward and differentiate the spiritual quest from the 
psychological
SR>>opus.

 ST> REM, okay.  But - I have for a long time been under the
 ST> impression that it was Christianity which was primarily
 ST> responsible for the splitting asunder of pneuma and psyche, not
 ST> their conflation.  Or at least, it comes under much criticism
 ST> for doing so a la "that most terrible Eastern example of black
 ST> and white religious dichotomy which infected Christianity and
 ST> which split our world into an adversarial contest between the
 ST> spiritual super-powers of absolute good and absolute evil".  O
 ST> my god, I'm ...

          Psyche is referred to 57 times in the New Testament. 
Pneuma is
referred to 274 times.  Paul refers to psyche only 4 times. Psyche 
is not
split from  pneuma it is simply neglected and absorbed. If it were 
split
it would continue to have a separate existence. But images, dreams 
and
myth, the very stuff of psyche, are neglected in favour of spiritual
phenomena:  visions, ecstasy, revelations, prophecy, faith etc.
Christianity was, from the early Councils, anti-image.. That was 
the whole
heated debate, which went on for hundreds of years,  between 
'veneration'
of images 'and the 'adoration' of them, which was finally 
designated as
'craven worship' ie pagan and heretical.
          The adversarial conflict which began with Manicheanism 
was not,
I would suggest, a battle between pneuma and psyche so much as 
between
what were fantasied as two equal spiritual forces: good and evil.  
Just as
in Christianity, the devil did not represent the psyche, but a 
force of
the same quality - yet fallen - as God himself;  he was after all an
angel.

                         In All Adversarial and Zoological Love,

                                             Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (213)   Mon 22 Nov 93 21:57                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
  Dear Sue



SR>> WL> I thought that Sue in her correspondence had grounded the
SR>> WL> spiritual in the psychological.  She showed how the 
spiritual
SR>> WL> language could describe the image I saw as I worked with my
SR>> WL> client.
SR>>
SR>>I know, I know. I was naughty. I used her language to 
illustrate my
SR>>hobby-horse

 ST> Tsk, tsk.  But do tell more about this hobby horse, and how you
 ST> come to be riding it!

Do you know I've completely forgotten what hobby horse I was riding 
that
day. However, I have a limited number of the beasts in my stables, so
there is no doubt that you will run into him again.

               Best
                              Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (212)   Mon 22 Nov 93 21:57                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
 21 Nov.93

Hi Sue


ST> Just butting in ...

SR>>          A passion. How absolutely wonderful!  Perfectly 
spiffing!
SR>>A
SR>>glorious passion over which one has absolutely no control. 
Nothing
SR>>like
SR>>it in the world! . Oh! to be grabbed - to be the envy of all 
sensible
SR>>people. One thing the gods are not - they are not mean.  Down 
on your
SR>>knees, Walter, and say: 'I don't know which god you are, but 
thank
SR>>you,
SR>>thank you!  Thank you for filling my life with passion and 
vision.
SR>>To
SR>>hell with the accounts and vacuuming.

 ST> Yes, but so long as he takes responbility for them in the end
 ST> when the passion has reached its natural cooling off point, and
 ST> they don't get left for a woman to do.

 ST> Yours in domestic liberation


Of course
               Yours in domestic contrition
                                             Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (263)   Sat 11 Dec 93 23:02                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

SR>          How nice to have someone answer my rumblings of so long 
SR>ago.

The pleasure is mine.

SR>Well Sue. Here goes.  I don't think your vision is 
SR>intellectual.
SR>I think it is, like Walter's, archetypal; I mean to say, a 
vision in 
SR>the
SR>broadest, deepest sense.

That's interesting.  I don't think of it as intellectual either.  
When I 
was at university I became involved to a reasonable extent with 
women's 
groups and other activistic trendy-lefty goings-on - I even took 
part in 
the march outside the SIS building in Hereford Street and got my 
mug on TV 
or in the paper, I can't remember which - admittedly it was as an 
insignificant dot in the middle of a seething throng!

At that time my commitment to feminist/'radical' ideas was purely 
intellectual.  They made a certain amount of sense, and hang it all, 
everybody around me was into them as well.  But now I think and 
feel the 
way I do about things because somewhere along the line I suddenly 
woke up. 
I suddenly saw how people's experiences, and the attitudes and 
actions of 
others, affect them.  Having that happen made me at once much more 
tolerant and much more intolerant, if that makes sense.

But is this archetypal?

SRAll the echos I list below come from a root
SR>metaphor called these days, euphemistically, progress, and with 
it 
SR>the
SR>need to enlist our energies in the struggle to make and to strive 
SR>towards
SR>a better world.

Dunno whether I REALLY have such a lofty ambition.  I just see 
myself and 
other people in pain because of somebody else's laziness or 
arrogance or 
selfishness and I can't help but feeling p*ssed off about it.

SR>When I fill out all the reverberations of the 
SR>archetype
SR>you say that your humble soul is not possessed by such noble 
SR>sentiments
SR>and that you are just having a bitch about things.

It still seems that way, even though you go on as follows ...

SR>Oh! dear. You do yourself an injustice. I've listened to 
SR>you.
SR>You are by no means 'just having a grumble'.  If it is a 
grumble, it 
SR>is a
SR>very high level and passionate grumble.  You have a vision of the 
SR>world
SR>freed from a certain kind of cruel oppression. It is the kind of 
SR>vision, a
SR>visionof similar quality, powered by a sense of injustice, that 
has 
SR>more
SR>than once turned history on its head.

Thank you, but hmmmmmm, doubt I'll ever do that.  But yes, I must 
grant it 
is fuelled by a sense of injustice - first and foremost against 
myself, 
but also on behalf of other women, especially.

SR>above all the story of
SR>SR>>history as PROGRESS!

I have cut your beautiful words here, poetic as they are, to reduce 
my 
level of quoting!  Progress?  Yes, I admit I do believe in Progress 
as an 
intellectual entity, as a commitment to the future.  Whether or not 
I 
actually think we are ACHIEVING it in the long haul is another 
story.  
Probably when pushed to elucidate I would say that the whole 
shebang seems 
to me to be in a state of flux - one nasty bit comes right while 
another 
reasonableish bit slides into the muck.  I envision it as some kind 
of 
seething dynamism where nothing stays motionless for more than a 
moment, 
and yet some cosmic equilibrium is maintained by a stronger force 
than can 
be grasped by the individual atoms in the brew.  Kind of like the 
sub-atomic world, I guess.  But is there Progress?  Well, when 
pushed to 
the wall I can only say that with other innately *religious* people 
( I 
see myself as such) I have faith in it.  I may mot BELIEVE it is 
happening 
at any particular point in time, but I have faith and hope in it.  I 
choose to live my life as if it were a reality, a promise hidden in 
the 
darkness of things.

SR>SR>>You want to know where POWER is?....
SR>SR>>That's it!   This is the historical oppressor which weighs 
us all
SR>SR>>down.
SR>I'm sorry. No, I meant to say that it is the 'quest' which is the 
SR>real
SR>power, rather than the powers with which the quest is in 
conflict. I 
SR>meant
SR>to say that we can be in the grip of an archetype, driven by its 
SR>energy,
SR>dominated by its vision, lived by its perspective, fighting its 
wars. 

Yes, that makes it clearer.  But to pick on that point some more, 
do you 
think it is the 'quest' that weighs us down, with its energies, 
visions 
and wars?  While we are fighting those are we ignoring others that 
should 
be heeded?

SR>it would be, for example, if I were a man caught in the 
patriarchal
SR>perspective, blindly opposed to any other vision.

Dog forbid!  But there are zillions of them out there, and more 
than a few 
women as well.

SR>When we are caught in a
SR>perspective, unconsciously doing its bidding - that's the real 
power
SR>weighing us down.

Am I being a bit simplistic or thick again, but if that's what's in 
our 
unconscious and we have been in therapy for donkey's ages and lotsa 
money 
to let our unconscious speak, shouldn't we be doing exactly that?  
As my 
former therapist used to say to me "go where your energy is"?

SR>When I get the patriarchal archetype as a fantasy, 
SR>or
SR>when I can get the Myth of the Golden Age as a fantasy, I revert 
them 
SR>to
SR>products of the soul, of the imagination.  Then I come into 
SR>possession of
SR>their origins and to the origins of my obsessions. To that extent 
SR>they
SR>lose their power over me.

Oh, do you mean once I realise it is an archetype and not the whole 
of 
reality, or something like that?  But I think I do that anyway.  I 
don't 
imagine for a moment I am going to be fighting the battles I am 
fighting 
this year for the rest of my life.  Different years, different 
battles.  
But that doesn't invalidate the perpetual nature of injustice, or 
the 
power that has to provoke anger in me, especially if it's my own!

SR>SR>>But you know, it's only one of the stories that psyche
SR>SR>>tells.  Knowing that there are others is what makes us 'poly' 
SR>rather
SR>SR>>than 'mono', psychological rather then theological.

Do you mean you think theological is 'mono'?  I would have thought 
- do 
think - theology is the 'science' of stories.

SR> ST> Do you think we are 'mono'?  I can't speak for Walter, but I
SR> ST> certainly don't feel that I am - more like a zoo at feeding
SR> ST> time.
SR>
SR>I hope Monty didn't hear you say that!

He did, because he always reads over my shoulder.  His only comment 
was - 
Don't put me in one of those cages!  He's a bit of a freedom monkey, 
really.

SR>I can always see other people's
SR>monos, their obsessions, the archetypes they are caught in.

Absolutely, they're as clear as the day.

SR>To my own,
SR>like everyone else, I am utterly blind. My obsession are 
reasonable
SR>attitudes.

Yep, we're like that, aren't we?  But in the end do you think 
pursuit of 
justice/fairness/freedom is an obsession in and of itself?  It may 
be 
pursued with an obsessive amount of energy, but surely everybody 
does it 
according to their own lights?  Isn't it more universal than just AN 
archetype?

SR>Psyche is referred to 57 times in the New Testament. Pneuma 
SR>is referred to 274 times.  Paul refers to psyche only 4 times.

Crudens eat your heart out.  Do you mean in the Greek?  How does 
that 
equate in English translations?

SR>Psyche is not
SR>split from  pneuma it is simply neglected and absorbed. If it 
were 
SR>split
SR>it would continue to have a separate existence. But images, 
dreams 
SR>and
SR>myth, the very stuff of psyche, are neglected in favour of 
spiritual
SR>phenomena:  visions, ecstasy, revelations, prophecy, faith etc.

But aren't they ultimately the same things, albeit by different 
names and 
with different emphases?  I personally find it damned near 
impossible to 
create an artificial distinction between my pneuma and my psyche.  
And the 
Bible is packed with dream stories - dreams as the bearers of 
vision, 
revelation and prophecy.

SR>Christianity was, from the early Councils, anti-image.. That was 
the 
SR>whole
SR>heated debate, which went on for hundreds of years,  between 
SR>'veneration'
SR>of images 'and the 'adoration' of them, which was finally 
designated 
SR>as
SR>'craven worship' ie pagan and heretical.

Sure, but now you're talking about 'images' in the sense of physical 
iconography.  I thought you were referring to 'images' as symbols 
and 
metaphors, and so on.  But it's late at night ...

SR>                         In All Adversarial and Zoological Love,
SR>
SR>                                             Stanley

Ditto - moo, bray, honk, meow, woof, cheep, caw, neigh, bleat, roar, 
snort, grunt, squawk, howl, purr ....

ooooops, sorry, they all wanted feeding at once ...

                                                Sue



PS And chatter  (that was from Monty) 



___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (264)   Sat 11 Dec 93 23:02                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

I should think so.  And now for your penance - 100 toilet 
cleanings, 50 
shirts to be ironed, scrub out the shower weekly from now to next 
July, 
and polish the inside of the teapot.  Amen.








SR>--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



SR> * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
SR>(500:1100/20)
SR>

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (265)   Sat 11 Dec 93 23:02                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent

It's easily done, I fear.

SR>However, I have a limited number of the beasts in my stables

The Augean ones, I presume?

SR>so there is no doubt that you will run into him again.

Bound to, unless he is an equine of many guises.  Some of them are, 
I 
observe.

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:22 2000
Date: (308)   Tue 21 Dec 93 19:15                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: SANITY AND INSANITY
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 Hello Sue


SR>>          How nice to have someone answer my rumblings of so long
SR>>ago.

 ST> The pleasure is mine.

 ST> That's interesting.  I don't think of it as intellectual
 ST> either.  When I was at university I became involved to a
 ST> reasonable extent with women's groups and other activistic
 ST> trendy-lefty goings-on - I even took part in the march outside
 ST> the SIS building in Hereford Street and got my mug on TV or in
 ST> the paper, I can't remember which - admittedly it was as an
 ST> insignificant dot in the middle of a seething throng!

 ST> At that time my commitment to feminist/'radical' ideas was
 ST> purely intellectual.  They made a certain amount of sense, and
 ST> hang it all, everybody around me was into them as well.  But
 ST> now I think and feel the way I do about things because
 ST> somewhere along the line I suddenly woke up. I suddenly saw how
 ST> people's experiences, and the attitudes and actions of others,
 ST> affect them.  Having that happen made me at once much more
 ST> tolerant and much more intolerant, if that makes sense.

 ST> But is this archetypal?

Well, that's my favourite word isn't it?  But when you 'suddenly woke
up' and saw other peoples experiences' you came into possession of a
vision and a purpose that was greater than your own. It had more
power, more numinosity. That's all I mean by archetypal.


 ST> Dunno whether I REALLY have such a lofty ambition.  I just see
 ST> myself and other people in pain because of somebody else's
 ST> laziness or arrogance or selfishness and I can't help but
 ST> feeling p*ssed off about it.

But it's more that a little personal p*ssed-offness, yes?

 ST> ......must grant it is fuelled by a sense of injustice - first
.ST> and
 ST> foremost against myself, but also on behalf of other women,
 ST> especially.

Yes, other women, not just yourself

 ST> I have cut your beautiful words here, poetic as they are, to
 ST> reduce my level of quoting!  Progress?  Yes, I admit I do
 ST> believe in Progress as an intellectual entity, as a commitment
 ST> to the future.  Whether or not I actually think we are
 ST> ACHIEVING it in the long haul is another story. Probably when
 ST> pushed to elucidate I would say that the whole shebang seems to
 ST> me to be in a state of flux - one nasty bit comes right while
 ST> another reasonableish bit slides into the muck.  I envision it
 ST> as some kind of seething dynamism where nothing stays
 ST> motionless for more than a moment, and yet some cosmic
 ST> equilibrium is maintained by a stronger force than can be
 ST> grasped by the individual atoms in the brew.  Kind of like the
 ST> sub-atomic world, I guess.  But is there Progress?  Well, when
 ST> pushed to the wall I can only say that with other innately
 ST> *religious* people ( I see myself as such) I have faith in it.
 ST> I may mot BELIEVE it is happening at any particular point in
 ST> time, but I have faith and hope in it.  I choose to live my
 ST> life as if it were a reality, a promise hidden in the darkness
 ST> of things.

SR>>SR>>You want to know where POWER is?....
SR>>SR>>That's it!   This is the historical oppressor which weighs us
all
SR>>SR>>down.
SR>>I'm sorry. No, I meant to say that it is the 'quest' which is the
SR>>real
SR>>power, rather than the powers with which the quest is in 
conflict.
I
SR>>meant
SR>>to say that we can be in the grip of an archetype, driven by its
SR>>energy,
SR>>dominated by its vision, lived by its perspective, fighting its
wars.

 ST> Yes, that makes it clearer.  But to pick on that point some
 ST> more, do you think it is the 'quest' that weighs us down, with
 ST> its energies, visions and wars?  While we are fighting those
 ST> are we ignoring others that should be heeded?


When I say that the quest for justice is the archetypal power that
drives us I am not suggesting that this is wrong. One cannot escape
being in one archetypal perspective or another. Moral questions
themselves belong to an archetypal perspective that perceives moral
questions as important.


 ST> Am I being a bit simplistic or thick again, but if that's
 ST> what's in our unconscious and we have been in therapy for
 ST> donkey's ages and lotsa money to let our unconscious speak,
 ST> shouldn't we be doing exactly that?  As my former therapist
 ST> used to say to me "go where your energy is"?

Correct, one will put one's energy in the archetypal perspective one
finds oneself in. If I am an artist, qua artist, I will not be
concerned with moral questions or putting the world to right, my
primary concern will be with the beauty of forms.

SR>>SR>>But you know, it's only one of the stories that psyche
SR>>SR>>tells.  Knowing that there are others is what makes us 'poly'
SR>>rather
SR>>SR>>than 'mono', psychological rather then theological.

 ST> Do you mean you think theological is 'mono'?  I would have
 ST> thought - do think - theology is the 'science' of stories.

Yes I do think our theology is monotheistic: that is, the essential
premise that there is only one God. We do distinguish, don't we,
between the stories of the Gospels and theology as such?


 ST>   But in the end do you think
 ST> pursuit of justice/fairness/freedom is an obsession in and of
 ST> itself?  It may be pursued with an obsessive amount of energy,
 ST> but surely everybody does it according to their own lights?
 ST> Isn't it more universal than just AN archetype?

An archetype is a universal.  At least, spiritual archetypes always
consider themselves as such.  (Each monotheistic religion considers
itself the only one)  The pursuit of justice/fairness/freedom carries
with it the categorical imperative that, from within the viewpoint,
absolutely cannot be denied.

SR>>Psyche is referred to 57 times in the New Testament. Pneuma
SR>>is referred to 274 times.  Paul refers to psyche only 4 times.

 ST> Crudens eat your heart out.  Do you mean in the Greek?  How
 ST> does that equate in English translations?

My reference is in Greek. I don't know about the English 
translations.


 ST> But aren't they ultimately the same things, albeit by different
 ST> names and with different emphases?  I personally find it damned
 ST> near impossible to create an artificial distinction between my
 ST> pneuma and my psyche.  And the Bible is packed with dream
 ST> stories - dreams as the bearers of vision, revelation and
 ST> prophecy.

I think we find it impossible because of the historical conflation I
spoke of. Visions of revelations and prophesy are spiritual 
phenomena.
They point to, they mean, they signify, Almighty God.  The power of
images, as powers in themselves, ie the pagan gods, are persona non
grata. The power of images in themselves were then depotentated. That
was what the battle about images was in the early Church Councils. 
And
God won. From then on psyche's images were not hers, but signified
Him. Only that way could they be tolerated

                         Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (9)   Sun 29 Aug 93  0:14                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: THE RIGHT METAPHOR.
St: Local Rcvd Sent

Don't you know her?  She was Queen of the British Iceni tribe, and 
died in 
about AD 61.  She raised a rebellion against the Romans when they 
seized 
the kingdom of her late husband Prasutagas, which was in present-day 
Norfolk.  Her army sacked several cities before the Romans regained 
control, and she is thought to have killed herself with poison.  
She is 
reputed to have fitted the wheels of her chariots with knives to 
hack her 
foes into tiny bits.  She was probably the first angry feminist!  =8}

WL>WL>>  I love the image of the warm sand and
WL>WL>>  actually do feel like that in this BBS, emersed.
WL>
WL> ST> I do mostly too, but there are some bits the sand doesn't 
reach.
WL>
WL>You mean areas you want it to reach, or just the natural 
limitations 
WL>of
WL>the medium?

Both, I suppose.  I keep trying to believe that the medium need not 
have 
these limitations, at least not to the extent it does on BBSs in 
general, 
where they don't give a damn about the sand.  The less sand the 
better, it 
seems to me.

WL>Are you thinking of the women's conference?

Time will tell on that.  I like the idea you mentioned on the phone 
of 
putting out an appeal on some of the US psych-oriented BBSs.

WL>WL>> ST>  Bodies are depth - there is no place deeper than your 
own 
WL>inside
WL>WL>>
WL>WL>>I see the whole metaphor hanging together heSubject:  Bodies, are 
WL>earth, ar
WL>WL>>feminine are soul.
WL>WL>>
WL>WL>>And perhaps *that* is why women are more involved with the 
bulges 
WL>here
WL>WL>>there, and is not the result of patriarchal conditioning.
WL>
WL> ST> That's a thought.  But I don't think so, because they used 
not 
WL>to be
WL> ST> until the advertising industry was invented.  And even now 
some 
WL>women
WL> ST> aren't. It's a really complex thing, but it's good to have 
WL>different
WL> ST> ideas like that thrown into the soup, as it were.  I tend to 
WL>think
WL> ST> that women are prone to buy into the pressure because of 
their
WL> ST> involvement with their own bodies, but it is not a natural 
WL>state.
WL> ST> Some people are concerned that men are now being subjected 
to 
WL>the
WL> ST> same *body beautiful* pressures as women, and I know this 
is so, 
WL>but
WL> ST> I sense that men will never be as dangerously hooked by it 
as 
WL>women
WL> ST> are.
WL>
WL>Yes, I see what you mean, nature with a touch of nurture, ie 
nurture 
WL>in
WL>the sense of exploitation.

Absobloodylutely.  It's difficult for women not to see themselves as 
successful or unsuccessful bimbos when they've had it drummed into 
them 
from birth.  I'm astonished at how well ingrained it is, in various 
forms, 
in very young female persons of my acquaintance.

See you

Sue



___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:07 2000
Date: (64)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:17                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: THE RIGHT METAPHOR.
St: File Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello Sue,

Well it is a few weeks since you sent this, but I knew there was 
some mail
here to get back to.

WL>>WL>>  I love the image of the warm sand and
WL>>WL>>  actually do feel like that in this BBS, emersed.
WL>>
WL>> ST> I do mostly too, but there are some bits the sand doesn't 
reach.
WL>>
WL>> You mean areas you want it to reach, or just the natural 
limitations
WL>> of the medium?

 ST> Both, I suppose.  I keep trying to believe that the medium 
need not
 ST> have these limitations, at least not to the extent it does on 
BBSs in
 ST> general, where they don't give a damn about the sand.  The 
less sand
 ST> the better, it seems to me.

I am thinking of the metaphors here still.  Sand is earth and 
*that* is
what is so sparse in cyberspace.  I see the that air and fire are
dominant.  We have spoken of air before, and I recall saying that 
words
and swords and air have a correspondence (as I have heard the links
between symbols or metaphors called).  I see this in the tarot 
cards which
have the suit of Swords focussing on words and air.  Flame wars can 
catch
easily in such a medium.  If there was more sand and water there 
would be
no chance of such easily kindled fires.

I have been influenced Sue, by your determination to throw nature, 
nurture
And the will of the gods to the wind and make the world and this 
medium
what you think is right.  It is on the basis of that that I think 
that
Depth is the 'right' metaphor.  Mostly depth is associated with 
water, and
sometimes earth.  Again the only way that I see it coming into the
cyberculture is with the notion of deep in space <g>.  Lets bring 
in water
and earth!  That will get the forests growing and bring in the animal
kingdom.  We *are* creating.  Let there be light etc.

I discussed all this with Stanley the other day and he mentioned
existentialism, the belief that we make our own destiny.  That 
nothing is
written.  That we can heroically create what it is to be human.  
This is
in sharp contrast with a reverence for something bigger than us, 
'higher
powers' as the alcoholics say. I think of the Taoist simple belief 
that
there is a way.  That we simply need to do nothing and all will be 
well,
doing anything is the problem.  Of course I am talking of the way, 
and it
cant be expressed in words.

Perhaps we should start a new thread, Zen and the art of Heroic
Existentialism.  <g>


WL>>Are you thinking of the women's conference?

 ST> Time will tell on that.  I like the idea you mentioned on the 
phone
 ST> of putting out an appeal on some of the US psych-oriented BBSs.

I have done that on MindVox.  No results what so ever!  I have not 
given
up though.  I think it would be good to make a concerted effort on
Compuserve and the Internet.  I have ready access to the first, but 
still
learning how to work the second.

WL>>WL>> ST>  Bodies are depth - there is no place deeper than your 
own
WL>>WL>> ST>  inside
WL>>WL>>
WL>>WL>> I see the whole metaphor hanging together heSubject:  Bodies, are
WL>>WL>> earth, are feminine are soul.

WL>>WL>> And perhaps *that* is why women are more involved with the 
bulges
WL>>WL>> here and there, and is not the result of patriarchal
WL>>WL>> conditioning.
WL>>
WL>> ST> I tend to think
WL>> ST> that women are prone to buy into the pressure because of 
their
WL>> ST> involvement with their own bodies, but it is not a natural
WL>> ST> state.  Some people are concerned that men are now being
WL>> ST> subjected to the same *body beautiful* pressures as women,
WL>> ST> and I know this is so, but I sense that men will never be
WL>> ST> as dangerously hooked by it as women are.
WL>>
WL>>Yes, I see what you mean, nature with a touch of nurture, ie 
nurture
WL>>in the sense of exploitation.

 ST> Absobloodylutely.  It's difficult for women not to see 
themselves as
 ST> successful or unsuccessful bimbos when they've had it drummed 
into
 ST> them from birth.  I'm astonished at how well ingrained it is, in
 ST> various forms, in very young female persons of my acquaintance.

See you soon,



Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:14 2000
Date: (187)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: THE RIGHT METAPHOR.
St: Local Rcvd Sent

I have just been browsing on a Fido echo and have seen flaming 
again - 
it's been so nice to have been right away from BBSing and not to 
have to 
be faced with that juvenility.  Mind you, I suppose what I did on 
NZ_CHAT 
could be called 'flaming', in a sense, and that was highly 
unproductive.  
Then again, I did enjoy the experience of allowing myself to say 
what I 
thought and not playing the game of the polite little lady in man's 
land.

I think that concept of sand and water is right - what do they use 
to put 
out fires but sandbags and water hoses?  Somehow to create an 
environment 
where ... I don't know, the more I see the more discouraged I 
become.  
Even in areas like Grand Rounds, which has some nice people on board 
exchanging information and ideas and striving to be helpful and 
caring, it 
all has a certain shallowness about it.  Even the NZ Philosophy 
echo is 
like that - all very intellectually interesting to begin with, but 
after 
ten messages, twenty ... it's the same thing over and over again.  
And the 
same personalities, with no sense of stretching out for something 
beyond, 
deeper ...

WL>I have been influenced Sue, by your determination to throw 
nature, 
WL>nurture
WL>And the will of the gods to the wind and make the world and this 
WL>medium
WL>what you think is right.

Thank you.  I feel a little ashamed that I would no longer describe 
myself 
as 'determined' - 'resigned', rather.

WL>Lets bring in water and earth!  That will get the forests 
growing and 
bring in the animal kingdom.  We *are* creating.  Let there be 
light etc.

Nice stuff.  Animals and trees ...  Animals kill for food, but they 
don't 
flame one another.  I guess they don't have the same need for 
power, to 
validate themselves.  And what do trees do?  Take in and give out 
endlessly ... and reach both upwards and downwards.  I have read 
that the 
root systems of large trees can be as physically extensive as their 
branch 
systems, as if the two were mirror images of one another.  One 
reaching up 
for the sky and the sun, the other down into the damp, black soil.  
Whoops, I actually typed 'soul' by mistake there instead of soil.  
Interesting.

WL>I discussed all this with Stanley the other day and he mentioned
WL>existentialism, the belief that we make our own destiny.  That 
WL>nothing is
WL>written.  That we can heroically create what it is to be human.  
This 
WL>is
WL>in sharp contrast with a reverence for something bigger than us, 
WL>'higher
WL>powers' as the alcoholics say.

Not sure that it is, necessarily, is it?  It depends what you 
conceive 
that higher power to be like and to do.  In my tired moments, which 
are 
many, I cease to conceive of anything very much at an intellectual 
level return to the indisputable fact that I have life, through no 
doing 
of my own.  I do not necessarily subscribe to the belief that my 
life has 
been plotted out for me some celestial Grand Operations Manager 
(!), but I 
do acknowledge that I bear life within and about me - that seems to 
me to point to a principle, a source - I like the idea of something 
in 
which I "live and move and have my being". That is my fundamental 
religiousness coming out, I suppose.

WL>I think of the Taoist simple belief 
WL>that
WL>there is a way.  That we simply need to do nothing and all will 
be 
WL>well,
WL>doing anything is the problem.

Yes, that is true too, they are right.  Do you know Julian of 
Norwich?  
Her most frequently quoted utterance is "All shall be well, all 
thing 
shall be well, all manner of thing shall be well".  She was a 
mediaeval 
English hermit and mystic who has enjoyed something of a 
rennaisance of 
interest over recent years, along with Meister Eckhardt, John of 
the Cross 
and others of the same ilk.  I enjoy most of those Christian 
mystics - 
they were quite potty and most were thought to be heretical at some 
point 
during their lives or after.  I should pull out some selections from 
Julian's writings and make them into a file.

WL>Perhaps we should start a new thread, Zen and the art of Heroic
WL>Existentialism.  <g>

Why not?  Speaking of such, are you familiar with Thomas Merton?  
Goodness, all of my old Christian reading is coming out here.  Why 
would 
that be?  But Merton is an interesting bod and has interesting ideas 
about Zen vis a vis the Western mind.  Oddly enough, this thread on 
the 
metaphor and depth seems to be bringing out all sorts of diverse 
strands 
of my thought and my past life.  Depth has meant so many different 
things 
to me at different times.  I have found it in many different places.

See you soon.

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (10)   Sun 29 Aug 93  0:14                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: ROMANCE
St: Local Rcvd Sent

It certainly is.  That's the best way to do it - I don't think it's 
really 
possible to follow threads meticulously, much as one might like to 
do so. 
Picking out means that you run the risk of removing something from 
its 
original context, but I don't see that being a big problem because 
it 
opens up new twists and turns of meaning.

SR>Absolutely right. There is a dearth of proper romantic
SR>suffering.  I am not 'somewhat' critical of the 
dependency-phobia which 
SR>is now
SR>so fashionable - I am raving-mad critical of it. I think it stems 
SR>from
SR>what one might call 'The Cult of Individualism' where souls are 
SR>regarded
SR>as atomic particles and where any coupling is simply two 
particles 
SR>added
SR>together. In this fantasy the quality or composition of each 
particle
SR>should remain the same whether it is coupled with another 
particle or
SR>not. This doesn't happen of course, but it is regarded as an 
ideal to 
SR>be
SR>be striven for.  So, instead of paying attention to phenomena,
SR>that is, the way things are, we have an ethical stricture which 
SR>serves
SR>to render the way things are wrong. This has the effect of 
making the
SR>suffering of love improper and, worst of all, unnecessary.  What 
an
SR>exquisitely devised torture.

I greatly like and agree with this.  From my own experience, I 
would say 
that one simply does not remain the same, despite the incredible 
pressures 
upon one to do so.  One suffers and changes with it.

SR>Have you ever thought that perhaps our idea of 'the
SR>individual' is not a psychic reality at all, but rather an 
SR>abstraction?

I have, and have wondered if it is not a very recent invention.

SR>Perhaps the idea derives from the legal world, the individual as a
SR>contractual unit; or from a political theory, the individual as a 
SR>voting
SR>unit; or from theology, the individual soul before God; or 
economic, 
SR>a
SR>unit of consumption.  But these are not phenomenologial entities 
at 
SR>all,
SR>they are concepts, abstractions.

Or from 'physical' science itself - the discovery of the atom, and, 
more 
importantly, what lies within it, brought about vast changes in the 
way we 
see things, from sub-atomic physics itself to the most everyday of 
things. 
I recall at school being subjected to 'particle' theory - a crude 
form of 
atomic theory which they found to be a handy concept.  It crept 
through 
the curriculum stealthily but rapidly, taking different guises as 
it went.

WL>They are certainly not psychological
SR>entities.  The individual actually does not exist!
SR>The smallest psychological number is two. One is an abstraction 
from
SR>two. One by itself equals zero, nothing.  Alone we cease to exist.

Yes, mental hospitals are full of 'alones'.

SR>Whatever else it is the cult of individualism is a fantasy of
SR>freedom.  Applied to couples it puts us in a very cold, hard, 
market-
SR>oriented arena. Two people come together saying: 'I'll stick 
around 
SR>so long as you satisfy my needs'. A  market contract between two 
SR>separated
SR>individuals, where even the need of each other soon disappears. No
SR>fantasy, no idealism, sex without love, love without commitment, 
no
SR>horrors of loneliness, no struggle, no poetry, no Eros, no 
beautiful
SR>fantasies to feed the soul, no imagination, no union.  Dreadful! 
SR>Utterly dead - where the two contracting parties remain isolated 
and 
SR>alone even during sex - especially during sex!

And what about the currently popular concept of the 'sex industry'? 
 What 
does that phrase say?

But to get back to the inner world of the atom - why don't we pick 
up the 
idea of the 'glue' - I think from memory it's the 'strong' force 
that 
holds the nucleus together?  We have grasped the atomisation, the 
fragmentation and classification of the elemental particles, but 
ignored 
the most important component of that micro-cosmos - the GLUE!  I'm 
no real 
expert on being in love, but I know about the glue!!!

SR>No, the smallest imaginable "me' is two; the largest 
SR>perhaps
SR>no bigger than the size of the 'polis' the Greek city-state.

And yet they still talk about 'relationship addiction'.  How can 
one NOT 
be addicted to being an 'us'?  It's like speaking of 'air addiction'.

Bye for now

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:05 2000
Date: (15)   Sun 29 Aug 93 23:43                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Sue, Stanley & Others
Subject: Psyber_Art
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hello Sue, Stanley & Anyone Else Reading This,

Psyber_Art - The Conference dies, but the Art Lives.
******************************************************

SR>> I am still not sure about this 'thread' business. Is it OK
SR>> to delete most of your correspondence with Walter here - as I 
have
SR>> done and pick out a piece of your reply - as I have done - and 
then
SR>> comment on what you said?  Anyway, here goes.

 ST> It certainly is.  That's the best way to do it - I don't think
 ST> it's really possible to follow threads meticulously, much as
 ST> one might like to do so. Picking out means that you run the
 ST> risk of removing something from its original context, but I
 ST> don't see that being a big problem because it opens up new
 ST> twists and turns of meaning.

Seeing the need to develop the *art* of choosing, how and which 
thread to
follow; responding and expressing; getting the *right* message 
across etc.
was one of the many reasons, that prompted Walter and I to create 
the old
Psyber_Art Conference, that no longer exists. I really like the 
idea of
limiting the degree to which we carve up things and box them all 
neatly. I
am also enjoying developing my ability to quote etc., there is 
certainly
an art to doing it well. One of the greatest challenges I find in 
this
medium is how to communicate *affect* without having to always type 
in
smiley faces, *'s  and <G> (grins) etc.

I also like the *mixed bag* concept, I find in more natural in many
situations. Throughout the process of developing the BBS to date 
Walter
and I have exchanged many such *bags of lollies* and conglomerations.

Bye for Now


Reg Smith

... Xpress Yourself!
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (43)   Mon 6 Sep 93 19:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psycho drama & therapy P&P.DOC
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1





Hi all,

I wrote a short paper in 1991 on Psychodrama & Psychotherapy.  It 
has a
couple of things in it I found useful on re-reading and I posted it 
in the
Main library today.  Here are two quoted bits.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Here are eight areas that cover all aspects of training:

1.   Formal education.

2.   Professional qualification.

3.   Supervised professional experience.

4.   An overview of the whole field of psychotherapy.

5.   In-depth training in a major psychotherapeutic
     modality.

6.   Supervised practice in a major psychotherapeutic
     modality.

7.   Personal therapy.

8.   Life experience.


A person's qualities and experiences in the above areas will have
associated strengths and weaknesses.  There will always be some
controversy of what are suitable criteria.  For example someone who
-------------------------------------------------------------------


4.  Process of therapy.
The stages of a group's life are probably well known to the
psychodramatist.  A psychodramatist needs to learn about the stages
of the dyadic relationship.  Applying principles of production of a
psychodrama to the structure of the therapeutic hour can be useful.


-------------------------------------------------------------------




See you in Psyberspace, 
Walter.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (51)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Ethos
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


I have a definite direction I would like Psybernet to go in.  I 
have a lot
of say in that too, but not all the say, and perhaps very little 
when it
all boils down to it.


One thing I *would* like is for there to be lively discussion about 
the
Psybernet Ethos.  The old conference is no more, which is good I 
think,
because the ethos comes through in all our work here, as does Depth,
Relationship etc.


There is a file called Ethos.Doc which has the messages from the old
conference.

Some quotes:

---------------------------------------------------------------------


 ST> You can do a
 ST> lot to protect the board via manual validation, but you can't 
go on
 ST> doing that forever - life is too short and it just gets 
overwhelming.

Yes, we have been thinking about all this.  Validation is another 
word
that I hate.  I have tried to avoid it.  At present a 'Validated' 
user has
very little more access than a new user.  The plan is that a 
validated
user is one who has filled in the Introduction questionnaire.  They 
will
be able to go straight on then to pay their money by Visa to 
subscribe and
then straight on to join a group and meet up with a Consultant.  
All  on
the impulse buying scheme!  There is more to think about here and 
to set
up.

 ST>  Unless, of course, Psybernet is by its very nature 
self-protecting
 ST>  by self-selecting.

Yes that is what I was hoping.


-------------


Reg

Good to get back into some psybernetting style of messaging.

 > You only share with the world what the Psyche says is
 > safe to
 > share.

Yes.

Handles, anonymity (sp?), makes it 'safer' to share a whole lot 
more.  But
is
that sharing?

I hate the idea of handles, but is that a sort of non-cyberspace 
hang-up
of
mine?

Walter.


----------



FROM:    Sue Townsend                  Area # 54 (      Ethos       )
TO:      Walter Logeman                MSG # 202, Jul-9-93 11:41pm
SUBJECT: Nature/nurture or the will of the gods

It's male dominated because girls don't get modems in their Christmas
 stockings.  I got one, though, so there!  But seriously, the world 
of
 computing and computer comms is so dreadfully left brain that most
sensible
 women just don't get attracted to it in the first place.  As for 
BBSs -
don't
get me started on that again - a woman would have to be insensitive 
to be
able
 to tolerate the constant exposure to obscenity of various kinds - 
by that
term



---------------------------------------------------------------------
-


Its all there in the file folks if you want to browse over our old 
trail.





See you
 Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (50)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Mrs, Miss or Ms?
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

FROM:    Walter Logeman                Area # 51 (  Relationships   )
TO:      Reg Smith                     MSG # 33, May-30-93 10:03pm
SUBJECT: Mrs, Miss or Ms?


Dear Reg:

I talked to Kate today after our talk today about Co-Sysoping and 
then
being asked by 'Hector Santos' to box ourselves into being either 
the BBS
Sysop or the Assistant Sysop.  She said:  Mrs, Miss or MS?

That is another example of how our words warm us up to roles.  That 
is
certainly why we are not married, 'husband and wife' have such 
power that
they would skew me around.  Instead Kate & I develop ways of naming 
how we
are together.

Psybernet is something you and I have relationships *to* as well as 
to
each
other.  That is like the relationship or marriage being a third 
entity
with
a life of its own.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
-

That was the start of a thread that had some diversity & unity, and 
was
spread over two conferences, in the days when we still had a swag 
of them.

You can read the thread in MRS?.thd in the Psybernet Main Library.




See you
 Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (49)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Ontology.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Just when it looked like the subject was gone for ever!

Well I saved all the messages from the old Ontology Conference and 
put
them in a file called Ontology.thd in the  Psybernet Main Library.  
here
are a few quotes:


-------------------------------------------------------------------

 WL> Personally I think that ontology has no place in anything to do
 WL> with the  Psyche.  Are Archetypes Real?  Questions like that
 WL> could absorb energy in  quite a few of the other areas and
 WL> belong HERE.



 SR> could say: ONTOLOGY is that branch of philosophy
 SR> concerned with the problem of reality. Or: ONTOLOGY is
 SR> philosophizing about what is real.



 ST> The Lloyd Geering sort of  questions are
 ST> worthwhile in that they arouse people's critical faculties, but
 ST> they do so much miss the point.  What does it mean to ask if a
 ST> myth, a symbol system, is TRUE?  It is a misapplication of
 ST> categories.



 RS> I think that it is very damaging to have other people decide
 RS> what is real and what is not real. It is however very healing
 RS> to have ones reality validated.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
-

You see the Ontology discussion to date is mainly about how we 
don't like
ontological debates.  If you want to argue with that <g> you could 
keep
this thread going.


OTOH On the other hand I think that all schools of therapy have to 
come to
terms with some sort of ontological basis for their work.

It was interesting that on the weekend the Sceptics came out in the 
papers
with how useless it was to have mediums assist in the work of the 
police.
Then today a guy found his dead mate's body by seeing him in a 
dream.  Who
knows what is real?

I know what i think, but when it comes to my work as a therapist i 
just go
along with my clients ontology.  That is unless I think that their
ontology is cramping their style!  <g>










See you
 Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (48)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Read any good books?
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

I'm restoring another old thread, which I'll put here in one big 
message.

I'm not *just* restoring though.  I am looking for another good 
novel.  I
have just finished The Cornish Trilogy (see below)  I liked it a lot.

Depth, intrigue, entertaining, psychological. . .

Not so hot on relationships though,  he seems to live in a world of 
men
and universities etc.  He tries, but he is of another generation I 
think,
though amazingly in touch for all that.

I have read most of Marge Peircy,  shes good on relationships,  I'm
reading Clarissa Pinkola Ests' Women who run with the Wolves.  I 
like
that, but have been listening to the tape and that is so much 
quicker.  I
need a novel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
---



FROM:    Walter Logeman                Area # 3 (  Psybernet Open  )
TO:      All                           MSG # 154, Jul-4-93 9:42pm
SUBJECT: Read any good books?

Hi,

Good question.

I think it would be great to have a thread discussion of good
psychologically and cybernetically oriented books.  I am reading:

The Cornish Trilogy
Robertson Davies
Penguin 1991

It is a very Jungian oriented novel.  He doesn't mention Jung but 
he does
go deeply into such questions as what are the real influences on 
our life?
Nature, nurture or the collective unconscious.

The way I put that is a total injustice to the book though.  It is 
just a
good yarn.

I have had this thick book with me all year, and I still have 100 
pages to
go.  I'm savouring it. It is like a ... friend.  I was searching 
for a
word there.  I know the dutch word:  _gezellig_  which translates 
as a
cozy, warm, inviting, aesthetic ambience.  *Literally* the word 
would be
translated as 'silly'  ie Soul-ly.  Pity that the English language 
has
bastardized that word.  'Soulful' is not it either, with its 
puppy-dog sad
eyes.

Any way the book is just that:  Soul-ly.  It is set in modern times 
in
Canada but manages to have King Arthur, gipsies, tarot, classical 
art,
opera, and the British Secret Service.  Here is a quote to give you a
taste:

   'I know you won't be offended, Maria.' he said, 'but your Mother 
is
   an extraordinary discovery, a living fossil.  She might have come
   out of any age, from the nineteenth century in Hungary to anywhere
   in Europe for six or seven centuries back.  That wonderful
   boasting!  It refreshed me to hear her, because it was like
   Paracelsus himself, that very great man and emperor of boasters.
   And you remember what he said:  Never hope to find wisdom at the
   high colleges alone -- consult old women, Gipsies, magicians
   wanderers, and all manner of peasant folk and random folk, and
   learn from them, for these have more knowledge about such things
   than all the high colleges.'

   'What about professor Froats?'  I said, 'with his search in the
   dung-heap for a jewel that he suspects may be there, but of whose
   nature he can hardly guess?'

   'Yes and if my old friend Ozy finds anything I shall borrow any
   part of it that can be bent to support my research on the Filth
   Therapy.  What your Mother is doing is Filth Therapy at its
   highest . . .
                                                          Page 151

The quote on the title page of the third book is:


       'The lyre of Orpheus opens the door of the underworld.'

                                               E. T. A. HOFFMAN


Psybernet another lyre of Orpheus?


See you 'round


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02




FROM:    Sue Townsend                  Area # 3 (  Psybernet Open  )
TO:      Walter Logeman                MSG # 167, Jul-7-93 5:36pm
SUBJECT: Read any good books?

Thanx for letting me onto a genuine adult - in the correct sense of
the word! - BBS.  Yes, I have read the Cornish Trilogy, along with
Davies' other wos, they being a couple of other trilogies, which are
less aarently Jungian in flabut rather endearing, and the Papters of
Samuel Marchbanks, which I found less to my taste.  It is still
clever, but isomewhat forced and stylised by comparson with the
others.  I do thinke has an excellent line in insults - his
characters call each other sonorousthings like 'lobdotterels' and
the like.  Good stuff!!!  The BBS has a little more work to be done
on it, I see, but I am anticipating good things to come.
All the best to you and the others involved, and I will look forward
to meeting you this Saturday.

All the best
 Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:22 2000
Date: (342)   Mon 27 Dec 93 15:05                         
From: FRAZER GREENWOOD
To: ALL
Subject: Re: Read any good books?
St: Local Sent




             Oldest Thread of the Year  1993


those who agree reply here ...

Cheer's ...

Frazer Greenwood .

 * SLMR 2.1 * All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (47)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Paul Whitehead
Subject: Your Introductory Message
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

We had that crash and I thought it might be good to have your 
message and
the replies back up.  I hope this is not too long, Im not sure if 
there is
a maximum lenght.  Here goes:



FROM:    PAUL WHITEHEAD                Area # 3 (  Psybernet Open  )
TO:      WALTER LOGEMAN                MSG # 334, Jul-25-93 10:13pm
SUBJECT: LET US KNOW WHO YOU ARE.


WL>== My name ==

Paul Whitehead

WL>== Where I am from ==

St Alban's Christchurch

WL>== What I would like to get from Psybernet ==

new user thus undetermined <GRIN>

WL>== What I would like to offer to Psybernet ==

My pleasant company and constructive input.

WL>== Interests ==

Children, Psychology, Sociology, Education and crime (study of that 
is)

WL>== Experience in Psychological matters. ==

not much: 2 years live in counsellor for Prison Fellowship of New 
Zealand,
Telephone Counsellor for Samaritans, Community worker for IHC.

WL>== Experience in Telecomputing ==

I run my own BBS, Grapevine BBS, CHCH

WL>== What I want you to know about me ==

I have an open mind slightly pessimistic and no easily swayed ( why 
did
I put that?)

WL>== What I don't want you to know about me but I'll say anyway. ==

Check please! <GRIN>

WL>== Comments about Psybernet ===

I haven't finished my mail packet so I'll rain check on this one...


WL>== Comments about Anything else ===

Currently a mature UNI student study's include Education, NZ History,
Political Science, Law, Sociology and Phycology.. Well be majoring in
Family & criminal Law. Single parent with one 2 year old daughter...


cheers 4 now
___
  SLMR 2.1  We all live in a \YEyellow\NO subroutine.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1

FROM:    SUE TOWNSEND                  Area # 3 (  Psybernet Open  )
TO:      PAUL WHITEHEAD                MSG # 391, Aug-1-93 0:19am
SUBJECT: LET US KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

PW>WL>== My name ==
PW>
PW>Paul Whitehead

Hi, Paul, and welcome to Psybernet

PW>
PW>WL>== What I would like to offer to Psybernet ==
PW>
PW>My pleasant company and constructive input.

Sounds good!

PW>WL>== Interests ==
PW>
PW>Children, Psychology, Sociology, Education and crime (study of 
that is)

Interesting, too.  I did degrees in psychology and sociology at 
Canterbury
way back when ...

PW>= Experience in Telecomputing ==
PW>
PW>I run my own BBS, Grapevine BBS, CHCH

What's it like?  Do you have some particular ethos?  I have tried a
selection of them (not including Grapevine) and, apart from 
Psybernet, and
Prompt/2, on which I am officially a co-sysop, have found them to 
contain
some fairly awful attitudes, particularly towards women.  I'm sure 
there's
a lot of good stuff going on out there, though - I just hit some of 
the
worst of it!!!

PW>WL>== What I want you to know about me ==
PW>
PW>I have an open mind slightly pessimistic and no easily swayed ( 
why di
PW>I put that?)

Hmmm ...

PW>WL>== Comments about Psybernet ===
PW>
PW>I havent fisnished my mail packet so I'll rain check on this 
one...

I'll be interested to hear ...

PW>WL>== Comments about Anything else ===
PW>
PW>Currently a mature UNI student study's inclued Education, NZ 
Histroy,
PW>Political Science, Law, Sociology and Physcology.. Well be 
majoring in
PW>Family & criminial Law. Single parent with one 2 year old 
daughter...

The former sounds a challenging mixture.  As for the latter, from 
your
message in the Parenting Conference you're obviously really into 
that and
trying to do it well.  My partner is a single parent with three 
children,
aged 3, 6 and 11, so I know what many of the issues are for people 
in your
situation.

See you round some more.

Sue Townsend


___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1

FROM:    Walter Logeman                Area # 3 (  Psybernet Open  )
TO:      Paul Whitehead                MSG # 346, Jul-26-93 1:39am
Subject: Re: LET US KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
Date: Jul-26-93 1:39am 


Hi Paul,

Good to have you aboard.  And thanks for responding to my  newly 
created
invitation to say these things about yourself, they certainly help 
me to
get to know you.

WL>>== What I would like to offer to Psybernet ==

 PW> My pleasant company and constructive input.

Thanks, looking forward to that and I see you and Reg have been up to
something with the EMSI.  I just read the manual but am puzzled as 
how to
set up my terminal to take advantage of that.

WL>>== Experience in Psychological matters. ==

 PW> not much: 2 years live in counselor for Prison Fellowship of New
 PW> Zealand, Telephone Counselor for Samaritans, Community worker 
for
IHC.

Sounds like quite a bit to me.

WL>>== Experience in Telecomputing ==

 PW> I run my own BBS, Grapevine BBS, CHCH

I'm going to have a look soon, when I have read all the mail here!. 
 We
have only about 5 or 6 users but it keeps me busy!

WL>>== What I want you to know about me ==

 PW> I have an open mind slightly pesermistic and no easily swayed 
( why
 PW> did I put that?)

Just a warning he?  <G>


WL>>== Comments about Anything else ===

 PW> Currently a mature UNI student study's include Education, NZ 
History,
 PW> Political Science, Law, Sociology and Physcology.. Well be 
majoring
PW> in Family & criminal Law. Single parent with one 2 year old 
daughter.

Sound like plenty to keep you busy.

Hope that you will find it useful to come by.  I imagine that some 
of the
subjects you are studying will require essays that others here, 
will find
of interest and may be able to offer assistance with, especially As 
we go
more public.


See you round


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02




Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:06 2000
Date: (46)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Let us know who you are.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hi,

You are reading this message in the Psybernet Conference. This
is the stepping off place to Groups, and private Local Mail with 
others.
Here you can let us know who you are.  Others will be able to 
connect with
you and also suggest where you may find things of interest to you.  
Please
leave a message in response to this one and name the subject 
something
identifiable such as:  'I am ... ' or  'About me'   Your name will 
also be
in the header.  You could use the headings here to get you going or 
do
it some other way.


== My name ==


== Where I am from ==


== What I would like to get from Psybernet ==


== What I would like to offer to Psybernet ==


== Interests ==


== Experience in Psychological matters. ==


== Experience in Telecomputing ==


== What I want you to know about me ==


== What I don't want you to know about me but I'll say anyway. ==


== Conferences, Groups and Consultants ==
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in any of 
these
areas of Psybernet.  You will need to subscribe to have full access 
to
these areas.  If you do not understand these concepts, please have a
browse in the Information About Psybernet section.  (Go I for 
Information
from the Main Menu.)


== Comments about Psybernet ===


== Comments about Anything else ===


That is all I can think to ask.


From Walter,

On behalf of the Team.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (156)   Mon 1 Nov 93 18:35                          
From: Lanktree Davies
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Let us know who you are.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/115.11 5273f47c
 > == My name ==

 > == Where I am from == Born in Christchurch at what is now 
(?significance) Lyndhurst.  Well, it was Lyndhurst in 1934 too. 
Schooling in ChCh, and then to Otago University Medical School.  
I've been a medical G.P. in Shirley since 1966.  I'm married with 
three children, all our children have left home. 
 > == What I would like to get from Psybernet ==
I get tired of talking to other doctors and thought that this would 
be an interesting opportunity.  Interesting to see who turns up, 
and what they say,
and in a novel (to me) medium of expression.

 > == What I would like to offer to Psybernet ==
I've had  a fair ammount of experience in medical practice.  In the 
process I
have learnt a lot from my patients.  I feel I've still a lot to 
learn and may
have something to contribute to discussion.

 > == Interests ==
Family, patients, medicine, forestry, wood turning and working, 
reading, motorbikes, shopping, and family.

 > == Experience in Psychological matters. ==
Member of a Balint group for 20+ years and a leader of a Balint 
group for 2+ years.

 > == Experience in Telecomputing ==
damnall, but interested.

 > == What I want you to know about me ==
I think that that may grow as time goes on and my experience of 
this medium increases.  I have to admit that my personal & 
professional communications have been largely one to one, or small 
intimate groups up till now.

 > == What I don't want you to know about me but I'll say
 > anyway. ==
I am starting to feel a little older than the teenager I've felt 
like for the
past 45 years.

 > == Conferences, Groups and Consultants ==
Lets see what developes Eh?

Lanktree Davies
1/11/93





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (164)   Wed 3 Nov 93  2:33                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Let us know who you are.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

I thought I'd reply to my own message here, especially as you 
logged on
Lanktree, and responded to my invitation.  To my disappointment my 
earlier
message was gone, or never got here!

 WL> == My name ==
Walter Logeman.  I live with my partner Kate, her daughter Rebecca, a
flatmate, Brooke. I have a son who has left home.

 WL> == Where I am from ==
Born in Amsterdam, raised in Sydney from age 7, left home at 18 to 
go to
Teachers college in Tasmania, went on a world trip in 1966 and got 
as far as
Christchurch.

 WL> == What I would like to get from Psybernet ==
Just to watch it grow up in it's own way!  That is a lie.  I have 
been a
frustrated author for years and this is a sort of self publishing, 
with a
difference.  What do I really want?  To enter into the unknown and 
possibly
new realms of psychological evolution.  Find others of similar ilk.

 WL> == What I would like to offer to Psybernet ==
My ceaseless obsession to do the above.

 WL> == Interests ==
The above.  Psychotherapy.  Kate.  My kids.  Mountains.  Our bach, 
skiing,
tramping, books, music.  I like what you said, Lanktree, shopping, 
I love
it.  Tuesday's Press.  New software.  Composting.  Movies, how 
could get
this far down the list without movies.  Stationary.  Food.  Diet 
Coke.
Coffee.

 WL> == Experience in Psychological matters. ==
I have wallowed in them since before I knew the word.  I used to 
call it
philosophy and politics and counterculture, but it is all summed up 
with a
reference to the psyche.

 WL> == Experience in Telecomputing ==
More and more each day,  very new at it, sent my first netmail 
message to
Australia today.

 WL> == What I want you to know about me ==
What I have said so far

 WL> == What I don't want you to know about me but I'll say anyway.
What I have said so far.

I seem to see both sides of things a lot.

 WL> == Conferences, Groups and Consultants ==
 WL> Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
 WL> any of these areas of Psybernet.  You will need to subscribe to
 WL> have full access to these areas.  If you do not understand
 WL> these concepts, please have a browse in the Information About
 WL> Psybernet section.  (Go I for Information from the Main Menu.)

Now B for bulletins.


 WL> == Comments about Psybernet ===
I am fond of the thing, glad it is here, I am enjoying the 
challenge of the
group, (private to members).  I am looking forward with excitement 
to the
growth and development of Psybernet

 From Walter,

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (163)   Wed 3 Nov 93  0:45                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Re: Let us know who you are.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

I hope you are finding the messages here of some interest, and 
getting the
hang of the medium. I found it good to get your reply to my list of
questions, as you may have noticed you are one of the first few to 
come
aboard (excuse the pun).  I did reply to it myself but that message 
seems to
have gone, so I'll do another!  That in part will be a reply to 
this message
too.  We are still at what we call the Beta user stage, constantly 
making
changes and getting the bard more technically and psychologically 
more
useful.  Eventually we will have subscriptions, till then feel free!

 LD>  > == What I would like to get from Psybernet ==
 LD>  I get tired of talking to other doctors and
 LD>  thought that this would be an interesting opportunity.
 LD>  Interesting to see who turns up, and what they say, and in a
 LD>  novel (to me) medium of expression.

I know that we have been quite non-medical model in our approach to 
the
psyche so far in our writings here.  I guess I am like that in my
psychotherapy work too.  From the tone of your message you 
obviously value
your profession, and have a respect and interest for you patients 
that takes
you beyond any narrow prescriptions.

 >> == Experience in Psychological matters. ==
 LD> Member of a Balint group for 20+ years and a leader of a Balint
 LD> group for 2+  years.

I have come across quite a few doctors who have been in Balint 
groups, seems
to have an excellent influence.

 >> == Experience in Telecomputing ==
 LD> damn-all, but interested.

Are you familiar with off-line readers?  We have the Silver Xpress 
system
installed, and the software for your end is also available here.  
Write for
help on this and other aspects and we will do what we can.

 >> == What I want you to know about me ==
 LD> I think that that may grow as time goes on and my experience of
 LD> this medium  increases.  I have to admit that my personal &
 LD> professional communications  have been largely one to one, or
 LD> small intimate groups up till now.

Yes it can be daunting to write in such a public place as this.  I 
find it
so at times, and it is just not appropriate for some type of 
discourse.  In
'Local Mail' all messages are private to the writer and the 
addressee, that
can have its place.  We run groups here.  Open for enrolment is one 
that I
am starting on Dreams.  See my message, (search subject : group).

 >> == What I don't want you to know about me but I'll say
 >> anyway. ==
 LD> I am starting to feel a little older than the teenager I've
 LD> felt like for the past 45 years.

I know the feeling, I like it though, I think there is something to 
be said
for having weathered a couple of mid-life crisis.

 >> == Conferences, Groups and Consultants ==
 LD> Lets see what develops Eh?


Yep,

See you on line,


Walter.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:07 2000
Date: (52)   Sun 12 Sep 93 23:07                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Hot New medium!
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


                              ***** TEXT *****


TEXT has a new lease of life.  Text is *hot* because it has come 
alive in
the digital form.  Video, video conferences, digital voice, digital 
video
has nothing on text.

On the page it is conserved, fixed, final.  In a fax it is like 
that too.
Digitalised it is searchable, storable, editable, erasable and 
moves at
the speed of light, at the press of a button to about 20,000,000 
people on
the Internet.

Text is evocative:

'With jaws the size of a truck, the dinosaur munched the man and
swallowed him.'

Did you see that!  It cost Spielberg millions to do that.

Text is cheap.



Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (116)   Thu 7 Oct 93  2:20                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Hot New medium!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 SR>       WL> But i LIKE text!

 SR> I do too.



.PAUSE
.WIN Text is terrific!



Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (114)   Wed 6 Oct 93 17:14                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Hot New medium!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Dear Walter                               ***** TEXT *****

          Here you are demonstrating what I was taking about re 
threads:
tossing off a new title like sowing wheat to see what will 
germinate -


 WL> You cant mumble in text.

          Precisely!  you are forced to say what you have to with
precision. Precision is tremulously important. I will often keep on 
and
on with a client who has slipped me a mumble or vague generalization
until I get  *EXACTLY* . what he means  I'm like a gentle bulldog, I
won't leave it. But working in text pushes you into precision by the
very nature of it.

 WL> Shakespeare used text.

So did several others in books I've read!

 WL> Now if we combined sound with text to give it a bit more
 WL> emotional clarity that might help, so Reg tells me.

          Yes, I suppose it would. What would that be like Reg?. 
Would
we make grunt and grin noises?. Would we talk?. I know nothing 
about all
this multimedia stuff, if that is what you mean

      WL> But i LIKE text!

I do too.

               Best,
                    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (108)   Fri 1 Oct 93 16:04                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Hot New medium!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 WL>                               ***** TEXT *****


You cant mumble in text.

Shakespeare used text.

Now if we combined sound with text to give it a bit more emotional 
clarity
that might help, so Reg tells me.


But i LIKE text!


walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (154)   Sun 31 Oct 93 21:07                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Hot New medium!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hi Stanley,


                           ***** TEXT *****


 WL>> You cant mumble in text.

 SR>           Precisely!  you are forced to say what you have to
 SR>  with precision. Precision is tremulously important. I will
 SR>  often keep on and on with a client who has slipped me a mumble
 SR>  or vague generalization until I get  *EXACTLY* . what he means
 SR>   I'm like a gentle bulldog, I won't leave it. But working in
 SR>  text pushes you into precision by the very nature of it.

Yep.  And I find pleasure in naming something *precisely*.


 WL>> Shakespeare used text.

 SR> So did several others in books I've read!

No kidding!

 WL>> Now if we combined sound with text to give it a bit more
 WL>> emotional clarity that might help, so Reg tells me.

 SR>           Yes, I suppose it would. What would that be like
 SR>  Reg?. Would we make grunt and grin noises?. Would we talk?. I
 SR>  know nothing about all this multimedia stuff, if that is what
 SR>  you mean

 SR>       WL> But I LIKE text!

 SR> I do too.

For all that getting together face to face F2F, does create 
something of
use.  I had a thought that made me laugh the other day.  What about 
all
getting together for a Weekend, taking our computers and sitting 
around a
phone, write messages to each other. <g>   Best of both worlds.

Give me text
Once Hot lead type
Now electrons on a wire
painting dream images
not on the screen
faster than video
in non-techno-colour
bypassing the retina
right into where I am
somewhere in the landscape
of my mind.

Hello there,
Can you see them?



Enough for one night!


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (177)   Mon 8 Nov 93 20:19                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Hot New medium!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello Walter,

 WL>>> You cant mumble in text.

 SR>>           Precisely!  you are forced to say what you have to
 SR>>  with precision. Precision is tremulously important. I will
 SR>>  often keep on and on with a client who has slipped me a mumble
 SR>>  or vague generalization until I get  *EXACTLY* . what he means
 SR>>   I'm like a gentle bulldog, I won't leave it. But working in
 SR>>  text pushes you into precision by the very nature of it.

 WL> Yep.  And I find pleasure in naming something *precisely*.

Yes, and something which has always fascinated me is the question: 
does
a thing exist *before* it is named.  Common sense says, 'yes, of 
course
it does'.  And the reply is, 'OK smarty!  Say exactly in what way!!!!

  WL> For all that getting together face to face F2F, does create
 WL> something of use.  I had a thought that made me laugh the other
 WL> day.  What about all getting together for a Weekend, taking our
 WL> computers and sitting around a phone, write messages to each
 WL> other. <g>   Best of both worlds.

Just try to imagine it, if we were physically present to each other 
but
could only communicate by computer..  We couldn't even smile at each
other because no one of us would know what the others were reading  
It
might just bugger up both worlds.

                         Best,
                                   Stanley.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:07 2000
Date: (87)   Tue 21 Sep 93 18:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sanity and Insanity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

 SR>               There was a bit I wanted to add to my last 
message on
 SR>               the subject Sociology and Psyche etc.  I hope 
it's OK
 SR>  for me to ramble on a bit?

Just fine by me.  I have browsed this message a few times and much 
of my
reply is in my last message in this thread. ( Where I quoted Kate, 
who was
reading over my shoulder.)  I am eagerly awaiting your reply on 
that one
because I thought I had clinched the matter once and for all <G>, 
by drawing
us both ( I hoped ) out of the philosophy class back into the 
unreal world
<G>.  Do you know what I mean?   What I mean is still encapsulated 
in the
title of this thread, named by Sue, who was quite clear that her so 
called
insane friend was sane and the doctors mad.  You KNOW this 
phenomena! and
not by deriving value from fact.  You know it when they come to 
take you
away ah ah!

Here I want to state the difference between Sociology and 
Sociometry.  I am
a Moreno fan on this.  Moreno is sooo situational.  As you said 
that is
where we gain our common ground.

 SR>  What I really missed out on was saying
 SR>  enough about 'statements of fact' and 'statements of value'. 
Forgive
 SR>  me if I repeat things you already know, but to say them 
clearly is
 SR>  essential to my thesis.

 SR>           I said 'value' cannot be derived from 'facts'  I 
should have
 SR> said more fully:  'statements of value cannot be derived from 
matters
 SR> of fact' Statements of value have to do with good, bad; right 
wrong;
 SR> better, worse; ought and ought not. These are ethical 
judgments or
 SR> judgments of value. Science deals with matters of fact - that 
is where
 SR> science is not tautological as in geometry.. This is standard 
stuff in
 SR> modern philosophy of science - all more or less derived from 
Hume's
 SR> Law called the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' (nothing at all like 
Hillman's
 SR> use of this term) which states:  'Conclusions about what ought 
to be
 SR> cannot be deduced from premises stating only what was, what 
is, or
 SR> what will be - or the other way round'.  A simple example 
would be a
 SR> statement like, 'The atom bomb ought not to be made'. There is
 SR> nothing in physics from which we can derived the ethical 
'ought not'.
 SR> Moral or ethical principles are excluded IN PRINCIPLE from 
physics
 SR> which deals only in matters of fact.

 SR>           In a similar way ethical values cannot be derived from
 SR> sociology. Sociology can examine social systems of value AS 
MATTERS OF
 SR> FACT within its purview, but as a science it cannot pass its 
own value
 SR> judgments upon them. This being so there is nothing sociology 
can
 SR> provide us with except information, theories, hypotheses, none 
of
 SR> which can tell us which social phenomena is better or worse in 
terms
 SR> of value. Such judgments come from another sphere.

That is where sociology is just off the mark, not a useful 
discipline at
all, obscures rather than makes visible.


 SR> ... But I've been thinking. From our point of view, judgments
 SR> of value can be said to arise from the psyche. It is the soul 
that
 SR> gives us our sense of values. Which is to say, of course, that 
values
 SR> are mythic. They are not and cannot be derived from any rational
 SR> world-view, unless we admit that rational world views are 
themselves
 SR> mythic - an idea which rational world views resist, of course,
 SR> because of their desire to be 'universal' and 'objective'.

Exactly

 SR>           My point is, of course, that when you use a social 
analysis
 SR>  in order to view a case, you are simply seeing the case 
against the
 SR>  current operative mythic background and its values,  against 
which
 SR>  you oppose a different myth with different values.  All of 
which are
 SR>  psychic events. And this is so however much you insist that 
some
 SR>  psychic events are better than others, which, of course, from a
 SR>  radical polycentric view you cannot legitimately do.

This is where I get all tangled up.  The social analysis I refer to 
is much
more akin to the soul perspective that you refer to.  I is in the 
room just
like the psyche, just waiting to be 'seen'.

But I still see there being progress in the poly world.  That is 
were I see
myself as a Darwin.  Within the psyche, as in the world,  when the 
bombs
drop we run.  The psyche is an *evolving* critter.  Certain things 
were not
possible for the psyche, it is tied in with the world.  For example 
this BBS
is a window into the collective psyche that will have an impact on 
it!  I am
not being grandiose, I realise the impact is small, but it is 
there.  I
suppose this means that I think there is a genetic basis for the 
archetypes,
that they evolve along with us, but even more so the 'conserved' 
world of
art and literature etc. has its impact on soul.  Maybe nature and 
nurture
creates the will of the gods!  What do you think this vale of soul 
making is
all about if it does not change soul as we keep on doing it?

 SR>           The mythic nature of values DOES give them a certain
 SR> objectivity. Myths are objective to the PERSON, so that values 
are not
 SR> merely personal.

And objective to the collective too.  In groups I experience the 
greater sum
of the parts,  again tho use this BBS as an example, do you not 
sense that
between the four of us there is a grappling going on that is 
greater than
any of us knew about?  Naming that is an art, and once named it 
would be not
be true or false, but we would admire it for its objectivity, its 
ability to
get to the heart of the matter.

 SR> But at the same time, they are relative to other
 SR> myths carrying there own values. This would be to recognize the
 SR> multiplicity of the psyche - which you say that you do. .

Yes, there may be many myths through which one could view, or name, 
say, the
grappling on the BBS (even 'grappling' gives an inkling does it 
not?)  but
whatever gave us the greater sense of Ahah, and collective ahah we 
would
then be in the realm of that myth, there is not much choice here.

I am seeing the grappling going on as I write, a familiar theme is 
present,
Tao or Existentialism?  Can we create or are we at the mercy of the 
gods?

 SR>            Such a recognition is true  multiculturalism.  One 
might
 SR>  add, for what it's worth:  it is also non-patriarchal, 
non-racial,
 SR>  non- sexist, non-ageist, non-poweroverist and non-theocratic, 
and in
 SR>  the best English philosophical tradition

Yes, with that sort of openness, going deeper, a truth can emerge,
experientially.


 SR> Sincerely, Your Erstwhile Friends,
 SR>                                    David Hume
 SR>                                    John Locke
 SR>                                    Thomas Hobbs
 SR>                                    Francis Bacon
 SR>                                    Ludwig Wittgenstein
 SR>                                    Bertrand Russell
 SR>                                    Karl Popper
 SR>                                    Yasser Arafat and the P.L.O
 SR>                                    The Maori Queen
 SR>                                    And The Entire Cast of
 SR>                                              Coronation Street.


After what Arafat has been agreeing to I'm sure well all agree!

Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:07 2000
Date: (68)   Tue 14 Sep 93 18:34                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Sanity and Insanity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

          I said 'value' cannot be derived from 'facts'  I should 
have
said more fully:  'statements of value cannot be derived from 
matters of
fact' Statements of value have to do with good, bad; right wrong;
better, worse; ought and ought not. These are ethical judgments or
judgments of value. Science deals with matters of fact - that is 
where
science is not tautological as in geometry.. This is standard stuff 
in
modern philosophy of science - all more or less derived from Hume's 
Law
called the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' (nothing at all like Hillman's 
use of
this term) which states:  'Conclusions about what ought to be 
cannot be
deduced from premises stating only what was, what is, or what will 
be -
or the other way round'.  A simple example would be a statement like,
'The atom bomb ought not to be made'. There is nothing in physics 
from
which we can derived the ethical 'ought not'. Moral or ethical
principles are excluded IN PRINCIPLE from physics which deals only in
matters of fact.

          In a similar way ethical values cannot be derived from
sociology. Sociology can examine social systems of value AS MATTERS 
OF
FACT within its purview, but as a science it cannot pass its own 
value
judgments upon them. This being so there is nothing sociology can
provide us with except information, theories, hypotheses, none of 
which
can tell us which social phenomena is better or worse in terms of 
value.
Such judgments come from another sphere.

          The strict logical positivist would say that value 
judgments
are nothing more than the words we give to our feelings (called The 
Boo-
Hurrah-theory) and that there is no other 'ground' for them than 
that.
... But I've been thinking. From our point of view, judgments of 
value
can be said to arise from the psyche. It is the soul that gives us 
our
sense of values. Which is to say, of course, that values are mythic.
They are not and cannot be derived from any rational world-view, 
unless
we admit that rational world views are themselves mythic - an idea 
which
rational world views resist, of course, because of their desire to be
'universal' and 'objective'.

          My point is, of course, that when you use a social 
analysis in
order to view a case, you are simply seeing the case against the 
current
operative mythic background and its values,  against which you 
oppose a
different myth with different values.  All of which are psychic 
events.
And this is so however much you insist that some psychic events are
better than others, which, of course, from a radical polycentric view
you cannot legitimately do.

          The mythic nature of values DOES give them a certain
objectivity. Myths are objective to the PERSON, so that values are 
not
merely personal. But at the same time, they are relative to other 
myths
carrying there own values. This would be to recognize the 
multiplicity
of the psyche - which you say that you do. .

           Such a recognition is true  multiculturalism.  One might 
add,
for what it's worth:  it is also non-patriarchal, non-racial, non-
sexist, non-ageist, non-poweroverist and non-theocratic, and in the 
best
English philosophical tradition

Sincerely, Your Erstwhile Friends,
                                   David Hume
                                   John Locke
                                   Thomas Hobbs
                                   Francis Bacon
                                   Ludwig Wittgenstein
                                   Bertrand Russell
                                   Karl Popper
                                   Yasser Arafat and the P.L.O
                                   The Maori Queen
                                   And The Entire Cast of
                                             Coronation Street.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (124)   Sat 9 Oct 93 16:07                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Sanity and Insanity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

          I said 'value' cannot be derived from 'facts'  I should 
have
said more fully:  'statements of value cannot be derived from 
matters of
fact' Statements of value have to do with good, bad; right wrong;
better, worse; ought and ought not. These are ethical judgments or
judgments of value. Science deals with matters of fact - that is 
where
science is not tautological as in geometry.. This is standard stuff 
in
modern philosophy of science - all more or less derived from Hume's 
Law
called the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' (nothing at all like Hillman's 
use of
this term) which states:  'Conclusions about what ought to be 
cannot be
deduced from premises stating only what was, what is, or what will 
be -
or the other way round'.  A simple example would be a statement like,
'The atom bomb ought not to be made'. There is nothing in physics 
from
which we can derived the ethical 'ought not'. Moral or ethical
principles are excluded IN PRINCIPLE from physics which deals only in
matters of fact.

          In a similar way ethical values cannot be derived from
sociology. Sociology can examine social systems of value AS MATTERS 
OF
FACT within its purview, but as a science it cannot pass its own 
value
judgments upon them. This being so there is nothing sociology can
provide us with except information, theories, hypotheses, none of 
which
can tell us which social phenomena is better or worse in terms of 
value.
Such judgments come from another sphere.

          The strict logical positivist would say that value 
judgments
are nothing more than the words we give to our feelings (called The 
Boo-
Hurrah-theory) and that there is no other 'ground' for them than 
that.
... But I've been thinking. From our point of view, judgments of 
value
can be said to arise from the psyche. It is the soul that gives us 
our
sense of values. Which is to say, of course, that values are mythic.
They are not and cannot be derived from any rational world-view, 
unless
we admit that rational world views are themselves mythic - an idea 
which
rational world views resist, of course, because of their desire to be
'universal' and 'objective'.

          My point is, of course, that when you use a social 
analysis in
order to view a case, you are simply seeing the case against the 
current
operative mythic background and its values,  against which you 
oppose a
different myth with different values.  All of which are psychic 
events.
And this is so however much you insist that some psychic events are
better than others, which, of course, from a radical polycentric view
you cannot legitimately do.

          The mythic nature of values DOES give them a certain
objectivity. Myths are objective to the PERSON, so that values are 
not
merely personal. But at the same time, they are relative to other 
myths
carrying there own values. This would be to recognize the 
multiplicity
of the psyche - which you say that you do. .

           Such a recognition is true  multiculturalism.  One might 
add,
for what it's worth:  it is also non-patriarchal, non-racial, non-
sexist, non-ageist, non-poweroverist and non-theocratic, and in the 
best
English philosophical tradition

Sincerely, Your Erstwhile Friends,
                                   David Hume
                                   John Locke
                                   Thomas Hobbs
                                   Francis Bacon
                                   Ludwig Wittgenstein
                                   Bertrand Russell
                                   Karl Popper
                                   Yasser Arafat and the P.L.O
                                   The Maori Queen
                                   And The Entire Cast of
                                             Coronation Street.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (90)   Tue 21 Sep 93 22:59                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Consultant
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


      ====================== Walter Logeman =====================
      ==================== Psybernet Consultant =================

I work as a psychotherapist and counsellor,  my background is in 
teaching
and community & social work.  I am the originator of Psybernet.

I am offering to work via this BBS as a Consultant, at present I 
have some
time available to do this work.

As your Psybernet Consultant I *will*:

      *  Form a professional relationship with you.  I will bring 
myself
         into this as fully as I can and is appropriate.

      *  Form an agreement with you about the nature of the work 
you wish
         to do, its purpose, duration, the form it will take, my 
level of
         involvement, method of payment.

      *  Read your correspondence and respond, as a listener,
         with an ear for the psychological depths.

      *  Create challenges for you to take up if you will.

I *may*, depending on our agreement:

      *  Involve myself as a trainer, coach, supervisor,
         therapeutic guide, or other capacities that are appropriate.


You *may* wish to write about any of the following, or other topics:


      *  Dreams
      *  Feelings
      *  Things you wish to change
      *  Love and sex
      *  Spirituality
      *  Your depths
      *  Professional identity and purpose
      *  Therapy
      *  Inner dialogues
      *  Experiences from your life.
      *  Health



We can agree upon a suitable amount of time per week or month for my
involvement.  You, of course, may make the time for this to exactly 
suit
your style of work!  I will respond with private mail and the work is
confidential.  I have regular professional supervision on this work.

My fee for consultancy is $40 per hour.  In one hour I can read and 
respond
to 2 average messages, with depth content.  I have written as many 
as 17
messages in an hour, so it is hard to say exactly will happen in 
our agreed
upon time.


You may wish to investigate further before you make a decision.  
You can
read material I have written in the Psybernet Conference.  There is 
a file
in the Psybernet Main Library called Medium Doc??  'The 
Possibilities of
Psybernet.' I am looking forward to hearing from you, if you have
general questions please ask them in the Psybernet Conference.

To request for me to be your Psybernet Consultant please reply to 
any parts
of this message and let me know what you would like from the 
correspondence.
I request payment of $160 with your application, for the first four 
hours of
my involvement, by cheque to PO Box 13543 Christchurch or through the
Registration Menu by Visa (If we've got it working <g>).

Walter



PS Disclaimer:  No outcome of any sort is promised or implied.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (107)   Fri 1 Oct 93 16:04                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: The art of the impossible
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

                      == The Art of the Impossible ==


If politics is the art of the possible then surely writing 
psychologically
is the art of the impossible.  Words, wonderful as they are, are 
somewhere
alongside the psychological they describe.

Which brings me to the thing I wanted to write about, naming threads.

What is a thread.  It is a string of messages with the same subject 
heading.
Reg got me clear on this aspect of it the other day.  Same subject 
heading.
Not same subject!  Not same theme necessarily.

The subject heading sometimes has more punch than you realise, 
unconsciously
it influences the writers and as Reg pointed out:  Threads have a 
way of
looping back on themselves.

There is something elegant about a thread name that is inclusive 
and can
survive for a while.  I enjoyed the title 'Zen and the art of Oz' 
on the
OzCis support forum on CompuServe.  It served as a sort of catch 
all chat.
At the same time the theme of Zen and Art and style continued to 
recur.
'Sanity and Insanity'  a thread coined by Sue Townsend, I think 
will have a
lot of life in it yet, it can cover just about anything and yet it 
will
cover the serious questions implied in those words.

One of the reasons I like threads not to change their name too 
often is that
I manage my mail by thread, ie subject title.  I sometimes collect 
all the
messages in a thread, using the search facility in SX.  Print them 
out, bind
them with an instant binder, and take them to bed like I would a 
novel.  It
is surprising how that gives a unity to the discussion and it will 
stimulate
me to reply *to the thread* as opposed to a specific message.  It 
is the
threads too that we save when the board needs pruning.  Old threads 
are in
the File library.

Name any message any bloody thing you like.

I think there are no rules in this.  Sometimes a message just needs 
a new
name and that is it.  Some are just not destined for threads.  They 
may just
be a little jewel in the tapestry!

Some messages have a formality that gives some sense of order to 
the mail
area it is in  eg == ANNOUNCEMENT ==.  In a Psybernet Group each 
person
might introduce themselves fully and answer some questions put by the
leader, it would help if these messages all took the form 
'Introducing John'
Boring!   Is lassais faire the best policy?  To let the group thread
whicheverway it threads or is there some useful interventions that 
members
or the group leaders can make.  I really don't know and I am keen 
to see if
*this* thread will produce some gems at some point.

What are some favourite thread titles you have seen.  What do they 
do for
you?

Read any good threads lately?  <G>  ( A reference to a thread I 
started on
books but have had little response to )



See you,
Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (104)   Fri 1 Oct 93  3:12                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: The art of the impossible
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

                      == The Art of the Impossible ==


If politics is the art of the possible then surely writing 
psychologically
is the art of the impossible.  Words, wonderful as they are, are 
somewhere
alongside the psychological they describe.

Which brings me to the thing I wanted to write about, naming threads.

What is a thread.  It is a string of messages with the same subject 
heading.
Reg got me clear on this aspect of it the other day.  Same subject 
heading.
Not same subject!  Not same theme necessarily.

The subject heading sometimes has more punch than you realise, 
unconsciously
it influences the writers and as Reg pointed out:  Threads have a 
way of
looping back on themselves.

There is something elegant about a thread name that is inclusive 
and can
survive for a while.  I enjoyed the title 'Zen and the art of Oz' 
on the
OzCis support forum on CompuServe.  It served as a sort of catch 
all chat.
At the same time the theme of Zen and Art and style continued to 
recur.
'Sanity and Insanity'  a thread coined by Sue Townsend, I think 
will have a
lot of life in it yet, it can cover just about anything and yet it 
will
cover the serious questions implied in those words.

One of the reasons I like threads not to change their name too 
often is that
I manage my mail by thread, ie subject title.  I sometimes collect 
all the
messages in a thread, using the search facility in SX.  Print them 
out, bind
them with an instant binder, and take them to bed like I would a 
novel.  It
is surprising how that gives a unity to the discussion and it will 
stimulate
me to reply *to the thread* as opposed to a specific message.  It 
is the
threads too that we save when the board needs pruning.  Old threads 
are in
the File library.

Name any message any bloody thing you like.

I think there are no rules in this.  Sometimes a message just needs 
a new
name and that is it.  Some are just not destined for threads.  They 
may just
be a little jewel in the tapestry!

Some messages have a formality that gives some sense of order to 
the mail
area it is in  eg == ANNOUNCEMENT ==.  In a Psybernet Group each 
person
might introduce themselves fully and answer some questions put by the
leader, it would help if these messages all took the form 
'Introducing John'
Boring!   Is lassais faire the best policy?  To let the group thread
whicheverway it threads or is there some useful interventions that 
members
or the group leaders can make.  I really don't know and I am keen 
to see if
*this* thread will produce some gems at some point.

What are some favourite thread titles you have seen.  What do they 
do for
you?

Read any good threads lately?  <G>  ( A reference to a thread I 
started on
books but have had little response to )



See you,
Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (117)   Thu 7 Oct 93  2:20                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: The art of the impossible
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
 WL>> ALL

 WL>>                       == The Art of the Impossible ==


 WL>> If politics is the art of the possible then surely writing
 WL>> psychologically is the art of the impossible.  Words, wonderful
 WL>> as they are, are somewhere alongside the psychological they
 WL>> describe.

 SR>           The art of psychological language is something which
 SR> fascinates me. But in this message we are not talking about 
style, a
 SR> problem which is not specific to this medium - rather we are 
talking
 SR> about 'threads' which is.

 WL>> Which brings me to the thing I wanted to write about, naming
 WL>> threads.

 WL>> What is a thread.  It is a string of messages with the same
 WL>> subject heading. Reg got me clear on this aspect of it the
 WL>> other day.  Same subject heading. Not same subject!  Not same
 WL>> theme necessarily.

 WL>> The subject heading sometimes has more punch than you realise,
 WL>> unconsciously it influences the writers and as Reg pointed out:
 WL>>  Threads have a way of looping back on themselves.

 SR>           So a thread is not dictated by the heading and it is 
not
 SR> dictated by any single theme. The best we can say is that 
there are
 SR> unconscious influences at work.  If that is so then any 
attempt to
 SR> manipulate them consciously would perhaps be a mistake.  But I 
do
 SR> think it seems to suggest that headings be left alone to fend 
for
 SR> themselves, to let attract whatever they do and die when do. 
So would
 SR> it be a good guiding principle never to change heading, but 
when you
 SR> have something you want to say that doesn't seem fit any 
existing
 SR> heading, or you simply feel the urge, start a new heading 
without
 SR> reference to anything else. It will survive or not according 
to it
 SR> psychological magnetism

 SR>                     Anyway, I think for the moment that is the
 SR>  principle I will follow.


Yes but in replying to a message you don't always need to use the 
title of
the old message.  Giving it a new title creates a new thread.  (or 
a dead
end, depending on the will of the gods.)

 WL>> There is something elegant about a thread name that is
 WL>> inclusive and can survive for a while.  I enjoyed the title
 WL>> 'Zen and the art of Oz' on the OzCis support forum on
 WL>> CompuServe.  It served as a sort of catch all chat. At the same
 WL>> time the theme of Zen and Art and style continued to recur.
 WL>> 'Sanity and Insanity'  a thread coined by Sue Townsend, I think
 WL>> will have a lot of life in it yet, it can cover just about
 WL>> anything and yet it will cover the serious questions implied in
 WL>> those words.

 SR>           Yes, that sounds right.

 WL>> One of the reasons I like threads not to change their name too
 WL>> often is that I manage my mail by thread, ie subject title.  I
 WL>> sometimes collect all the messages in a thread, using the
 WL>> search facility in SX.  Print them out, bind them with an
 WL>> instant binder, and take them to bed like I would a novel.  It

 SR>           That sounds interesting. What I have been doing is 
importing
 SR> the content of some messages into Word for Windows where I can
 SR> incorporate them into my Diary


 WL>> is surprising how that gives a unity to the discussion and it
 WL>> will stimulate me to reply *to the thread* as opposed to a
 WL>> specific message.  It is the threads too that we save when the
 WL>> board needs pruning.  Old threads are in the File library.



 WL>> Name any message any bloody thing you like.

 SR>           Yes, if you are starting *new* one. And any message 
can be
 SR>  new by having a new heading. But such a new one wouldn't 
contain
 SR>  quotes. That would amount to *changing* a message title, 
wouldn't
 SR>  it?  I suppose you couldn't make it a rule not to do this, but
 SR>  perhaps we could agree not to as a matter of etiquette - on a 
'Let
 SR>  Live and Let Die' principle

Ah, this is what I was getting at, you could reply twice (or more!) 
say to
this message, once quoting stuff on threads and how they relate to 
( the
impossible art of) psychological writing.  (Which I see as the 
overt theme)
and you may write another one responding to an obscure side track 
that you'd
like to see given more life!  Both messages would have quotes in 
them.  it
often happens that way!  (even in the short life of this BBS)

 WL>> I think there are no rules in this.  Sometimes a message just
 WL>> needs a new name and that is it.  Some are just not destined
 WL>> for threads.  They may just be a little jewel in the tapestry!

 WL>> Some messages have a formality that gives some sense of order
 WL>> to the mail area it is in  eg == ANNOUNCEMENT ==.  In a
 WL>> Psybernet Group each person might introduce themselves fully
 WL>> and answer some questions put by the leader, it would help if
 WL>> these messages all took the form 'Introducing John' Boring!
 WL>> Is lassais faire the best policy?  To let the group thread
 WL>> whicheverway it threads or is there some useful interventions
 WL>> that members or the group leaders can make.  I really don't
 WL>> know and I am keen to see if *this* thread will produce some
 WL>> gems at some point.

 SR> Not a bad idea with a new group. Worth a try.

 WL>> What are some favourite thread titles you have seen.  What do
 WL>> they do for you?

 SR> Well, the Ontology one grabbed me but it didn't seem to have 
survival
 SR> quality. Fair enough!

 WL>> Read any good threads lately?  <G>  ( A reference to a thread I
 WL>> started on books but have had little response to )

 SR> Perhaps like me since Psybernet, we have all given up reading!


All but this  momentus tomb of psycho-didgitalia!  Not me though,

I'm reading:

A Thousand Acres  Jane Smiley  A novel about relationships a modern 
King
Lear.

The Whole Internet Guide   Ed Kroll.  Fascinating, though I just 
read a
message that Wildcat BBS now has an Internet door! Made me really 
envious.
It is quite a complex procedure with RA the software we run here!  
I think
that Psybernet will benefit a lot from connecting to the Internet.  
Does
maximus have such a door?  (Steve?  are you there?)

Exploring the Internet,  A technical Travelogue.  Carl Malamund.
Fascinating list of acronyms strung together with accounts of 
exotic food.

Women respond to the Men's Movement.  Ed Kay Leigh Hagan.  Best 
book on the
men's movement I've read.

Anna Freud  A Biography  Elisabeth Young-Bruehl  Interesting when 
I'm in the
mood.

The manual for Stacker 3.1 for DOS 6!  Which means that my notebook 
is now
running twice the speed it did on doublespace!!!  Hooray, took 
about a year
to do that little job.


There, Stanley, the opportunity for a thousand threads!


BTW


=== ANNOUNCEMENT ===   Silver Xpress readers!

I have registrations for this useful program available at NZ$ 42  
that is
better than the usual  $72  if you do it direct.  Leave your name 
here and
get me the money in NZ$  and you will get a disk in the mail from 
them with
the registration code for the name you use.


( I'll reply & start a new thread on this one)





See you,
Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:09 2000
Date: (113)   Wed 6 Oct 93 17:14                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: The art of the impossible
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
 WL> ALL

 WL>                       == The Art of the Impossible ==


 WL> If politics is the art of the possible then surely writing
 WL> psychologically is the art of the impossible.  Words, wonderful
 WL> as they are, are somewhere alongside the psychological they
 WL> describe.

          The art of psychological language is something which
fascinates me. But in this message we are not talking about style, a
problem which is not specific to this medium - rather we are talking
about 'threads' which is.

 WL> Which brings me to the thing I wanted to write about, naming
 WL> threads.

 WL> What is a thread.  It is a string of messages with the same
 WL> subject heading. Reg got me clear on this aspect of it the
 WL> other day.  Same subject heading. Not same subject!  Not same
 WL> theme necessarily.

 WL> The subject heading sometimes has more punch than you realise,
 WL> unconsciously it influences the writers and as Reg pointed out:
 WL>  Threads have a way of looping back on themselves.

          So a thread is not dictated by the heading and it is not
dictated by any single theme. The best we can say is that there are
unconscious influences at work.  If that is so then any attempt to
manipulate them consciously would perhaps be a mistake.  But I do 
think
it seems to suggest that headings be left alone to fend for 
themselves,
to let attract whatever they do and die when do. So would it be a 
good
guiding principle never to change heading, but when you have 
something
you want to say that doesn't seem fit any existing heading, or you
simply feel the urge, start a new heading without reference to 
anything
else. It will survive or not according to it psychological magnetism

                    Anyway, I think for the moment that is the 
principle
I will follow.

 WL> There is something elegant about a thread name that is
 WL> inclusive and can survive for a while.  I enjoyed the title
 WL> 'Zen and the art of Oz' on the OzCis support forum on
 WL> CompuServe.  It served as a sort of catch all chat. At the same
 WL> time the theme of Zen and Art and style continued to recur.
 WL> 'Sanity and Insanity'  a thread coined by Sue Townsend, I think
 WL> will have a lot of life in it yet, it can cover just about
 WL> anything and yet it will cover the serious questions implied in
 WL> those words.

          Yes, that sounds right.

 WL> One of the reasons I like threads not to change their name too
 WL> often is that I manage my mail by thread, ie subject title.  I
 WL> sometimes collect all the messages in a thread, using the
 WL> search facility in SX.  Print them out, bind them with an
 WL> instant binder, and take them to bed like I would a novel.  It

          That sounds interesting. What I have been doing is 
importing
the content of some messages into Word for Windows where I can
incorporate them into my Diary


 WL> is surprising how that gives a unity to the discussion and it
 WL> will stimulate me to reply *to the thread* as opposed to a
 WL> specific message.  It is the threads too that we save when the
 WL> board needs pruning.  Old threads are in the File library.



 WL> Name any message any bloody thing you like.

          Yes, if you are starting *new* one. And any message can 
be new
by having a new heading. But such a new one wouldn't contain quotes.
That would amount to *changing* a message title, wouldn't it?  I 
suppose
you couldn't make it a rule not to do this, but perhaps we could 
agree
not to as a matter of etiquette - on a 'Let Live and Let Die' 
principle

 WL> I think there are no rules in this.  Sometimes a message just
 WL> needs a new name and that is it.  Some are just not destined
 WL> for threads.  They may just be a little jewel in the tapestry!

 WL> Some messages have a formality that gives some sense of order
 WL> to the mail area it is in  eg == ANNOUNCEMENT ==.  In a
 WL> Psybernet Group each person might introduce themselves fully
 WL> and answer some questions put by the leader, it would help if
 WL> these messages all took the form 'Introducing John' Boring!
 WL> Is lassais faire the best policy?  To let the group thread
 WL> whicheverway it threads or is there some useful interventions
 WL> that members or the group leaders can make.  I really don't
 WL> know and I am keen to see if *this* thread will produce some
 WL> gems at some point.

Not a bad idea with a new group. Worth a try.

 WL> What are some favourite thread titles you have seen.  What do
 WL> they do for you?

Well, the Ontology one grabbed me but it didn't seem to have survival
quality. Fair enough!

 WL> Read any good threads lately?  <G>  ( A reference to a thread I
 WL> started on books but have had little response to )

Perhaps like me since Psybernet, we have all given up reading!

                              Best,
                                   Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (126)   Sat 9 Oct 93 16:07                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: The art of the impossible
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 DEAR  ALL        9 Oct

 WL>>>                       == The Art of the Impossible ==


 WL>>> If politics is the art of the possible then surely writing
 WL>>> psychologically is the art of the impossible.  Words, 
wonderful
 WL>>> as they are, are somewhere alongside the psychological they
 WL>>> describe.

I'm going to try your advice of giving two different answers to this
message.

           The idea of words describing a psycholgical reality 
carries
an interesting assumption.  It assumes that psychological reality 
is one
thing, complete in itself, and the words with which we describe that
reality another. It suggests that the problem of psychological 
writing
is simply to find the right words to describe a pre-existing
psychological reality of which we are already adequately aware.

          I think this view ignores a very important observable 
truth,
namely, that the psychological language we use alters psychological
reality itself. So that in some sense HOW we describe something 
actually
creates what we are supposedly describing.

          The problem is that the psyche is inherently creative. So 
that
if we begin by postulating 'The Id' for example, or 'The Adult, or 
'The
Unconscious' or 'Aggression' or 'The Ego', before very long these 
terms
have ceased to be postulates of things that may be, or just ways of
thinking about things, and have become things which actually do 
exist.
In such cases that naming of the thing precedes the existence of the
thing. People then start talking about the ego, for example, as 
though
it actually existed.  When literalism has got that far we are 
starting
to live in a fairy-land.  And that's Ok so long as you know you are 
in
mythology and that the basic subject matter of psychology is the
psyche's ability to create fiction


                         Best,
                                   Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (470)   Mon 17 Jan 94 15:37                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: The art of the impossible
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ea746249

17 January, 1994
Mt Lyford
Psybernet Conference, public.


 SR>           The problem is that the psyche is inherently creative.
 SR> So that if we begin by postulating 'The Id' for example, or 'The
 SR> Adult, or 'The Unconscious' or 'Aggression' or 'The Ego', before
 SR> very long these terms have ceased to be postulates of things 
that
 SR> may be, or just ways of thinking about things, and have become
 SR> things which actually do exist. In such cases that naming of the
 SR> thing precedes the existence of the thing. People then start
 SR> talking about the ego, for example, as though it actually
 SR> existed.  When literalism has got that far we are starting to
 SR> live in a fairy-land.  And that's Ok so long as you know you are
 SR> in mythology and that the basic subject matter of psychology is
 SR> the psyche's ability to create fiction

I have been reading this with the idea of alters in mind, Mildred and
Agnes.  If they ever forgot that they

 SR> live in a fairy-land.  And ... are
 SR> in mythology and that the basic subject matter of psychology is
 SR> the psyche's ability to create fiction

then we'd be in trouble.

OK knowing the difference is one thing, how to value these mythical
creations and how to let them live is another question.


Not through with this,


Walter.

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:08 2000
Date: (105)   Fri 1 Oct 93  9:41                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Dream Group
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


                 ͻ
                                * DREAM GROUP *             
                 1/4


  >         > ******** Applications for Enrolment now Open *******  <

  Dreams,
  Speaking from the deep
  Songs of the night
  Dramas of the soul
  Awaken us.

In this on-line group, here on Psybernet you will be able to write 
up your
dreams and to let them speak.  We will work together on the dreams 
and you
will be able to learn about dream work by involving yourself with 
the group
members.  We will see how the dreams guide us in our groupwork!

A new group will commence each time there are *five* enrolments.  
The group
will be confidential to its members and no new people can join a 
group once
it starts.

Group members will have access to files, and other material 
specifically
related to the Dream Group.

I will lead the group by attending to the process, for example 
suggesting
that all group members participate in an on-line activity, or I may
summarise the themes that are emerging.  I will bring my experience 
of
working with dreams and the unconscious to the group.  On occasions 
I may
share some of my own dreams and stories, I will use my input to 
help the
group's life.  I have a background in Psychodrama and an interest 
in depth
psychology, dreams and the unconscious.  A file called WL.DOC 
(soon) in the
Psybernet Main Library will tell you more about me and the work I do.

The group will run for six months from the commencement day.  You 
will be
notified a week before.  There is an understanding that members 
will make
participation a priority in their life, with approximately weekly 
input.
The fee is $NZ 150.  (includes GST).  You will need to be a 
subscriber to
Psybernet to participate.

To enrol please reply to this message (use Local Mail which is 
private) and
let me know something about you and your interest and hopes for 
this group.
Forward the fee to Psybernet PO Box 13543 Christchurch, or pay via 
the
Registration Menu with Visa (soon).  Please include a phone or fax 
number
and a mailing address.

Have you read the disclaimer file (available soon) and do you 
understand the
implications?

Please feel free to ask questions or make comments in this 
Conference about
this group.

Looking forward to hearing from you,


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (130)   Fri 15 Oct 93 20:42                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Life with a computer!
St: Local Sent
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 90145b78
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

Hard disks crashing!

I have been working hard on my 386 sx 40meg NB.  It was going at a 
snails
pace for months under MS Doublespace.  I got it going well by 
installing
Stacker 3.1.  The speed was back up to what I used to have before 
disk
compression.  Then Crash.  After trying every trick in the book, 
and then
some, I had to reformat the disk, nothing  else for it.  For about 
the
fourth time!  Now I am going to run it as a DOS machine, I'll use 
Deskview
for multi tasking.  That will be good for me as we will run the BBS 
under
that soon, so we will have two nodes going.

Then today,

On my main desktop, no C drive, gone! while Rebecca was in W4W.

So here I am writing this on the BBS machine. . .  which I will 
make a
backup of RSN (real soon now).  I did back it up a few days ago but 
Reg has
done heaps since then and I just dont trust the things.  We have 
had an
absolute flurry of sotware wars here, but harly a word into the 
message
base.

BTW if you could'nt get onto the BBS in the last day or so that was 
because
we took a while to get if going after a major update of software.  
Should be
OK again now.

Is it all worth it?

bye for now,

Walter.






S

---
 * Origin: Psbernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) v32?  ChCh New Zealand 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (145)   Sat 23 Oct 93 14:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hi,

 WL> Hi,

 WL> Hard disks crashing!


It has been a techno-time in Psybernet territory.  We have been doing
wonderful software work on the BBS,  and I have been re-installing 
two
machines, which means that until now I have been without my access 
to the
usual ways of messaging.  Have missed it!  have had my silicone fix
though, many late nights re-configuring.  The usual story, battling 
away
in DOS without a mouse!  Then navigating windows without Norton's 
desktop,
something I have never done for more than hour or so.


 WL> I have been working hard on my 386 sx 40meg NB.  It was going
 WL> at a snails pace for months under MS Doublespace.  I got it
 WL> going well by installing Stacker 3.1.  The speed was back up to
 WL> what I used to have before disk compression.  Then Crash.
 WL> After trying every trick in the book, and then some, I had to
 WL> reformat the disk, nothing  else for it.  For about the fourth
 WL> time!  Now I am going to run it as a DOS machine,

Changed my mind!  I need my usual interface or I am not at ease.  
Got a
good deal on a new Hard disk, will upgrade to 160mb.  That will 
give this
Notebook some life yet.

 WL> Then today,
 WL> On my main desktop, no C drive, gone! while Rebecca was in W4W.

And it was GONE too, they put in a new one.  SO I have invested in 
a tape
backup for Psybernet.  Working fine.  I am up here at Mt Lyford, 
and last
night I backed up my portable machine in 20 min, while I did the 
dishes.
Much better, I will keep it up too!  I've also got the whole BBS 
c:*.* on
a tape,

 WL>  We have had an absolute flurry of software
 WL> wars here, but hardly a word into the message base.

That should change now with a bit of luck!  <G>  Looking forward to 
some
writing.



All for now,


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (150)   Thu 28 Oct 93 12:29                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hello Reg,


 RS> 16 June, 2052


Is that a reference to the message number?

They seem to be changing again.

 RS>  Hi,

 WL>> Hard disks crashing!

 WL>> On my main desktop, no C drive, gone! while Rebecca was in W4W.

 RS> I think (hope) it is just the CMOS setup.

Nope!

Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (140)   Wed 20 Oct 93  9:18                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


16 June, 2052

 Hi,

 WL> Hard disks crashing!

My own main HD came very close to crashing last week, it was making
unnatural high pitched noises every time I tried to access a 
certain part
of it. I had only had it six months so was not feeling very 
impressed, not
to mention that sickening feeling in my stomach. I regularly back 
up all
my data files, but to do a full backup would have meant feeding in 
seventy
odd high density disks over the space of nearly an hr. Not to worry 
the
supplier happily replaced it with another and . I hope it goes for 
more
than six months.

 WL> Then today,

 WL> On my main desktop, no C drive, gone! while Rebecca was in W4W.

I think (hope) it is just the CMOS setup.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (155)   Sun 31 Oct 93 21:08                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hi ALL


Am rather pleased with how all the computering is going.  I have that
wonderful Trakker machine.  We have now got most things BUpped 
well.  I am
writing this on the NB and it is well behaved (touch wood)  Lost a 
few
messages I had not sent the other day, they are still on the 40mb 
disk.
This is a 139mb one not 160 as I was led to expect.  Will go and get
justice done!  I have just put W4W on this machine and Nortons 
Desktop for
DOS.  I did it all by copying it from the BBS BU!  It just whirred 
away
while I had dinner.

I am enjoying the N Desktop for DOS, I tend to go into Windows much 
less.
As I write this I am in SX, using WORD 6.00 as the external editor. 
 That
works well and I like WORD here because I can call up any text file 
and
copy stuff into this message, 8 open at once in fact.  I have the 
spell
checker and look what I can do with the insert command:


I also have wonderful macros and glossaries.  eg:

Welcome aboard Psybernet I hope you like this place.  It is a place 
to
talk about whatever is important for you.  Please leave a more 
detailed
message about who you are in the Psybernet Conference.  There is a 
message
there from me with some questions to get you going.

I just popped the above paragraph in by typing Welcome and hitting 
f3.


Now I call up that message to modify my glossary.  To do that I 
have the
WHOLE of Psybernet in a big text file called Search.txt, made with 
the
search facility in SX.  Now the welcome glossary looks thus:

Welcome aboard Psybernet I hope you like this place.  It is a place 
to
talk about whatever is important for you.  Please leave a message 
about
who you are in the Psybernet Conference.  To get you going there is a
message with some questions, here is the heading:

FROM:    Walter Logeman                Area # 3 (    Psybernet     )
TO:      All                           MSG # 992, Sep-12-93 11:06pm
SUBJECT: Let us know who you are.


                                  
  

So much for that diversion.

The one thing that still *really* bugs me is that  Trakker does not 
work
on my desktop.  It comes up with Error 123.  An elegant number for an
inelegant situation.


Thus is life with computers.



Bye for now


Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (158)   Tue 2 Nov 93  0:00                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hello Walter,


 RS>> 16 June, 2052

 WL> Is that a reference to the message number?

 WL> They seem to be changing again.

That was the date, have I never told you of my love of time travel, 
don't
tell anyone, but one of my favourite TV programs is The Twilight 
Zone and
I sometimes watch Quantum Leap.

No, more seriously every now and then my computer does funny things 
like
that, and the date changes itself. Well that's the official story 
that I
will tell the reporters should they call.

Bye I have just been called away by some friends.




 ......dur dur dur dur dur dur dur dur dur dur dur ......


"Ok I am ready to leave now Zuresk!  I hope you guys get me back in 
time
for my first client in the morning and go easy on the simulated REM 
sleep,
don't forget to reset the computer clock either, you nearly let the 
cat
out of the bag last time.



Bye for now 
 Reg

... Mail Media. Do not expose to Flames!
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (418)   Mon 10 Jan 94 16:19                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a3e37cd1
@REPLY: 3:770/270 233bddfc

Reg is replying to Walter who replied to Reg on 5 Jan 94 11:18am

Psybernet Conference, public.
10 January, 1994

Hello Walter,

As you can see I am back from my week down South, great little 
break and I
caught 26 trout. Also swam, read books, paddled canoes and lounged 
about.
Great weather until the last day, when it thundered and rained, so we
packed up and came home a day early.

Well that was life without a computer, now back to life with a 
computer.

 RS>> I think (hope) it is just the CMOS setup.

 WL> No Reg it was the disk itself.  I got a replacement and it 
prompted me
 WL> to get a tape BU system.  You know all this, it was a while ago.

Yep, sure was.

 WL> My current <No pun intended> problem is that the modem got 
zapped by
 WL> lightning ( I think, so all the mail is building up on the 
disk, when
 WL> you get this message it will be part of quite a swag.

Yep, did you get the modem fixed?

 WL> The other new toy is a CD-ROM and ive been enjoying some of the
 WL> spectacular stuff.  It took hours, *days* to get The 7Th Guest 
to work
 WL> on my Cirrus Vesa card, if anyone wants a few clues on that 
just ask!
 WL> That game has great graphics, wonderful sound and puzzles but 
is full
 WL> of things like babies being choked etc, even one being stabbed 
on a
 WL> Devil's Alter. Ugh.  This whole computer games and content is 
OFF!
 WL> Wolfenstein, etc.  All awful.  No worse than the rest of the 
world but
 WL> there is so little of quality around.

Yes, I guess it is a reflection on the values of the people that 
make the
programs and also what the general public demands, much like TV.



Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (401)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 233bddfc


 WL>> Then today,

 WL>> On my main desktop, no C drive, gone! while Rebecca was in W4W.

 RS> I think (hope) it is just the CMOS setup.

No Reg it was the disk itself.  I got a replacement and it prompted 
me to
get a tape BU system.  You know all this, it was a while ago.  My 
current
<No pun intended> problem is that the modem got zapped by lightning 
( I
think, so all the mail is building up on the disk, when you get 
this message
it will be part of quite a swag.

The other new toy is a CD-ROM and ive been enjoying some of the 
spectacular
stuff.  It took hours, *days* to get The 7Th Guest to work on my 
Cirrus Vesa
card, if anyone wants a few clues on that just ask!  That game has 
great
graphics, wonderful sound and puzzles but is full of things like 
babies
being choked etc, even one being stabbed on a Devil's Alter. Ugh.  
This
whole computer games and content is OFF!  Wolfenstein, etc.  All 
awful.  No
worse than the rest of the world but there is so little of quality 
around.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:25 2000
Date: (439)   Thu 13 Jan 94 22:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 4cd540c8
@REPLY: 500:1100/20 52d421fc

 >> computer.
 >> ^^^^^^^^
 >> {BTW, this is what happens even with my margins set at .8}

 RS> Yes, I am a bit baffled, why did you switch from the agreed 
upon 1cm?
 RS> or does the notebook not allow that?

I must have got confused i thought we were meant to have 0.8.  This 
one is
now set to 1.00cm each side, well see how that goes (On my DT 
machine)

 >> ALSO got a $60 surge protected junction box from HMS.

 RS> Yes I have one of those things, I don't know how good they 
are, but I
 RS> guess they are better than nothing.

 RS> bye for now regards

 RS> Reg

 RS> ---
 RS>  * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876
 RS>  (500:1100/20)

BTW Where does this origin line come from it would be better to 
have the
3:770/270 number here ??????

I have been foraging into the digital undergrowth a little.  I have
messages about SX and the THERAPIST conference etc all over. i 
would love
to be able to netmail from here, at Mt Lyford  I have messages up 
about
that too. I wonder where those messages go that i send as net mail? 
 I
have found one message on the subject, I'll get it to you, I got a 
bit
lost.

Walter


Is this 1cm margin better?

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:25 2000
Date: (434)   Thu 13 Jan 94 17:27                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 52d421fc
@REPLY: 3:770/270 3afe7c5b

Hello Walter,

I am writing this one in Gedit, as I read your message before I DL 
in SX.

 > computer.
 > ^^^^^^^^
 > {BTW, this is what happens evenwith my margins ser at .8}

Yes, I am a bit baffled, why did you switch from the agreed upon 
1cm? or does the notebook not allow that?


 > ALSO got a $60 surge protected junction box from HMS.

Yes I have one of those things, I don't know how good they are, but 
I guess they are better than nothing.

bye for now regards


Reg

---
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:25 2000
Date: (426)   Wed 12 Jan 94 23:37                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 3afe7c5b
@REPLY: 3:770/270 a3e37cd1

Hi Reg,

 RS> As you can see I am back from my week down South, great little 
break
 RS> and I caught 26 trout. Also swam, read books, paddled canoes and
 RS> lounged about. Great weather until the last day, when it 
thundered and
 RS> rained, so we packed up and came home a day early.

 RS> Well that was life without a computer, now back to life with a
computer.
^^^^^^^^
{BTW, this is what happens evenwith my margins ser at .8}

 RS> Yep, did you get the modem fixed?

It is at Malifax awaiting collection!  Anyone coming up this way?

I'm up here with the 2400 pocket modem, OK really and even OK for
Compuserve, not that i've been doing much, too busy with the 
holiday!  Even
then i couldn't use the modem on this Desktop because of the 9 pin 
24 pin
problem.  Got adapter up here now, with a friend.

ALSO got a $60 surge protected junction box from HMS.  Have 
instructed the
electician to put surge protection in the switch board too, next 
time he is
up.  That is 'Basic' and the junction box is 'fine', is this 
adequate, does
anyone know?

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:26 2000
Date: (447)   Sat 15 Jan 94 17:27                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 cbf52872
@REPLY: 500:1100/20 4cd540c8

Reg is replying to Walter who replied to Reg on 13 Jan 94 10:55pm



 RS>> Yes, I am a bit baffled, why did you switch from the agreed 
upon
1cm?
 RS>> or does the notebook not allow that?

 WL> I must have got confused i thought we were meant to have 0.8.  
This
one
 WL> is now set to 1.00cm each side, well see how that goes (On my DT
 WL> machine)

I am still getting the last word of each sentence on the next line 
when I
shell to Word and that is with mine set to 1.0cm all round. I have 
been
having this problem with both yours and Stanleys messages and am a 
bit
stumped.


 >>> ALSO got a $60 surge protected junction box from HMS.

 RS>> Yes I have one of those things, I don't know how good they 
are, but
I
 RS>> guess they are better than nothing.

 RS>> bye for now regards

 RS>> Reg

 RS>> ---
 RS>>  * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876
 RS>>  (500:1100/20)

 WL> BTW Where does this origin line come from it would be better 
to have
the
 WL> 3:770/270 number here ??????

Not sure off hand will have to investigate, would you like me to 
get rid
of the 500: net altogether now that you have full node number? That 
would
take care of it I think and make things tidier, unless you can 
think of
reason why we might need to retain it.

 WL> I have been foraging into the digital undergrowth a little.  I 
have
 WL> messages about SX and the THERAPIST conference etc all over. i 
would
 WL> love to be able to netmail from here, at Mt Lyford  I have 
messages
up
 WL> about that too. I wonder where those messages go that i send 
as net
 WL> mail?  I have found one message on the subject, I'll get it to 
you, I
 WL> got a bit lost.


OK


 WL> Is this 1cm margin better?

No (see above), I have purposely not reformatted your message so we 
can
see the extent of the problem.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (463)   Mon 17 Jan 94  1:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 e16bf5d0
@REPLY: 500:1100/20 cbf52872


 RS> I am still getting the last word of each sentence on the next 
line
when
 RS> I shell to Word and that is with mine set to 1.0cm all round. 
I have
 RS> been having this problem with both yours and Stanleys messages 
and am
a
 RS> bit stumped.

So am I.  What about 3cm (1.5 + 1.5) that is how I've set this.  That
should make all the quotes worse (they were already bad) but what 
of the
rest of the message?


 RS>>>  * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876
 RS>>>  (500:1100/20)

 WL>> BTW Where does this origin line come from it would be better 
to have
 RS> the
 WL>> 3:770/270 number here ?

 RS> Not sure off hand will have to investigate, would you like me 
to get
rid
 RS> of the 500: net altogether now that you have full node number? 
That
 RS> would take care of it I think and make things tidier, unless 
you can
 RS> think of reason why we might need to retain it.

I can't, can you?


See you soon,


Walter.



--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (481)   Wed 19 Jan 94 17:43                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 fcac5053


Reg is replying to Stanley who replied to Reg on 17 Jan 94 06:42pm


 >>> {BTW, this is what happens even with my margins set at .8}

 RS>> Yes, I am a bit baffled, why did you switch from the agreed
 RS>> upon 1cm? or does  the notebook not allow that?

 SR> Reg, I have my margins set to 1 cm again. Am I coming up ok now?

Nope, still the same problem for some lines.

 >>> ALSO got a $60 surge protected junction box from HMS.

 RS>> Yes I have one of those things, I don't know how good they are,
 RS>> but I guess  they are better than nothing.

 SR> I Switched off during the recent storms. I wonder whether I 
should
get
 SR> one of
 SR> those power surge units. And where is 'HMS'?

I think that is a brand name, Placemakers and the likes sell them, 
ask
Walter where he got his, I have had mine for ages so am probably 
less up
to date than him.


Bye for now
 Reg
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (472)   Mon 17 Jan 94 18:42                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life with a computer!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 Hello Reg
17 Jan 94,

 >> {BTW, this is what happens evenwith my margins ser at .8}

 RS> Yes, I am a bit baffled, why did you switch from the agreed
 RS> upon 1cm? or does  the notebook not allow that?

Reg, I have my margins set to 1 cm again. Am I coming up ok now?


 >> ALSO got a $60 surge protected junction box from HMS.

 RS> Yes I have one of those things, I don't know how good they are,
 RS> but I guess  they are better than nothing.

I Switched off during the recent storms. I wonder whether I should 
get one
of
those power surge units. And where is 'HMS'?



                         Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (131)   Sun 17 Oct 93 12:26                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Silver Xpress, Offline Reader.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 WL> On this board we support SX offline reader.  We have had our
 WL> moments with the critter, but I am feeling friendly to it
 WL> tonight.  I thought I'd start a thread with this title so we
 WL> can develop the art of handling the mail with ease . . .
 WL> letting it flow!

 WL> I have several ways that I get a kick out of using it.

 WL> == Down loading the whole board ==
 WL> Occasionally I reset my pointers to 0 in all the mail areas.
 WL> [Go into the Configuration menu in SX, then select M mail
 WL> options and then go to N for reset pointers by Numbers
 WL> (unfortunately 'By Date' does not work yet) Then use R * 0
 WL> which means: reset all to 0.  This gives you one packet, which,
 WL> if you are like me, can replace about 20 little ones.  My
 WL> biggest wish list is still a way of appending all the packets
 WL> so I retain the markers etc.

 WL> == Resetting to a specific number ==
 WL> We are not changing the numbers on the messages for a while, so
 WL> it is possible to reset to a specific number.  But which one!
 WL> That had me beat till I discovered that you can go P for
 WL> Personal Log.  There you can see the number you got to in each
 WL> D/L.  So now I have several largish packets that follow on from
 WL> each other.

Thank you Walter. I've had a look. It's a hell of a long list. I'll 
try
working your scheme of updating next time I download a big package

 WL> There are other useful features, such as the pick lists and the
 WL> cabinets of text files.

 WL> I am able to get reduced registrations, which makes the prog
 WL> 100% more user friendly.  Leave me a note if you want to do
 WL> this.

Yes please, I' like register

                                   Best Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (119)   Thu 7 Oct 93  2:20                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Agnus Die
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

I still have not got the art of moving messages but here is a copy 
of three
we did in the Private LOCAL MAIL.  Someone my like to follow all 
this up
here out in the public  Conference.  I will some time.  The prelude 
to all
this is a discussion about suitable Male archetypes ...

Walter

-------------------------%-----cut 
here----%---------------------------




FROM:    Stanley Richards              Area # 4 (       Mail       )
TO:      Walter Logeman                MSG # 2001, Sep-22-93 8:03pm
SUBJECT: Agnus Die.

Private Mail to Walter
22 Sept 93

Dear Walter,
               I couldn't help delving into some of Jungs works after
you left today.
               It seems as though 'the lamb' - also sometimes 'the 
ram'
- definitely symbolizes Christ and is associated with sacrifice ie 
the
'blood of the lamb' etc. and 'the marriage of the lamb' However, 
there
are mythological references to the 'lamb' as far back as Summerian-
Assyrian times.(18th century BC)  In the library of Assurbanipal 
there
is the following

          "To the wise man he said: The lamb is a substitute for a 
man.
He gives the lamb for his life, he gives the head of the lamb for his
life."
          Referring to the theme of the marriage of the lamb, a 
passage
in the Apocalypse reads:

              "And there shall be no more curse" Jung comments: There
shall be no more sin, no more repression, no more disharmony within
oneself, no guilt, no fear of death and no pain of separation, 
because
through the marriage of the lamb the son is untied with the 
mother-bride
and the ultimate bliss is attained. This symbol recurs in the Nuptiae
Cheymicae, the coniunctio, of alchemy."

          This kind of coniunctio seems to have been thought of as 
the
uniting of the son of God with the Great Mother. After the fall of
Babylon, the wicked mother-whore, we find, writes Jung, 'the symbol
which brings us from the lower half of the mother to the upper half,
where everything that incest would have made impossible now becomes
possible:'

          'Alleluia:for the Lord God omnipotent reingneth. Let us be
glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the Marriage of the 
Lamb
is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.  And to her was 
granted
that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean and white: for fine 
linen
is the righteousness of the saints. And He said unto me, Write, 
blessed
are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.

          Sometimes, it seems that the holy city (ie the cleansed
Babylon or Jerusalem) is thought of as the bride of the lamb, 
sometimes
the church itself. Jung identifies all these brides as 'the mother'.

So there we go.

                              Best
                                   Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]

FROM:    Walter Logeman                Area # 4 (       Mail       )
TO:      Stanley Richards              MSG # 2012, Sep-25-93 1:04am
Subject: Re: Agnus Die.

Private Mail to Stanley
24 Sept 93

Stanley,

Thank you for the lamb material!

 SR>                I couldn't help delving into some of Jung's 
works after
 SR> you left today.
 SR>                It seems as though 'the lamb' - also sometimes 
'the
 SR>                ram' - definitely symbolizes Christ and is 
associated
 SR>  with sacrifice ie the 'blood of the lamb' etc. and 'the 
marriage of
 SR>  the lamb' However, there are mythological references to the 
'lamb'
 SR>  as far back as Summerian- Assyrian times. (18th century BC)  
In the
 SR>  library of Assurbanipal there is the following

 SR>           "To the wise man he said: The lamb is a substitute 
for a
 SR>  man. He gives the lamb for his life, he gives the head of the 
lamb
 SR>  for his life."

What do you make of this?  Is this to do with:

' . . . the Jewish custom of sacrificing a firstborn lamb to Yahweh 
at
Passover, as a substitute for the primitive sacrifices of firstborn 
sons
that Yahweh originally demanded (Exodus 13:2)'
                                                Barbara G Walker P 
256

 SR>           Referring to the theme of the marriage of the lamb, a
 SR>  passage in the Apocalypse reads:

 SR>               "And there shall be no more curse" Jung 
comments: There
 SR> shall be no more sin, no more repression, no more disharmony 
within
 SR> oneself, no guilt, no fear of death and no pain of separation, 
because
 SR> through the marriage of the lamb the son is untied with the
 SR> mother-bride and the ultimate bliss is attained. This symbol 
recurs
 SR> in the Nuptiae Cheymicae, the coniunctio, of alchemy."

 SR>           This kind of coniunctio seems to have been thought 
of as the
 SR> uniting of the son of God with the Great Mother. After the 
fall of
 SR> Babylon, the wicked mother-whore, we find, writes Jung, 'the 
symbol
 SR> which brings us from the lower half of the mother to the upper 
half,
 SR> where everything that incest would have made impossible now 
becomes
 SR> possible:'

I'm lost here,

 SR>           'Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reingneth. 
Let us be
 SR> glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the Marriage of 
the Lamb
 SR> is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.  And to her was 
granted
 SR> that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean and white: for 
fine
 SR> linen is the righteousness of the saints. And He said unto me, 
Write,
 SR> blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of 
the
 SR> Lamb.

and here still,
Marriage of the Lamb the coniunctio, of alchemy?  Is that the 
connecting of
the anima and animus?  Heaven and Earth?  Air and earth?  Are we 
back in the
same old theme here that we have worked on so much on this board?  
The Tao
of doing your own thing.

 SR>           Sometimes, it seems that the holy city (ie the 
cleansed
 SR> Babylon or Jerusalem) is thought of as the bride of the lamb,
 SR> sometimes the church itself. Jung identifies all these brides 
as 'the
 SR> mother'.

 SR> So there we go.


I am confused and intrigued!  I have never read obscure scriptures 
with so
much interest!  I have got clearer about the distinction between 
the Wild
Man and the Lamb!  The second is far more challenging.

I would like to have some of this discussion out in the Psybernet
Conference.  It is OK by me if anything from this message is quoted
publicly, is that OK by you?  I am not ready write it yet but you 
may wish
to quote something or I will later.


 SR>                               Best


and to you,


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02




FROM:    Stanley Richards              Area # 4 (       Mail       )
TO:      Walter Logeman                MSG # 2033, Sep-30-93 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Agnus Die.

 Private Mail to Walter 30  Sept 93

Dear Walter


 WL> Thank you for the lamb material!

 SR>>                I couldn't help delving into some of Jung's 
works
.SR> after
 SR>> you left today.
 SR>>                It seems as though 'the lamb' - also sometimes 
'the
 SR>>          ram' - definitely symbolizes Christ and is  associated
 SR>>  with sacrifice ie the 'blood of the lamb' etc. and 'the 
marriage
.SR> of
 SR>>  the lamb' However, there are mythological references to the 
.SR>
.SR> 'lamb'
 SR>>  as far back as Summerian- Assyrian times. (18th century BC)  
In
.SR> the
 SR>>  library of Assurbanipal there is the following

 SR>>           "To the wise man he said: The lamb is a substitute 
for a
 SR>>  man. He gives the lamb for his life, he gives the head of the
.SR> lamb
 SR>>  for his life."

 WL> What do you make of this?  Is this to do with:

 WL> ' . . . the Jewish custom of sacrificing a firstborn lamb to
 WL> Yahweh at Passover, as a substitute for the primitive
 WL> sacrifices of firstborn sons that Yahweh originally demanded
 WL> (Exodus 13:2)'
 WL> Barbara G Walker P 256

          Yes, Walter, that seems to be right.  I gave you a bum st
steer
on the dating of Assurbanipal's library. It was put together in the 
7th
century BC not the 18th. Still, that's pretty early eh...That would
still make it earlier than the first scribes of the Old Testament 
in the
5th century BC.  So the lamb symbolism goes way back to the empire of
Assyria possibly back to Sumer. The Jews must have inherited it from
that source and the Christians from the Jews

 SR>>           Referring to the theme of the marriage of the lamb, a
 SR>>  passage in the Apocalypse reads:

 SR>>               "And there shall be no more curse" Jung comments:
.SR> There shall be no more sin, no more repression, no more 
disharmony
.SR> within oneself, no guilt, no fear of death and no pain of
.SR>separation, because through the marriage of the lamb the son  
untied
.SR>with the mother-bride and the ultimate bliss is attained. This
.SR>symbol recurs in the Nuptial Chemical, the conjunction, of 
alchemy."
.SR>    This kind of conjunction seems to have been thought of as the
 SR>> uniting of the son of God with the Great Mother. After the 
fall of
 SR>> Babylon, the wicked motherhood, we find, writes Jung, 'the
.SR>symbol which brings us from the lower half of the mother to the
.SR>upper half, where everything that incest would have made 
impossible
.SR>now becomes possible:'

 WL> I'm lost here,



 SR>>           'Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigned. Let 
us
.SR>be
 SR>> glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the Marriage of 
the
.SR> Lamb
 SR>> is come, and his wife hash made herself ready.  And to her was
.SR> granted
 SR>> that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean and white: for 
fine
 SR>> linen is the righteousness of the saints. And He said unto me,
.SR> Write,
 SR>> blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of 
the
 SR>> Lamb.

This would probably be the Jews celebrating the defeat and downfall 
of
Babylon. The Jews being the Lamb and the cleansed city the bride

 WL> and here still,
 WL> Marriage of the Lamb the conjunction, of alchemy?  Is that the
 WL> connecting of the anima and animus?  Heaven and Earth?  Air and
 WL> earth?  Are we back in the same old theme here that we have
 WL> worked on so much on this board?  The Tau of doing your own
 WL> thing.

Yes' the  conjunction of all the opposites.

 SR>>           Sometimes, it seems that the holy city (ie the 
cleansed
 SR>> Babylon or Jerusalem) is thought of as the bride of the lamb,
 SR>> sometimes the church itself. Jung identifies all these brides 
as
.SR>'the
 SR>> mother'.

 SR>> So there we go.

Yes, Walter, I say 'there we go'; but I too am not altogether sure 
where
we are going.

          First of all the 'conjunction'. In alchemy the conjunction
refers to a certain 'chemical' reaction in the alchemist's 'vas', the
containing vessel of the 'opus' This was when they saw the chemical
elements coming together.It was thought of as a marriage, the Divine
Marriage (Hierosgamos); sometimes the marriage of King and Queen,
sometimes of brother and sister, sometimes Christ
and his Church which was 'consummated on the marriage bed of the 
cross'.
The Lamb and the Bride is a variation of the latter. Jung says that 
the
'brother\sister pair stands allegorically for the whole conception of
opposites. These have a wide variation: dry-moist, hot-cold, male-
female, sun-moon, gold-silver, mercury-sulfur, round-square, 
water-fire,
volatile-solid, physical-spiritual, and so on', (Psychology and 
Alchemy
(pp330).  The Alchemists referred to this as The Chemical Marriage. 
As
you know, they viewed everything that happened in the 'vessel' in a
symbolic way which Jung saw as projections of the unconscious
          The main symbolism of the conjunction is the 'union of
opposites' (coniunctio oppositorum) represented by gold or the
philosophers stone, (lapis philosophorum) the goal of Alchemy,  
seen by
Jung in analysis as the resolution of the warring elements of the
psyche, the resolution of the transference, etc. That would be the
resolution that the Achemists sought... That's the 'no more fear, no
more repression, no more disharmony etc' quoted above.

          The symbolism of the marriage of the Lamb to the cleansed
city, the Whore of Babylon, doesn't come from Alchemy, I think, but 
from
Jewish history; when Babylon, the sinful city that worshipped money 
and
gold, was brought to it's knees and cleansed with fire. Would that be
the Persian invasion? - I don't know.  Anyway the Jews had it that 
this
was Yahweh's doing as punishment for the city's sins.

          Jung's identification of these 'brides' as 'the mother' is
intriguing. There is only a brief reference to this in 'Mysterium
Coniunctionis' I know no more about it than this. I haven't got the
Index to the Collected Works. I'll look it up when I go to the 
Jungian
Centre next. But it is clear that he means a conjunction with the 
whore-
mother would be sinful ie incest; but a conjunction with the cleansed
mother would not. That's the difference between the symbol of the
'upper' and the 'lower' mother. The lamb of course is purity 
itself. I
would take these mythical motifs as  suggesting that incest at the
literal level is not the same as incest at the imaginative, psychic 
or
archetypal level. This would tie with Jung's whole theory of the
transference. The symbolism of incest is very strong in Alchemy.  
Also
the Alchemist's assistant was often a woman who was called 'soror',
sister - although she usually wasn't his actual sister.


 WL> I am confused and intrigued!  I have never read obscure
 WL> scriptures with so much interest!  I have got clearer about the
 WL> distinction between the Wild Man and the Lamb!  The second is
 WL> far more challenging.

 WL> I would like to have some of this discussion out in the
 WL> Psybernet Conference.  It is OK by me if anything from this
 WL> message is quoted publicly, is that OK by you?  I am not ready
 WL> write it yet but you may wish to quote something or I will
 WL> later.

Yes, anything here is OK to quote anywhere you like if its OK with 
you.

                         Best,
                                Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02


 [NR]
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:10 2000
Date: (120)   Fri 8 Oct 93 12:49                          
From: Daniel Logeman
To: All
Subject: Dinosaurs.
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/115.11 5253ff40




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (171)   Fri 5 Nov 93 22:33                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Daniel Logeman
Subject: Re: Dinosaurs.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hi Daniel,

Thought i'd reply anyway, though it is a while since I read the 
essay,
more for the sake of saying hallo.  At this very moment I believe 
you are
shacked up in the regisrty doing political protest.  I hpe it all 
goes
well.  It looks good from the outside!.

 DL> I have wriiten an essay on DiNosaurs which might be of interest
 DL> to some  psybernetters.  I wrote it for American Studies and it
 DL> discusses some possible  reasons for the current fad and asks
 DL> what it might mean.  The essay is in word  for windows format
 DL> and can be downloaded from the library: DINO.DOC  I hope  you
 DL> enjoy it, and I await some discussion! Daniel.

I still will get back to this,

Walter



--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (471)   Mon 17 Jan 94 17:12                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Daniel Logeman
Subject: Re: Dinosaurs.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 228103c2
@REPLY: 3:770/115.11 5253ff40

On 8 Oct 93 12:49pm, Daniel Logeman wrote to All:

 DL> I have written an essay on dinosaurs which might be of interest
 DL> to some psybernetters.  I wrote it for American Studies and it
 DL> discusses some  possible reasons for the current fad and asks
 DL> what it might mean.  The  essay is in word for windows format 
and
 DL> can be downloaded from the  library: DINO.DOC  I hope you enjoy
 DL> it, and I await some discussion!


Hi Dan,

I have had a read  of it again in connection with a novel I am 
reading
'The Difference Engine'  By William Gibson (Of Neuromancer fame,
invented the word cyberspace) and Bruce Sterling.  VGSF 1992.

The novel is a 'what if' type of science fiction with the possible
scenario being that the Babbage computer took off and became a
reality.  It is set in Victorian England, and I am enjoying reading
about the period.  Disraeli is a journalist!

The Victorians are obsessed by dinosaurs.  It made me think of your
essay on the *mythical* aspect of the beasts, here is a quote from
your DINO.DOC in the Psybernet Main Library:

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------

Enormous creatures which can fill our minds with terror and awe, the
perfect beasts for mythology.  However, these were not merely 
mythical
monsters, and here-in-lies what I see as their second big attraction:
they really existed.

     The fact that dinosaurs meet on this boundary of the real and 
the
fantastic opens up questions about the nature of this boundary as it
is constructed in popular culture.  I propose that in agreement with
current deconstructionist theory, we might be able to see something
real in the fantastic of dinosaurs and perhaps even some of the
fantastic in their reality.  Within this fantastic burst of dinosaur
mania references to the reality of today abound.

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------

In that sense they are a bit like UFO's which could also come back
with a vengeance, and which Speilberg is also into, ETs anyway.
Perhaps C J Jung's work on UFOs is also related to that.  Any
phenomena that stimulates us to *project* is great for the psyche,
unleashing something about *its* reality.  Hold up a Tarot card and
you're looking at your soul.

In 'The Difference Engine' the dinosaur is used to reflect the
political stance of various factions.  A bit like the way science had
to be politically correct in pre capitalist <grin> China.  There are
two theories Uniformitarian and Catastrophic  (perhaps they still
exist today, or never did?)  The first belong to the conservative
faction, quote:

     'The uniformitarian faction wish these creatures to seem dull
     and sluggish!  Dinosaurs will then fit their slope of gradual
     development, a slow progression to the present day.  Whereas,
     if you grant the role of Catastrophe, you admit a role of far
     greater Darwinian fitness for these magnificent creatures,
     wounding as that may seem to the vanities of tiny modern-day
     mammals . . .'

                                           page 115.


Speilberg definitely was with the radicals on this giving the
creatures a life that is anything bur sluggish.

I go with the catastrophists any day.  Take this BBS for example, is
it going to gradually develop or find its niche with a bang, and be
eventually replaced by the next step?

I'll vote for the bang.


See you soon,


Walter.

P.S. Thanks again for the posting Daniel, I think it is a great bit 
of
writing.  Funny too!  Amazing how many kids have zoomed into your
message while on the BBS having a look around.  To their
disappointment unfortunately, they were looking for anything but
sociology!



--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (143)   Sat 23 Oct 93 14:06                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hello Reg,


In a discussion on the word 'connection' with Stanley you wrote:

 RS> Go
 RS> ahead and connect with the entire cosmos for until you are as
 RS> one you will never be free!

I like the word connection, though I an not so sure about 'one'.  
It is
easy to be 'one', a tab of acid will do the trick,  Differentiation 
is
what I am into today.  Who knows about tomorrow.  And what is 
freedom?

Why I picked up on this topic is because it made me think how 
obsessed I
am with getting connected to the world.  I helped put the phone 
line into
this bach, here at Mt Lyford.  A bit of wire through a plastic 
pipe, now
only meters away from the house!  from that bit of wire I can 
access a
huge web around the world.  I love that.  I feel stunted without the
connection.

I have found the right medium for me.  I am an introvert, and here 
i can
introvert with a whole world of other introverts.  Pleased with the 
title
of the method.  Psyche has that inner introvert feel and cybernetic 
the
connecting with the world aspect.

But what is this urge?

Perhaps it is about freedom and oneness.  Makes me think of Teihard 
de
Chardin.  (sp?)  he envisaged layers of evolution around the world. 
 The
plants the biosphere, the animals are the zoo-ospher, and the
psychological numinous layer the noo-o-sphere.  This is the layer i 
think
we are working on here.  He was a catholic priest and thought that 
this
layer was working towards oneness, the omega point (Christ).  
[Excuse the
rough summary, I read the book in 1966!]  Made an impression on me 
though,
and i do think my mania (As Stanley called it) with this business 
is to do
with being an evolution freak.  I like to be one of the mutants that
survives the next wipe-out.  I am not talking of genetic evolution 
though,
but the cultural/religious/psychological one.



All the best,


Walter.





--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (153)   Sun 31 Oct 93 16:04                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

Hello Walter,

 WL> I like the word connection, though I an not so sure about
 WL> 'one'.  It is easy to be 'one', a tab of acid will do the
 WL> trick,

No! No! No! that was not what I was talking about at all Walter and 
I feel
insulted that you make the comparison to a quick fix acid trip, as 
if to
dismiss what I was saying. I was referring to the *oneness* that 
comes
about through unity, ie through *connection*.  This reminds me of a
discussion we had some time ago, after I had been to see the movie 
"The
Power Of One". You falsely assumed from the title and the shorts, 
that the
film was about some sort of grandiose white middle class heroism,
*One* great white individual saving the *many* retched blacks. 
Nothing
could be further from the truth. The film that I saw was about the 
power
of unity, the struggle of one small orphaned boy who struggled 
against the
odds and gained through the process, the ability to act as a 
catalyst and
bring about unity, hence the title "The Power of One". It was such 
oneness
that I was referring to, it is brought about through *connection*.

WL> Differentiation is what I am into today.  Who knows
WL> about tomorrow.  And what is freedom?

What I speak of is something more solid, commitment to an ongoing 
journey.
I think your language gives you away, you speak of being *into* 
something
as if it is a passing fad. Like my kids were into dinosaurs for a few
weeks until they had collected the stickers etc. I am surprised, it 
does
not sound like you. I value difference, but I do think that the
development of the individual has been overemphasised in the last 
thirty
years. I think that for humankind to progress, (yes I do believe in 
the
evolutionary process), we need to become highly connected 
individuals, I
think that process is the cutting edge of humanity.

 WL> Why I picked up on this topic is because it made me think how
 WL> obsessed I am with getting connected to the world.  I helped
 WL> put the phone line into this bach, here at Mt Lyford.  A bit of
 WL> wire through a plastic pipe, now only meters away from the
 WL> house!  from that bit of wire I can access a huge web around
 WL> the world.  I love that.  I feel stunted without the connection.

Now this is really interesting, you have suddenly jumped back to
*connection* again, which is what we were talking about in the 
first place
and you go on to talk of *oneness* in much the same manner I was. 
Were you
tired when you started the message or did the process of writing it
somehow bring greater clarity? Here we are again talking about much 
the
same thing and yet in the beginning you start out with a statement 
that
has the potential to start one of those *flaming* arguments.

 WL> I have found the right medium for me.  I am an introvert, and
 WL> here i can introvert with a whole world of other introverts.

Somewhat of a contradiction don't you think? or shall we just say 
that
this is another wonderful paradox of the world?

 WL> Pleased with the title of the method.  Psyche has that inner
 WL> introvert feel and cybernetic the connecting with the world
 WL> aspect.

 WL> But what is this urge?

 WL> Perhaps it is about freedom and oneness.  Makes me think of
 WL> Teihard de Chardin.  (sp?)  he envisaged layers of evolution
 WL> around the world.  The plants the biosphere, the animals are
 WL> the zoo-ospher, and the psychological numinous layer the
 WL> noo-o-sphere.  This is the layer i think we are working on
 WL> here.  He was a catholic priest and thought that this layer was
 WL> working towards oneness, the omega point (Christ).  [Excuse the
 WL> rough summary, I read the book in 1966!]  Made an impression on
 WL> me though, and i do think my mania (As Stanley called it) with
 WL> this business is to do with being an evolution freak.  I like
 WL> to be one of the mutants that survives the next wipe-out.  I am
 WL> not talking of genetic evolution though, but the
 WL> cultural/religious/psychological one.


Never heard of this de Chardin dude, but he sounds like he had a 
few clues
about the world.





Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (160)   Tue 2 Nov 93 22:11                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
 Psybernet Conference, Public.

 Hello Walter and Reg,

 WL> Why I picked up on this topic is because it made me think how
 WL> obsessed I am with getting connected to the world.  I helped
 WL> put the phone line into this bach, here at Mt Lyford.  A bit of
 WL> wire through a plastic pipe, now only meters away from the
 WL> house!  from that bit of wire I can access a huge web around
 WL> the world.  I love that.  I feel stunted without the connection.

 WL> But what is this urge?

          I haven't tasted this sense of being in touch with the 
cosmos
via Internet.   This must be a sense of having a living connection 
with
the world - 'the web of the world 'you called it Walter - both in the
present and of evolving with it towards a future.  It got me to
wondering whether I get something of the same sensation when I talk 
to
all those persons in the past who inhabit my bookshelves. One could 
say,
'Well, there can't be any sense of dialogue there - they are all 
dead'.
But when one thinks of it the past isn't dead. It talks to us
continually and, think of it: talks to us across time, across 
thousands
of years.  The past lives in our heads and in our thinking, whether 
we
know it or not. And here I'm always reminded of that wonderful 
passage
from Machiavellli quoted by Hillman:

          'On the coming of evening, I return to my house and enter 
my
study; and at the door I take off the days clothing covered with 
mud and
dust...and put on garments regal and courtly, and reclothed
appropriately, I enter ancient courts of ancient men where, 
received by
them with affection, I feed on that food which is only mine and 
which I
was born for, where I am not ashamed to speak with them and asked 
them
reasons for their actions; and in their kindness answer me; and for 
four
hours of time I do not feel boredom, I forget every trouble, I do not
dread poverty, I am not so frightened by death; I give myself over
entirely to them.'

  The cosmos is not merely space but also time, isn't it?   Yours
looking towards the future is not less real than mine looking back to
the past.  I wonder if all this hasn't to do with the fantasy of 
anima
mundi, the soul of the world. If the world-soul is as Plotinus had 
it,
then although anima mundi produces the world, it itself does not 
exist
in space or time. Space and time are the *products* of anima mundi. 
So
when we say that each individual soul is 'part' of the world-soul, 
such
language does not imply a spatial or temporal  'part'. Each 
'individual
soul *is* anima mundi, complete.  Perhaps in those flashes where this
grasps us, we know it;  but most of the time it doesn't, we don't, 
and
we long to  -  Pothos. Maybe that thin plastic covered wire out from
your house is that slender but powerful connection to anima mundi 
in the
form that she has grasped you, just as do the dusty pages of my
bookshelves grasp me.  Whatever it is that involves us in all of 
this,
it is big stuff. Catching a glimpse of symbolic nature of these
connections illuminates the incredible way they fire our energies and
shape the moments and directions of our lives.

                              Best,
                                   Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (172)   Fri 5 Nov 93 22:34                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hi Reg

Thanks for the reply and your thoughts.

 WL>> I like the word connection, though I an not so sure about
 WL>> 'one'.  It is easy to be 'one', a tab of acid will do the
 WL>> trick,

 RS> No! No! No! that was not what I was talking about at all Walter
 RS> and I feel insulted that you make the comparison to a quick fix
 RS> acid trip, as if to dismiss what I was saying.
I was being a bit facetious though I do not mean to put down that 
path of
seeking oneness.  I do not want to put down psychedelics either, 
though
they are dangerous and can be misused and abused.  I am most 
impressed by
the work of Stanislav (sp?) Groff, I could lend you the book.  They 
are
not a quick fix but I think that they do make all boundaries flop 
away and
thus the sense of unity can increase.

 RS> I was referring
 RS> to the *oneness* that comes about through unity, ie through
 RS> *connection*.

I think I'd like to make more distinctions here

Oneness, Unity in the sense of solidarity, now that is a powerful 
thing.

A sense of spiritual oneness or enlightenment that is another sense 
of the
word.

When I was speaking of wanting to connect to the world and 
speculating on
the nature of my obsession it was not to seek enlightenment nor is it
solidarity.


 RS> This reminds me of a discussion we had some time
 RS> ago, after I had been to see the movie "The Power Of One". You
 RS> falsely assumed from the title and the shorts, that the film
 RS> was about some sort of grandiose white middle class heroism,
 RS> *One* great white individual saving the *many* retched blacks.
 RS> Nothing could be further from the truth. The film that I saw
 RS> was about the power of unity, the struggle of one small
 RS> orphaned boy who struggled against the odds and gained through
 RS> the process, the ability to act as a catalyst and bring about
 RS> unity, hence the title "The Power of One". It was such oneness
 RS> that I was referring to, it is brought about through
 RS> *connection*.

I know, it moved you deeply, then and now.

WL>> Differentiation is what I am into today.  Who knows
WL>> about tomorrow.  And what is freedom?

 RS> What I speak of is something more solid, commitment to an
 RS> ongoing journey. I think your language gives you away, you
 RS> speak of being *into* something as if it is a passing fad. Like
 RS> my kids were into dinosaurs for a few weeks until they had
 RS> collected the stickers etc. I am surprised, it does not sound
 RS> like you.

I like *into*.  It captures involvement without commitment which I 
am not
into.  Though I am on a journey, firmly and furiously I am not 
committed
to it, I just cant get off it!  Commitment sounds like it is 
planned and
has goals and rules, there is one way.  *That* is why I shy away 
from the
word *one*.  It might be that it connotates one way for me, without
honouring the complexity and the unknown.  I was just listening to 
Talking
Heads 'Stop making sense', that captures it.

 RS> I value difference, but I do think that the
 RS> development of the individual has been overemphasised in the
 RS> last thirty years. I think that for humankind to progress, (yes
 RS> I do believe in the evolutionary process), we need to become
 RS> highly connected individuals, I think that process is the
 RS> cutting edge of humanity.

Yes, now we are connecting again.  Another direction 'one' points 
to is
intimacy and that I am into, I seem to have sort of wallowed in 
that as a
life project since mid life at 36.  We agree to that:

 RS> the development of the individual has been overemphasised

Interesting how I associate that with 'one' and you with 
'difference'.

 WL>> Why I picked up on this topic is because it made me think how
 WL>> obsessed I am with getting connected to the world.  I helped
 WL>> put the phone line into this bach, here at Mt Lyford.  A bit of
 WL>> wire through a plastic pipe, now only meters away from the
 WL>> house!  from that bit of wire I can access a huge web around
 WL>> the world.  I love that.  I feel stunted without the 
connection.

 RS> Now this is really interesting, you have suddenly jumped back to
 RS> *connection* again, which is what we were talking about in the
 RS> first place and you go on to talk of ** in much the same
 RS> manner I was.

I speak of connection but not of oneness, do I?  Am I missing 
something.
I think they are different things.  The web is singular I suppose,

 WL>> I have found the right medium for me.  I am an introvert, and
 WL>> here I can introvert with a whole world of other introverts.

 RS> Somewhat of a contradiction don't you think? or shall we just
 RS> say that this is another wonderful paradox of the world?

Yes, a paradox, but capturing the sense of both individuation and
intimacy.

 WL>> Pleased with the title of the method.  Psyche has that inner
 WL>> introvert feel and cybernetic the connecting with the world
 WL>> aspect.

 WL>> But what is this urge?

 WL>> Perhaps it is about freedom and oneness.  Makes me think of
 WL>> Teihard de Chardin.  (sp?)  he envisaged layers of evolution
 WL>> around the world.  The plants the biosphere, the animals are
 WL>> the zoo-ospher, and the psychological numinous layer the
 WL>> noo-o-sphere.  This is the layer I think we are working on
 WL>> here.  He was a catholic priest and thought that this layer was
 WL>> working towards oneness, the omega point (Christ).  [Excuse the
 WL>> rough summary, I read the book in 1966!]  Made an impression on
 WL>> me though, and I do think my mania (As Stanley called it) with
 WL>> this business is to do with being an evolution freak.  I like
 WL>> to be one of the mutants that survives the next wipe-out.  I am
 WL>> not talking of genetic evolution though, but the
 WL>> cultural/religious/psychological one.


 RS> Never heard of this de Chardin dude, but he sounds like he had
 RS> a few clues about the world.

Yes but I reject him now as I did then because he was into this 
'oneness',
loosing the separateness. To connect requires two.  It takes two 
Baby!
The Omega point lacks intimacy.

We connect here I think and despite the edginess of the debate I
experience some intimacy.  More from our meetings and voice calls 
than
this though!  I don't mind the odd battle but it doers seem that 
via this
media we do *not* connect as well as we do outside it.  ????


Walter






 RS> Bye for now
 RS>  Reg

 RS> ... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
 RS> --- Via Silver Xpress V3.02




--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (173)   Sat 6 Nov 93  0:50                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 WL>> A bit of
 WL>> wire through a plastic pipe, now only meters away from the
 WL>> house!  from that bit of wire I can access a huge web around
 WL>> the world.  I love that.  I feel stunted without the 
connection.

Today I am Wired!

 WL>> But what is this urge?

 SR>  Yours looking towards the future is not less real than mine
 SR>  looking back to the past.

Definitely the future is what interests me, but I am certainly 
inspired by
certain aspects of the past.  Romantics appeal, Impressionists, and 
I like
Elvis Presley!  It is also a certain *style* that is important, it 
is not
just any future, perhaps a longing for a renaissance of something.

I am getting it clearer via this writing, here and in my discussion 
with
Reg.  Intimacy, future, style.

 SR>  I wonder if all this hasn't to do
 SR>  with the fantasy of anima mundi, the soul of the world.

Sounds like God by another name.  Is this an urge for that?  You 
with your
books.  It is a search for meaning and important, but God?  Much 
more to
do with people for me.


 SR>  Maybe that thin plastic covered wire out from your house is
 SR>  that slender but powerful connection to anima mundi in the
 SR>  form that she has grasped you, just as do the dusty pages of
 SR>  my bookshelves grasp me.  Whatever it is that involves us in
 SR>  all of this, it is big stuff. Catching a glimpse of symbolic
 SR>  nature of these connections illuminates the incredible way
 SR>  they fire our energies and shape the moments and directions of
 SR>  our lives.

Yes, it is amazing how the force can be so strong.


Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:14 2000
Date: (181)   Wed 10 Nov 93 15:29                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

9 November, 1993
Psybernet Conference, public.

Hello Walter,

 WL> Thanks for the reply and your thoughts.

No worries mate.

 WL>>> I like the word connection, though I an not so sure about
 WL>>> 'one'.  It is easy to be 'one', a tab of acid will do the
 WL>>> trick,

 RS>> No! No! No! that was not what I was talking about at all Walter
 RS>> and I feel insulted that you make the comparison to a quick fix
 RS>> acid trip, as if to dismiss what I was saying.

 WL> I was being a bit facetious though I do not mean to put down
 WL> that path of seeking oneness.  I do not want to put down
 WL> psychedelics either, though they are dangerous and can be
 WL> misused and abused.  I am most impressed by the work of
 WL> Stanislav (sp?) Groff, I could lend you the book.  They are not
 WL> a quick fix but I think that they do make all boundaries flop
 WL> away and thus the sense of unity can increase.

Mmmmm, yes you could lend me the book, it might do me good to read 
more
books again, instead of BBS messages and computer manuals. I am still
largely an anti-drug person of all descriptions, whether they be
tea, coffee, prescribed or whatever, I think if we can get by 
without them
so much the better, but I do support there use in some situations,  
as you
know like my coffee and a nice red wine or cold lager from time to 
time.

 RS>> I was referring
 RS>> to the *oneness* that comes about through unity, ie through
 RS>> *connection*.

 WL> I think I'd like to make more distinctions here

 WL> Oneness, Unity in the sense of solidarity, now that is a
 WL> powerful thing.

Yes, I think that was *one* of the aspects I was talking about.

 WL> A sense of spiritual oneness or enlightenment that is another
 WL> sense of the word.

I was also referring to that at some part, but not quite as 
directly as
the other.

 WL> When I was speaking of wanting to connect to the world and
 WL> speculating on the nature of my obsession it was not to seek
 WL> enlightenment nor is it solidarity.

Why not? <G>

 RS>> This reminds me of a discussion we had some time
 RS>> ago, after I had been to see the movie "The Power Of One". You
 RS>> falsely assumed from the title and the shorts, that the film
 RS>> was about some sort of grandiose white middle class heroism,
 RS>> *One* great white individual saving the *many* retched blacks.
 RS>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The film that I saw
 RS>> was about the power of unity, the struggle of one small
 RS>> orphaned boy who struggled against the odds and gained through
 RS>> the process, the ability to act as a catalyst and bring about
 RS>> unity, hence the title "The Power of One". It was such oneness
 RS>> that I was referring to, it is brought about through
 RS>> *connection*.

 WL> I know, it moved you deeply, then and now.

Still does, I also have similar experiences when I meet with many 
of my
clients, particularly when I see them in places like prisons etc. It
somehow deepens my warm up to them and yet I hate the places. I much
rather would meet with them in the comfort and security of my own
consulting room.

WL>>> Differentiation is what I am into today.  Who knows
WL>>> about tomorrow.  And what is freedom?

 RS>> What I speak of is something more solid, commitment to an
 RS>> ongoing journey. I think your language gives you away, you
 RS>> speak of being *into* something as if it is a passing fad. Like
 RS>> my kids were into dinosaurs for a few weeks until they had
 RS>> collected the stickers etc. I am surprised, it does not sound
 RS>> like you.

 WL> I like *into*.  It captures involvement without commitment
 WL> which I am not into. Though I am on a journey, firmly and
 WL> furiously I am not committed to it, I just cant get off it!
 WL> Commitment sounds like it is planned and has goals and rules,
 WL> there is one way.  *That* is why I shy away from the word
 WL> *one*.  It might be that it connotates one way for me, without
 WL> honouring the complexity and the unknown.  I was just listening
 WL> to Talking Heads 'Stop making sense', that captures it.

I think your view of commitment is little different from mine. I 
actually
see you as very committed, but if you say you are not, then I must 
accept
that. I also value the unknown, in fact I love it, but I do also 
like to
have a map in my back pocket in case I need it.

 RS>> I value difference, but I do think that the
 RS>> development of the individual has been overemphasised in the
 RS>> last thirty years. I think that for humankind to progress, (yes
 RS>> I do believe in the evolutionary process), we need to become
 RS>> highly connected individuals, I think that process is the
 RS>> cutting edge of humanity.

 WL> Yes, now we are connecting again.  Another direction 'one'
 WL> points to is intimacy and that I am into, I seem to have sort
 WL> of wallowed in that as a life project since mid life at 36.  We
 WL> agree to that:

Yes, wholeheartedly.

 RS>> the development of the individual has been overemphasised

 WL> Interesting how I associate that with 'one' and you with
 WL> 'difference'.

That is because I encounter quite a few people who take 
individualism to
the point of selfishness, eventually they distance themselves from 
others.
I very much like the concept of people being fully involved and 
connected
with themselves at the same time as being connected to and fully 
involved
with others. Some might say impossible, but I think not. I think
interdependence is great and that independence when taken to 
extremes,
like all extremes sux. That is not to say of course that we should 
not
be capable of doing many things by ourselves etc.

 WL>>> Why I picked up on this topic is because it made me think how
 WL>>> obsessed I am with getting connected to the world.  I helped
 WL>>> put the phone line into this bach, here at Mt Lyford.  A bit 
of
 WL>>> wire through a plastic pipe, now only meters away from the
 WL>>> house!  from that bit of wire I can access a huge web around
 WL>>> the world.  I love that.  I feel stunted without the 
connection.

 RS>> Now this is really interesting, you have suddenly jumped back 
to
 RS>> *connection* again, which is what we were talking about in the
 RS>> first place and you go on to talk of ** in much the same
 RS>> manner I was.

 WL> I speak of connection but not of oneness, do I?  Am I missing
 WL> something. I think they are different things.  The web is
 WL> singular I suppose,

Yes that is how I read it, you spoke of 'a whole world', which I 
took to
mean one.

 WL>>> I have found the right medium for me.  I am an introvert, and
 WL>>> here I can introvert with a whole world of other introverts.

 RS>> Somewhat of a contradiction don't you think? or shall we just
 RS>> say that this is another wonderful paradox of the world?

 WL> Yes, a paradox, but capturing the sense of both individuation
 WL> and intimacy.

Interesting that I read this now, after expanding some of my 
thoughts on
this above, perhaps not as eloquently or succinct as you. This 
leads me to
thinking that sometimes my tendency to seek brevity creates
misunderstanding.

 WL>>> Pleased with the title of the method.  Psyche has that inner
 WL>>> introvert feel and cybernetic the connecting with the world
 WL>>> aspect.

 WL>>> But what is this urge?

 WL>>> Perhaps it is about freedom and oneness.  Makes me think of
 WL>>> Teihard de Chardin.  (sp?)  he envisaged layers of evolution
 WL>>> around the world.  The plants the biosphere, the animals are
 WL>>> the zoo-ospher, and the psychological numinous layer the
 WL>>> noo-o-sphere.  This is the layer I think we are working on
 WL>>> here.  He was a catholic priest and thought that this layer 
was
 WL>>> working towards oneness, the omega point (Christ).  [Excuse 
the
 WL>>> rough summary, I read the book in 1966!]  Made an impression 
on
 WL>>> me though, and I do think my mania (As Stanley called it) with
 WL>>> this business is to do with being an evolution freak.  I like
 WL>>> to be one of the mutants that survives the next wipe-out.  I 
am
 WL>>> not talking of genetic evolution though, but the
 WL>>> cultural/religious/psychological one.


 RS>> Never heard of this de Chardin dude, but he sounds like he had
 RS>> a few clues about the world.

 WL> Yes but I reject him now as I did then because he was into this
 WL> 'oneness', loosing the separateness. To connect requires two.
 WL> It takes two Baby! The Omega point lacks intimacy.

Not if it is the oneness of connection that I speak of.

 WL> We connect here I think and despite the edginess of the debate I
 WL> experience some intimacy.  More from our meetings and voice
 WL> calls than this though!  I don't mind the odd battle but it
 WL> doers seem that via this media we do *not* connect as well as
 WL> we do outside it.  ????

I do not perceive it as battle, neither do I think of it as debate, 
I know
that when I present a different view (more often it is a slightly
different slant of a similar viewpoint) I feel a little edgy, but 
to my
way of thinking, life without a little edginess would be boring and 
it is
ok providing we do not become rejecting of one another and end up as
enemies. I do not hold to the adage of: 'No pain no gain', but I do 
think
that for our discussions to have purpose and meaning they need to 
be real
enough that we can present our different viewpoints or perspectives 
and
celebrate any differences. What a terrible world it would be if we 
always
have to be totally nice and agreeable. I think I have said before 
that
this media is a challenge to me. My participation, is among other 
things
fuelled by the need to gain fluency in written expression. I trust 
you and
the rest of the world will bear with me in this persuit.



Regards 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:14 2000
Date: (185)   Wed 10 Nov 93 18:07                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 RS> Mmmmm, yes you could lend me the book, it might do me good to
 RS> read more books again, instead of BBS messages and computer
 RS> manuals. I am still largely an anti-drug person of all
 RS> descriptions, whether they be tea, coffee, prescribed or
 RS> whatever, I think if we can get by without them so much the
 RS> better, but I do support there use in some situations,  as you
 RS> know like my coffee and a nice red wine or cold lager from time
 RS> to time.

I make a big distinction between use and abuse, and It is difficult 
to deny
some of the wonderful spiritual experiences when reading accounts 
by Alan
Watts 'Joyous Cosmology' and Aldous Huxley 'Doors of Perception.'  
(Quoting
William Blake, and also the inspiration for the Doors (Morrison et 
al.)

 RS>>> I was referring
 RS>>> to the *oneness* that comes about through unity, ie through
 RS>>> *connection*.

 WL>> I think I'd like to make more distinctions here

 WL>> Oneness, Unity in the sense of solidarity, now that is a
 WL>> powerful thing.

 RS> Yes, I think that was *one* of the aspects I was talking about.

 WL>> A sense of spiritual oneness or enlightenment that is another
 WL>> sense of the word.

 RS> I was also referring to that at some part, but not quite as
 RS> directly as the other.

 WL>> When I was speaking of wanting to connect to the world and
 WL>> speculating on the nature of my obsession it was not to seek
 WL>> enlightenment nor is it solidarity.

 RS> Why not? <G>

Well may you ask, but that I just dont know!  I am conscripted as I 
put it
somewhere, sort of gripped by a passion, but it is not for those 
two things,
though it is close to them.


 RS>>> This reminds me of a discussion we had some time
 RS>>> ago, after I had been to see the movie "The Power Of One". You
 RS>>> falsely assumed from the title and the shorts, that the film
 RS>>> was about some sort of grandiose white middle class heroism,
 RS>>> *One* great white individual saving the *many* retched blacks.
 RS>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The film that I saw
 RS>>> was about the power of unity, the struggle of one small
 RS>>> orphaned boy who struggled against the odds and gained through
 RS>>> the process, the ability to act as a catalyst and bring about
 RS>>> unity, hence the title "The Power of One". It was such oneness
 RS>>> that I was referring to, it is brought about through
 RS>>> *connection*.

 WL>> I know, it moved you deeply, then and now.

 RS> Still does, I also have similar experiences when I meet with
 RS> many of my clients, particularly when I see them in places like
 RS> prisons etc. It somehow deepens my warm up to them and yet I
 RS> hate the places. I much rather would meet with them in the
 RS> comfort and security of my own consulting room.

WL>>>> Differentiation is what I am into today.  Who knows
WL>>>> about tomorrow.  And what is freedom?

 RS>>> What I speak of is something more solid, commitment to an
 RS>>> ongoing journey. I think your language gives you away, you
 RS>>> speak of being *into* something as if it is a passing fad. 
Like
 RS>>> my kids were into dinosaurs for a few weeks until they had
 RS>>> collected the stickers etc. I am surprised, it does not sound
 RS>>> like you.

 WL>> I like *into*.  It captures involvement without commitment
 WL>> which I am not into. Though I am on a journey, firmly and
 WL>> furiously I am not committed to it, I just cant get off it!
 WL>> Commitment sounds like it is planned and has goals and rules,
 WL>> there is one way.  *That* is why I shy away from the word
 WL>> *one*.  It might be that it connotates one way for me, without
 WL>> honouring the complexity and the unknown.  I was just listening
 WL>> to Talking Heads 'Stop making sense', that captures it.

 RS> I think your view of commitment is little different from mine.
 RS> I actually see you as very committed, but if you say you are
 RS> not, then I must accept that. I also value the unknown, in fact
 RS> I love it, but I do also like to have a map in my back pocket
 RS> in case I need it.

 RS>>> I value difference, but I do think that the
 RS>>> development of the individual has been overemphasised in the
 RS>>> last thirty years. I think that for humankind to progress, 
(yes
 RS>>> I do believe in the evolutionary process), we need to become
 RS>>> highly connected individuals, I think that process is the
 RS>>> cutting edge of humanity.

 WL>> Yes, now we are connecting again.  Another direction 'one'
 WL>> points to is intimacy and that I am into, I seem to have sort
 WL>> of wallowed in that as a life project since mid life at 36.  We
 WL>> agree to that:

 RS> Yes, wholeheartedly.

 RS>>> the development of the individual has been overemphasised

 WL>> Interesting how I associate that with 'one' and you with
 WL>> 'difference'.

 RS> That is because I encounter quite a few people who take
 RS> individualism to the point of selfishness, eventually they
 RS> distance themselves from others. I very much like the concept
 RS> of people being fully involved and connected with themselves at
 RS> the same time as being connected to and fully involved with
 RS> others. Some might say impossible, but I think not. I think
 RS> interdependence is great and that independence when taken to
 RS> extremes, like all extremes sux. That is not to say of course
 RS> that we should not be capable of doing many things by ourselves
 RS> etc.

I like that notion, that *both* types of connection are 
complementary.


 WL>>>> Why I picked up on this topic is because it made me think how
 WL>>>> obsessed I am with getting connected to the world.  I helped
 WL>>>> put the phone line into this bach, here at Mt Lyford.  A 
bit of
 WL>>>> wire through a plastic pipe, now only meters away from the
 WL>>>> house!  from that bit of wire I can access a huge web around
 WL>>>> the world.  I love that.  I feel stunted without the 
connection.

 RS>>> Now this is really interesting, you have suddenly jumped 
back to
 RS>>> *connection* again, which is what we were talking about in the
 RS>>> first place and you go on to talk of ** in much the same
 RS>>> manner I was.

 WL>> I speak of connection but not of oneness, do I?  Am I missing
 WL>> something. I think they are different things.  The web is
 WL>> singular I suppose,

 RS> Yes that is how I read it, you spoke of 'a whole world', which
 RS> I took to mean one.

I have an image of connecting with a very few people on a similar
wavelength.  Casting widely to meet with others who are in the same 
place,
or entering into the same unknown, or who know something of the way.


 WL>>>> I have found the right medium for me.  I am an introvert, and
 WL>>>> here I can introvert with a whole world of other introverts.

 RS>>> Somewhat of a contradiction don't you think? or shall we just
 RS>>> say that this is another wonderful paradox of the world?

 WL>> Yes, a paradox, but capturing the sense of both individuation
 WL>> and intimacy.

 RS> Interesting that I read this now, after expanding some of my
 RS> thoughts on this above, perhaps not as eloquently or succinct
 RS> as you. This leads me to thinking that sometimes my tendency to
 RS> seek brevity creates misunderstanding.

 WL>>>> Pleased with the title of the method.  Psyche has that inner
 WL>>>> introvert feel and cybernetic the connecting with the world
 WL>>>> aspect.

 WL>>>> But what is this urge?

 WL>>>> this business is to do with being an evolution freak.  I like
 WL>>>> to be one of the mutants that survives the next wipe-out.  
I am
 WL>>>> not talking of genetic evolution though, but the
 WL>>>> cultural/religious/psychological one.


 RS>>> Never heard of this de Chardin dude, but he sounds like he had
 RS>>> a few clues about the world.

 WL>> Yes but I reject him now as I did then because he was into this
 WL>> 'oneness', loosing the separateness. To connect requires two.
 WL>> It takes two Baby! The Omega point lacks intimacy.

 RS> Not if it is the oneness of connection that I speak of.

 WL>> We connect here I think and despite the edginess of the 
debate I
 WL>> experience some intimacy.  More from our meetings and voice
 WL>> calls than this though!  I don't mind the odd battle but it
 WL>> does seem that via this media we do *not* connect as well as
 WL>> we do outside it.  ????

 RS> I do not perceive it as battle, neither do I think of it as
 RS> debate, I know that when I present a different view (more often
 RS> it is a slightly different slant of a similar viewpoint) I feel
 RS> a little edgy, but to my way of thinking, life without a little
 RS> edginess would be boring and it is ok providing we do not
 RS> become rejecting of one another and end up as enemies. I do not
 RS> hold to the adage of: 'No pain no gain', but I do think that
 RS> for our discussions to have purpose and meaning they need to be
 RS> real enough that we can present our different viewpoints or
 RS> perspectives and celebrate any differences. What a terrible
 RS> world it would be if we always have to be totally nice and
 RS> agreeable. I think I have said before that this media is a
 RS> challenge to me. My participation, is among other things
 RS> fuelled by the need to gain fluency in written expression. I
 RS> trust you and the rest of the world will bear with me in this
 RS> pursuit.

I find it rewarding to correspond with you and it is not a case of 
bearing
with it.  I am enjoying the process of writing and getting words 
into the
ether.  I could never get them on paper <g>.  No comparisons!  Your 
style is
your style and all the various writers here have utterly different 
styles, I
think yours is fine.  AND I think that the more wordy outpourings 
of yours
do make it much clearer where you are coming from.  I am not so 
worried
about your brief one word responses, cause I know you, that makes 
it easier
to see the whole person, here we do it with words.

Psybernet and the Art of putting words together to build a path 
into the
unknown word of the cybernetic psyche.  Words are the vehicle to 
travel the
way that cannot be spoken of.

I feel a companionship with you Reg, on this journey.


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (199)   Tue 16 Nov 93 15:15                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

 Dear Walter

 WL> Definitely the future is what interests me, but I am certainly
 WL> inspired by certain aspects of the past.  Romantics appeal,
 WL> Impressionists, and I like Elvis Presley!  It is also a certain
 WL> *style* that is important, it is not just any future, perhaps a
 WL> longing for a renaissance of something

Now isn't that interesting. The future is what interest you, yet 
you speak
of a longing for the 'renaissance' of something.  That word, apart 
from
its reference to an historical period, actually means 'revival'.  
It means
the resurrecting of something from the past.  During the 
Renaissance they
never called their own period by that name, it was only later that
scholars began to call it that because primarily the Renaissance 
was the
period when classical, that is to say Greek, texts and the spirit 
of Greek
thought and art were found, revived and resurrected.  Yes, perhaps 
you
are longing for the renaissance of something.

 WL> I am getting it clearer via this writing, here and in my
 WL> discussion with Reg.  Intimacy, future, style.

 SR>>  I wonder if all this hasn't to do
 SR>>  with the fantasy of anima mundi, the soul of the world.

 WL> Sounds like God by another name.  Is this an urge for that?
 WL> You with your books.  It is a search for meaning and important,
 WL> but God?  Much more to do with people for me

No, not really.  Anima Mundi is not God, nor was it ever identified 
with
God. It means 'Soul of the World'  It is a Neo-Platonic idea, quite
popular during the Renaissance with those who wanted to stress the
multiplicity of the world rather than the unity of God. In Plotinus 
the
Soul of the World is very much to do with people and with our 
individual
souls. He was kind of interested in 'connections' too, I mean the
connections between individual souls and how and in what way they 
relate
to the big Soul of the World. In Plotinus there is nothing which is 
in-
animate. What he called 'matter' was as near as he could get to the 
idea
of 'nothing'. So that everything in the world was anima-ted, the 
product
of soul.

                                   Best,
                                        Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
(200)   Wed 17 Nov 93 23:48                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: The right metaphor.
St: Pvt Local Rcvd Sent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@INTL 3:770/115 3:770/115
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
Hi Stanley,

 SR> 7 Nov 1993

 SR> Dear Walter

 WL>> Here are some quotes from a message that came up as 27 Oct.
 WL>> Did you send it up again?  Or is there something amis with our
 WL>> wonderful technology? For all its being an old message it seems
 WL>> as relevant today as the when it was written, which must have
 WL>> been about three months ago.  The theme led onto the whole
 WL>> question of 'Nature nurture and the will of the gods' and Male
 WL>> archetypes.

 SR> I don't how it came up again Walter. Don't blame the beautiful
 SR> new tech. until I have been thoroughly investigated for some
 SR> incompetence or misdemeanor.

I think it could be that you have over 100 SX packets and have some 
named 06
or 07 and that there are still old reply files in the out 
directory. Any way
it hasnt been happening lately so maybe you fixed it.

 WL>>>> What do you think of the metaphor of depth?  Down into hell?
 WL>>>> The underworld.  Underwater.  That is the thing about
 WL>>>> Cyberspace, it is just *like* psychological space, any 
metaphor
 WL>>>> will fit.  For example the metaphor of a desk top has been 
used

 SR>>> Walter
 SR>>>         Yes, Aren't they interesting those metaphors of
 SR>>>         computing, the desk-top, the notebook, fly-around etc.
 SR>>>         But I wonder whether the metaphor of depth goes with
 SR>>>  the natural inclination of cyberspace. The very fact that we
 SR>>>  call it cyber-*space* seems to point in another direction 
than
 SR>>>  depth. The direction indicated is up rather than down. I 
think
 SR>>>  this might suggest to us a certain puer (youth) proclivity.
 SR>>>  This goes with the fact that cyberspace, and computing in
 SR>>> general, seem to be favoured by men and particularly young 
men.


 WL>> I feel more sure footed as I state now:  That it is the right
 WL>> metaphor, not perhaps because of anything innate, but because
 WL>> we warm up to that, we can do the work to make it easy to value
 WL>> the depth.

 SR> Absolutely right - whatever the 'proclivity' of the medium we
 SR> come as even newer boys with a newer message.

 WL>> What follows is that we can do the work to make it easy to
 WL>> value the feminine, or to not even use that term, to value
 WL>> openness, softness, loving, crying, listening and a letting go
 WL>> of the ego, letting humble ness sink in to us, being receptive
 WL>> to what is.

 SR> I can't tell you what an immense relief it is to hear you say
 SR> that. That term, which I vow never to mention in human company
 SR> again, puts us into the Battle of the S?es. And I am heartily
 SR> tired of it. Even the most even handed discussion of it
 SR> reinforces the very problem we would dissolve

 WL>> Yes, WORK at being receptive, Heroic Taoism ! <g>.  And it does
 WL>> not feel right to call those things feminine, as is so often
 WL>> done, as that is to give in to the Way of the World and not,
 WL>> perhaps, to the way of the way that cannot be spoken of. <g>

 SR> Oh dear. The eternal bind of the ego. Heroic Taoism indeed!
 SR> Like: 'You must relax more' or 'Try not to think of the word
 SR> "hippopotamus" '




 SR>                Best,
 SR>                          Stanley.
 SR> --- Via Silver Xpress V3.02




--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:16 2000
Date: (201)   Thu 18 Nov 93 14:37                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/4.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/115 f3dd204a

Reg is replying to Walter who replied to Reg on 10 Nov 93 06:07pm


19 November, 1993

Hello Walter,

The latest version of Silver Xpress seems to give some new options, 
one of
which is demonstrated above. ie It prompted me to choose whether to 
enter
the top line in the message or some other variations.


 WL> I find it rewarding to correspond with you and it is not a 
case of
 WL> bearing with it.

Ta

 WL> I am enjoying the process of writing and getting
 WL> words into the ether.  I could never get them on paper <g>.  No
 WL> comparisons!  Your style is your style and all the various 
writers
 WL> here have utterly different styles, I think yours is fine.  
AND I
 WL> think that the more wordy outpourings of yours do make it much
 WL> clearer where you are coming from.

Mmm, better not be too encouraging in this respect, I suspect that 
I could
be a little as I am verbally, once the lever that controls the 
floodgates
is found, a hell of a lot could gush forth.

 WL> I am not so worried about your
 WL> brief one word responses, cause I know you, that makes it 
easier to
 WL> see the whole person, here we do it with words.

I take it you mean we do it here with *little more than words* and 
the
words are seen more, rather than heard.

 WL> Psybernet and the Art of putting words together to build a 
path into
 WL> the unknown world of the cybernetic psyche.  Words are the 
vehicle to
 WL> travel the way that cannot be spoken of.

Again I take it you mean the written word, not the spoken word.

 WL> I feel a companionship with you Reg, on this journey.

Great, And if there should be nothing at the end of the trail other 
than
signposts, I will at least have known companionship on a journey.




Regards 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (400)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c1b6aec4

Hi Stanley,


 WL>> I am getting it clearer via this writing, here and in my
 WL>> discussion with Reg.  Intimacy, future, style.

 SR>>>  I wonder if all this hasn't to do
 SR>>>  with the fantasy of anima mundi, the soul of the world.

 SR> No, not really.  Anima Mundi is not God, nor was it ever 
identified
 SR> with God. It means 'Soul of the World'  It is a Neo-Platonic 
idea,

....

 SR> So that everything in the world was
 SR> anima-ted, the product of soul.

Yes I have a notion of that idea of the world being full of soul, 
or alive,
and breathing as it were.  I still see that as a god like quality.  
More
pagan than Christian.

My urge for connection that i still feel is not with that for some 
reason.
When i say world or cosmos, it is people creating a new web of
communication, and a new culture.  Perhaps it is a renaissance in 
the sense
of the 'global village'.  It is so strange this pull to the 
computer, I
have just been up at a BBQ, here in a literal village, and now 
pleased to be
back here, with my prosthesis, my aid for wiring up to you and 
others who
will read and reply, perhaps years from now.

I think it is very like the pull you have to your books Stanley, it 
is just
that the Great Discussions have become digital, and we are much 
closer to
the authors, and searching text, copying it and quoting it has 
become *so*
much easier that we are going thru a Guttenberg mark 11 shift, from 
analogue
type to digital.  AND even Socrates can join in.  Here are some 
quotes
lifted straight off a CD.

Socrates   469-399 BC

S> Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods.
(From Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, bk. II, 
sec. 27)

 This one is a bit off topic, it relates to your Anti-quarian message
 Stanley.

S> Bad men live that they may eat and drink, whereas good men eat 
and drink
S> that they may live.
(From Plutarch, How a Young Man Ought to Hear Poems.)

This relates to the question i have been musing over, on the nature 
of
Psybernet.  Is it to assist psychology out there or in here, in 
cyberspace.
In other words we eat to type!

S> I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.
(From Plutarch, Of Banishment)
Ah now we are on topic!  He was before his time.  Perhaps that is 
the quest,
& why i am not at the BBQ.

Marcus Tullius Cicero  106-43 BC
MTC> Socrates was the first to call philosophy down from the 
heavens and
MTC> to place it in cities, and even to introduce it into homes and 
compel
MTC> it to inquire about life and standards and goods and evils.
(Tusculanae Disputationes, V, 4.)

Perhaps ethics as they wrote about it then was more to do with 
psychotherapy
than morals.  The question of how to live, is at the root of their
discussions, as it is in psychotherapy.


Thomas Paine  1737-1809
TP> My country is the world and my religion is to do good.
(The Rights of Man, pt. II [1792], ch. 5)

Another psychotherapist??

Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is licensed from Little, Brown and 
Company,
Inc.  Copyright 1882, 1891 by John Bartlett.  Copyright 1910, 1914, 
1919,
1942, by Anna Sprague DeWolf and Louisa Bartlett Donaldson.  
Copyright 1937,
1948, 1955, 1965, 1968, 1980 by Little, Brown and Company, Inc.  
All rights
reserved.

All for now,

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:25 2000
Date: (435)   Thu 13 Jan 94 21:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hello Walter

 WL>>> I am getting it clearer via this writing, here and in my
 WL>>> discussion with Reg.  Intimacy, future, style.

 SR>>>>  I wonder if all this hasn't to do
 SR>>>>  with the fantasy of anima mundi, the soul of the world.

 SR>> No, not really.  Anima Mundi is not God, nor was it ever 
identified
 SR>> with God. It means 'Soul of the World'  It is a Neo-Platonic 
idea,

 WL> ....

 SR>> So that everything in the world was
 SR>> anima-ted, the product of soul.

 WL> Yes I have a notion of that idea of the world being full of
 WL> soul, or alive, and breathing as it were.  I still see that as
 WL> a god like quality.  More pagan than Christian.

Yes, that's right.But I see that is not what you are talking about.

 WL> My urge for connection that i still feel is not with that for
 WL> some reason. When i say world or cosmos, it is people creating
 WL> a new web of communication, and a new culture.  Perhaps it is a
 WL> renaissance in the sense of the 'global village'.  It is so
 WL> strange this pull to the computer, I have just been up at a
 WL> BBQ, here in a literal village, and now pleased to be back
 WL> here, with my prosthesis, my aid for wiring up to you and
 WL> others who will read and reply, perhaps years from now.

What you are talking about is strictly human. The cosmos you speak 
of is a
human cosmos, a human connection, it is as you say people creating 
a new
communication web. I mean you are not talking about the
cosmos as the sun and the moon, and the rivers and trees and 
mountains -
nature and all that stuff.

 WL> I think it is very like the pull you have to your books
 WL> Stanley, it is just that the Great Discussions have become
 WL> digital, and we are much closer to the authors, and searching
 WL> text, copying it and quoting it has become *so* much easier
 WL> that we are going thru a Guttenberg mark 11 shift, from
 WL> analogue type to digital.  AND even Socrates can join in.  Here
 WL> are some quotes lifted straight off a CD.


 WL> Socrates   469-399 BC

S>> Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods.
 WL> (From Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, bk. II,
 WL> sec. 27)

 WL>  This one is a bit off topic, it relates to your Anti-quarian
 WL>  message Stanley.

S>> Bad men live that they may eat and drink, whereas good men eat 
and
drink
S>> that they may live.
 WL> (From Plutarch, How a Young Man Ought to Hear Poems.)

How many hours have you used up dipping into your CDs Walter.

 WL> This relates to the question i have been musing over, on the
 WL> nature of Psybernet.  Is it to assist psychology out there or
 WL> in here, in cyberspace. In other words we eat to type!

S>> I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.
 WL> (From Plutarch, Of Banishment)
 WL> Ah now we are on topic!  He was before his time.  Perhaps that
 WL> is the quest, & why i am not at the BBQ.

 WL> Marcus Tullius Cicero  106-43 BC
MTC>> Socrates was the first to call philosophy down from the 
heavens and
MTC>> to place it in cities, and even to introduce it into homes and
compel
MTC>> it to inquire about life and standards and goods and evils.
 WL> (Tusculanae Disputationes, V, 4.)

 WL> Perhaps ethics as they wrote about it then was more to do with
 WL> psychotherapy than morals.  The question of how to live, is at
 WL> the root of their discussions, as it is in psychotherapy.

Yes, that's it. That was Socrates' main emphasis. That was his whole
enquiry into 'The Good' and 'The Beautiful'.  Philosophers before 
him, the
Ionian Pre-Socratics, were really 'physicists', inquiring into the 
nature
of the world: like, was it all basically air? -  or air and fire? 
and so
on. Plato and his mate Socrates introduced a new angle. Never mind 
what
the world is made of, never mind questions about the firmament, the 
real
question is : what is the good life. That's what Cicero must have me
meant by
saying Socrates brought philosophy down from the heavens into the 
cities
and the homes of people.

 WL> Thomas Paine  1737-1809
TP>> My country is the world and my religion is to do good.
 WL> (The Rights of Man, pt. II [1792], ch. 5)

 WL> Another psychotherapist??

Yes right. Ever since Plato we have thought heaps about 'The Good' 
and
maybe have neglected 'The Beautiful'

                              Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:26 2000
Date: (441)   Thu 13 Jan 94 22:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Connecting to the Cosmos
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a6065ddd

Hi Stanley,


 WL>> Yes I have a notion of that idea of the world being full of
 WL>> soul, or alive, and breathing as it were.  I still see that as
 WL>> a god like quality.  More pagan than Christian.

 SR> Yes, that's right.But I see that is not what you are talking 
about.

Yep.

 WL>> My urge for connection that i still feel is not with that for
 WL>> some reason. When i say world or cosmos, it is people creating
 WL>> a new web of communication, and a new culture.

 SR> What you are talking about is strictly human. The cosmos you 
speak of
 SR> is a human cosmos, a human connection, it is as you say people 
creating
 SR> a new communication web. I mean you are not talking about the
 SR> cosmos as the sun and the moon, and the rivers and trees and 
mountains
 SR> nature and all that stuff.

No not a physicist, but perhaps not entirely humanist either,  In 
my little
paper on psychology of cyberspace  (See Psybernet Introductory 
Library,
MED*.txt)  I put this bit in:

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------

*Imagine*: In a past life you had more to learn from a person. Your 
daemons
attempt to get you two together in this life. They are very pleased 
with the
availability of computers and the telephone network, it makes their 
job
easier.

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------

In my clumsy way i am alluding to the unfolding of a process, 
perhaps bigger
than us.  The collective unconscious.

 S> Bad men live that they may eat and drink, whereas good men eat 
and
 S> drink that they may live.

WL>> (From Plutarch, How a Young Man Ought to Hear Poems.)

 WL>> This relates to the question i have been musing over, on the
 WL>> nature of Psybernet.  Is it to assist psychology out there or
 WL>> in here, in cyberspace. In other words we eat to type!

 SR> How many hours have you used up dipping into your CDs Walter.

Ah I found all the quotes in that last message in about 3 minutes.  
That is
the wonder of digital information.  Searchable.  Also i found more 
than i
really needed.  That is the down side of availability of info, like 
amateur
desktop publishers using about 20 different fonts per page.

 WL>> Perhaps ethics as they wrote about it then was more to do with
 WL>> psychotherapy than morals.  The question of how to live, is at
 WL>> the root of their discussions, as it is in psychotherapy.

 SR> Yes, that's it. That was Socrates' main emphasis. That was his 
whole
 SR> inquiry into 'The Good' and 'The Beautiful'.  Philosophers 
before him,
 SR> the Ionian Pre-Socratics, were really 'physicists', inquiring 
into the
 SR> nature of the world: like, was it all basically air? -  or air 
and
 SR> fire? and so on. Plato and his mate Socrates introduced a new 
angle.
 SR> Never mind what the world is made of, never mind questions 
about the
 SR> firmament, the real question is : what is the good life. 
That's what
 SR> Cicero must have meant by saying Socrates brought philosophy 
down from
 SR> the heavens into the cities and the homes of people.

 WL>> Thomas Paine  1737-1809
 TP>>> My country is the world and my religion is to do good.
 WL>> (The Rights of Man, pt. II [1792], ch. 5)

 WL>> Another psychotherapist??

 SR> Yes right. Ever since Plato we have thought heaps about 'The 
Good' and
 SR> maybe have neglected 'The Beautiful'


Ah Oscar the Alter back eh!



see you in the next message,


Walter

... Psybernet BBS, Psychological Cybernetics, +64-3-365-6876  
3:770/270
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (142)   Wed 20 Oct 93 16:41                         
From: Reg Smith
To: All
Subject: Flames
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

20 October, 1993
Psybernet Conference, Public.

Hello World,

Have you noticed that I don't post many messages in the open 
conferences,
well I guess most people wouldn't really notice would they, how can 
you
notice something that is not there. Well I was actually talking to 
those
that endure my ramblings in the non public arena. Anyway, I was 
writing a
reply to Stanley about something and it occurred to me that I might 
have
something useful to say about flames, so here goes.


!!!!!!! Flames !!!!!!!!
**************************

Hey, BTW do you like the way I simulated flames with those gaspy 
thingies.

Flames, in BBS parlance, from what I can gather, are when people 
start
slinging insults at each other, and try to go one up and discredit 
the
other person and all that sort of stuff. They often start because one
person has misunderstood another or when someone wants to feel good 
by
putting others down and they will twist things around to advance 
their own
cause. I remember when I first started telecomputing that some of 
the more
seasoned folk had very little ability to role reverse with those 
new to
it. One particular guy started telling me I had over quoted in a 
message,
I reckon at that stage I had done bloody well to even upload a 
reply, let
alone use an off-line reader, under or over quoting in the process. 
To my
way of thinking the guy could tactfully have explained to me that 
some
people found it a little tedious when a whole message was quoted 
back, he
might even have enquired as to my level of competence with using an 
off-
line mail reader. He could have said something like: "Hey Reg, I am 
not
trying to be smart, but have you had much experience with all this
messaging and stuff?" He might have done well to offer some 
constructive
hints or if time and energy were against him, guide me to an 
appropriate
echo where I might improve my skills at it all, but no, what did that
smart arsed jerk proceed to do, he insulted me and warmed me down 
from the
idea that I wanted to write messages that the rest of the world might
read. I ended up feeling bad and decided that I was not going to 
log onto
that BBS again. I might add that I have only logged onto it once 
since
then to get a particular file I thought might be there. Can you see 
the
terrible warm-up this guy created within me? I reckon the reason 
why a lot
of people log onto BBS's and never leave a message are because of
experiences similar to what I had back then. Now that I know a 
little more
about all this, I think I am starting to form my own opinions on 
these
matters, I actually think that in *some* circumstances it is a good 
idea
to quote a whole message and maybe even the one before if you are
responding to something that is on it's way to being buried. So 
there Mr
S.A. Jerk, May your ego burn to a crisp and the ashes be washed 
down a
sewer. BTW, the person I refer to has never logged on here so you 
don't
have to get all worried and paranoid that I am secretly getting at 
anyone.







Bye for now 
 Reg

... Stoking the furnace deepens the warm-up
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:11 2000
Date: (151)   Thu 28 Oct 93 12:29                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Flames
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

 RS> Hello World,

Hello Reg,


 RS> !!!!!!! Flames !!!!!!!!
 RS> **************************

 RS> Hey, BTW do you like the way I simulated flames with those
 RS> gaspy thingies.

Lovely.

 RS> Can y terrible warm-up this guy created within me?

I can, the angriest I ever got was logging onto the eagles BBS in
Australia.  I had to fill in an extremely long questionnaire, and 
then it
asked me if I wanted to have more access, IE having none!  I said 
yes and
it proceeded with another questionnaire, with all the same 
questions.  All
very confusing asking for which State you were from.  I think I'll 
just
say Canterbury next time someone asks that.  I gave up and left the 
most
foul mouthed message I have ever left.

I think the role reversal goes both ways.

When there is the escalation in the flame war, water is called for:
humility and compassion and empathy and respect and faith in human 
nature
and the repeating of the  mantra:

There are no evil people in the world.

Who is going to be the first to back down?  I would have found it 
hard on
that toll call to leave a little educational note to the sysop!  That
would have been best though don't you think?

When I work with couples, and in my own relationship (heaven 
forbid) to
ask the question:  What is really going on under this war, can be a 
drop
to a deeper level,  one where the toothpaste tube is of little
consequence.

The other thing is not to reply.  In my experience I have had some
arrogant replies from medical model people on Compuserve.  No reply 
was
the best I could do.  I just dont see the point in fighting with 
them.

 RS> being buried. S.A. Jerk, May your ego burn to a crisp and the
 RS> ashes be washed down the sewer. BTW, the person I refer to has 
never
 RS> logged  on here

Not yet eh?  Well get the bastard if he does!

 RS> ... Stoking the furnace deepens the warm-up

Perhasps not.  A bit less volatile ram goes a long way.



Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (161)   Tue 2 Nov 93 22:11                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Flames
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

1st Nov 1993
Psybernet Conference, Public.

Dear Reg,


 RS> !!!!!!! Flames !!!!!!!!
 RS> **************************

 RS> Hey, BTW do you like the way I simulated flames with those
 RS> gaspy thingies.

 RS> Flames, in BBS parlance, from what I can gather, are when
 RS> people start slinging insults at each other, and try to go one
 RS> up and discredit the other person and all that sort of stuff.
 RS> They often start because one person has misunderstood another
 RS> or when someone wants to feel good by putting others down and
 RS> they will twist things around to advance their own cause.

I am such a completely new boy, Reg, that I have never left a 
message on
any other BBS beside Psybernet. Actually I have always been too 
nervous
to. I'm like the spoiled child who has never left home - and while
everyone is so kind to me here I might never do so !!!

                              Best,
                                        Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:14 2000
Date: (178)   Mon 8 Nov 93 21:49                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Flames
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

8 November, 1993
Psybernet Conference, Public.

Hello Stanley,


 SR> I am such a completely new boy, Reg, that I have never left a
 SR> message on any other BBS beside Psybernet. Actually I have
 SR> always been too nervous to. I'm like the spoiled child who has
 SR> never left home - and while everyone is so kind to me here I
 SR> might never do so !!!

Newness is somewhat relative Stanley, in some respects the whole 
notion of
telecomputing is still very much in it's infancy, more so of course 
with
regard to Psybernet, in that regard I see us all as new kids. I must
admit, that other than for technical type assistance I am not a 
frequent
visitor of many of the other BBS of the world either, but when I have
ventured further it has not always been to my liking. Mind you, I 
am sure
that many people will log on here and find Psybernet not to their 
liking
either, everyone to their own I guess. I hope Psybernet continues 
to meet
your needs or whatever else it is that draws you here.






Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (214)   Wed 24 Nov 93 13:45                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Flames
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/115 fac930b1

Reg is replying to Stanley who replied to Reg on 22 Nov 93 09:57pm


Hello Stanley,


 RS>> the whole notion of telecomputing is still very much in it's
 RS>> infancy, more so of course with regard to Psybernet, in that
 RS>> regard I see us all as new kids. I must admit, that other than
 RS>> for technical type assistance I am not a frequent visitor of
 RS>> many of the other BBS of the world either, but when I have
 RS>> ventured further it has not always been to my liking. Mind you,
 RS>> I am sure that many people will log on here and find Psybernet
 RS>> not to their liking either, everyone to their own I guess. I
 RS>> hope Psybernet continues to meet your needs or whatever else it
 RS>> is that draws you here.

 SR> Thank you Reg.  I think the one of the things that draws me is 
the
 SR> newness of this world. Thanks for all the help you have given 
me.
 SR> That's just the technical side - not to mention the Psybernet 
Group
 SR> we belong to.

No worries mate, (just to slip into the vernacular of my homeland) 
and
thank you for your participation at all levels. I especially like 
it that
you acknowledge my contributions at different levels, this theme of
joint attendance of the technical and non-technical has emerged on 
the BBS
before. Walter and I have also had many discussions on this topic, 
I think
we concluded that a satisfactory attendance of both will be a major 
factor
in ensuring that Psybernet is a success.

I find that I am learning from everyone in this adventure, again at 
all
levels. It has always been like that in my life, I learn most by 
entering
into whatever emerges, sometimes it is uncomfortable and frustrating,
other times it is very rewarding, overall it is a great journey we 
are on.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (211)   Mon 22 Nov 93 21:57                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Flames
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1
     

Thank you Reg.  I think the one of the things that draws me is the 
newness of 
this world. Thanks for all the help you have given me. That's just 
the technical side - not to mention the Psybernet Group we belong to.

                                                  Best,
                                                                               
 Stanley

  
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (159)   Tue 2 Nov 93 22:11                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: All
Subject: MALE ARCHETYPES
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


                Do I have it right . You want a masculine
archetype, something a man can identify himself  with that is not 
only
woman- friendly but actively seeks to enhance and empower the 
feminine
in her own being and for her own sake.

           I suggested to you the figure of Dionysos and you
  said that this archetype was unsuitable because it was
  represented by Rajneesh who was into exploiting women sexually
  for his own purposes. But in that judgment you are looking at
  Rajneesh, not Dionysos. Whatever the former may have said
  about himself as a self styled Dionysian there are some very
  important differences as soon as we look at proper sources.
  The first, for you, would be that Dionysian 'orgia' were not
  of a sexual nature. Walter Otto, the foremost scholar on
  Dionysos, has this to say: 'there is nothing so foreign to the
  orgiastic dancers of the god than unrestrained sensuality. (It
  is demonstrated) in the most convincing manner that the
  maenads (the women who followed Dionysos) are characterized by a
stateliness and haughty aloofness, and that their wildness has 
nothing
to do with lustful excitement....( Dionysos: Myth and Cult pp.117)

          Thus there is no evidence in the countless
  mythological stories around this figure, that he used the
  women who followed him in a sexual way; what he did do was to
  liberate them from domestic slavery in the household (oikos),
  and from their husbands as well. When the women heard Dionysos
  approach they dropped their sewing and washing and cooking and
  followed him dancing and singing into the hills where they
  discovered they had magical powers, which, when a number of
  hostile armed men approached, the women, with their new found
  magic, rendered their weapons useless.

           Dionysos although soft and feminine himself, was
  utterly ruthless and terrifying when certain men stood in the
  way. The famous story, of course, is that of King Penthios,
  symbol of masculine and kingly power, who was frightened of
  the growing influence of the god and who not only tried to
  stop him, but tried to spy on the orgia. Actually the god
  encouraged the king to try this mad escapade knowing that it
  would bring about his downfall. The result was that the King's
  mother mistook her son for a lion and cut off his head. All
  organized by Dionysos himself.

           I think Dionysos is an aspect of the masculine psyche
  that should thoroughly recommend itself to us.. The women who
  followed him were wild in the strongest possible sense. One
  could relate stories that would make the hair stand on end.

           In Dionysos one is aware of a depth, the quality of
  which is found in few other gods. He was called the mad god
  because of what he brought out in the women. No one could call
  him a New Age Wimp. Yet there was a faithfulness in him. When
  Ariadne helped Theseus in his fight with the Minotaur - you
  remember she gave Theseus a thread so that he could find his
  way out of the maze - what did the Great Hero do? Although he
  was ostensibly taking Ariadne home to marry her, he abandoned
  her on the island of Naxos. And when she was woefully calling
  upon Hermes to take her soul to Hades it was Dionysos who not
  only rescued her, but married her and remained faithful.
  There's heaps more  I could tell you about Dionysos. He's a
  fascinating fellow. But I hope that is enough  to whet your
  appetite and put a few misrepresentations to rest.

                                Best,
                                     Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:12 2000
Date: (157)   Tue 2 Nov 93  0:00                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Flames & Wars
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1

2 November, 1993
Psybernet Conference, public.

 RS>> Hello World,

 WL> Hello Reg,

Hello Walter, fancy meeting you here, do you come here often?

I have just had one of those horrible experiences of typing a rather
lengthy message and having to rush off to swimming with the kids I
musn't have saved it properly. On return the message was nowhere to 
be
found, not even unerasable as I had saved something else over it, oh
well that is life, here is the shorter second edition:


 RS>> !!!!!!! Flames !!!!!!!!
 RS>> **************************

 RS>> Hey, BTW do you like the way I simulated flames with those
 RS>> gaspy thingies.

 WL> Lovely.

 RS>> Can you see the terrible warm-up this guy created within me?

 WL> I can, the angriest I ever got was logging onto the eagles BBS
 WL> in Australia.  I had to fill in an extremely long
 WL> questionnaire, and then it asked me if I wanted to have more
 WL> access, IE having none!  I said yes and it proceeded with
 WL> another questionnaire, with all the same questions.  All very
 WL> confusing asking for which State you were from.  I think I'll
 WL> just say Canterbury next time someone asks that.  I gave up and
 WL> left the most foul mouthed message I have ever left.

I remember you telling me about it at the time, almost enough to 
put us
off staying with RA. I wonder whether the name of the board says 
something
at an unconscious level. Eagles are birds of prey are they not? <G>

 WL> I think the role reversal goes both ways.

Yes, most definitely.

 WL> When there is the escalation in the flame war, water is called
 WL> for: humility and compassion and empathy and respect and faith
 WL> in human nature and the repeating of the  mantra:

 WL> There are no evil people in the world.

Only people who sometimes *behave* horribly and often because they 
have
been treated badly themselves.

 WL> Who is going to be the first to back down?

I think that speaking in terms of *backing down* might keep the 
parties
locked in battle. I have written about such covert metaphors and 
the warm-
ups they create in my psychodrama thesis, under the heading of Re-
definition, I will have a go at pasting a case example I used to 
highlight
this same point, I hope it comes out ok and does not appear too 
much out
of context.

Tom And Mary's War
*******************
 I once  worked with  a couple who had recently separated, let's 
call them
Mary and  Tom. We  were discussing  custody and access 
arrangements. Their
language had  strong connotations  of war. Tom talked about not 
wanting to
give in  and *surrender* the custody *battle*. He seemed intent on 
winning
at all cost. I challenged Tom to consider expressing himself in 
other than
warlike terms.  He met my suggestion with defensiveness and 
resistance. He
responded like  a warrior  with a  bronze shield.   "It's  the 
language  I
always use,  it's  the  way  I've  been  brought  up"  says  Tom.  
As  the
counselling progressed and we looked more closely at the roles Mary 
played
and how  she expressed  herself, we discovered that for many years 
she had
played the  role of *peacemaker* and continued to do so. She was 
seeking a
*truce*.  Mary   deeply  regretted   the  marriage  was  ending,  
but  was
reluctantly starting  to accept  this and had resolved that it was 
time to
*bury the  hatchet* and  get on with her life; whereas Tom still 
wanted to
*do battle*;  he felt betrayed by Mary and viewed her as a 
*traitor*. Mary
and Tom  made some  progress in  counselling; I believe however 
they would
have progressed much further were I able to engage them into 
redefining.

                         *************************


 WL> I would have found
 WL> it hard on that toll call to leave a little educational note to
 WL> the sysop!  That would have been best though don't you think?

Yes, but how many of us are perfect eh? Tis our imperfections that 
make us
human and lovable. <G>

 WL> When I work with couples, and in my own relationship (heaven
 WL> forbid) to ask the question:  What is really going on under
 WL> this war, can be a drop to a deeper level,  one where the
 WL> toothpaste tube is of little consequence.

Yes it is good to look deeper. The above case example also tells 
you a
little of one of the approaches I sometimes take when I see a couple
locked into such metaphors.

 WL> The other thing is not to reply.  In my experience I have had
 WL> some arrogant replies from medical model people on Compuserve.
 WL> No reply was the best I could do.  I just don't see the point in
 WL> fighting with them.

Yes, sometimes it is best to walk away, I have always found that 
difficult
myself, but I do succeed at it on occasions.

 RS>> being buried. S.A. Jerk, May your ego burn to a crisp and the
 RS>> ashes be washed down the sewer. BTW, the person I refer to 
has never
 RS>> logged  on here

 WL> Not yet eh?  We'll get the bastard if he does!

What are you suggesting Walter, should I enter his name into the 
unwanted
list, it can be done, or just wait till he logs on and with a cold
calculated jab of the finger on the delete key mark his name for 
deletion
from the user list? Oh I do have a nasty streak in me don't I?


 RS>> ... Stoking the furnace deepens the warm-up

 WL> Perhaps not.  A bit less volatile ram goes a long way.

Oh, it always deepens the warm-up, the question is more one of 
which warm-
ups do we want to deepen and which not?

This may also sound like a contradiction to my whole message, but
sometimes a good clean fight can have a positive outcome. These 
days I
mainly only fight with those I care about, more accurately I guess 
I am
fighting for them. I think it is ok so long as no one gets maimed 
or hurt
to the point where they withdraw.



Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:13 2000
Date: (170)   Fri 5 Nov 93 22:33                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Anima and Animus
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


Hello All,

I have been talking a lot about gender issues on this board and if 
anyone
is bored with that, please move on to the next message.

At the same time Reg and I have used the word genderizing.  We used 
it  in
different ways though, I thing he means looking at the world and 
relating
everything to a feminist perspective or debate.

I use it quite differently.  I *am* genderizing in Reg's sense, 
making the
point that many things, qualities and roles are genderized.  
Nurturing is
called feminine, thrusting, male.  I would suggest we do not do 
that any
more.  Nothing needs to be classified that way.

James Hillman usefully attempted to degenderise anima and animus.  
I am
summarising a summary by Christine Downing in Mirrors of the self, 
Anima
is not an 'inner woman' but a soul guide, both men and women have.  
Animus
is the ego stripped of its pretensions to being the whole self.  I 
enjoy
experiencing these archetypes in me as I see it put this way.

It also makes it really clear to me why 'man' and 'woman' are not 
roles in
the psychodramatic sense.  'Angry man' does not describe the role, 
'angry
fighter' does and a man or a woman could do it.


What do you think?


Walter.




Walter Logeman

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (198)   Tue 16 Nov 93 15:15                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anima and Animus
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/4.00H1


 Hello All,

 WL> I have been talking a lot about gender issues on this board and
 WL> if anyone is bored with that, please move on to the next
 WL> message.

 WL> At the same time Reg and I have used the word genderizing.  We
 WL> used it  in different ways though, I thing he means looking at
 WL> the world and relating everything to a feminist perspective or
 WL> debate.

 WL> I use it quite differently.  I *am* genderizing in Reg's sense,
 WL> making the point that many things, qualities and roles are
 WL> genderized.  Nurturing is called feminine, thrusting, male.  I
 WL> would suggest we do not do that any more.  Nothing needs to be
 WL> classified that way.

 WL> James Hillman usefully attempted to degenderise anima and
 WL> animus.  I am summarising a summary by Christine Downing in
 WL> Mirrors of the self, Anima is not an 'inner woman' but a soul
 WL> guide, both men and women have.  Animus is the ego stripped of
 WL> its pretensions to being the whole self.  I enjoy experiencing
 WL> these archetypes in me as I see it put this way.

 WL> It also makes it really clear to me why 'man' and 'woman' are
 WL> not roles in the psychodramatic sense.  'Angry man' does not
 WL> describe the role, 'angry fighter' does and a man or a woman
 WL> could do it.


 WL> What do you think?

          If 'man' is not a role, that is something determined by the
imagination, what is it then?  It must be something substantive, 
something
factual, something which is unchanging even though it assumes roles

          To make this model work we have to postulate that there are
literal things called men and women (facts) which then assume roles
(imaginal qualities). Thus the entities we designate 'men' and 
'women' are
thought of as outside the imaginal (ie the archetypal) whereas 
'roles' are
within it.  In 'Angry man', 'man'  is the substantive subject, where
'angry' is adjectival and which qualifies the noun. "Angry' is a 
quality
(role) that the subject assumes without altering the nature of the
subject. He would still be the same man if later he were sad rather 
than
angry. This is standard grammar. It is derived and is the product 
of a
definite philosophical (read, fantasy) position.

          I would want to say that if you make gender a matter of 
fact
rather than a matter of imagination, as you seem to be implying in 
your
scheme, I think you invite some very difficult psychological 
problems.

          For example, what are you going to do with the homosexual 
who
says, as one did to me, 'I am in a man's body and it is the wrong 
body. I
am actually a woman'. Are you going to say that the factor which
determines what he is substantively, is what the body says, or what 
the
psyche says?  In your scheme you must ask which is the substance 
and which
is the role. If you say that the body is the substance and the 
psyche is
assuming a role, are we not saying or implying that the psyche is
assuming a *false* role?.  Is he not trying to be something he is 
not?.
Don't we have then to say that he is *really* a man playing at 
being a
woman. Phenomenologically, a homosexual does not experience himself 
as
playing a role. He does not experience himself as being false, 
although he
well might experience his body as such; that is, not expressing 
what he
truly is.  Are we not to believe him then?

          Likewise perhaps an angry man does not experience himself 
first
as a man,  and then as one who is angry. We can just as well say 
that he
is 'an angry' with the quality 'man'.  If we make 'angry' a role, 
that is
a imaginative quality, then we must grant the same thing to 'man' ' 
Man'
is an archetypal quality which no individual exactly replicates, 
not even
Elvis Presley! And certainly not my homosexual.

                              Best,
                                        Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (215)   Fri 26 Nov 93  0:35                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Anima and Animus
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hello Stanley,


Ah I have found this message again!  I knew there was one i was 
looking
forward to replying to.


 SR>           If 'man' is not a role, that is something determined
 SR>           by the imagination, what is it then?  It must be
 SR>  something substantive, something factual, something which is
 SR>  unchanging even though it assumes roles

 SR>           To make this model work we have to postulate that
 SR>  there are literal things called men and women (facts) which
 SR>  then assume roles (imaginal qualities). Thus the entities we
 SR>  designate 'men' and 'women' are thought of as outside the
 SR>  imaginal (ie the archetypal) whereas 'roles' are within it.

Yes that *is* how I am thinking of it, mind you, I am open to 
thinking of it
differently.  It seems to me, useful to make a distinction between 
the two
pairs:  male/female and masculine/feminine.  The first refers to the
biological status and the second to the imaginal, archetypal, 
fantasy,
Andrew Samuels does this in Jung and the Post Jungians, page 207.  
He calls
the first sex and the second gender.  Yes, it does make the sex a 
fact and
the other more a matter of poetry, an abstraction.


 SR>  In 'Angry man', 'man'  is the substantive subject, where
 SR>  'angry' is adjectival and which qualifies the noun. "Angry' is
 SR>  a quality (role) that the subject assumes without altering the
 SR>  nature of the subject. He would still be the same man if later
 SR>  he were sad rather than angry. This is standard grammar. It is
 SR>  derived and is the product of a definite philosophical (read,
 SR>  fantasy) position.

 SR>           I would want to say that if you make gender a matter
 SR>  of fact rather than a matter of imagination, as you seem to be
 SR>  implying in your scheme, I think you invite some very
 SR>  difficult psychological problems.

Using the admittedly somewhat arbitrary definition of Samuels' I 
presume you
mean 'sex' here and not really gender.  I am making sex a matter of 
fact.

 SR>           For example, what are you going to do with the
 SR>  homosexual who says, as one did to me, 'I am in a man's body
 SR>  and it is the wrong body. I am actually a woman'. Are you
 SR>  going to say that the factor which determines what he is
 SR>  substantively, is what the body says, or what the psyche says?

This sort of person is usually referred to as a trans-sexual, he 
may not
even be a homosexual, he is attracted to men but he is 'really a 
woman', ie
heterosexual!  I am sure you know this but it is clearer to put it 
that way
i think.

 SR>   In your scheme you must ask which is the substance and which
 SR>  is the role.

Arg!  We are still using somewhat different jargon.  By 'role' in the
psychodrama modality we are speaking of something substantive.  We 
are not
some 'real' thing that assumes a false outer thing called a role.  
I know it
is an unusual use of the term and i should have made it clear, but 
after
speaking about these things for 14 years with only psychodrama 
trained
people it is an old habit.  Now to get to the substantive <grin> 
response to
your last sentence.

I would say he was a man, biologically, as he says, in his body.  
The role
he is in is much more a matter of poetry, it might be 'sad misfit',
'misunderstood prisoner', ie clamouring to get out of the body he 
feels
trapped in.  I imagine that there are a whole lot of roles that 
together
constitute "transsexual"  which i also do not really see as a role, 
nor is
homosexual or schizophrenic.

 SR>  If you say that the body is the substance and the
 SR>  psyche is assuming a role, are we not saying or implying that
 SR>  the psyche is assuming a *false* role?.  Is he not trying to
 SR>  be something he is not?. Don't we have then to say that he is
 SR>  *really* a man playing at being a woman. Phenomenologically, a
 SR>  homosexual does not experience himself as playing a role. He
 SR>  does not experience himself as being false, although he well
 SR>  might experience his body as such; that is, not expressing
 SR>  what he truly is.  Are we not to believe him then?

Gosh the words are all so spongy, I hope we can make sense of what 
we are
trying to say without being totally at cross purposes.  Perhaps the
definitions I have been using and now declared make it clear that...

1.  Role is a way of describing someone's responses or way of being 
in a
particular moment in an abstract way, thus a 'good' description of 
the role
includes the body actions, the feelings and the thoughts.  'Furtive 
admirer'
for example presents an image that gives some clues as to action, 
thoughts
and feelings.  A good description is somewhat objective in that 
others,
including the person being described would say 'Yes that is it.'

2.  In the sense i am using the word, Moranian, people are in roles 
all the
time and not 'playing them'.  When, in the psychodrama jargon we 
wish to use
the word in that way we say something like enacting the role.

3.  The example of the trans-sexual is really a very confusing one 
until we
get out basic terminology clear.  I certainly *do* believe him.


 SR>           Likewise perhaps an angry man does not experience
 SR>  himself first as a man,  and then as one who is angry. We can
 SR>  just as well say that he is 'an angry' with the quality 'man'.
 SR>   If we make 'angry' a role, that is a imaginative quality,
 SR>  then we must grant the same thing to 'man' ' Man' is an
 SR>  archetypal quality which no individual exactly replicates, not
 SR>  even Elvis Presley! And certainly not my homosexual.

This is more what I was on about rather than all the discussion of
terminology.  I do not think that 'man' is a role here, or 
archetypal.  It
is more, perhaps, an irrelevant but over-rated fact.  The role is 
in the
*angry* and in some sort of noun, say, 'fighter', then we get a 
picture of
the quality of the role, and both men and women can do it.  To say 
that male
or female is a quality which denotes anything other than biology is 
the
genderizing of qualities.  We could give it up.  To say that 
someone is a
feminine fighter, does present an image, but presumes sexual 
stereotyping.
If we did not have that then it would make no sense to use 
masculine and
feminine as qualities.  I see it as a perpetuation of sex role 
stereotyping
to

I just want to add that certain qualities *are* in fact associated 
with and
present in, men more than women in our culture (and vice versa).  I 
do not
wish to deny that in any way.  Deliberately degenderiseing is one 
way of
changing that phenomena.


Oh my goodness i hope this is not just a jumble of confusion.  I 
*think* I
know what I am *trying* to say!   If i come across examples i will 
add them
to this thread.



Walter




--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:18 2000
Date: (228)   Thu 2 Dec 93 16:22                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anima and Animus
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
   Psybernet Conference, public.

 Hello Walter,


 WL> Ah I have found this message again!  I knew there was one i was
 WL> looking forward to replying to.


 SR>>           If 'man' is not a role, that is something determined
 SR>>           by the imagination, what is it then?  It must be
 SR>>  something substantive, something factual, something which is
 SR>>  unchanging even though it assumes roles

 SR>>           To make this model work we have to postulate that
 SR>>  there are literal things called men and women (facts) which
 SR>>  then assume roles (imaginal qualities). Thus the entities we
 SR>>  designate 'men' and 'women' are thought of as outside the
 SR>>  imaginal (ie the archetypal) whereas 'roles' are within it.

 WL> Yes that *is* how I am thinking of it, mind you, I am open to
 WL> thinking of it differently.  It seems to me, useful to make a
 WL> distinction between the two pairs:  male/female and
 WL> masculine/feminine.  The first refers to the biological status
 WL> and the second to the imaginal, archetypal, fantasy, Andrew
 WL> Samuels does this in Jung and the Post Jungians, page 207.  He
 WL> calls the first sex and the second gender.  Yes, it does make
 WL> the sex a fact and the other more a matter of poetry, an
 WL> abstraction.
   
Ok lets play it like you say, and lets talk about gender rather than
sex.  Lets put biological sex to one side (ie male and female) and
talk only about gender (ie masculine and feminine). You are saying
that 'sex' is a biological given and you are separating it from
'imaginal gender'. In this case there is obviously no psychological
'given' for any individual - unless you want to say that imaginal
gender is given (not a good move).  Otherwise my gender can be
masculine or feminine or both. My gender, as we are now using the
term, is not determined. It is a role in the sense that it is
imaginal, that is psychological.  I can then, as a biological male,
play at being a woman; ie adopt 'woman' as a role - or find myself in
that role, if you prefer to say?  Surely I can be an imaginal woman.
          This being so, an 'angry man' can refer to a biological
woman who is, gender-wise, an angry man.  That is, she is assuming 
the
gender role 'man' and 'he' is angry.  Would this not be that she is
sexwise a woman (fact), but an angry man (imaginal role)?.

          I think our trouble might be that we want to reserve the
words 'man' and 'woman' to denote biological sex.

 SR>>           For example, what are you going to do with the
 SR>>  homosexual who says, as one did to me, 'I am in a man's body
 SR>>  and it is the wrong body. I am actually a woman'. Are you
    SR>>  going to say that the factor which determines what he is
 SR>>  substantively, is what the body says, or what the psyche says?

 WL> This sort of person is usually referred to as a trans-sexual,
 WL> he may not even be a homosexual, he is attracted to men but he
 WL> is 'really a woman', ie heterosexual!  I am sure you know this
 WL> but it is clearer to put it that way i think.

OK got you!

 WL> I would say he was a man, biologically, as he says, in his
 WL> body.  The role he is in is much more a matter of poetry, it
 WL> might be 'sad misfit', 'misunderstood prisoner', ie clamouring
 WL> to get out of the body he feels trapped in.  I imagine that
 WL> there are a whole lot of roles that together constitute
 WL> "transsexual"  which i also do not really see as a role, nor is
 WL> homosexual or schizophrenic.

But this transsexual might not say 'I am a sad misfit'.  He might 
say,
'I am a woman'.  Why is this not a role?. It is being used in the
'gender' sense, not the 'sexual biology' sense.

 WL> 1.  Role is a way of describing someone's responses or way of
 WL> being in a particular moment in an abstract way, thus a 'good'
 WL> description of the role includes the body actions, the feelings
 WL> and the thoughts.  'Furtive admirer' for example presents an
 WL> image that gives some clues as to action, thoughts and
 WL> feelings.  A good description is somewhat objective in that
 WL> others, including the person being described would say 'Yes
 WL> that is it.'

This hypothetical transsexual's body actions, feelings and thoughts
might describe her role perfectly.  And I would have thought that 
when
our biological male transsexual calls herself 'a woman' she is not
using this word in a abstract way, but quite concretely: she would be
referring to a specific image she has of herself. She could say she
was a 'furtive woman', if you like; that would seem to me to still be
a role, ie imaginal, fantasy, psychological.


 SR>>           Likewise perhaps an angry man does not experience
 SR>>  himself first as a man,  and then as one who is angry. We can
 SR>>  just as well say that he is 'an angry' with the quality 'man'.
 SR>>   If we make 'angry' a role, that is a imaginative quality,
 SR>>  then we must grant the same thing to 'man' ' Man' is an
 SR>>  archetypal quality which no individual exactly replicates, not
 SR>>  even Elvis Presley! And certainly not my homosexual.

 WL> This is more what I was on about rather than all the discussion
 WL> of terminology.  I do not think that 'man' is a role here, or
 WL> archetypal.  It is more, perhaps, an irrelevant but over-rated
 WL> fact.  The role is in the *angry* and in some sort of noun,
 WL> say, 'fighter', then we get a picture of the quality of the
 WL> role, and both men and women can do it.

Apart from 'sex' you do allow 'gender' so why can't you allow 'angry
woman' in the gender sense?

.WL>  To say that male or
 WL> female is a quality which denotes anything other than biology
 WL> is the genderizing of qualities.

Now you've lost the distinction you started with: ie the  distinction
between 'male and female' (biological sex) and masculine and feminine
(imaginal, fantasy etc )


 WL> Oh my goodness i hope this is not just a jumble of confusion.
 WL> I *think* I know what I am *trying* to say!   If i come across
 WL> examples i will add them to this thread.

Oh my goodness too, Walter.  We'll work it out though - even if not
quite to each other's liking.

                                   Best,
                                             Stanley.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:14 2000
Date: (190)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: READ ANY GOOD BOOKS?
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>I'm not *just* restoring though.  I am looking for another good 
WL>novel.  I
WL>have just finished The Cornish Trilogy (see below)  I liked it a 
lot.

Have you read his other two trilogies, which I'm sure I've 
mentioned to 
you already?  They are perhaps a little less psych...ic, but equally 
enjoyable - possibly they have a more domesticated flavour about 
them.  
And as I think I've said, I didn't get much joy from the Marchbanks 
Papers 
- too affected for my taste.

WL>Not so hot on relationships though,  he seems to live in a world 
of 
WL>men
WL>and universities etc.

Yes, I felt this too, although isn't it strange how *normal* that 
seems, 
when the world is 'built' that way?

WL>I have read most of Marge Peircy,  shes good on relationships

Excellent, excellent.   I have done the same and greatly enjoyed her 
realness about people and her generally ripping good yarns, which I 
found 
hard to put down, as well as her brave perceptions about things.  
The only 
mildly negative comment I would make is that in some respects she 
is a 
trifle dated in her concerns, or at least she seems so to me 
because I was 
too young during the Vietnam War, the student riots, the draft 
resistance 
movement, the civil rights movement, the first wave of feminism etc 
etc to 
have the connection of memory with what she writes.  But the 
essence is 
the same.

WL>I'm
WL>reading Clarissa Pinkola Ests' Women who run with the Wolves.

I've been studiously avoiding this.  First, because I loathe fads in 
anything and avoid the objects of them on principle.  Second, 
because I'm 
waiting for something which allows women - or me personally - to 
think about and explore these things without men coming on board and 
redefining it or using it for their own puposes - such as the jerk 
in that 
wolves thread you put in the file area who wanted to know where he 
could 
meet some of these 'wild women'.  Choke, vomit.  That's what the 
women's 
conference is about, of course.

WL>like
WL>that, but have been listening to the tape and that is so much 
WL>quicker.  I
WL>need a novel.

Because you like to receive via a story?  If so, I dare say you 
might have 
came across Andrew Greeley, whose novel writing exists specifically 
for 
this purpose - even if it's third rate stuff in and of itself!  but 
Greeley is an interesting phenomenon.

Bye now

Eus

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (216)   Sat 27 Nov 93 23:25                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: READ ANY GOOD BOOKS?
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

WL>>I have read most of Marge Piercy,  shes good on relationships

 ST> Excellent, excellent.   I have done the same and greatly
 ST> enjoyed her realness about people and her generally ripping
 ST> good yarns, which I found hard to put down, as well as her
 ST> brave perceptions about things.  The only mildly negative
 ST> comment I would make is that in some respects she is a trifle
 ST> dated in her concerns, or at least she seems so to me because I
 ST> was too young during the Vietnam War, the student riots, the
 ST> draft resistance movement, the civil rights movement, the first
 ST> wave of feminism etc etc to have the connection of memory with
 ST> what she writes.  But the essence is the same.

I relate well to all that hippy yippy stuff, shows my age!

WL>>I'm
WL>>reading Clarissa Pinkola Ests' Women who run with the Wolves.

 ST> I've been studiously avoiding this.  First, because I loathe
 ST> fads in anything and avoid the objects of them on principle.
 ST> Second, because I'm waiting for something which allows women -
 ST> or me personally - to think about and explore these things
 ST> without men coming on board and redefining it or using it for
 ST> their own purposes - such as the jerk in that wolves thread you
 ST> put in the file area who wanted to know where he could meet
 ST> some of these 'wild women'.  Choke, vomit.  That's what the
 ST> women's conference is about, of course.

The fad is questionable and the comments you mention are gross but 
her
perspective I find challenging and useful.

WL>>need a novel.

 ST> Because you like to receive via a story?  If so, I dare say you
 ST> might have came across Andrew Greeley, whose novel writing
 ST> exists specifically for this purpose - even if it's third rate
 ST> stuff in and of itself!  but Greeley is an interesting
 ST> phenomenon.


Ah! thank you I will check that out.  Yes, receive, story . . . 
both those
and I usually am not satisfied fully unless it inspires and 
enlightens or
endeepens me.

I am currently reading Jane Smiley 'A Thousand Acres'.  It is a 
rewrite of
King Lear set in seventies USA rural community, I don't want to say 
too much
& spoil the effect for anyone wishing to read it, but it has the 
effect of
putting a whole new light on King Lear, Cornelia, Regan and 
Gonoril, Edmond
(though i have not figured him out quite)  They all go by different 
names of
course in the story.  The main new light is of course on WS 
himself, it is
that added dimension that i like about the story.  But i am only 
about half
way thru, it may not live up to expectations and it is a little 
slow moving.

all for now,


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (266)   Sat 11 Dec 93 23:02                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: READ ANY GOOD BOOKS?
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>I relate well to all that hippy yippy stuff, shows my age!

Get away, you are but a lad.  I relate to it in the sense that it 
was 
going on in the newspapers when I was at primary school and doing 
the 
dreaded 'current events', and because the themes are the same as 
today - 
fighting against things that are wasteful and unfair.  I mean to 
say, the 
Vietnam war seems to me to have been a heap of sh*t that cost a lot 
of 
lives, money, sanity, future and just about anything else you care 
to 
think of.  Like all wars.

WL>WL>>I'm
WL>WL>>reading Clarissa Pinkola Ests' Women who run with the Wolves.
WL>
WL> ST> I've been studiously avoiding this ...

WL>The fad is questionable and the comments you mention are gross 
but 
WL>her perspective I find challenging and useful.

Hmmm, I'm sure you're right and I would like to read it when the 
fad has 
subsided somewhat.  I suppose I'll get round to it at some time. To 
be 
honest I'm not doing much reading at this particular stage of 
my life.  Odd for me, being a three or four book a week worm for 
most of 
my life, but the relationship takes a lot of time and energy, with 
its 
attendant struggles and short people etc.  A different kind of book 
to be 
reading for an old loner ...

WL> ST> Because you like to receive via a story?  If so, I dare say 
you
WL> ST> might have came across Andrew Greeley, whose novel writing
WL> ST> exists specifically for this purpose - even if it's third 
rate
WL> ST> stuff in and of itself!  but Greeley is an interesting
WL> ST> phenomenon.
WL>
WL>
WL>Ah! thank you I will check that out.

I'd be interested to know what you think of him, if you ever get 
round to 
it.  The novels are lurid and trashy, but if you know a bit about 
his 
personal background and conscious reasons for writing them, they 
make a 
certain kind of sense.  A bit redolent of Penthouse fantasy in a 
way.  You 
know, the dazzling fantasies of the man who never ...

His theology - mostly fairly 'popular' and accesible - is brilliant 
in its 
its own way.  It may not do so much for somebody who is not a 
Catholic and 
does not care about ye old Mother Church, but he has some healthy 
insights and is a creative thinker.

WL>and I usually am not satisfied fully unless it inspires and 
WL>enlightens or
WL>endeepens me.

I know what you mean.  I am much more selective about what I read 
nowdays 
for that reason.  I no longer - or rarely - read something because 
everybody else is or I think I *ought* to.

WL>I am currently reading Jane Smiley 'A Thousand Acres'

I might search this one out, as it sounds interesting and a bit 
different.

Talk to you soon.

Eus

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (192)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: ONTOLOGY.
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL> WL> Personally I think that ontology has no place in anything 
to do
WL> WL> with the  Psyche.  Are Archetypes Real?  Questions like that
WL> WL> could absorb energy in  quite a few of the other areas and
WL> WL> belong HERE.

I must admit that although I liked the idea in theory, I found it a 
bit 
difficult to drag myself kicking and screaming to the point of 
deciding 
what I had to say that was ontological and what was not.  Seemed 
like a 
distinction I didn't need.  I guess I just like to talk.

WL>You see the Ontology discussion to date is mainly about how we 
don't 
WL>like
WL>ontological debates.  If you want to argue with that <g> you 
could 
WL>keep
WL>this thread going.

No argument.  I suppose it died while I was away being anti bulletin 
boards.  Still am, a bit.

WL>It was interesting that on the weekend the Sceptics came out in 
the 
WL>papers
WL>with how useless it was to have mediums assist in the work of the 
WL>police.
WL>Then today a guy found his dead mate's body by seeing him in a 
dream. 
WL> Who
WL>knows what is real?

Yes, and oddly enough I had an interview with Denis Dutton the 
other week, 
during the course of which he mentioned this incident in some 
detail plus 
his own scepticism about it.  BTW, I have a copy of a talk he gave 
at the 
medical school and will post it on as a doc file - would welcome 
feedback 
and discussion.  He talks about three areas - alternative medicine, 
the 
UFO abduction fad and the 'sex abuse industry' - ie the epidemic of 
false 
claims of abuse.  I was quite impressed with him as a person - very 
open 
and helpful, and certainly extremely interesting to talk to - a real 
academic in the old-fashioned sense of being a person of ideas, and 
quite ecclectic, which I like, not someone driven by a professional 
agenda.

But on the subject of the 'dead mate' being found through a dream - 
I know 
that if I lost someone or something very precious to me, I would 
not be 
above seeking that type of assistance, even though I find it 
intellectually difficult - well, the mediums rather than the dream 
as 
such.  But for a loss that went into the deeper places, I would 
search for 
help in deep places also.  Does that make sense?  Pain takes you 
into a 
place where those intellectual judgements and distinctions are hot 
air.

All the best

Eus

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (191)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER
Subject: Motif
St: Local Sent

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (197)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: THE ART OF THE IMPOSS
St: Local Rcvd Sent

SR> ... the psychological language we use alters psychological
SR>reality itself. So that in some sense HOW we describe something 
SR>actually creates what we are supposedly describing.
SR>The problem is that the psyche is inherently creative.

Chomsky again - the infinite creativity of language!

SR>So 
SR>that if we begin by postulating 'The Id' for example, or 'The 
Adult, or 
SR>'The Unconscious' or 'Aggression' or 'The Ego', before very long 
these 
SR>terms have ceased to be postulates of things that may be, or 
just ways 
SR>of thinking about things, and have become things which actually 
do 
SR>exist.  In such cases that naming of the thing precedes the 
existence 
SR>of the thing. People then start talking about the ego, for 
example, as 
SR>though it actually existed.  When literalism has got that far we 
are 
SR>starting to live in a fairy-land.  And that's Ok so long as you 
know 
SR>you are in mythology and that the basic subject matter of 
psychology is 
SR>the psyche's ability to create fiction.

I like this.  I know of an instance of it to do with women and the 
way 
their bodies are perceived; it goes like this:

Breasts are things women have, tits are things men think women have 
and 
boobs are things the media say women have.

The last two of these have actually come into existence as entities 
simply 
because they have been named and talked about.  And the naming came 
before 
the existence, in that the boob industry was going a long time 
before they 
developed silicon surgery.  But they don't know they're in 
mythology, that 
they have created a fiction.  They still act as if it's reality.  
It's 
powerful and bizarre stuff.

Yours mammarily

Eus


___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:15 2000
Date: (195)   Sat 13 Nov 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: DREAM GROUP
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>                 ͻ
WL>                                * DREAM GROUP *             
WL>                 1/4
WL>

WL>The group will run for six months from the commencement day.  You 
WL>will be
WL>notified a week before.  There is an understanding that members 
will 
WL>make
WL>participation a priority in their life, with approximately weekly 
WL>input.
WL>The fee is $NZ 150.  (includes GST).

Ouch!  I was looking foward to joining this, but I can't afford 
$150 for 
six months.  O dear!

Yours

Impoverished Eus



___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 4.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:16 2000
Date: (208)   Mon 22 Nov 93  2:14                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Gedit
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 RS> You just press enter like this:





 RS> That is six blank lines by pressing enter six times, I trust i
 RS> will not  reformat the paragraph.
YESS!

I can do that now but not inthe default editor, which mercifully is 
gone


END OF THREAD?



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:16 2000
Date: (205)   Sun 21 Nov 93 14:30                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Gedit
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 RS> It seems Gedit works fine .

 RS> I will see you round mate, yes I suspect you will, good to talk
 RS> with you.

PMFJI

I thouight it was still Top ed.

How do you get Gedit to leave a blank line like this:


Walter

bye,

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:16 2000
Date: (204)   Fri 19 Nov 93 14:13                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Gedit
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 528b71fe
@REPLY: 500:1100/20 528b6f62

 > Hello All,

 > I noticed that the online editor we were using called Toped,
 > was not performing as well as it should since we installed
 > RA2 a while back, ie it was making stange characters appear
 > on the screen.

 > I have installed Gedit which hopefully will perform better. I
 > am typing this message in Gedit and seems to be working fine,
 > if you notice any strange things happening, please leave us a
 > message.


Well Reg here you are replying to your own messages again, you know 
what they say about people who talk to themselves.

Yes I do know what they say and I say it is a sign of good health 
to be able to do that. It also helps in your ability to role 
reverse with other people when you can reverse roles with your self 
and talk to yourself.

Well anyway, I was just trying to see if the quoting function was 
working properly in Gedit on this occassion, which it was.

So why do we need to have a good online editor when we support 
Silver Xpress?

O that is because sometimes people might just want to leave quick 
short messages about something and those who have not yet mastered 
the art of all the offline stuff would surely want to have a half 
decent editor.

Oh I see, well that is just great Reg.

It seems Gedit works fine .

I will see you round mate, yes I suspect you will, good to talk 
with you.

bye for now

Love and best wishes Reg

---
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:16 2000
Date: (203)   Fri 19 Nov 93 14:02                         
From: Reg Smith
To: All
Subject: Gedit
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 528b6f62

Hello All,

I noticed that the online editor we were using called Toped, was 
not performing as well as it should since we installed RA2 a while 
back, ie it was making stange characters appear on the screen.

I have installed Gedit which hopefully will perform better. I am 
typing this message in Gedit and seems to be working fine, if you 
notice any strange things happening, please leave us a message.


Regards

Reg

---
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:16 2000
Date: (207)   Sun 21 Nov 93 14:39                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: R18  NOT!
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


There was a print exhibition in town I noticed the other day, only 
those
UNDER 18 could get in!  YOUTH ONLY.


That made me think a bit about the nature if Psybernet and the tone 
of this
board.


Are there any under 18s interested in psychological stuff?  If so 
WRITE
about it here.  Feel free too to comment anywhere else in the 
conference
too!


Who knows we may be able to set up groups for youth.  Anything is 
possible!


One question to get you started:


If logging on to BBSs comes out of some sort of UNCONSCIOUS 
motivation you
what would it be?

To become rich and famous?
To be the FIRST person into the 21 Century?
To have someone to talk to ALL the time?


What do you thinK?



Walter.





--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (220)   Mon 29 Nov 93 11:37                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: The right metaphor.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

29 Nov 1993

 Dear Walter

 WL>>> Here are some quotes from a message that came up as 27 Oct.
 WL>>> Did you send it up again?  Or is there something amis with our
 WL>>> wonderful technology? For all its being an old message it 
seems
 WL>>> as relevant today as the when it was written, which must have
 WL>>> been about three months ago.  The theme led onto the whole
 WL>>> question of 'Nature nurture and the will of the gods' and Male
 WL>>> archetypes.

 SR>> I don't how it came up again Walter. Don't blame the beautiful
 SR>> new tech. until I have been thoroughly investigated for some
 SR>> incompetence or misdemeanor.

 WL> I think it could be that you have over 100 SX packets and have
 WL> some named 06 or 07 and that there are still old reply files in
 WL> the out directory. Any way it hasnt been happening lately so
 WL> maybe you fixed it.


Yes, I see.   Although, I don't think I've got over a hundred 
packages in
the Out directory.  What seems to happen is that every time I  Down 
Load
everything, updating all into one package, the numbers start off 
again
from OPX, so that I have several packages in the Out directory 
named RE2
or R10,  for example.  Would it be that when there are 2 packages 
named
RE2 it wilI send both?    Anyway, I will delete all the old ones in 
the
out directory.

                              Thanks,
                                                                    
       
                                        Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:17 2000
Date: (218)   Sun 28 Nov 93 15:13                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All.
Subject: Universal & Particular.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


In the few months we have been going the theme of universal and 
particular
has emerged.  It is an interesting area in the field of psychological
investigations.  I have written a message on this once before BUT 
as is the
case with computers it got LOST, and went to the limbo of lost 
messages, a
place between electricity and thought from which no message can 
ever return.

Ah but you say SOME messages do return!

Ah Some computers and their operators Never have this problem.

I Don't Care!  I am speaking a truth that is Beyond empirical 
verification.
No mere facts will get in the way of this opening paragraph of mine.

You see I value capturing something universal.  Even though i am 
not bearing
my particular soul I am speaking personally and not generalizing.  
Perhaps
there is an archetypal quality of at least 20th C. computers that 
they have
a perverse drive to crash just on the occasion when a message was 
not saved.
This perversity can extend to the ability of doing this even without
crashing.

These sorts of universal problems are usefully understood, lest we 
fall into
the trap of thinking that *we* have some specific personal problem, 
when it
is our computer technology that is having a mood swing.

It is with this in mind that i have been advocating the ability to 
form a
social analysis for psychotherapists .  That sounds a bit 
sociological to
some but is my analysis of computers sociological?  Perhaps all i 
mean is an
intuitive and poetic grasp of the world of patients that goes way 
beyond the
particular patients, and into the culture and the collective 
unconscious.

Jung put it well:


'The apparent individual conflict of the patient is revealed as a 
universal
conflict of his (sic) environment and epoch.  Neurosis is thus 
nothing less
than an individual attempt, however unsuccessful, to solve a 
universal
problem.'


The art is to be able to capture something universal and not merely 
make
generalisations, express bias and prejudice.  Perhaps the art is to 
create
an atmosphere where the introduction of symptoms of the disease of
literalism, empiricism, and anything to do with research will just 
sound
humorous and irrelevant.


Looking forward to your thoughts, feelings and poems <grin> on this 
subject.


Walter







--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:18 2000
Date: (230)   Sun 5 Dec 93 14:58                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: A net for Psybernet
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 dcd9eb1c

It has kindly been suggested to me to put Psybernet out as an echo 
on a
network.  Infolink and Southlink have been suggested.  I would 
welcome any
comments on this idea and I have some questions.

Could it usefully go out on more than one net?

What about Fido net?  Can it go as part of a bundle to many other 
BBSs?  Or
would it only go to a BBS that wishes to carry it per se?

Other nets?

I think Psybernet would be best served by the echo going to some 
strategic
BBSs around the world.  Could that be done just with our own net?

I have put this and similar question out in a few places.  I 
deliberately
put the question here too, as Reg and I have found that every 
seemingly
technical question has its psychological impact as well.  The guts 
here is
that Psybernet needs to find its *vertical* specialised niche in the
electronic world and not just the possibility of mass coverage.  I am
getting clearer about that, I have another message brewing on that 
theme:
Is it Psybernet?  Look for it soon on a screen near you!

What do you think?


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (280)   Mon 13 Dec 93 23:40                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: A net for Psybernet
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


I have read carefully all that you have written below.
I can well understand that a specialised niche is necessary, but I 
really
don't understand enough about the whole question to be able to make a
useful contribution.

                    Best Stanley

 WL> It has kindly been suggested to me to put Psybernet out as an
 WL> echo on a network.  Infolink and Southlink have been suggested.
 WL>  I would welcome any comments on this idea and I have some
 WL>  questions.

 WL> Could it usefully go out on more than one net?

 WL> What about Fido net?  Can it go as part of a bundle to many
 WL> other BBSs?  Or would it only go to a BBS that wishes to carry
 WL> it per se?

 WL> Other nets?

 WL> I think Psybernet would be best served by the echo going to
 WL> some strategic BBSs around the world.  Could that be done just
 WL> with our own net?

 WL> I have put this and similar question out in a few places.  I
 WL> deliberately put the question here too, as Reg and I have found
 WL> that every seemingly technical question has its psychological
 WL> impact as well.  The guts here is that Psybernet needs to find
 WL> its *vertical* specialised niche in the electronic world and
 WL> not just the possibility of mass coverage.  I am getting
 WL> clearer about that, I have another message brewing on that
 WL> theme: Is it Psybernet?  Look for it soon on a screen near you!

 WL> What do you think?


 WL> Walter
 WL> --- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 WL>  * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876
 WL>  (500:1100/20)
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:18 2000
Date: (237)   Mon 6 Dec 93  1:41                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psych BBSs
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 636de2b4

Keep your eye on this thread if this is your cup of tea.


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:18 2000
Date: (221)   Mon 29 Nov 93 11:37                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: All
Subject: Anti-Quarian.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear All -
                    A Psycho-Historial Snippet
                              ******

Came across in interesting snippet the other day.  Once upon a time 
there
was an old codger named Origen. He lived about 200 AD and he was a 
stuffy
old biblical scholar born in Alexandria. He was one of the so-called
Church Fathers and was such a voluminous writer that one wonders 
how he
ever found time to go to the toilet. He wrote 6000 works, and one 
of them
was a massive tome called 'Contra Celsum' in which he undertook a 
fierce
attack on paganism. During the persecution of the Christians under 
the
Emperor Decius he was imprisoned and tortured. Here is a little quote
from him that psychological buffs might find interesting. This is a
translation from the Latin.  Incidentally, the word 'velleities' 
means: a
slight wish, a volution, a little want.  Here is the quote:

"Thou seest that he who seemeth to be one is yet not one, but as many
persons appear in him as he hath velleities".

What an extraordinarily modern observation, don't you think? He 
actually
says that, in spite of all appearance, one is as many persons as 
one has
different little desires.  I suppose the 'not yet being one' 
implies the
hope, or perhaps the religious requirement, that one should have it 
all
together, be 'whole', as the curent secular fashion has it.


                         Best,
                                   Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (399)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Anti-Quarian.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 595534e0
 SR> Psybernet Conference
 SR> 29 November 1993

 SR> Dear All -
 SR>                     A Psycho-Historial Snippet
 SR>                               ******
 SR> This is a translation from the Latin.
 SR> Incidentally, the word 'velleities' means: a slight wish, a 
volution, a
 SR> little want.  Here is the quote:

 SR> "Thou seest that he who seemeth to be one is yet not one, but 
as many
 SR> persons appear in him as he hath velleities".

Yes, interesting to see that there from so long ago.  Interesting 
too that
it should come up here after all these years, in the medium that 
allows us
to have this sort of multiplicity.  Even without pseudonyms we are
developing this text based personality and a text based relationship.

Personality, let alone person, I think requires more than one 
velleity
(sp?).  Behind each little want there is of course a whole 
Weltanschauung,
and a whole way of being present in the world, but these would hang 
together
with other aspects, who all frequent the same place and cluster 
together to
create an identity.

I suppose i am thinking of the old argument of what makes my bike 
the same
one, how much can i replace before it becomes a new bike.  The 
handle <no
pun intended> bars and the frame?  One classic solution to this 
difficulty
is that there are many factors at work including continuity, 
subjectivity,
the timing of the whole thing and so on.

When am I someone else.  To repeat my corny line:  Walter lead me 
to the
alter.


Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (407)   Thu 6 Jan 94  2:02                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anti-Quarian.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 17f25883
@REPLY: 3:770/270 595534e0

 SR>> "Thou seest that he who seemeth to be one is yet not one, but 
as many
 SR>> persons appear in him as he hath velleities".

 WL> Yes, interesting to see that there from so long ago.  
Interesting too
 WL> that it should come up here after all these years, in the 
medium that
 WL> allows us to have this sort of multiplicity.  Even without 
pseudonyms
 WL> we are developing this text based personality and a text based
 WL> relationship.

I am adding to this a few days later,  thinking that the body 
counts for
something!  Perhaps conrary to what I have been saying.  Wherever we
encounter a personality, ( or any sort of 'nality <Grin> ) 
somewhere there
is or was a physical being.  There is a tendency (in me and in the
cyberspace culture) to want to say this is a disembodied virtual 
reality,
and here bodies do not exist but they DO.  When the personality in 
the VR is
shot, and shoots, then the body at the end of the medium is 
affected, and
will affect others.  What we write here builds an on-line 
relationship,
builds my on-line identity, makes me more multiple and distinct 
from my
primary reality based self.  These two personalities are *related* 
and that
is a vital point.

I am glad i have got that clear, as i was begining to think that 
there was a
gap between the realities which ethics could not jump over.

Experience in the VR is experience grounded in the body of the 
cybernaught,
not just in the electronic ether.

All for now on this, though I am not thru with this.


Walter




--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:18 2000
Date: (239)   Thu 9 Dec 93 21:06                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: All
Subject: IMAGES
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Since the subject of images and how we relate to them is of great
psychological importance, I though I would include this snippet from
my Journal for your perusal:



There was a passage in the little write-up along with a library CD of
Debussy's music which struck me. It was headed 'Purity of 
Perception'.
I'll quote:

'Although the extraordinarily refined skills with which he (Debussy)
shaped his compositions might suggest otherwise, he believed learning
to be inimical to instinctive responses, to the purity of sensual
perception. In an article published by the 'Review Blanche' during
1901 he wrote, "There is more to be gained from watching the sun rise
than by hearing the 'Pastoral Symphony'. To some people rules are the
most important thing, but my desire is to reproduce only what I hear.
Music was intended to reflect the mysterious accord that exist 
between
nature and the imagination"

The writer (Max Harrison) goes on to say: "That reference to 
Beethoven
is significant, for Debussy distrusted German artists' moral
earnestness.

That last sentence strikes me as intensely significant. Debussy was
always associated with Impressionism and, to some extent, with the 
Imagist
movement in poetry;  and it seems to me that the whole tenor of moral
earnestnes is antipathetic to this artistic leaning and way of 
being in
the world.  It reminds me of Hillman's idea of the great divide 
between
northern and southern Europe - the  divide between the Mediterranean
imagination and the Northern Protestant ethical intensity and 
hatred of
images. Along with that anti-imaginal drive goes the inevitable 
feature of
moral earnestness, where life is seen as purposeful rather than 
enjoyable,
not as a playground, but as a school for the education of one's 
character,
or where the world itself is seen as something to be changed, 
improved,
where one must constantly take care to not to offend the holders of
virtue, where life is weighed down by a certain serious scrutiny, 
where
perceptions are judged not by their vividness, but by their value, 
and
where our humanness becomes a moral problem, indeed, where living 
itself
is a moral issue. In that world, conscience rather than aesthetic
appreciation is the primary psychic function - and to stray from
concerns of right and wrong, better and worse, into mere enjoyment,
and to consider our sensual being as our most valuable human gift 
is seen
as a sort of decadence inviting the eventual erosion of all civilised
values and ultimate decent into barbarism.

          Interestingly enough, Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is like
the Northern imagination trying to get as near as it can to imagism -
I wonder if that is why Debussy chose this work with which to 
contrast
his own. I'm sure it was Beethoven thematic bigness which Debussy
didn't like. Beethoven goes to the countryside to discover something
simple and engaging, corresponding to the 18th century's pastoral
fantasy derived from Virgil and Theokritos.  But Beethoven cannot
escape his heroic nature, the Romantic conception of the Great 
Artist;
and the Pastoral Symphony is more about that than actual perceptions
of the countryside.


          But with Debussy's 'La Mer', you hear and smell the sea, 
in all
her immediacy, flashing temperament and moodiness; and in  'Prelude 
l'apres-midi d'un faune'you can feel the haze and heat of the summer
afternoon where the faun's desires slip in and out of 
day-dreaminess. No
great themes, but perceptions themselves, momentary, fleeting, like a
wine-summer afternoon in the country where one is half asleep in 
the green
shade of a tree.

                    Best,
                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:18 2000
Date: (238)   Mon 6 Dec 93 23:01                          
From: Reg Smith
To: All
Subject: Combined Message Menu
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 500:1100/20 52a25742

Hello All,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        READ THIS   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have been busy setting up what is known as a combined menu.

To access it enter C at the regular Mail Room menu.

BTW ...  I have made a few changes there too, a couple of keys are 
different now as is the layout.

The combined function is fairly straight forward and you can't do 
any harm by trying it out (well not that I know of, but we all know 
what shits of things computers can be <G>

What use is it?  Well it lets you read or scan all your message 
areas sequentially, ie one after the other.


I trust you will enjoy it, (it took me quite a while to figure out 
how to get it to work properly, as usual *The Very Fine Manual* 
makes perfect sense once you actually know what you needed to know 
in the first place if you get my drift.)

Bye for now

Regards  Reg

---
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:18 2000
Date: (229)   Sat 4 Dec 93 12:28                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Files!
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

I expext we will stick pretty much the AREAS we have now but we are 
looking
to having many more files of a psychological nature, contributions 
from a
wide range.  Stories, myths, ledgends, theories, case studies, 
essays,
bibliographies, biographies, autobiographies, threads, debates, 
discussions,
self help material, Dramas, poems songs and jottings and ditties, 
by both
users and professional therapists and writers.

Some of these may be available for a fee, or free or on a shareware 
basis.
and a combination of all of these.



Watch us evolve and be in on the journey.  It is an adventure.


Best,

Walter.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (285)   Tue 14 Dec 93 18:30                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Psybernet Files!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 SR> I can put three essays into the library. These are on my hard
 SR> disk:                1. A Short Tour Round the Archetypes. 44pp
 SR>                2. Eros: Master of Perversity.    14pp
 SR>                3. The Poetic Basis of Mind    15pp

 SR>  I'm at present re-writing and re-typing onto hard disk
 SR>                4  Eight Seminars on Archetypal Psychology. 70pp
 SR>                approx

 SR>                Let me know if and when you want to do anything
 SR>  about these - and also what to do.

Send them on up!  I am familiar with some of these and I think they 
would be
wonderful to have on the BBS.  Electronic publishing.  Quite an art 
in its
own right.  I would like to see you adequately recompensed 
financially for
some of this by the users of the material.  One of the reasons for 
this is
that we might attract many more interesting publications and 
stimulate
people to write if there is some reward for each download, or some 
sort of
share ware and copyright in place.  I am all for discussing this in 
more
depth here too.

There is much for us to learn about all that.  But in the meantime 
lets have
them there and see how that goes.  I have a response to the Eros 
paper
brewing, as you know.

I still want to say that there is True attraction governed by Eros, 
and
false attraction ie addiction, which is not erotic.  I'll read the 
paper
again some time and take this further.  Perhaps it is a valid 
distinction
but not to do with Eros.  If I think of Eros as the force of love 
which
binds the universe with this psychological gravity, then addictions 
for all
the pull they have are really going in the opposite direction.  The 
art is
knowing shit from clay.


 SR>  I've never Uploaded. It's pretty simple eh?

Follow your nose in the Files menu, if that doesn't work, read the 
Bulletin
on files, if that is not helpful, get mad at us in a message here, 
and we
will do what we can, and if all else fails give me a ring.  BTW it 
is my job
to move them from the upload area to the Psybernet Main Library.
All the best,


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (281)   Mon 13 Dec 93 23:40                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Psybernet Files!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter



 WL> The plans for Psybernet Main Library.

 WL> I expext we will stick pretty much the AREAS we have now but we
 WL> are looking to having many more files of a psychological
 WL> nature, contributions from a wide range.  Stories, myths,
 WL> ledgends, theories, case studies, essays, bibliographies,
 WL> biographies, autobiographies, threads, debates, discussions,
 WL> self help material, Dramas, poems songs and jottings and
 WL> ditties, by both users and professional therapists and writers.

 WL> Some of these may be available for a fee, or free or on a
 WL> shareware basis. and a combination of all of these.

I can put three essays into the library. These are on my hard disk:
               1. A Short Tour Round the Archetypes. 44pp
               2. Eros: Master of Perversity.    14pp
               3. The Poetic Basis of Mind    15pp

 I'm at present re-writing and re-typing onto hard disk
               4  Eight Seminars on Archetypal Psychology. 70pp 
approx

               Let me know if and when you want to do anything 
about these
- and also what to do.  I can DL files now, but I've never 
Uploaded. It's
pretty simple eh?

                                   Best, Stanley



--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (267)   Sun 12 Dec 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: STANLEY RICHARDS
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent

Just butting in here ...

SR>          If 'man' is not a role, that is something determined 
by the
SR>imagination, what is it then?  It must be something substantive, 
SR>something
SR>factual, something which is unchanging even though it assumes 
roles

Most people experience it as substantive, don't they, be they 
*normal 
straights* or homosexual or transsexual or any combination or 
permutation. 
No matter what roles people think men or women should or should not 
assume, they still think that being a man or a woman remains in 
some way a 
constant, even if they feel at odds with aspects of the category 
they find 
themselves in.

SR>I would want to say that if you make gender a matter of fact
SR>rather than a matter of imagination, as you seem to be implying 
in 
SR>your scheme, I think you invite some very difficult psychological 
SR>problems.

I find myself wishing to say that the definitions and roles we 
attach to 
gender are surely a matter of imagination, but that gender per se 
is a 
fact - ie that there IS gender.

SR>For example, what are you going to do with the homosexual 
SR>who
SR>says, as one did to me, 'I am in a man's body and it is the wrong 
SR>body.

SR>If you say that the body is the substance and the psyche 
SR>is
SR>assuming a role, are we not saying or implying that the psyche is
SR>assuming a *false* role?.  Is he not trying to be something he is 
SR>not?.

I think rather that he is trying to be something that he IS.

SR>Phenomenologically, a homosexual does not experience himself 
SR>as
SR>playing a role. He does not experience himself as being false, 
SR>although he
SR>well might experience his body as such; that is, not expressing 
what 
SR>he
SR>truly is.

I'm a bit confused here between homosexuality and transsexualism.  
Most 
homosexual men I have known - not every one that has ever walked the 
earth, admittedly, and probably a particular subclass who are among 
the 
'happily married' variety - have felt themselves to be men 
unequivocally, 
and have felt that their bodies do express very well who they truly 
are.  
They have had no more desire than any other man to become a woman, 
but 
were simply orientated in such a way that they related sexually to 
other 
men. 

SR>Likewise perhaps an angry man does not experience himself 
SR>first
SR>as a man,  and then as one who is angry.

I have thought about this for a while, and think that he - the 
mysterious 
average HE - would experience himself first and always as a man.  
He may 
not be consciously reflecting on that fact at that particular moment 
because the anger is in the foreground, but if you questioned him I 
think 
he would say without hesitation that he is more substantively a 
*man* than 
an *angry*.  Isn't that obvious, he would ask?

SR>If we make 'angry' a role, that is
SR>a imaginative quality, then we must grant the same thing to 'man'.

But, but ... I'm not even happy with this whole business of 'role', 
actually, at least in this usage.

SR>Man' is an archetypal quality which no individual exactly 
replicates

Hmmm.  But 'average man' still knows that he is one, and would look 
at you 
oddly if you told him he didn't "exactly replicate" it.  He may have 
different characteristics vis a vis the current ideal, but he still 
*knows* himself to be a man.

SR>not even Elvis Presley!

Heavens, no!  Who would have thought he did, the dreadful creature?  
Brrrrhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sue

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (268)   Sun 12 Dec 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent

Just picking some bits out of your thoughtful reply to Stanley on 
this 
complex issue ...

WL>1.  Role is a way of describing someone's responses or way of 
being 
WL>in a
WL>particular moment in an abstract way, thus a 'good' description 
of 
WL>the role
WL>includes the body actions, the feelings and the thoughts.  
'Furtive 
WL>admirer'
WL>for example presents an image that gives some clues as to action, 
WL>thoughts
WL>and feelings.  A good description is somewhat objective in that 
WL>others,
WL>including the person being described would say 'Yes that is it.'

So that means it includes more than just the thoughts, feelings and 
actions, because a thousand 'furtive admirers', if interviewed at 
precisely the same point in their process of furtively admiring, 
could 
manifest quite different thoughts, feelings and actions, and yet be 
recognised, as you say, as embodying that "somewhat objective" image.

WL>2.  In the sense i am using the word, Moranian, people are in 
roles 
WL>all the
WL>time and not 'playing them'.  When, in the psychodrama jargon we 
wish 
WL>to use
WL>the word in that way we say something like enacting the role.

Yes, don't know much about psychodrama as such, but I like that 
idea - 
being 'in' a role rather than 'playing' it.  I think of 
role-playing as 
different - when one assumes a 'role' in order to act out ways of 
being 
that are not normally part of oneself.

WL>To say that male
WL>or female is a quality which denotes anything other than biology 
is 
WL>the genderizing of qualities.  We could give it up.

So there are no qualities that are innately 'male' or 'female'?  I 
don't 
like to come to a definite conclusion on this, but I think it is an 
excellent idea to degenderise them anyway.  If there is anything 
that is 
innate it will stick.  But that's idealistic - look how much 
trouble has 
been caused by attempts to institute inclusive language!  There are 
still 
people in the world who can't see the point!

WL.To say that someone is a
WL>feminine fighter, does present an image, but presumes sexual 
WL>stereotyping.
WL>If we did not have that then it would make no sense to use 
masculine 
WL>and
WL>feminine as qualities.  I see it as a perpetuation of sex role 
WL>stereotyping
WL>to

Yep, I agree.  I see more and more as I go along how incredibly 
strong 
that stereotyping is, and how incapable most of us are of seeing 
through 
it.  That's why I said to Stanley that a man knows he is a man - he 
just KNOWS it because of the stereotypical baggage inside himself.

WL>I just want to add that certain qualities *are* in fact 
associated 
WL>with and
WL>present in, men more than women in our culture (and vice versa). 
 I 
WL>do not
WL>wish to deny that in any way.  Deliberately degenderiseing is 
one way 
WL>of changing that phenomena.

Have you found that difficult?  I do.  Even though I have strong 
intellectual convictions about the value of doing this I find every 
step 
requires a larger internal adjustment than I had bargained for.  The 
stereotypes cling fast inside me.  Imagine how strong they must be 
for 
people who haven't even begun to challenge them internally.  You 
have to 
challenge them there before you can change them anywhere else.

WL>I know what I am *trying* to say!   If i come across examples i 
will 
WL>add them to this thread.

That would be great.  Examples do make it easier to see.

All the best

Eus

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (278)   Mon 13 Dec 93  3:52                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2b527da2

WL>> To say that male
WL>> or female is a quality which denotes anything other than 
biology is
WL>> the genderizing of qualities.  We could give it up.

 ST> So there are no qualities that are innately 'male' or 
'female'?  I
 ST> don't like to come to a definite conclusion on this, but I
 ST> think it is an excellent idea to degenderise them anyway.  If 
there is
 ST> anything that is innate it will stick.  But that's idealistic 
- look
 ST> how much trouble has been caused by attempts to institute 
inclusive
 ST> language! There are still people in the world who can't see 
the point!

Wow, good to see you back with that quality i have called heroic Zen.
Perhaps it is idealistic, but once the shift is made, to non-sexist 
language
it becomes obscene to see it around, easy to spot and a tell tale 
about the
author.  I am finding the same thing when I read about masculine 
this or
feminie that.  It is just indoctrination, I have no sense of there 
being any
inate in it at all.  It was the innate arguments that they used in 
the
Herren folk era and in Apartheid SA, just crap, and ugly to see.

 ST> WL.To say that someone is a
WL>> feminine fighter, does present an image, but presumes sexual
WL>> stereotyping.
WL>> If we did not have that then it would make no sense to use 
masculine
WL>> and
WL>> feminine as qualities.  I see it as a perpetuation of sex role
WL>> stereotyping
WL>> to

 ST> That's why I said to Stanley that a man knows he is a man - he
 ST> just KNOWS it because of the stereotypical baggage inside 
himself.

Yes, everything apart from the biological facts is baggage.

WL>> I just want to add that certain qualities *are* in fact 
associated
WL>> with and
WL>> present in, men more than women in our culture (and vice 
versa).  I
WL>> do not
WL>> wish to deny that in any way.  Deliberately degenderiseing is 
one way
WL>> of changing that phenomena.

 ST> Have you found that difficult?  I do.  Even though I have strong
 ST> intellectual convictions about the value of doing this I find 
every
 ST> step requires a larger internal adjustment than I had 
bargained for.
 ST> The stereotypes cling fast inside me.  Imagine how strong they 
must be
 ST> for people who haven't even begun to challenge them 
internally.  You
 ST> have to challenge them there before you can change them 
anywhere else.

Yes it is difficult because men and women do *present* with the 
different
stereotypes in place.  The out of touch man and the unassertive wife
reinforce the notion of inateness.  But like the fact of under 
educated
blacks does not prove lower intelligence or capacity to learn.  
What i find
difficult is that to say we are at core the same, that could be 
understood
as there being no need for such things as a Women's Conference.  
Give us 500
years and there may not be!

WL>> I know what I am *trying* to say!   If i come across examples 
i will
WL>> add them to this thread.

All for now

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (306)   Tue 21 Dec 93 19:14                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 Hello Walter and Sue:

WL>>> To say that male
WL>>> or female is a quality which denotes anything other than 
biology
is
WL>>> the genderizing of qualities.  We could give it up.

 ST>>.So there are no qualities that are innately 'male' or 'female'?
ST>> I
 ST>> don't like to come to a definite conclusion on this, but I
 ST>> think it is an excellent idea to degenderise them anyway.  If
.ST>>there is
 ST>> anything that is innate it will stick.  But that's idealistic -
ST>>.look
 ST>> how much trouble has been caused by attempts to institute
inclusive
 ST>> language! There are still people in the world who can't see the
point!

 WL> Wow, good to see you back with that quality i have called
 WL> heroic Zen. Perhaps it is idealistic, but once the shift is
 WL> made, to non-sexist language it becomes obscene to see it
 WL> around, easy to spot and a tell tale about the author.  I am
 WL> finding the same thing when I read about masculine this or
 WL> feminie that.  It is just indoctrination, I have no sense of
 WL> there being any inate in it at all.  It was the innate
 WL> arguments that they used in the Herren folk era and in
 WL> Apartheid SA, just crap, and ugly to see.

 ST>> WL.To say that someone is a
WL>>> feminine fighter, does present an image, but presumes sexual
WL>>> stereotyping.
WL>>> If we did not have that then it would make no sense to use
masculine
WL>>> and
WL>>> feminine as qualities.  I see it as a perpetuation of sex role
WL>>> stereotyping
WL>>> to

 ST>> That's why I said to Stanley that a man knows he is a man - he
 ST>> just KNOWS it because of the stereotypical baggage inside
himself.

 WL> Yes, everything apart from the biological facts is baggage.

I think THAT Baggage is what we call archetypal. But still, they are
imaginative facts as much as one's sex is a biological fact. A person
can find himself caught in an imaginative fact with just as little
choice as he has choice of his biology.

WL>>> I just want to add that certain qualities *are* in fact
associated
WL>>> with and
WL>>> present in, men more than women in our culture (and vice 
versa).
I
WL>>> do not
WL>>> wish to deny that in any way.  Deliberately degenderiseing is
one way
WL>>> of changing that phenomena.

I think what you may mean when you say 'degenderising' would be to
recognise that there is no NECESSARY relation between gender
(imaginative) and sex (biological)

 ST>> Have you found that difficult?  I do.  Even though I have 
strong
 ST>> intellectual convictions about the value of doing this I find
every
 ST>> step requires a larger internal adjustment than I had bargained
for.
 ST>> The stereotypes cling fast inside me.  Imagine how strong they
must be
 ST>> for people who haven't even begun to challenge them internally.
You
 ST>> have to challenge them there before you can change them 
anywhere
else.

 WL> Yes it is difficult because men and women do *present* with the
 WL> different stereotypes in place.  The out of touch man and the
 WL> unassertive wife reinforce the notion of inateness.  But like
 WL> the fact of under educated blacks does not prove lower
 WL> intelligence or capacity to learn.  What i find difficult is
 WL> that to say we are at core the same.

The same!!!  Looking for the 'substance' that assumes feminine or
masculine qualities.   Consigned to Ontology, my dears. Unless you
want to say vaguely, yet poetically: PSYCHE. and let it go at that.


                         Best,  Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (304)   Tue 21 Dec 93 19:14                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hello Sue


 ST> Just butting in here ...

SR>>          If 'man' is not a role, that is something determined by
SR>>the
SR>>imagination, what is it then?  It must be something substantive,
SR>>something
SR>>factual, something which is unchanging even though it assumes
SR>>roles

 ST> Most people experience it as substantive, don't they, be they
 ST> *normal straights* or homosexual or transsexual or any
 ST> combination or permutation. No matter what roles people think
 ST> men or women should or should not assume, they still think that
 ST> being a man or a woman remains in some way a constant, even if
 ST> they feel at odds with aspects of the category they find
 ST> themselves in.

Don't you think that if they are transsexual their biological,
substantive category is precisely what they feel at odds with?



SR>>I would want to say that if you make gender a matter of fact
SR>>rather than a matter of imagination, as you seem to be implying 
in
SR>>your scheme, I think you invite some very difficult psychological
SR>>problems.

 ST> I find myself wishing to say that the definitions and roles we
 ST> attach to gender are surely a matter of imagination, but that
 ST> gender per se is a fact - ie that there IS gender.

Yes, exactly. but the fact is an imaginal fact. It is independent of
the biological sex of the person.

SR>>For example, what are you going to do with the homosexual
SR>>who
SR>>says, as one did to me, 'I am in a man's body and it is the wrong
SR>>body.

SR>>If you say that the body is the substance and the psyche
SR>>is
SR>>assuming a role, are we not saying or implying that the psyche is
SR>>assuming a *false* role?.  Is he not trying to be something he is
SR>>not?.

 ST> I think rather that he is trying to be something that he IS.

I absolutely agree. 'He' is a woman. This is an imaginative fact 
which
she cannot change. But she is in a man's body

SR>>Phenomenologically, a homosexual does not experience himself
SR>>as
SR>>playing a role. He does not experience himself as being false,
SR>>although he
SR>>well might experience his body as such; that is, not expressing
SR>>what
SR>>he
SR>>truly is.

 ST> I'm a bit confused here between homosexuality and
 ST> transsexualism.  Most homosexual men I have known - not every
 ST> one that has ever walked the earth, admittedly, and probably a
 ST> particular subclass who are among the 'happily married' variety
 ST> - have felt themselves to be men unequivocally, and have felt
 ST> that their bodies do express very well who they truly are. They
 ST> have had no more desire than any other man to become a woman,
 ST> but were simply orientated in such a way that they related
 ST> sexually to other men.

Yes quite right. I have made it confusing here in talking about a
homosexual rather than a transsexual

SR>>Likewise perhaps an angry man does not experience himself
SR>>first
SR>>as a man,  and then as one who is angry.

 ST> I have thought about this for a while, and think that he - the
 ST> mysterious average HE - would experience himself first and
 ST> always as a man.  He may not be consciously reflecting on that
 ST> fact at that particular moment because the anger is in the
 ST> foreground, but if you questioned him I think he would say
 ST> without hesitation that he is more substantively a *man* than
 ST> an *angry*.  Isn't that obvious, he would ask?

The fact, as you assume, that while he is angry he is 'not 
consciously
reflecting' that he is a man, is exactly what I am saying: he does 
not
EXPERIENCE himself as a man first and THEN as angry.  What he
experiences himself as is BEING ANGRY.  Now some might say he was
BEHAVING like a man, but I was talking about his *experience* of
himself.  This was by illustration of the idea that 'anger' is not a
role of a 'man'. Not phenomenologically, at least.

SR>>If we make 'angry' a role, that is
SR>>a imaginative quality, then we must grant the same thing to 'man
'man'.

 ST> But, but ... I'm not even happy with this whole business of
 ST> 'role', actually, at least in this usage.

No, you are quite right. It's a ridiculous usage. It all came up with
Walter making some very subtle differentiations about roles.

                                   Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:22 2000
Date: (328)   Sat 25 Dec 93 22:29                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>Wow, good to see you back with that quality i have called heroic 
Zen.

I was chuffed with that description.  Do you really think I have 
that?  I 
would like to think so!

WL>Perhaps it is idealistic, but once the shift is made, to 
non-sexist 
WL>language it becomes obscene to see it around, easy to spot and a 
tell 
WL>tale about the author.

You're not kidding.  As I think I have said on here at an earlier 
stage, I 
couldn't see the point in NSL at first, but once I opened my mind 
and 
started to use it myself, as well as commenting on it to others, I 
found 
exactly what you say - the non-inclusive sort quite suddenly 
started to appear obscene in the extreme.  I just couldn't believe 
anybody 
could say that type of thing and not realise what they were doing!  
And 
that certainly wasn't due to any conscious movement on my part - my 
innards shifted, I suppose you might say.

I remember years ago talking with some Catholic Sisters in 
Wellington.  
They had been gathering at night to recite evening prayers for 
years and 
had many thousands of times said something about "we brethren", or 
something to that effect.  One day one of their number said "Hey, 
this is 
crazy!  Here we are going on about being brethren, and every one of 
us is 
a woman!"  So, bless their cotton sox, they changed it to something 
that 
reflected their reality - a group of religious WOMEN gathering to 
pray.  A 
tiny point, maybe, but it marked a huge shift in consciousness for 
them as 
individuals and as a group, and gave them a sense of power over 
their own 
way of relating to God and one another.  The point about that is 
that 
liturgy is predefined  - you say what the book tells you to say, 
and in 
the case of that institution, the books are written by men, 
literally.  So 
it was a big thing for them as women and as Catholics.  Or that's 
the way 
it seemed to me as they spoke of it. 

I've never forgotten that, and here I am recalling it again.  It was 
probably the first time I started to think about NSL seriously.  
What 
those women said made me realise that it isn't an intellectual 
issue based 
on some notion of political correctness - it's the reality, for 
God's 
sake!

WL>I am finding the same thing when I read about masculine this or 
WL>feminie that.  It is just indoctrination ...

Yes, increasingly I have a huge problem with those two words.  They 
conjure up ridiculous stereotypes and all the baggage that goes 
with that. 
'Masculine' makes me think of 'boring and cold' and 'feminine' 
makes me 
think of 'frilly'.  That tells you something about the culture I 
grew up 
in!  I mean to say, what the hell does 'frilly' mean, anway?

WL>I have no sense of there being any
WL>inate in it at all.  It was the innate arguments that they used 
in 
WL>the
WL>Herren folk era and in Apartheid SA, just crap, and ugly to see.

Yup.  At the moment I think there are things that are innate to 
*people* - 
see my statements elsewhere about Noam Chomsky and the innateness of 
language development, as one example - but the allocation of 
portions of 
that stuff to males and females is another question, and I think 
that's 
what you're talking about.

WL> ST> That's why I said to Stanley that a man knows he is a man - 
he
WL> ST> just KNOWS it because of the stereotypical baggage inside 
WL>himself.
WL>
WL>Yes, everything apart from the biological facts is baggage.

I guess the only problem you're going to get into here is deciding 
to 
everybody's satisfaction just what is biology and what is baggage.  
Here 
comes the mind/body problem again - where do you draw the line 
between the 
workings of the body and those of the mind?  Not that I'm 
disagreeing with 
you - I think, like you, that the concept of 'masc and fem' is a 
con job 
put upon us by ... whoever.  But you must admit there will be 
problems of 
distinction.

WL>ST>The stereotypes cling fast inside me.  Imagine how strong they 
WL>ST>must be for people who haven't even begun to challenge them 
WL>ST>internally.  You have to challenge them there before you can 
change 
WL>ST>them anywhere else.
WL>
WL>Yes it is difficult because men and women do *present* with the 
WL>different
WL>stereotypes in place.

They do, and that's why it is somewhat shocking to meet somebody who 
doesn't fit within them, even if you are aware of what is going on.

WL>What i find
WL>difficult is that to say we are at core the same, that could be 
WL>understood as there being no need for such things as a Women's 
WL>Conference.

I hear you.  But saying that 'out of touchness' isn't necessarily 
innately 
'masculine' and that 'passivity' isn't necessarily 'feminine' 
doesn't 
force the conclusion that *we* - do you mean men and women here, I 
presume? - are the same at core.  It just means that the qualities 
people 
are have are not set in concrete along gender lines.  Says I 
hopefully ... 

WL>Give us 500
WL>years and there may not be!

No, because we will cease to have such a radically different life 
experience.  At present we need a separate area not because we are 
women 
as such, but because being women puts us in a situation where we 
are more 
than likely to have certain life experiences that we might wish to 
share 
with others in the same boat.  I suppose I see the fundamental 
problem as 
one of objectification - if in 500 years time we have learned how 
to cease 
objectifying each other, then all the world will be one big 
conference!

Now, Stanley will pick me up on being trapped in that wretched 
archetype 
again - that one where you want to save the world, or at least make 
it a 
better place.  When I reread what I have written, it does sound 
pretty 
naive!

See ya.

Eus

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:22 2000
Date: (310)   Wed 22 Dec 93  1:21                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 0
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d0d8d616

 WL>> Yes, everything apart from the biological facts is baggage.

 SR> I think THAT Baggage is what we call archetypal. But still, 
they are
 SR> imaginative facts as much as one's sex is a biological fact. A 
person
 SR> can find himself caught in an imaginative fact with just as 
little
 SR> choice as he has choice of his biology.

Yes the anima and animus.  But...

 SR> I think what you may mean when you say 'degenderising' would 
be to
 SR> recognise that there is no NECESSARY relation between gender
 SR> (imaginative) and sex (biological)

Yes and more than that ...   Masculine or feminine may seem obnoxious
distinctions, like herrenvolk and whatever the rest were called.  
Hitler may
have called herrenvolk an archetypal quality, and it is in a way, an
imaginative idea, even one that we can get caught in, but obnoxious 
for all
that.


I prefer to think of gender as an artefact, not an archetype.  
Herrenvolk
the same.  I don't want these nasties in the basis of our soul, in 
the
foundations.  Perhaps i am just denying the shadow.  I am 
definitely viewing
the anima and animus in a new way, for me that is, as not 
necessary, as you
say.  Not necessary even if they are imaginative facts.  "Nature, 
Mr Alnutt,
we are placed on this earth to overcome."  Katherine Hepburn in 
_African
Queen_.


 WL>> What i find difficult is
 WL>> that to say we are at core the same.

 SR> The same!!!  Looking for the 'substance' that assumes feminine 
or
 SR> masculine qualities.   Consigned to Ontology, my dears. Unless 
you
 SR> want to say vaguely, yet poetically: PSYCHE. and let it go at 
that.

I am not sure what you mean here Stanley, that m & F are the same 
at the
core?   That we have the same psyche?  That the soul in not male or 
female?

Walter
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 0
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (398)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a04620bf


Hi Sue

WL>> Wow, good to see you back with that quality i have called 
heroic Zen.

 ST> I was chuffed with that description.  Do you really think I 
have that?  
 ST> I would like to think so!

Yes.  Willing to go against The Way, because that is also The Way 
anyway.

 ST> I remember years ago talking with some Catholic Sisters in 
Wellington.  
 ST> They had been gathering at night to recite evening prayers for 
years 
 ST>and had many thousands of times said something about "we 
brethren", or 
 ST> something to that effect.  One day one of their number said 
"Hey, this 
 ST> is crazy!  Here we are going on about being brethren, and 
every one of 
 ST> us is a woman!"  So, bless their cotton sox, they changed it to 
 ST> something that reflected their reality - a group of religious 
WOMEN 
 ST> gathering to pray. 

I seems that the very institution that preaches love, missed the 
whole point 
for a long time, wonderful that they could regain that.

 ST> I've never forgotten that, and here I am recalling it again.  
It was 
 ST> probably the first time I started to think about NSL 
seriously.  What 
 ST> those women said made me realise that it isn't an intellectual 
issue 
 ST> based on some notion of political correctness - it's the 
reality, for 
 ST> God's sake!

WL>> I am finding the same thing when I read about masculine this or 
WL>> feminie that.  It is just indoctrination ...

 ST> Yes, increasingly I have a huge problem with those two words.  
They 
 ST> conjure up ridiculous stereotypes and all the baggage that 
goes with 
 ST> that. 'Masculine' makes me think of 'boring and cold' and 
'feminine' 
 ST> makes me think of 'frilly'.  That tells you something about 
the culture 
 ST> I grew up in!  I mean to say, what the hell does 'frilly' 
mean, anway?

WL>> I have no sense of there being any
WL>> inate in it at all.  It was the innate arguments that they 
used in 
WL>> the
WL>> Herren folk era and in Apartheid SA, just crap, and ugly to see.

 ST> Yup.  At the moment I think there are things that are innate to 
 ST> *people* - see my statements elsewhere about Noam Chomsky and 
the 
 ST> innateness of language development, as one example - but the 
allocation 
 ST> of portions of that stuff to males and females is another 
question, and 
 ST> I think that's what you're talking about.

 ST> That's why I said to Stanley that a man knows he is a man - he
 ST> just KNOWS it because of the stereotypical baggage inside 
himself

WL>>Yes, everything apart from the biological facts is baggage.

 ST> I guess the only problem you're going to get into here is 
deciding to 
 ST> everybody's satisfaction just what is biology and what is 
baggage. Here
 ST> comes the mind/body problem again - where do you draw the line 
between 
 ST> the workings of the body and those of the mind?  Not that I'm 
 ST> disagreeing with you - I think, like you, that the concept of 
'masc and 
 ST> fem' is a con job put upon us by ... whoever.  But you must 
admit there 
 ST> will be problems of distinction.

Yes.  They are not too much of a wory though because we are at a 
stage of 
evolution i think where our biology and our psyche are in fact so 
linked up that

we cant distinguish them.  Sandy Stone (See that Mondo Magazine 
again, if you 
can bear the sexis cra
WL>>ST>The stereotypes cling fast inside me.  Imagine how strong 
they 
WL>>ST>must be for people who haven't even begun to challenge them 
WL>>ST>internally.  You have to challenge them there before you can 
change 
WL>>ST>them anywhere else.
WL>>
WL>>Yes it is difficult because men and women do *present* with the 
WL>>different
WL>>stereotypes in place.

 ST> They do, and that's why it is somewhat shocking to meet 
somebody who 
 ST> doesn't fit within them, even if you are aware of what is 
going on.

WL>>What i find
WL>>difficult is that to say we are at core the same, that could be 
WL>>understood as there being no need for such things as a Women's 
WL>>Conference.

 ST> I hear you.  But saying that 'out of touchness' isn't 
necessarily 
 ST> innately 'masculine' and that 'passivity' isn't necessarily 
'feminine' 
 ST> doesn't force the conclusion that *we* - do you mean men and 
women 
 ST> here, I presume? - are the same at core.  It just means that 
the 
 ST> qualities people are have are not set in concrete along gender 
lines.  
 ST> Says I hopefully ... 

WL>>Give us 500
WL>>years and there may not be!

 ST> No, because we will cease to have such a radically different 
life 
 ST> experience.  At present we need a separate area not because we 
are women
 ST> as such, but because being women puts us in a situation where 
we are 
 ST> more than likely to have certain life experiences that we 
might wish to 
 ST> share with others in the same boat.  I suppose I see the 
fundamental 
 ST> problem as one of objectification - if in 500 years time we 
have 
 ST> learned how to cease objectifying each other, then all the 
world will 
 ST> be one big conference! 

 ST> Now, Stanley will pick me up on being trapped in that wretched 
archetype
 ST> again - that one where you want to save the world, or at least 
make it a
 ST> better place.  When I reread what I have written, it does 
sound pretty 
 ST> naive!

 ST> See ya.

 ST> Eus

 ST> ___
 ST>   WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
 ST> --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 ST>  * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
 ST>  (500:1100/20) 
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:26 2000
Date: (450)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WLYes.  Willing to go against The Way, because that is also The Way 
anyway.

I'd never thought of myself as being like that; more sort of 
conservative, I 
suppose.

ST> I remember years ago talking with some Catholic Sisters in 
Wellingto
WLI seems that the very institution that preaches love, missed the 
whole po
WLfor a long time, wonderful that they could regain that.

As an institution it hasn't, overall, but there are definite 
subsections 
that have come a long way, and are the reason I continue to call 
myself by 
the name Catholic most of the time.  Religious Sisters - at least 
in part - 
are one of those subgroups.  The justice and peace movement would be 
another.

 ST> I think, like you, that the concept of 'masc 
 ST> fem' is a con job put upon us by ... whoever.  But you must 
admit th
 ST> will be problems of distinction.

WLYes.  They are not too much of a wory though because we are at a 
stage of
WLevolution i think where our biology and our psyche are in fact so 
linked 

WLwe cant distinguish them.  Sandy Stone (See that Mondo Magazine 
again, if
WLcan bear the sexis cra

Blah!!!  Do you mean to imply that there may be a time when biology 
and 
psyche are not linked to the same extent?  Have you any thoughts on 
how/why 
this may happen?

Eus

___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (269)   Sun 12 Dec 93 22:50                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: UNIVERSAL & PARTICULAR.
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>Hi to the current small crop of Psybernetters

 ... makes me feel like a swede turnip!

WL>I Don't Care!  I am speaking a truth that is Beyond empirical 
WL>verification.

I admire your defiance!

WL>No mere facts will get in the way of this opening paragraph of 
mine.

Ditto, and nor should they, the rotters!

WL>Jung put it well:
WL>'The apparent individual conflict of the patient is revealed as a 
WL>universal
WL>conflict of his (sic) environment and epoch.  Neurosis is thus 
WL>nothing less
WL>than an individual attempt, however unsuccessful, to solve a 
WL>universal problem.'

I like that, as it makes me feel less mad.  I have a great friend 
who 
tells me when I am being more mad than usual that it is not really 
madness 
afflicting me at all, but my psyche attempting to redress some 
imbalance 
that my conscious mind is not able to see.  That is to say, I am at 
my 
most sane.

WL>The art is to be able to capture something universal and not 
merely 
WL>make
WL>generalisations, express bias and prejudice.  Perhaps the art is 
to 
WL>create
WL>an atmosphere where the introduction of symptoms of the disease of
WL>literalism, empiricism, and anything to do with research will 
just 
WL>sound humorous and irrelevant.

That sounds humorous but not irrelevant.  But do you mean just 
research 
into the human person/society or all research?  I worked in medical 
research for a number of years and concluded that a lot of what 
went on 
was very valuable.  I saw it producing outcomes that could do 
wonderful 
things for people further down the track, and I would hate to live 
in a 
society that made the crazy choice to do without that.  A lot of 
junk went 
on as well, but that seems to be a necessary part of the process of 
discovery.  And no, it wasn't all tearing the legs of 
non-anaesthetised 
puppy dogs ...

And there are times when it is great to be literal and empirical.  
Sometimes I get impatient with people who stuff around and don't 
get their 
act together and be efficient. But I feel there is a difference 
between 
being like that and having the disease, suffering from worship of 
the 
FACT.  Heaven forbid!  I see it as a tool to be employed when 
appropriate 
and never at any other time.  I like the best of both worlds, 
perhaps.

WL>Looking forward to your thoughts, feelings and poems <grin> on 
this 
WL>subject.

The other day upon the stair
I saw a fact which wasn't there.
It wasn't there again today.
I wish like hell it would go away.

Eus
(second muse of poetry)

___
  WinQwk 2.0 a#0  Unregistered Evaluation Copy
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (279)   Mon 13 Dec 93  3:52                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: UNIVERSAL & PARTICULAR.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2f7d5dec

WL>> The art is to be able to capture something universal and not 
merely
WL>> make generalisations, express bias and prejudice.  Perhaps the 
art is
WL>> to create an atmosphere where the introduction of symptoms of 
the
WL>> disease of literalism, empiricism, and anything to do with 
research
WL>> will just sound humorous and irrelevant.

 ST> That sounds humorous but not irrelevant.  But do you mean just 
research
 ST> into the human person/society or all research?

Definitely the social / psychological variety.  That is the mistake 
I think
the 'social sciences make is to treat people as things.

 ST> I worked in medical
 ST> research for a number of years and concluded that a lot of 
what went on
 ST> was very valuable.  I saw it producing outcomes that could do 
wonderful
 ST> things for people further down the track, and I would hate to 
live in a
 ST> society that made the crazy choice to do without that.  A lot 
of junk
 ST> went on as well, but that seems to be a necessary part of the 
process
 ST> of discovery.  And no, it wasn't all tearing the legs of non-
 ST> anaesthetised puppy dogs ...

Sure thing!

WL>> Looking forward to your thoughts, feelings and poems <grin> on 
this
WL>> subject.

 ST> The other day upon the stair
 ST> I saw a fact which wasn't there.
 ST> It wasn't there again today.
 ST> I wish like hell it would go away.

An absent fact that won't go
Is not one I'd like to know
If the critter comes around
I'll scare it with a silent sound!

Oh no not more ontology!


Walter Shakespeare
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:19 2000
Date: (240)   Thu 9 Dec 93 21:48                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Ballanced is distorted!
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
                            I AM NOT MAD!


This is not a balanced message.  I hope this will never be a balanced
discussion or a balanced BBS.  And, by the way, this message, like 
all on
the BBS is the property of the author and the BBS, ie Psybernet 
Limited, and
like all the messages, may not be published or quoted in other than 
the
intended medium, ie in this electronic form, without permission of 
the
owners.

I am not mad but I am angry.  I am angry with our culture, with the 
medium
that promotes it.  Not OUR culture of course, but the predominant 
western
culture which I call the Rape Culture.

Under the guise of questioning the theories of Freud, TIME Magazine
November 29, 1993 attempts to protect sexual abusers by giving 
credence to
the notion of false memories.

The Christchurch Press picked this up, unable to resist protecting 
people in
high places, in a series of articles on the subject.  They write in a
balanced way, giving equal space to rapists and to victims as it 
were.  They
give equal space to professionals who discredit sexual abuse 
accusations.
For example Dr Jim Walsh " This might be the staple of cheap 
fiction, but it
is not creditable fact."  (Tuesday p14)  It is obvious that with his
attitude he is unlikely to ever come across the recovery of a 
repressed
memory.  That involves gaining the trust of the patient, which any 
patient
would be crazy to do!

On the 'other side' is Dr. Robyn Hewland, who defends the theory of 
recovery
of repressed memories.  This is not as balanced as it seems, as she 
also
states:  "There appear to be few controls and little supervision of
counsellors working independently."  (Tuesday P15)  This is fuel 
for the
rapists, who can then say that the victims therapist was not an 
NZAP member
when he goes into denial and bandies around 'false memory syndrome'.

But the real distortion is that while allegations of false memories 
of abuse
may be as prevalent as allegations of denial, they do not warrant 
equal
credence.  Why on earth would anyone invent such memories is a good 
question
with no good answers.  Why abusers would deny the allegations is 
obvious.

Thank god the Catholic Brother Bernard McGrath in Christchurch at
least pleaded guilty, and that Micheal Jackson's sister has spoken 
out today
against her brother.  The heat is on the abusers.  As the truth 
comes out in
these cases others feel more free to speak out.

And that is what is happening, they are speaking out in droves.  
But not to
researches, the media, the police or the justice system, or people 
like Jim
Walsh -- Who would?  Hence the opening paragraph of this message.  
People
speak out in privacy of the consulting room, often to people who 
are not
even known to ACC or NZAP, or to the people who invent the 
statistics.  The
abuse is socially invisible, the healing is too and the results of 
the
healing often are too, as the healed person becomes more creative 
and self
protective, not more so called 'functional'.

I expect that the problem of people inappropriately touching up
other people is as prevalent as apartheid in South Africa.  Like 
apartheid
the days of the Rape Culture are numbered, but it may take a little 
longer
than getting racism out of Africa.  It is the big challenge of our 
epoch.

The knowing in this message, like the work of Ellen Bass and Laura 
Davis
(Courage to Heal) is not the result of theory, but personal 
experience, in
some circles that does not count, so be it.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (307)   Tue 21 Dec 93 19:14                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Ballanced is distorted!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter

                      I AM NOT MAD!


 WL> This is not a balanced message.  I hope this will never be a
 WL> balanced discussion or a balanced BBS.  And, by the way, this
 WL> message, like all on the BBS is the property of the author and
 WL> the BBS, ie Psybernet Limited, and like all the messages, may
 WL> not be published or quoted in other than the intended medium,
 WL> ie in this electronic form, without permission of the owners.

 WL> I am not mad but I am angry.  I am angry with our culture, with
 WL> the medium that promotes it.  Not OUR culture of course, but
 WL> the predominant western culture which I call the Rape Culture.

 WL> Under the guise of questioning the theories of Freud, TIME
 WL> Magazine November 29, 1993 attempts to protect sexual abusers
 WL> by giving credence to the notion of false memories.

 WL> The Christchurch Press picked this up, unable to resist
 WL> protecting people in high places, in a series of articles on
 WL> the subject.  They write in a balanced way, giving equal space
 WL> to rapists and to victims as it were.  They give equal space to
 WL> professionals who discredit sexual abuse accusations. For
 WL> example Dr Jim Walsh " This might be the staple of cheap
 WL> fiction, but it is not creditable fact."  (Tuesday p14)  It is
 WL> obvious that with his attitude he is unlikely to ever come
 WL> across the recovery of a repressed memory.  That involves
 WL> gaining the trust of the patient, which any patient would be
 WL> crazy to do!

 WL> On the 'other side' is Dr. Robyn Hewland, who defends the
 WL> theory of recovery of repressed memories.  This is not as
 WL> balanced as it seems, as she also states:  "There appear to be
 WL> few controls and little supervision of counsellors working
 WL> independently."  (Tuesday P15)  This is fuel for the rapists,
 WL> who can then say that the victims therapist was not an NZAP
 WL> member when he goes into denial and bandies around 'false
 WL> memory syndrome'.

 WL> But the real distortion is that while allegations of false
 WL> memories of abuse may be as prevalent as allegations of denial,
 WL> they do not warrant equal credence.  Why on earth would anyone
 WL> invent such memories is a good question with no good answers.
 WL> Why abusers would deny the allegations is obvious.

 WL> Thank god the Catholic Brother Bernard McGrath in Christchurch
 WL> at least pleaded guilty, and that Micheal Jackson's sister has
 WL> spoken out today against her brother.  The heat is on the
 WL> abusers.  As the truth comes out in these cases others feel
 WL> more free to speak out.

 WL> And that is what is happening, they are speaking out in droves.
 WL>  But not to researches, the media, the police or the justice
 WL>  system, or people like Jim Walsh -- Who would?  Hence the
 WL>  opening paragraph of this message.  People speak out in
 WL>  privacy of the consulting room, often to people who are not
 WL>  even known to ACC or NZAP, or to the people who invent the
 WL>  statistics.  The abuse is socially invisible, the healing is
 WL>  too and the results of the healing often are too, as the
 WL>  healed person becomes more creative and self protective, not
 WL>  more so called 'functional'.

 WL> I expect that the problem of people inappropriately touching up
 WL> other people is as prevalent as apartheid in South Africa.
 WL> Like apartheid the days of the Rape Culture are numbered, but
 WL> it may take a little longer than getting racism out of Africa.
 WL> It is the big challenge of our epoch.

 WL> The knowing in this message, like the work of Ellen Bass and
 WL> Laura Davis (Courage to Heal) is not the result of theory, but
 WL> personal experience, in some circles that does not count, so be
 WL> it.

     Well said Walter.

     I would have been one of the 'balanced ones' like Dr.Zelas in 
the
Press articles.  I would have taken the view that the preservation of
civilised justice was more important than 'the cause at any price' or
'catching the abusers at any price'.

     All the images of causes that have espoused 'the end justifies
the means' would have made me cling to the principle of 'due process'
as the sine qua non of civilisation.  But I guess we are all very 
much
in the position of the pacifist witnessing the persecution of the 
Jews
during the Holocaust.  Justice cannot always be attained by respect
for civilised principles, especially when directed against those who
themselves have no respect for it and who can get away with it.

          I really appreciate your anger. Yet, Walter, I am afraid. 
 I
am afraid that in making sure we leave no loop-hole for the rapist,
all accusations must be treated as ipso facto true. The fact of being
accused is enough to prove guilt. It seems to me that any system
working on that premise will inevitably produce travesties of 
justice.
How many and how frequently no one can say. But the fact that we will
perceive injustice to be possible will damage us all. What will be
damaged is everyone's sense of fairness.  'Justice not only has to be
done, it has to be seen to be done'. This is not just a necessary
principle of law but of civilised community. Once we abandoned it we
may indeed catch all the rapists in our net, but at what price?

          But as you see, Walter, I wobble !

                         Best  Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:22 2000
Date: (309)   Wed 22 Dec 93  1:21                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Ballanced is distorted!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 0
@MSGID: 3:770/270 aa503fc1


 SR>           I really appreciate your anger. Yet, Walter, I am 
afraid.  I
 SR> am afraid that in making sure we leave no loop-hole for the 
rapist,
 SR> all accusations must be treated as ipso facto true. The fact 
of being
 SR> accused is enough to prove guilt.


I think there is a difference between therapy and justice.  The 
articles are
an assult on truth, psychological truth, not the same as justice.  
I *know*
things I could never proove in court.  I think the justice system 
is in
priciple OK in practice it stinks and it is very poor on sexual 
abuse.  For
all my anger at rapists I think they need therapy not punishment.  
They do
need to be kept out of circulation while unsafe.


Walter

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 0
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (404)   Wed 5 Jan 94 22:06                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Ballanced is distorted!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 SR>>           I really appreciate your anger. Yet, Walter, I am 
afraid.
I
 SR>> am afraid that in making sure we leave no loop-hole for the 
rapist,
 SR>> all accusations must be treated as ipso facto true. The fact of
being
 SR>> accused is enough to prove guilt.


 WL> I think there is a difference between therapy and justice.  The
 WL> articles are an assult on truth, psychological truth, not the
 WL> same as justice.  I *know* things I could never proove in
 WL> court.  I think the justice system is in priciple OK in
 WL> practice it stinks and it is very poor on sexual abuse.  For
 WL> all my anger at rapists I think they need therapy not
 WL> punishment.  They do need to be kept out of circulation while
 WL> unsafe.

Yes, of course. There is a difference between Justice and Therapy. 
I panic
at the judgement of the masses. In the privacy between two people 
one does
indeed know things that are impossible prove. I suppose the 
injustice I
mean is encapsulated in a story Isabell told me. It was Christmas 
morning
and she was out in her front garden when she saw a little girl, 
only a
toddler she was, running along the opposite pavement. Apparently 
she had
escaped from a nearby house.  A man walking along the street had 
seen her,
approached the little girl and hesitated. Isabell ran across the 
road and
the man said, 'You'd better take her, you know what it's like these 
days'.
That's not unjust I suppose, but it's sad!
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:25 2000
Date: (428)   Thu 13 Jan 94  0:28                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Ballanced is distorted!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter

                      I AM NOT MAD!


 WL> This is not a balanced message.  I hope this will never be a
 WL> balanced discussion or a balanced BBS.  And, by the way, this
 WL> message, like all on the BBS is the property of the author and
 WL> the BBS, ie Psybernet Limited, and like all the messages, may
 WL> not be published or quoted in other than the intended medium,
 WL> ie in this electronic form, without permission of the owners.

 WL> I am not mad but I am angry.  I am angry with our culture, with
 WL> the medium that promotes it.  Not OUR culture of course, but
 WL> the predominant western culture which I call the Rape Culture.

 WL> Under the guise of questioning the theories of Freud, TIME
 WL> Magazine November 29, 1993 attempts to protect sexual abusers
 WL> by giving credence to the notion of false memories.

 WL> The Christchurch Press picked this up, unable to resist
 WL> protecting people in high places, in a series of articles on
 WL> the subject.  They write in a balanced way, giving equal space
 WL> to rapists and to victims as it were.  They give equal space to
 WL> professionals who discredit sexual abuse accusations. For
 WL> example Dr Jim Walsh " This might be the staple of cheap
 WL> fiction, but it is not creditable fact."  (Tuesday p14)  It is
 WL> obvious that with his attitude he is unlikely to ever come
 WL> across the recovery of a repressed memory.  That involves
 WL> gaining the trust of the patient, which any patient would be
 WL> crazy to do!

 WL> On the 'other side' is Dr. Robyn Hewland, who defends the
 WL> theory of recovery of repressed memories.  This is not as
 WL> balanced as it seems, as she also states:  "There appear to be
 WL> few controls and little supervision of counsellors working
 WL> independently."  (Tuesday P15)  This is fuel for the rapists,
 WL> who can then say that the victims therapist was not an NZAP
 WL> member when he goes into denial and bandies around 'false
 WL> memory syndrome'.

 WL> But the real distortion is that while allegations of false
 WL> memories of abuse may be as prevalent as allegations of denial,
 WL> they do not warrant equal credence.  Why on earth would anyone
 WL> invent such memories is a good question with no good answers.
 WL> Why abusers would deny the allegations is obvious.

 WL> Thank god the Catholic Brother Bernard McGrath in Christchurch
 WL> at least pleaded guilty, and that Micheal Jackson's sister has
 WL> spoken out today against her brother.  The heat is on the
 WL> abusers.  As the truth comes out in these cases others feel
 WL> more free to speak out.

 WL> And that is what is happening, they are speaking out in droves.
 WL>  But not to researches, the media, the police or the justice
 WL>  system, or people like Jim Walsh -- Who would?  Hence the
 WL>  opening paragraph of this message.  People speak out in
 WL>  privacy of the consulting room, often to people who are not
 WL>  even known to ACC or NZAP, or to the people who invent the
 WL>  statistics.  The abuse is socially invisible, the healing is
 WL>  too and the results of the healing often are too, as the
 WL>  healed person becomes more creative and self protective, not
 WL>  more so called 'functional'.

 WL> I expect that the problem of people inappropriately touching up
 WL> other people is as prevalent as apartheid in South Africa.
 WL> Like apartheid the days of the Rape Culture are numbered, but
 WL> it may take a little longer than getting racism out of Africa.
 WL> It is the big challenge of our epoch.

 WL> The knowing in this message, like the work of Ellen Bass and
 WL> Laura Davis (Courage to Heal) is not the result of theory, but
 WL> personal experience, in some circles that does not count, so be
 WL> it.

Well said Walter.

 I would have been one of the 'balanced ones' like Dr.Zelas in the
Press articles.  I would have taken the view that the preservation of
civilised justice was more important than 'the cause at any price'.
All the images of causes that have espoused 'the end justifies the
means' would have made me cling to the principle of 'due process' as
the sine qua non of civilisation.  But I guess we are all very much 
in
the position of the pacifist witnessing the persecution of the Jews
during the Holocaust.  Not all justice can be attained by respect for
civilised principles especially when directed against those who
themselves have no respect for it

                         Best  Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:25 2000
Date: (431)   Thu 13 Jan 94 15:43                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Ballanced is distorted!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 235f7e38

13 January, 1994, 3:00 PM,
Mt Lyford
Psybernet Conference, public.

 SR> 20 Dec

This message popped up for some reason, in todays mail. I've seen 
it before
and it is probably just wanting to be replied to.


 SR> Well said Walter.

 SR>  I would have been one of the 'balanced ones' like Dr. Zelas 
in the
 SR> Press articles.

Yes, I wrote a message about the Karen Zelas reply as well.  It was 
much
better wasn't it.  That message got eaten and I lost the momentum.  
The
title was:

SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY.

The gist was that balance and calm debate is perhaps a useful 
response, but
what does she do with the OUTRAGE at the media which is so 
kafkaesque as to
the real nature of abuse in this culture.

I know from my work and association with social workers that about 
500 +/-
100 rapes occur to adult women each month in Christchurch, ie 
exclusive of
incest etc.  Most of these do not go to the police or even to GPs 
etc.
These figures were established and extrapolated from the experience 
of
several social workers and the figure may be much higher, who knows 
about
those who *never* tell?

 SR> I would have taken the view that the preservation of
 SR> civilised justice was more important than 'the cause at any 
price'.

I know that I sound like I am on a 'cause' bandwagon BUT what is 
'civilised
justice' that it just can't respond to the sexual & gender crimes 
in our
culture?  What is civilisation that the media can't.  That the 
medical
profession can't.

 SR> All the images of causes that have espoused 'the end justifies 
the
 SR> means' would have made me cling to the principle of 'due 
process' as
 SR> the sine qua non of civilisation.

That 'process' is not designed to heal or address the problems at 
the root.
It is not a 'process' in any organic way at all, rather a ritual.  
The
family court is a step in the right direction, where they can 
operate with a
different level of evidence.

In most situations we never resort to the strict requirements of 
evidence
required in a court.  We leave jobs, withdraw our children from a 
school,
sack people, all without 'evidence', but on the basis of knowing 
first hand.

 SR> But I guess we are all very much in
 SR> the position of the pacifist witnessing the persecution of the 
Jews
 SR> during the Holocaust.  Not all justice can be attained by 
respect for
 SR> civilised principles especially when directed against those who
 SR> themselves have no respect for it

Yes!  You beat me to the very analogy I was about to make.

Imagine this:  An organization to deal with sexual crimes.  An 
organization
that is about healing, not punishment  (though that is not excluded).
Professional workers who *attend* to each case in a human way with 
the
artistry of therapy.

Will we need a revolution to attain this?


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (289)   Wed 15 Dec 93  1:30                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Role Theorey
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1c4ae260
@REPLY: 3:770/115 4af75f72

 RS> Although I do not see myself as an authority on role
 RS> theory the following little clip from my psychodrama thesis 
may help to
 RS> clarify what it is that Psychodramatists are on about when we 
speak of
 RS> roles.



 RS> Language & Role Theory
 RS> ***********************

Your message on this is clear to me Reg and good to have here.  I 
want to
add some more too, perhaps I'll dig up my old and incomplete thesis 
where i
wrote several pages on roles.

It is quit something isn't it to have a BBS like this where we have 
people
familiar with diferent modalities of thought.

I USE role theory all the time in my work and I taught it today to a
supervisee,

He was showing me how he conducted a session and he said to his 
client:

Let's bring your mother into the room.

I paused him to explain that the mother was already in the room and 
that
concretization was all that was reqired.  He finished up learning 
to use
such phrases as :

Point to where you experience your mother.

Go and be your mother.

Mother in this case is a psychodramatic role as you say in your 
message.

I was just thinking how this could be translated to the BBS:

'Write a message as your mother, send it up and tomorrow reply to 
it as your
self.'



Walter


PS Of course it it need not be 'Mother' it could be any 
psychodramatic role,
Critic, Adventurer, Lover, Philosopher, Psychologist.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (282)   Mon 13 Dec 93 23:40                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Role Theorey
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 RS> I have been following with interest some of the threads where
 RS> Stanley and Walter have discussed roles and what they are.

 RS> As a Psychodramatist, role theory underpins much of my work and
 RS> the way I view the world. Although I do not see myself as an
 RS> authority on role theory the following little clip from my
 RS> psychodrama thesis may help to clarify what it is that
 RS> Psychodramatists are on about when we speak of roles.



 RS> Language & Role Theory
 RS> ***********************

 RS> "Roles and the relationships between roles are the most
 RS> significant development within any specific culture."
 RS>         Moreno (1953 p 75)

 RS>  You will  not receive  the full  impact  of  this  statement
 RS>  unless  you understand or accept several facts about role
 RS>  theory.

 RS>  +  Roles are either:

 RS> - Psychosomatic: such as sucker, eater, walker, sleeper, etc.

 RS> - Social: such as the role of *the* mother, *the* son, *the*
 RS> daughter, *the* teacher, *the* Christian.

 RS>  - Psychodramatic:  such  as  the  roles  of  *a*  mother, *a*
 RS>  teacher, a Christian, etc.

 RS>  +  Roles emerge prior to the self.

 RS>  +  In  order  to  develop  our  social  roles  we  need  to
 RS>  develop  our psychosomatic & psychodramatic roles.

 RS>  +  That language emergence and role emergence are not the same
 RS>  thing.

Yes, I get that they are not the same thing, but you would need 
language
to be able to name a role, yes?

 RS> This will  explain why  such a  wide range of people can
 RS> benefit from the psychodramatic method.  Although good  verbal
 RS> language  skills, can  be  a valuable tool  to help them along
 RS> the way it is not a prerequisite. I have not experienced
 RS> psychodrama with  anyone totally  deaf  or  mute,  but  I
 RS> imagine if  the participants  were able  to sign  adequately,
 RS> psychodrama would be  of great  value to them. I have
 RS> personally directed persons that were virtually  illiterate in
 RS> psychodramas and they took to it like a duck to water. It was a
 RS> wonderful means of self expression and exploration for them.
 RS> Remember  the *little  bird in a cage*. We can perhaps shed
 RS> further light on  the above phenomenon if we understand the

Have you ever done a psychodrama totally in mime?  Would that be 
possible?

 RS> following quote from Moreno.

 RS> "According to psychodramatic theory a considerable part of the
 RS> psyche is not language-ridden, it is not infiltrated by the
 RS> ordinary, significant language symbols."
 RS>                               Moreno (1953 p 87)

Why is Moreno wanting to say that Reg?  I mean what difference 
would it
make to his whole theory if the psyche were infiltrated by 
language. I
suppose he wants to say that there are depths that can only be 
reached by
dramatic action rather than  just talking.  But dramatic action 
always
needs words doesn't it.   Drama, historically, has always used 
words and
acting. I suppose he means that roles in some way precede language 
and
give rise to it.

                                        Best, Stanley


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (293)   Fri 17 Dec 93 19:20                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Role Theorey
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 8ef0c219
@REPLY: 3:770/270 1c4ae260

Reg is replying to Walter who replied to Reg on 15 Dec 93 01:30am


 RS>> Language & Role Theory
 RS>> ***********************

 WL> Your message on this is clear to me Reg and good to have here.

Thanks, it looks like maybe I am doing much better in developing my 
role,
among others, of "clear expressive writer", tis nice to know from 
time to
time that others know what the hell I am on about.

 WL> I want to add some more too, perhaps I'll dig up my old and
 WL> incomplete thesis where i wrote several pages on roles.

I look forward to reading it.

 WL> It is quit something isn't it to have a BBS like this where we 
have
 WL> people familiar with different modalities of thought.

Yes, if nothing else the BBS is very good for that purpose.

 WL> I USE role theory all the time in my work and I taught it 
today to a
 WL> supervisee,

 WL> He was showing me how he conducted a session and he said to his
 WL> client:

 WL> Let's bring your mother into the room.

 WL> I paused him to explain that the mother was already in the 
room and
 WL> that concretization was all that was required.  He finished up
 WL> learning to use such phrases as :

 WL> Point to where you experience your mother.
 WL> Go and be your mother.

Yes, the development of adequate language that creates the correct 
or most
effective warm-up is very important. One task we need to accomplish 
is to
do this in a manner that is not riddled with cliche and jargon.

 WL> Mother in this case is a psychodramatic role as you say in your
 WL> message.

I don't actually think I said that, I think I said that Mother was a
*social* role and the roles of *a* Mother were psychodramatic.

I do not want to get into any *flaming* messages (do you like the 
pun?) or
any more other of those drawn out threads on gender the week before
Christmas, but it was the lack of clarity and failure to make such
distinctions between types of roles in some of yours and Stanleys 
messages
that prompted me to start up on this thread in the first place. 
This is
not meant as a criticism, but more a recognition of the 
inadequacies of
language, more specifically that the word role has many different
meanings, more so to the role theorist.

As I see it, to enact the social role of Mother requires adequate
development of hundreds of more specific psychodramatic roles. Oddly
enough I am loath to name them here through fear of stirring up all 
this
gender stuff again.

WL> I was just thinking how this could be translated to the BBS:

 WL> 'Write a message as your mother, send it up and tomorrow reply 
to it
 WL> as your self.'

Yes, that would be useful to do that sort of thing, only which of my
mothers many hundreds of roles would I do this from? <G>

Actually if I were to do it I guess I would need to just 
spontaneously be
her in a whole range of roles and not even think about the 
specifics of
the roles until a later date. Otherwise the whole thing would be
completely contrived and "scripted" which would have limited value. I
think this is part of the difficulty that most people not familiar 
with
the psychodramatic method get into, until they have actually 
experienced
the method fully under the direction of an adequately trained 
director
it is difficult to have an accurate or "real" sense of it. Those 
that have
not experienced this usually tend to think it is all make belief.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Xpress Yourself!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (292)   Fri 17 Dec 93 19:20                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Role Theorey
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 8e6482c1


Reg is replying to Stanley who replied to Reg on 13 Dec 93 11:40pm


They are talking about: Role Theory and related topics, others are 
most
welcome to jump in and share their thoughts or feelings and ask 
questions.
*********************************************************************
***

 RS>>  +  That language emergence and role emergence are not the same
 RS>>  thing.

 SR> Yes, I get that they are not the same thing, but you would need
 SR> language to be able to name a role, yes?


Yes, most definitely; we also need to be very careful about our 
choice
of language because of the subtle "warm-ups we create", which among 
other
things is what my thesis is about.


 SR> Have you ever done a psychodrama totally in mime?  Would that be
 SR> possible?

It depends on what you define as a psychodrama, I have never 
directed what
might be called a "full blown psychodrama" totally on that basis, 
but I
have directed many a protagonist to "sculptor" various aspects of 
their
life; to simply allow themselves to experience fully that 
"sculpture"; to
express without words their experience and so on. Sometimes I do 
this is
*within* a "full blown psychodrama" and at other times as a 
vignette, I
may do this type of thing within a psychotherapy session. Some of 
the most
significant moments in a psychodrama or therapy session are often 
devoid
of any structured language or verbal expression..... I am talking 
about
those moments when two people just look at one another, or the wall 
or out
the window or whatever, nothing needs to be said, especially to start
with, sometimes there are tears, sometimes the eyes are simply moist,
sometimes the parties smile or laugh.

I can imagine doing a whole drama in mime, but I can't see the point
unless, like I said in my last message the participants were deaf 
or mute,
other than for reasons like a swimmer sometimes trains by just 
kicking the
legs, or just with the arms while the legs are tied together.


 SR> I mean what difference would
 SR> it make to his whole theory if the psyche were infiltrated by
 SR> language.

I think he is saying that the psyche is *partially* infiltrated by
language, but not *totally*.


 SR> I suppose he wants to say that there are depths that can
 SR> only be reached by dramatic action rather than just talking.


Yes, I think that is what he is saying, he also speaks elsewhere of
"basic" or "primordial language" ie language without structure. In my
thesis I suggest that psychodramatists and therapists make more use 
of
this.


 SR> But dramatic action always needs words doesn't it.

No, I don't think so, it depends on how you define drama, I was
hinting above that there is value in dramatic enactment without the 
use of
*structured* language. Particularly for instance with people who 
have the
tendency to hide behind words, conversely I think for people like 
myself
who were constantly told whilst growing up, to shut up and that 
they could
not write well it is very good to encourage more structured 
expression.


 SR> I suppose he means that roles in some way precede
 SR> language and give rise to it.

Yes, I think so and like many others he does not always draw clear
distinctions between verbal and non-verbal when he uses the term 
language,
which can create a little confusion.

I think under normal circumstances the process might go something 
like
this:

The baby is born with the ability to enact the psychosomatic roles 
of:

 "noise maker",  "listener",  "seer"  "arm flinger" and so on.

The enactment of these roles eventually leads to the development of 
the
roles of:

 "happy goo gooer", "semi-coherent talker" and eventually "clear 
speaker".

The former BTW are most definitely *psychosomatic* roles whilst the
latter... "clear speaker" is not really psychosomatic, (don't quote 
me on
this one) but it is more *psychodramatic*.

If the baby is born deaf it will have one heck of a job developing 
the
role of "clear speaker", but it is not impossible.

The roles of "arm flinger" and "seer" can eventually be refined and 
lead
to the development of "effective signer" and so on.

I am not sure now where all this is leading, I originally started 
this
thread to clarify something about role theory, I hope you and 
others find
it useful.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Xpress Yourself!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (299)   Sun 19 Dec 93 11:22                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Role Theorey
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 WL>> I want to add some more too, perhaps I'll dig up my old and
 WL>> incomplete thesis where i wrote several pages on roles.

 RS> I look forward to reading it.

 WL>> It is quit something isn't it to have a BBS like this where 
we have
 WL>> people familiar with different modalities of thought.

 RS> Yes, if nothing else the BBS is very good for that purpose.

Yes.  I was thinking more of the difficulties when we use language 
in a
specialized way.  I think it is OK to use words like 'role' and 
'archetype'
any way we like.  It takes years to use them within the context of 
a school
of thought, where they have restricted and specific meanings.

 RS> I don't actually think I said that, I think I said that Mother
 RS> was a *social* role and the roles of *a* Mother were
 RS> psychodramatic.

Yes, and when he becomes *his* mother that encompasses all the 
roles of *a*
ie *his* mother, one that is unique and important to his 
psychodramatic
world.  This is different from a sociodrama where the socal aspect 
is to
the fore, in exploring say motherhood, as understood by the group.

Do you mean something other than that by *a* and *the* mother?


 RS> I do not want to get into any *flaming* messages (do you like
 RS> the pun?) or any more other of those drawn out threads on
 RS> gender the week before Christmas, but it was the lack of
 RS> clarity and failure to make such distinctions between types of
 RS> roles in some of yours and Stanleys messages that prompted me
 RS> to start up on this thread in the first place. This is not
 RS> meant as a criticism, but more a recognition of the
 RS> inadequacies of language, more specifically that the word role
 RS> has many different meanings, more so to the role theorist.

 RS> As I see it, to enact the social role of Mother requires
 RS> adequate development of hundreds of more specific
 RS> psychodramatic roles. Oddly enough I am loath to name them here
 RS> through fear of stirring up all this gender stuff again.


Ah go for it Reg, or it'll go underground.  The acknowledging that 
it is
touchy brings out something about the nature of the world in this 
epoch i
think.  too.  I don't think that is because of our personal 
psychodramatic
stuff but because there is a social reality out there which makes 
this
touchy (no pun intended).

WL>> I was just thinking how this could be translated to the BBS:

 WL>> 'Write a message as your mother, send it up and tomorrow 
reply to it
 WL>> as your self.'

 RS> Yes, that would be useful to do that sort of thing, only which
 RS> of my mothers many hundreds of roles would I do this from? <G>


Depends on the PURPOSE I suppose  <G>.  Or perhaps just to your 
mood and
whim, which is the same thing???


I would not prompt someone to do that without some idea of why and 
that
would create the starting point.


All on this for now.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (303)   Mon 20 Dec 93 14:50                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Role Theorey
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 bf8aba4f

Reg is replying to Walter who replied to Reg on 19 Dec 93 11:22am

Hello Walter,

 WL> I think it is OK to use words like 'role' and
 WL> 'archetype' any way we like.

Yes, I too think it is *OK* to do that. I don't however think it is 
very
helpful in the creation of clear and crisp warm-ups, more so in this
medium when we can not instantly check out the exact meaning that the
other person was hoping to communicate.

I am basically opposed to the use of *jargon* of any description, 
but when
a clear *language* has been created, I think it should be used 
accurately
and in a way that can be understood by all.

 WL> It takes years to use them within the context of a school of 
thought,
 WL> where they have restricted and specific meanings.

I am curious to know why you think it should take so long? I would 
have
thought that the accurate use of language in the first place would 
lead to
people being able to use it from the outset. I would agree that it 
can and
does take a long time when people are sloppy and vague, for they are
terrible models for others when like that. (I am not specifically 
meaning
you BTW, just in case you were starting to feel got at, I was 
meaning some
of the terrible models I have endured).


 RS>> I don't actually think I said that, I think I said that Mother
 RS>> was a *social* role and the roles of *a* Mother were
 RS>> psychodramatic.

 WL> Yes, and when he becomes *his* mother that encompasses all the 
roles
 WL> of *a* ie *his* mother,

That is not my interpretation of Moreno. His mother is a real 
person not
just a role, she is a real person who *enacts* the social role of 
mother
and the many psychodramatic and psychosomatic roles available to 
her. When
we *concretise* her we are not just concretising a role.

 WL> one that is unique and important to his
 WL> psychodramatic world.

Yes, *she* is unique and it is her unique collection of 
psychodramatic and
psychosomatic roles that enable her to enact the social role of 
mother in
a unique way.

 WL> This is different from a sociodrama where the
 WL> social aspect is to the fore, in exploring say motherhood, as
 WL> understood by the group.

Moreno never made such rigid distinctions nor to my knowledge do most
American Psychodramatists that I have seen. I think that sort of
distinction was introduced in this part of the world by Warren 
Parry and a
few other people, I think it was done as a way of trying to sell 
something
of the psychodramatic method to professionals and people in the 
business
world not in touch with their feelings in a way that they might be 
able to
relate to it without too much personal involvement.


I think that in any dramatic work *all* aspects need to be to the 
foSubject:
social, cultural, political, spiritual, sexual, you name it should be
there, I think this carving everything up is a terrible mistake 
myself.

I know that many arguments could be presented for such a 
separation, I
have directed Sociodramas, Axiodramas, Role Training Sessions, Action
Sociograms and so on, usually they are warm-ups to the 
"Psychodrama" that
must eventually be done.


 WL> Do you mean something other than that by *a* and *the* mother?

Hopefully my ramblings above have clarified what I mean.


 RS>> I do not want to get into any *flaming* messages (do you like
 RS>> the pun?) or any more other of those drawn out threads on
 RS>> gender the week before Christmas, but it was the lack of
 RS>> clarity and failure to make such distinctions between types of
 RS>> roles in some of yours and Stanleys messages that prompted me
 RS>> to start up on this thread in the first place. This is not
 RS>> meant as a criticism, but more a recognition of the
 RS>> inadequacies of language, more specifically that the word role
 RS>> has many different meanings, more so to the role theorist.

 RS>> As I see it, to enact the social role of Mother requires
 RS>> adequate development of hundreds of more specific
 RS>> psychodramatic roles. Oddly enough I am loath to name them here
 RS>> through fear of stirring up all this gender stuff again.

 WL> Ah go for it Reg, or it'll go underground.  The acknowledging 
that it
 WL> is touchy brings out something about the nature of the world 
in this
 WL> epoch i think.  too.  I don't think that is because of our 
personal
 WL> psychodramatic stuff but because there is a social reality out 
there
 WL> which makes this touchy (no pun intended).

The social reality you speak of most certainly exists, it is not that
however, which makes it a touchy subject for me personally, nor is 
it any
unresolved psychopathology, in fact it is not actually a touchy 
subject
for me at all, but one I just can't be bothered with the week before
Christmas.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Mail Media. Do not expose to Flames!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:20 2000
Date: (291)   Thu 16 Dec 93 17:33                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Balanced is distorted!
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
                        SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY.


 WL> Under the guise of questioning the theories of Freud, TIME
 WL> Magazine November 29, 1993 attempts to protect sexual abusers
 WL> by giving credence to the notion of false memories.

 WL> The Christchurch Press picked this up, unable to resist
 WL> protecting people in high places, in a series of articles on
 WL> the subject.

It was a initially a relief to read the sane and sober article by 
Karen
Zelas last Friday December 10, 1993, in response to the Monday and 
Tuesday
tracts.  I admired her ability to be so crisp and clear and state the
obvious.  I even thought I'd gone off a bit half cocked on this 
BBS.  But
no. But I am not quietened, I felt a gnawing rAge.  Outrage.  Yes 
that is
it.  Karen Zelas could be sober and cool in the face of collusion 
with
abusers.  I know not to go to the media with my OUTRAGE, thank 
goodness I
can come here, but outrage is an appropriate response to the backlash
against victims of sexual abuse.  Outrage is something the Media 
would not
allow, at least from the psychotherapy point of view, they would 
not want to
seem fanatical.

Psychiatrist Defends the validity of repressed memory.

That was the headline.  They only need 'defending' after the media 
attack.


Walter




--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:21 2000
Date: (305)   Tue 21 Dec 93 19:14                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Sue
Subject: Archetypes
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hello Sue

SR>>   Man' is an archetypal quality which no individual exactly
replicates

 ST> Hmmm.  But 'average man' still knows that he is one, and would
 ST> look at you oddly if you told him he didn't "exactly replicate"
 ST> it.  He may have different characteristics vis a vis the
 ST> current ideal, but he still *knows* himself to be a man.

Precisely my point, the 'average man' does know he is  exactly and
precisely a man and nothing else; and he is a fiction which no actual
man exactly replicates. I have never had 'the average man' look at me
oddly when I told him this because neither I nor anyone else has ever
spoken to him!

                                   Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:18 2000
Date: (10484)   Wed 8 Jun 94 22:33                          
From: John Hicks
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Archetypes
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 79
@MSGID: 3:770/270 68288d0b

 WL>>> So an archetype is a trait that
 WL>>> is bigger than you, the boss of the little traits.

 JH>> How does one find out what their archetype is?  Is it important
 JH>> to find out?


 WL>>>  With archetypes I see that I am governed by some thing 
bigger than
 WL>>>  me.

 JH>> God, perhaps?

 SR> Yes, John, an archetype is God - only there are lots of them. 
One for
 SR> each universe we inhabit.  That's an inflated way of saying: 
'One for
 SR> each trait'.

Mmmm.  Interesting.  Who made up the idea of archetypes and if the 
person is
still alive today, do they still believe archetypes exist or is 
there in
existence, a universly held belief amongst most cultures of the 
globe in
these things?
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 79
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:22 2000
Date: (372)   Thu 30 Dec 93 11:58                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Frazer Greenwood
Subject: Re: R18 NOT !
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ffa3b31c


Hi frazer,

WL>>Who knows we may be able to set up groups for youth.  Anything is
possible!

 FG> Hope So ...

If two others express interest I will start one and be group 
leader.  My job
would be to help the discussion along and the group to do its own 
thing.  Do
you know any starters.  I will put out a message about it to make 
it clear
what a Psybernet Group like this would be like.  In the meantime 
any one
interested let me know.

WL>> One question to get you started:

 FG> Ready ...

WL>> If logging on to BBSs comes out of some sort of UNCONSCIOUS 
motivation
WL>> what would it be?

WL>> To have someone to talk to ALL the time?

 FG> Yes .. That has got to be it .. I have a Dislike in Talking to 
anyone
 FG> in my Family. < If you knew them you would too :) :) >

Yes families can be hell.  I think they usually are, the people you 
are
closest to are the ones we have the most difficulty with.  If I 
knew them
we'd probably get on fine!  < Perhaps not :-) >

I will say some more about this in private Local Mail.

 FG> Spotya ...

Yep, good to see you around again.

Walter.

... Psybernet BBS, Psychological Cybernetics, +64-3-365-6876  
3:770/270
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:22 2000
Date: (341)   Mon 27 Dec 93 15:05                         
From: FRAZER GREENWOOD
To: ALL
Subject: Re: R18 NOT !
St: Local Sent
Date: 21-11-93 (14:39)             Number: 979
From: WALTER LOGEMAN               Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: R18  NOT!                      Conf: (3) Psybernet

Yes ...


WL>Who knows we may be able to set up groups for youth.  Anything 
is possible!

Hope So ...

WL>One question to get you started:

Ready ...

WL>If logging on to BBSs comes out of some sort of UNCONSCIOUS 
motivation you
WL>what would it be?

WL>To become rich and famous?

I Wish !!!

WL>To be the FIRST person into the 21 Century?

Time Travel's not my thing ...

WL>To have someone to talk to ALL the time?

Yes .. That has got to be it .. I have a Dislike in Talking to anyone
in my Family. < If you knew them you would too :) :) >

Spotya ...

Frazer Greenwood

 * SLMR 2.1 * Add Stacker Ratio Here (A.K.A. Famous Last Word's)
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (397)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 90f573b6


This is a follow on from my last message on Anonymity.

Do we have the right to deny access? YES.

Is going where you have no access a crime?  YES.

What if you do that for the common good.  That is WAR.  And there 
is no need
to be a pacifist, we all need to decide which side we are on.  
There is a
war going on, and the war does not respect the boundaries between 
worlds, or
realities.  In other words cyberspace is a place where power 
dynamics and
abuse also occur.

In other words while among friends respect the privacy that is 
created.  For
good reasons we have a Women's Conference on the Psybernet BBS.  I 
think it
is a good thing that we deny access to men, especially after I had 
a look at
the Women's area on MindVox and the Fido Feminism echo.  These places
attract misogynists, and are fine for those who wish to do battle 
with them.
As the Co-sysop of the Psybernet BBS, who is doing the validation 
at the
moment I want to connect by phone or videophone <G> before I would 
grant
access to that Conference.

See how I can't resist forming opinions?  I stand by these views 
quite
firmly and for all the fluidity of boundaries in cyberspace, I 
favour the
creation of firm boundaries in this world, without rejecting the 
fluidity.
There is plenty of cyberspace!  <G>.  The firm boundaries can be 
FIRM to the
extent of using passwords and encryption.

I suppose that is what Psybernet BBS is offering with Groups.  
Privacy.  I
like the name of the encryption program: Pretty Good Privacy, PGP,
acknowledging that nothing is perfect.  I think in Psybernet we 
have EIP,
Ever Increasing Privacy, of which we are at the early stages.

I would like an area though where handles are allowed and where 
there is no
validation required.  I have toyed with a Theatre Group, but I gave 
up as
monitoring this conference and the others I am in is much more 
involving
than I thought.  Right now I'd like to find such a place ready 
made, anyone
know a good one?  Perhaps All I need to do is adopt a new name and 
go for it
somewhere, where that is OK.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (396)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b43064be

There is nothing to stop me entering the Cybernetic world using 
pseudonyms
and taking on any personality I like.  In some places that is 
encouraged.
Such as in the echo for spouses of sexually abused people.  In 
others it is
not allowed.  I noticed it is prohibited in the NZ-COMMS echo.  
Even in
these places people could cheat.  Also there is a fine line between 
names
and nick names, new names, akas etc.

The question I have is to do with how we handle <G> this in this 
echo, and
also on this BBS.  The question becomes interesting as I envisage 
Psybernet
as an echo on perhaps several BBSs.  The question is not a 
technical one nor
even a pragmatic one but a musing on the nature of *personality*, 
that is
the Psybernetic question.  Also I contemplate the desirability of a 
culture
where this is possible.

In Marge Piercy's book 'The Body of Glass' one of the main 
characters enters
the Net as both a man and a woman.  But which is real?  In 
cyberspace we do
not have bodies.  But in true cyberspace even the notion of man or 
woman is
only a vestige of another world.  It is really a form of Alternate 
Worlds
Syndrome to think of oneself as having a sexual body.  Or is it?  
Is the
cybernetic experience always grounded in a body somewhere?  Yes it 
is.  On
the Psybernet BBS we validate people, to see that they are who they 
say they
are, perhaps 'face' value would be a better way, do we judge people 
on the
basis of their relationship to their existence in primary reality.  
Is it
old hat to think of one reality as 'primary'.

I am musing, with opinions vaguely emerging.  I also want to hold 
opinion at
bay.  Experiment and experience.  What does emerge and I can't hold 
at bay
is the value of *honesty*.

I log on to the OZCIS forum on Compuserve, to get help with my 
navigation
software.  There is a guy there, Gabe, who replies to about 30 
messages a
day, in addition to his main consulting job.  He writes with style 
and
humour.  One comment a grateful recipient made was that he thought 
that Gabe
was in fact a name for a a whole team of writers who invented the 
character
of Gabe.  What a thought!  The reverse of a multiple personalty.  A
polynality?  One person made up of many bodies?  The thought blows my
multiple selves away!  Would the polynality be less interesting if 
the
physical nature of the 'nality was public or private?

In the end you will know *nothing* of the physical nature of your 
pen pals.
You will never really know who wrote this will you!  But do you 
like my
style?  Or do I go on your twit list, and never light up your
phosphorescence again?  The choice is yours.


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:25 2000
Date: (436)   Thu 13 Jan 94 21:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 WL> Hello All,

 WL> There is nothing to stop me entering the Cybernetic world using
 WL> pseudonyms and taking on any personality I like.  In some
 WL> places that is encouraged. Such as in the echo for spouses of
 WL> sexually abused people.  In others it is not allowed.  I
 WL> noticed it is prohibited in the NZ-COMMS echo.  Even in these
 WL> places people could cheat.  Also there is a fine line between
 WL> names and nick names, new names, akas etc.

 WL> The question I have is to do with how we handle <G> this in
 WL> this echo, and also on this BBS.  The question becomes
 WL> interesting as I envisage Psybernet as an echo on perhaps
 WL> several BBSs.  The question is not a technical one nor even a
 WL> pragmatic one but a musing on the nature of *personality*, that
 WL> is the Psybernetic question.  Also I contemplate the
 WL> desirability of a culture where this is possible.

Yes, the real  question is the nature of the personality. Maybe 
because we
do not face each other as literal bodies on the BBS - it coulld 
give room
for our imaginal bodies.


 WL> In Marge Piercy's book 'The Body of Glass' one of the main
 WL> characters enters the Net as both a man and a woman.  But which
 WL> is real?  In cyberspace we do not have bodies.  But in true
 WL> cyberspace even the notion of man or woman is only a vestige of
 WL> another world.  It is really a form of Alternate Worlds
 WL> Syndrome to think of oneself as having a sexual body.  Or is
 WL> it?  Is the cybernetic experience always grounded in a body
 WL> somewhere?  Yes it is.  On the Psybernet BBS we validate
 WL> people, to see that they are who they say they are, perhaps
 WL> 'face' value would be a better way, do we judge people on the
 WL> basis of their relationship to their existence in primary
 WL> reality.  Is it old hat to think of one reality as 'primary'.

If it is old hat to think of a primary reality then it is also old 
hat to
think of a primary and real self. I mean we started doing this
spontaniously when I suddenly found myself being Oscar Wilde or Madam
Blavatski or David Hume.  We don't have to be non-sexual just 
because we
exist in this realm. I think the psyche is sexual anyway. And this is
Mildred saying so!

 WL> I am musing, with opinions vaguely emerging.  I also want to
 WL> hold opinion at bay.  Experiment and experience.  What does
 WL> emerge and I can't hold at bay is the value of *honesty*.

Ticklish business, honesty!  You have  to hold back on opinions to be
honest because all opinions are lies. Well, that's my  opinion 
anyway.

                         Best   Stanely




--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:26 2000
Date: (440)   Thu 13 Jan 94 22:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 88020ec7

 SR> If it is old hat to think of a primary reality then it is also 
old hat
 SR> to think of a primary and real self. I mean we started doing 
this
 SR> spontaniously when I suddenly found myself being Oscar Wilde 
or Madam
 SR> Blavatski or David Hume.  We don't have to be non-sexual just 
because
 SR>we exist in this realm. I think the psyche is sexual anyway. 
And this is
 SR> Mildred saying so!

Ha ha,  What stage of your cycle are you at Mildred?  I thought 
about that
today, that old question of gender.  But I kept thinking that the 
psyche
*is* rooted in the body, and that gender *is* related to such 
things as
cycles, and that male ones are more like 24 hr ones and women's more
monthly.  Moon and the sun.  But what of my inner women?  Agnes, I 
think she
is menopausal.

 WL>> I am musing, with opinions vaguely emerging.  I also want to
 WL>> hold opinion at bay.  Experiment and experience.  What does
 WL>> emerge and I can't hold at bay is the value of *honesty*.

 SR> Ticklish business, honesty!  You have to hold back on opinions 
to be
 SR> honest because all opinions are lies. Well, that's my  opinion 
anyway.

Ah!  But what a notion that honesty had anything to do with 
opinion!  (Or
facts!)  All mere distractions from the truth.

Good to be back, doing our thing Stanley!  See you around.


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:34 2000
Date: (688)   Sat 12 Feb 94 20:58                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 cdcc9954

Here is a message I hav just lifted from MEDSIG on CIS.  Fascinating.


------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------

#: 217040 S16/Mental Health
    12-Feb-94  10:08:36
Sb: #216893-#internet discussions
Fm: Peter Jebsen 100021,1314
To: christine adamec 71216,105 (X)

Chris,

 > I found a CIS packet thta hooks up to an Internet thing in CA, 
so I'm
 > tryin g that. First I gotta pay but it's about $10 a month or 
something
 > like that. I think the packet was called "Well."

Are you referring to The WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link)? I 
think it's
$10/month and $2/hour (plus an additional $4/hour if you access The 
WELL
through a local Compu$erve node).

In addition to its Internet link, The WELL also offers a lot of
interesting conferences on its own. It's a nice crowd over there.

One of its regulars, author Howard Rheingold, wrote a fascinating 
book
about on-line services which I can recommend (title: "The Virtual
Community -Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier"/Addison Wesley 
1993).

In another forum, I recently mentioned a short segment of the book 
about
the dangers of deception in the on-line world - I'll post it here 
as well,
because it relates to A) Compu$erve and to B) the motto of this 
section:

Howard Rheingold (under reference to a Ms. magazine article by 
Lindsy van
Gelder: "The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover") writes about a 
CI$
member called Joan who turned from "famous" to "infamous" in the 
mid-'80s.
According to Rheingold, van Gelder "learned that Joan was a neuro-r
psychologist, in he late twenties, living in New York, who had been
disfigured, crippled, and left mute by an automobile accident at 
the hands
of a drunken driver. Joan's mentor had given her a computer, modem, 
and
subscription to CompuServe, where Joan instantly blossomed."

Joan became somewhat of a CI$ celebrity who gave lots of valuable 
advice
to fellow members (Rheingold: "She changed people's lives.").

However: Eventually, she was "unmasked as someone who in real life, 
IRL,
was neither disabled, disfigured, mute, nor female. Joan was a New 
York
psychiatrist, Alex, who had become obsessed with his own 
experiments in
being treated as a female and participating in female friendships."

FWIW... <g>

- Peter

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------


!!!!!


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:35 2000
Date: (718)   Mon 14 Feb 94 13:21                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ec557020
@REPLY: 3:770/270 cdcc9954

Reg is replying to Walter who replied to All on 12 Feb 94 08:58pm

Hello Walter,

Interesting message, fits well with some of our discussions here on
anonymity, eh?

 WL> Joan became somewhat of a CI$ celebrity who gave lots of
 WL> valuable advice to fellow members (Rheingold: "She changed
 WL> people's lives.").

 WL> However: Eventually, she was "unmasked as someone who in real
 WL> life, IRL, was neither disabled, disfigured, mute, nor female.
 WL> Joan was a New York psychiatrist, Alex, who had become obsessed
 WL> with his own experiments in being treated as a female and
 WL> participating in female friendships."

 WL> ------------------%---------end
 WL> quote----------------%--------------

Perhaps we could invite Joan or Alex to visit the ALTERWORLD here on
Psybernet.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... ATTENTION ..............Elvis has left the echo.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:38 2000
Date: (821)   Tue 22 Feb 94 21:13                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: All
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear All,
       I'm placing this in the ANONYMITY thread because it seems to 
fit.
I've taken this from a bit of writing I'm doing at the moment.

I wonder if this anonymity business is so facsinating to us - the 
thead
has certainly taken of and excited everyone's imagination - 
because, in a
sense we are really all anonymous.

          I don't know who exactly I am.  And the secret is that 
nobody
does. The hero is the one who pretends he does. Here is the extract.

***************************Begin Quote***************************
Our western ego, the conscious coping self of everyday life is 
built on
the heroic model, no matter whether we are a man or a woman. Our 
self-
identity and its values are those of the hero, of which Heracles is 
the
perfect model: grasping, decisive, active, independent, 
forward-looking,
with all the virtues of planning, positiveness, coping and single
mindedness.

The heroic virtue of decisiveness is interesting for it is here 
that the
ego's capacity for influencing and creating events is vastly 
over-rated.
It lays great emphasis on the ego's decision-making and choice and 
is part
of our historic Christian conception of personal responsibility 
before God
where we are accountable to Him for our actions.

This whole notion devaluates the unconscious to a point where it is 
quite
ineffectual, to where the psyche is really non-existent. And it is 
typical
of the heroic consciousness to be psychically blind.

It is interesting to reverse our notion on this and consider our 
conscious
decisions themselves simply as psychic events. My decisions do not 
cause
events, events cause my decisions. Or we could say, my decisions 
happen
alongside events.

Psychic events happen! What I do is not the result of my decisions 
but is
simply part of what happens. My 'choices' can then be regarded as 
simply
as happenings, as one would say, 'I happened to choose the red 
one!' or
'As it happened I didn't go!'

The simple happenstance of psychic events along with our decisions 
to act
or not act gives full credit to the psyche and relieves the ego of 
the
agony of its Protestant responsibility and guilt. It is more in 
line with
some eastern ways of liberation. In Zen, for example, there is a 
sense
that events, psychic and physical simply happen: this sense is 
wonderfully
portrayed in the Zen Haiku:

The old mill pond
A frog jumps in
Plop!

or

Spring comes,
And the grass grows
By itself.

Getting out of your own way like this, realising that the ego is a
fiction, is terribly frightening to the Protestant Heroic Mind. It 
seems
that such renunciation of ego responsibility will inevitably lead 
to moral
degradation. Seemingly, it must, because the view we are putting here
seems to  imply that whatever you do is in some sense right.  It 
implies
that what I am doing is right, not because I have made the right 
decision
- but because I am actually doing it!   My doing this or that, or not
doing this or that, is not the result of my decision, but is simply a
seamless part of what is happening. And what happens, simply happens!

I'm afraid this approach runs so counter to the heroic mind that it 
almost
cannot comprehend it. Alcoholics Anonymous try to get somewhere 
near this
when they hand everything over to a 'higher power'. It is watered 
down
however - because no one dare suggest that you hand *everything* 
over!
Personal responsibility has to be preserved.

If everything we do is in some sense right from the point of view 
of the
psyche, what on earth would be wrong? What about the Holocaust, did 
the
psyche happen that? Yes, certainly. But what are we warning ourselves
about when we ask this question? Are we suggesting that such brutal 
events
are more likely to happen if we abandon the idea of the responsible 
ego,
the ego as a ethically causative agent. Is this suppose to remind 
us, or
suggest to us, that only the idea of individual responsibility can 
save us
from such uncivilised and barbaric episodes. If so, such a 
suggestion must
make us at least pause to doubt. Our civilisation has had 2000 
years of
training in the idea of religious  individualism, the individual as 
the
source of conscience that is suppose to guide us; and so far we 
don't seem
seem to have produced a brilliantly ethical history as a result of 
it.


*******************End of quote***********************************

                              Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:38 2000
Date: (829)   Wed 23 Feb 94 16:44                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 561ab828

What a stimulating piece of writing Stanley, thanks.

 SR> no one dare suggest that you hand *everything* over!

And you dare!  All ego, ego responsibility, ego creativity, the 
heroic
structure of the cities and our civilization, civilization itself, 
are not
what they appear, products of our *will* and control and power and 
choice.
It is all a happening, like the blossoming of a cosmic flower.  
Even our
illusion that we make anything happen good or bad, is just a little 
petal
of the unfolding blossom.

This perspective is very fundamental to your being.

I can hear Sue come in saying, well that is one way of letting the
bastards off the hook!  I recall a discussion where the outcome was 
along
the lines of:  OK, if is all in the lap of the gods, tough, I will 
not
give up the battle anyway!  I call that the art of Heroic Zen.

I think I am a boring advocate of Practical Zen.  Along the lines of:

God grant me the
Serenity to accept the things I cannot change
Courage to change the things I can & the
Wisdom to know the difference

And this is an appeal to the higher power, a prayer, a reaching out 
to all
the gods not to squabble to my detriment.  I think the AA are all 
the more
profound because they are willing to live with the power struggle 
between
humans and gods.  First meeting they say:  Total abstinence  *and*  
Step
1, you are powerless over your addiction.  Step 1 is not giving up 
the
boose, that isn't even a step!  Step one is to let go of the 
fantasy of
the ego.  And the mundane behavioural change is there, as an
epiphenomenon, but not ignored.  Would that be enough Stanley?  To 
turn
the tables on what is 'primary' reality?  Or MUST it be that there is
'one' world that embraces all perspectives, explains every other as 
the
view from the eye of a god.  Must I let go entirely of my heroic 
courage
to change what I can?

I am enjoying this 'fierce' debate very much and feel love and 
warmth for
you Stanley and the other main users of the board as I write.  I 
hope that
also comes through in the body of my writing, if not I would 
appreciate
some coaching.

Warm wishes,


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:39 2000
Date: (948)   Sun 27 Feb 94  0:17                         
From: Sarah Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 67
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f222c8e7
@REPLY: 3:770/270 61a15616

Hello Reg,

 RS> Yes, my re-entry tonight, is by way of time out from rushing 
around
 RS> organising my forthcoming move.

Good Luck with all that, or should I say Good Management <g>, I 
suppose
that depends on whether you believe in luck or not. I know all about
shifting, believe me, I have shifted 13 times in the last 5 years 
<very
small and hesitant grin>. And I don't want to do it again for a long
time...for me it has been a case of necessity over choice, but I 
dare say
that could be easily challenged, I'll just say I had to do what I 
had to
do, and 13 shifts, however unpleasant, has brought me to a place that
really feels like home. But this is quite different for you, you are
setting up a new place to work from and I hope it does go well for 
you.

 SW>> you can call me Ruby, as do all those I am willing to have 
know me.

 RS> Thanks.

You're welcome <g>.

 SW>> Officially it is Sarah, but when I say it out loud it doesn't 
sound
 SW>> like me at all, in my heart, so somehow, somewhere along the 
way, I
 SW>> found Ruby. Or maybe it was her that found me.....

 RS> Yes, maybe it was like that, I also like the way you put that.

Thanks.

 RS> Yes, flames can be interesting, but they can also be somewhat
 RS>unpleasant and painful, I try to avoid them in this medium 
wherever
 RS>possible but
 RS> like life itself not always possible, eh? At one part of it I 
used to
 RS> use a tagline I invented "Stoking the furnace deepens the warm 
up",
 RS>but I have stopped using it lately.

Initially I had interpreted your reference to flames as meaning a 
heated
or passionate discussion...my understanding of this is clearer now 
that
you (and Sue also) have elaborated, obviously you have encountered 
them
before, in this medium. I haven't, and although I am willing to be 
real
and present, I too would be wanting to avoid unpleasantness or pain.
However, (as there are *at least* two sides to everything <g>.) it 
would
depend on whether they were coming from a place of nastiness or 
from a
place of truth. What I mean to say is (I get frustrated with words
sometimes), I am willing to be truthful, stay present, and follow 
what has
heart and meaning, while trying to remain detached from the 
outcome. If it
comes to flames, it comes to flames, and I trust it as just being 
part of
the process. And then again <g>, despite all that, I am a 
peace-loving
creature who usually tries to avoid such things as I do find them 
painful.
Humour is something I do like very much and so your quote does 
appeal to
me, I suppose it could be taken as provocative but at the same time 
my
reaction is to smile, or <grin> as the case may be. Actually, I think
that's what I love about humour (good humour), it is provocative 
yet warm
and so un-nasty.


 RS> I like that a lot .....  'falling into life' I have never 
heard the
 RS> expression before, is it your own creation, or borrowed from a 
famous
 RS> poet or philosopher, maybe you are such a famous person 
yourself, but
 RS> don't know it yet <G>.

Well actually, it is of my own creating, as far as I know. Perhaps 
I am a
famous person and *you* don't know it yet <g>. And here is the only
mention of anything even remotely pertaining to anonymity!

 SW>> Yes, that is what I mean, I realise now.
 SW>> In fact, dare I say it, I am probably far more "intellectual"
 SW>> than I like to think. For some reason, I have always shied away
 SW>> from defining myself in this way...perhaps it is because I
 SW>> desire to dwell more in my heart and live my life from this
 SW>> place, although it never feels like nearly as much as I know I
 SW>> am capable of.

 RS> Sometimes I have been that way too, (and to be honest, still 
am, to a
 RS> degree) also a little ashamed and embarrassed by my intellect, 
silly
 RS> really, but there is a voice within me and perhaps it is 
embedded in
 RS> the culture too that says *don't think*
 RS> and most of all don't let anybody
 RS> else know that you are capable of it.

For me it has been my heart life which I have wanted to hide, in my
experience this culture is one that has and does accept my thoughts 
far
more readily than my feelings. But that does depend on how we define
"intellect", doesn't it...I was referring to "heart" as opposed to 
"head",
feeling as opposed to thinking, but perhaps your definition of 
intellect
includes aspects of both. Never-the-less, it is still true for me 
to say
that I have found this culture to be incredibly against both our true
thoughts and our true feelings. Ah, I won't start on the culture, 
it has
been somewhat of a primary theme for me lately.....<g> I know that 
is no
reason not to start on it, it just seems too huge a topic to start 
on at
what is very nearly the wrong side of midnight!

Its funny Reg, as I read back over my message I am reminded of a
conversation between Walter and I not so long ago about how "safe" it
feels to be expressing oneself in this medium....as I delve deeper 
into
these strange new "meetings" in cyberspace I realise just how safe it
*isn't*. Walter was right! I humbly concede <g>. I was just looking 
back
and thinking ooooh! I hope I haven't said the wrong thing! or 
anything
like that...oh well, that kind of thought is but a product of our
culture...<g>

  RS>I reckon the overemphasis of any one aspect is not good. I 
think I
  RS>have
 RS> written about this before on the BBS, but not sure when and 
where.

Oh yes, all things in moderation.

 RS> I have enjoyed reading and replying to your message Ruby and 
look
 RS> forward to meeting you in cyberspace again.

Thank you Reg, and the same goes for you.
Until next time,
                Ruby

...Intelligence is aliveness of the senses.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 67
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:39 2000
Date: (959)   Sun 27 Feb 94 21:15                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Sarah Wadeson
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a8595d6c
@REPLY: 3:770/270 f222c8e7

Hello Ruby,

 SW> Good Luck with all that, or should I say Good Management <g>, I
 SW> suppose that depends on whether you believe in luck or not.

Thanks for your kind wishes, I think winning lotto is a matter of 
*luck*,
whereas I am *fortunate* to be moving into town. Whether I succeed 
in my
practice there will largely as you say be a question of *good 
management*
and I guess also whether I do my work well and perhaps the will of 
the
Gods.

 SW> I know all about shifting, believe me, I have shifted 13 times 
in
 SW> the last 5 years <very small and hesitant grin>. And I don't
 SW> want to do it again for a long time...for me it has been a case
 SW> of necessity over choice, but I dare say that could be easily
 SW> challenged, I'll just say I had to do what I had to do,

Yes, me too, I shifted a lot as a child and continued the pattern 
into
adulthood until about ten years ago. I recall saying at the time 
that I'd
had enough of shifting and my next one would be in a box. My son 
who must
have been about four at the time heard me and to this day reminds 
me of
this from time to time, quite funny really how he picked this up.

 SW> 13 shifts, however unpleasant, has brought me to a place that
 SW> really feels like home.

I am pleased for you, I know the value of feeling at home.

 SW> But this is quite different for you,
 SW> you are setting up a new place to work from and I hope it does
 SW> go well for you.

Yes, as you say, this is different, but it does still have all the
feelings that come with starting something new.


 SW> Initially I had interpreted your reference to flames as meaning
 SW> a heated or passionate discussion...my understanding of this is
 SW> clearer now that you (and Sue also) have elaborated, obviously
 SW> you have encountered them before, in this medium.

Yes, but not for a while now, touch wood, I think much of it has to 
do
with attitude and writing style.

 SW> and although I am willing to be real and present, I too would
 SW> be wanting to avoid unpleasantness or pain.

Yes, I think that is the art, to be real and present, but to be 
able to do
it all in a way that is not painful.

 SW> However, (as there are *at least* two sides to everything 
<g>.) it
 SW> would depend on whether they were coming from a place of 
nastiness or
 SW> from a place of truth.

Yes.

 SW> What I mean to say is (I get frustrated with
 SW> words sometimes), I am willing to be truthful, stay present,
 SW> and follow what has heart and meaning, while trying to remain
 SW> detached from the outcome.

The first bit sounds great, but I wonder how possible it is to remain
detached from the outcome.

 SW> If it comes to flames, it comes to
 SW> flames, and I trust it as just being part of the process.

Yes, all we can do is our best eh? I think you and I have started 
on a
good note, possibly helped by a lot of experimenting with Walter and
others (at least on my part), I am not sure how much coaching or
discussion you have had from Walter and others, maybe your just a 
natural.

 SW> then again <g>, despite all that, I am a peace-loving creature
 SW> who usually tries to avoid such things as I do find them 
painful.

Yes, I guess that is also a big factor.

 SW> Humour is something I do like very much and so your quote does
 SW> appeal to me, I suppose it could be taken as provocative but 
at the
 SW> same time my reaction is to smile, or <<grin>> as the case may 
be.
 SW> Actually, I think that's what I love about humour (good humour),
 SW> it is provocative yet warm and so un-nasty.

Yes.

 RS>> I like that a lot .....  'falling into life' I have never 
heard the
 RS>> expression before, is it your own creation, or borrowed from a
 RS>> famous poet or philosopher, maybe you are such a famous person
 RS>> yourself, but don't know it yet <G>.

 SW> Well actually, it is of my own creating, as far as I know.
 SW> Perhaps I am a famous person and *you* don't know it yet <g>.

Yes, that's a good way of putting it.

 SW> And here is the only mention of anything even remotely
 SW> pertaining to anonymity!

When I first got into using this medium I used to rename threads 
and the
likes because the content did not seem to match the title quite a 
lot, but
I came to realise the threads had a way of coming back to the 
original
title, so I stopped the practice except where a message title is 
creating
confusion. In other words I don't think it matters at all that our 
message
does not seem on target or whatever. It still is, when I think of 
it, I
have never met you in the flesh so to speak, you are relatively 
anonymous
to me and I guess me to you, but I probably know you better than if 
we had
met a couple of tomes in person.


 SW> For me it has been my heart life which I have wanted to hide,

Yes, I got that in your last message, but I can see on reading myself
quoted back that I sort of skewed my answer a bit, sorry about that.

 SW> in my experience this culture is one that has and does accept
 SW> my thoughts far more readily than my feelings. But that does
 SW> depend on how we define "intellect", doesn't it...

Yes, I had thought for a long time that *understanding* was a bad 
thing
until someone suggested I tried to *understand* more at a feeling 
level.

 SW> I was referring to "heart" as opposed to "head", feeling as 
opposed
 SW> to thinking, but perhaps your definition of intellect includes
 SW> aspects of both.

Not vastly different, but I do let the two merge a little more now, 
see
above.

 SW> Never-the-less, it is still true for me to say
 SW> that I have found this culture to be incredibly against both
 SW> our true thoughts and our true feelings.

Yes, I think that is true, my attraction to Moreno and the methods he
devised was probably born of the desire to seek integration and 
expression
of *thinking*, *feeling* and *acting*.

 SW> Ah, I won't start on
 SW> the culture, it has been somewhat of a primary theme for me
 SW> lately.....<g> I know that is no reason not to start on it, it
 SW> just seems too huge a topic to start on at what is very nearly
 SW> the wrong side of midnight!

I would love you to 'start on the culture' if and when you are 
inclined.

 SW> Its funny Reg, as I read back over my message I am reminded of a
 SW> conversation between Walter and I not so long ago about how
 SW> "safe" it feels to be expressing oneself in this medium....as I
 SW> delve deeper into these strange new "meetings" in cyberspace I
 SW> realise just how safe it *isn't*. Walter was right! I humbly
 SW> concede <g>.

Mmmm ....  my response is mixed, sort of Yes and no, I think it is 
largely
up to us how safe it is .... I guess too it depends on whether we are
talking about feeling unsafe in a safe space or feeling safe in an 
unsafe
place, if you get my drift.

 SW> I was just looking back and thinking ooooh! I hope
 SW> I haven't said the wrong thing! or anything like that...

Not that I have picked up on, but then I could be blind <G>.

 SW> oh well, that kind of thought is but a product of our 
culture...<g>

Yes, ha, ha, I am ROTFL.


Bye for now 
 Reg

... Better to understand little than misunderstand a lot.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:40 2000
Date: (995)   Tue 1 Mar 94 21:23                          
From: Sarah Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 69
@MSGID: 3:770/270 45a556a8
@REPLY: 3:770/270 a8595d6c

 RS> Thanks for your kind wishes, I think winning lotto is a matter 
of
 RS> *luck*, whereas I am *fortunate* to be moving into town. 
Whether I
 RS> succeed in my practice there will largely as you say be a 
question of
 RS> *good management* and I guess also whether I do my work well and
 RS> perhaps the will of the Gods.

This is interesting to me...I too would define 'luck ' as being 
something
that happens by chance (like winning lotto - provided of course 
that one
has purchased a ticket<g>), and 'fortune' also as being a chance
occurrence. As for the 'will of the Gods', I'm not sure about that 
one...
to me it seems quite separate from me as a human being and 
dependant also
on chance, having nothing to do with my *own* will, determination or
vision.
I would like to believe that I am guided, that I am part of a greater
purpose...it is not necessary for me to understand this purpose, I 
don't
even know if it is possible to understand it. Its kind of like a 
paradox,
that if I follow my own footprints, my path will create itself. 
That in a
sense *I* am God, but also that I am not, that there is more.

 SW>> 13 shifts, however unpleasant, has brought me to a place that
 SW>> really feels like home.

 RS> I am pleased for you, I know the value of feeling at home.

Thank you.

 SW>> Initially I had interpreted your reference to flames as meaning
 SW>> a heated or passionate discussion...my understanding of this is
 SW>> clearer now that you (and Sue also) have elaborated, obviously
 SW>> you have encountered them before, in this medium.

 RS> Yes, but not for a while now, touch wood, I think much of it 
has to
 RS> do with attitude and writing style.

Yes, one has to be careful. I am becoming more aware of this the 
more I
write and participate here. So often in conversation, I have more 
trust in
what is behind the words than the actual words themselves. That one
sentence can mean any one of a million things, depending on how it is
said, on what resides behind the words. It is difficult to do that 
here!

 SW>> and although I am willing to be real and present, I too would
 SW>> be wanting to avoid unpleasantness or pain.

 RS> Yes, I think that is the art, to be real and present, but to 
be able
 RS> to do it all in a way that is not painful.

Although often the truth can be painful.

 SW>> What I mean to say is (I get frustrated with
 SW>> words sometimes), I am willing to be truthful, stay present,
 SW>> and follow what has heart and meaning, while trying to remain
 SW>> detached from the outcome.

 RS> The first bit sounds great, but I wonder how possible it is to 
remain
 RS> detached from the outcome.

For me that is a practice in trust, and has something to do with 
being
comfortable in a state of not knowing. In some parts of Africa this 
is
called 'walking the land of grey clouds'. To me, detachment means 
to care
deeply from an objective place, while maintaining my sense of 
humour. I
think it is possible to do this even though it is difficult, as the
culture we have been born into does not teach us *anything* like 
this.
Harrison Owen, in his book 'Leadership Is', has consolidated this 
theme
into principles..
"Whoever is present are the right people to be there;
 Whenever we start, its always the right time;
 What happens is the only thing that could have happened;
 When its over, its over."

I think what I am trying to say is that I am able to remain far more
present if I am open to the outcome but not attached to it. 
Ideally, that
is. In reality it is a difficult practice and one that our culture 
doesn't
encourage.

 RS> I think you and I have started on a
 RS> good note, possibly helped by a lot of experimenting with 
Walter and
 RS> others (at least on my part), I am not sure how much coaching or
 RS> discussion you have had from Walter and others, maybe your 
just a
 RS> natural.

I haven't done alot of experimenting with Walter, but we have 
talked about
it at some length.Despite that I still think its a case of just 
starting
and seeing what happens, and so far there hasn't been the hint of a 
flame,
although that is not to say that I don't breathe a sigh of relief 
every
time I get an affirming response.<g>

 SW>> in my experience this culture is one that has and does accept
 SW>> my thoughts far more readily than my feelings. But that does
 SW>> depend on how we define "intellect", doesn't it...

 RS> Yes, I had thought for a long time that *understanding* was a 
bad
 RS> thing
 RS> until someone suggested I tried to *understand* more at a 
feeling
 RS> level.

Yes, oh yes. I like that.

 SW>> Ah, I won't start on
 SW>> the culture, it has been somewhat of a primary theme for me
 SW>> lately.....<g> I know that is no reason not to start on it, it
 SW>> just seems too huge a topic to start on at what is very nearly
 SW>> the wrong side of midnight!

 RS> I would love you to 'start on the culture' if and when you are
 RS> inclined.

Music to my ears!
Oh yes, I am inclined alright, its just not knowing *where* to start.

                         (a few moments of silence)

I think the best place to start is with my experience right here, 
right
now... and what strikes me is how incredibly frustrated I feel to 
be in
the midst of a system that is becoming more and more foreign to me 
as time
goes by. It feels unbearable to me at times.
How we hold fast to everything, how we lock things up tight, how we 
are
locked up in pain from our clenched jaws and clenched fists. We are 
lonely
here, we are terrified, we are powerless...and as much as I might 
*heal*
myself of the effects of this system, I cannot truly be free unless 
there
is a place for me to *be* in all my wholeness and healed-ness.

I would like to find a place where the power of connectedness, the 
power
of sustenance, the power of healing, the power of love, the power of
creativity is upheld and cherished instead of the constant 'power 
over' I
am faced with every day.

I have written about this a little in the women's conference and have
called it the 'search for home'.
Sometimes I feel like an alien here, that *my* world is very 
different
from this one...other times I wonder if home is to be found right 
here,
that we are all searching for the same thing and it is our fear 
that holds
us back. It is a constant theme for me. And then again, perhaps it 
is to
be found within myself and has nothing to do with the external 
world. I
guess for me at the moment it is a case of 'walking the land of grey
clouds'....I am unsure what I am looking for, unsure how to find it,
although I am sure I will know when I am there...

 RS>... I guess too it depends on
 RS> whether
 RS> we are talking about feeling unsafe in a safe space or feeling 
safe
 RS> in an unsafe place, if you get my drift.

I can only judge a place on its 'safety' or 'non-safety' by how I 
feel.
ie if I feel safe then the place is safe, if I feel unsafe then the 
place
is unsafe.

 SW>> oh well, that kind of thought is but a product of our 
culture...<g>

 RS> Yes, ha, ha, I am ROTFL.

GRIN....it took me a while to realise what that meant!!! (ROTFL). 
And I
worked it out all by myself! <g>

Well Reg, I have enjoyed writing this message, as a response to 
yours.
I hope there is no flammable material in it, if you get my drift <g>

Bye for now,
            Ruby

....every head is a world.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 69
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:40 2000
Date: (1134)   Fri 4 Mar 94 10:01                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Sarah Wadeson
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 58ba920f
@REPLY: 3:770/270 45a556a8

Hello Ruby,

Pleased to get your message.

 SW> This is interesting to me...I too would define 'luck ' as being
 SW> something that happens by chance (like winning lotto - provided
 SW> of course that one has purchased a ticket<g>),

Yes, one has to be *fortunate* enough to have the money or 
*fortunate*
enough to have a kind and generous friend to buy a ticket in the 
first
place <G>. Even if you brought the ticket with money you had come by
through luck beforehand there is still that aspect of good fortune, 
eg to
have the ability to know how to get to the shop and so on. To have 
the
good fortune of a generous friend will not be entirely outside ones 
own
control, it might seem that we come by good friends by chance, but I
question that, I think many things occur because they are destined to
occur, but also it is up to us whether we utilise wisely what comes 
our
way.

 SW> and 'fortune' also as being a chance occurrence.

The dictionary would perhaps indicate that element too, but 
personally I
think *fortune* is much less to do with chance.

 SW> As for the 'will of
 SW> the Gods', I'm not sure about that one... to me it seems quite
 SW> separate from me as a human being and dependant also on chance,
 SW> having nothing to do with my *own* will, determination or 
vision.

I guess it depends on your perception of God, if one views God as 
being
both within and without then the within aspect is not beyond our 
control.

 SW> I would like to believe that I am guided, that I am
 SW> part of a greater purpose...

You would like to believe that, or you do believe that? <G>

 SW> it is not necessary for me to understand this purpose,

I think likewise, but also that it is important to recognise there 
is some
point in it all.

 SW> I don't even know if it is possible to understand it.

I have moments of understanding such things, but usually it is short
lived..<G>.

 SW> Its kind of like a paradox, that if I follow my
 SW> own footprints, my path will create itself.

Yes, I like that and I think I *understand* it <G>.

 SW> That in a sense *I* am God, but also that I am not, that there 
is
 SW> more.

Yes, I think that was what I was trying to say above when talking 
about
fortune etc.

 SW> Yes, one has to be careful. I am becoming more aware of this
 SW> the more I write and participate here. So often in
 SW> conversation, I have more trust in what is behind the words
 SW> than the actual words themselves. That one sentence can mean
 SW> any one of a million things, depending on how it is said, on
 SW> what resides behind the words. It is difficult to do that here!

Yes and I have found that it is a bit like the runners who train at 
high
altitude, they run much better when they return to sea-level. I have
spoken
elsewhere of the swimmers too who tie there legs together to 
develop their
arms and kick with a board to develop their legs. The cybernetic 
medium,
as well as being valuable in itself is a good training aid in further
developing our ability to communicate in face to face situations.
Something we might perhaps need to guard against would be 
forgetting to
utilise all our abilities when we return from cyberspace <G>. I can 
just
see it, a clients come into my consulting room and every time they 
speaks
I
pass them a typed message because I have forgotten how to talk <G>.

 RS>> Yes, I think that is the art, to be real and present, but to 
be able
 RS>> to do it all in a way that is not painful.

 SW> Although often the truth can be painful.

Yes, I know that all too well, perhaps I should have said 'not *too*
painful', for when it is *too* painful, people tend to withdraw and 
if
the pain is too great they will not return. It is a fine balance 
knowing
just how far to go in revealing the truth, I encounter it in my 
practice
all the time.

 SW> For me that is a practice in trust, and has something to do
 SW> with being comfortable in a state of not knowing. In some parts
 SW> of Africa this is called 'walking the land of grey clouds'. To
 SW> me, detachment means to care deeply from an objective place,
 SW> while maintaining my sense of humour.

That makes sense and I like the image of walking the land of grey 
clouds,
but I shy away from the use of the word detachment as it conjures up
images of a very cold and clinical person, who is not emotionally
present. Some people who call themselves therapists are like that, 
the
ones that sit behind desks or coffee tables, they usually have a clip
board and look over the top of their glasses at people, writing down
everything they say. The clip board would be fine I think in an 
initial
interview, if the arrogant bastards had the respect to actually ask 
the
client if they minded them taking a few notes and explained why. 
Perhaps
it was my nursing background that taught me the importance of 
explaining
procedures, seeing how frightened people could be, simply because 
they did
not know what was happening. Not really wanting to blow my own 
trumpet
here, but just to make a point I will do it this once <G>, recently a
client told me that the thing he appreciated most about me as a 
therapist
was that I was very *professional* and objective, but at the same 
time I
seemed to care about him as a person. I was very moved by this and 
at the
same time I felt angry that he had encountered so many 'professional'
people
who 'did their jobs', but did not seem to care about their clients.

In case I have worded all this badly, I am not saying that I 
experience
you as detached in any way, more that the word has negative 
connotations
for me. I tend to use the word objectivity, it does not seem nearly 
as
devoid of emotion to me. I think elsewhere on the BBS I have 
written about
the correlation between objectivity and subjectivity, but that is 
perhaps
another thread, ..... back to fate, fortune and God's will.

 SW> Harrison Owen, in his book 'Leadership Is', has consolidated 
this
 SW> theme into principles.. "Whoever is present are the right 
people to
 SW> be there; Whenever we start, its always the right time;
 SW> What happens is the only thing that could have happened;
 SW> When its over, its over."

I have not read Owen's book, but yes I think there is something in 
this, a
more traditional Christian might put it in terms of "The lord works 
in
mysterious ways". Some might argue that it is all a big 
rationalisation,
but such an attitude can be very helpful in coming to terms with such
things as illness, death and life. I have experienced a number of 
close
encounters with death in this lifetime and they have all taught me 
a lot
and dramatically changed the course of my life.

 SW> I think what I am trying to say is that I am able to remain far
 SW> more present if I am open to the outcome, but not attached to
 SW> it. Ideally, that is. In reality it is a difficult practice and
 SW> one that our culture doesn't encourage.

Ah! right, now I *understand* you <G>, sorry if I was waffling 
before.
They try to teach nurses how to do that, but in reality it can not be
taught, it is learned from experience, sadly some never quite learn 
it. I
remember as a student nurse my first day working in a psychogeriatric
ward, a man lay dying of cancer and the only way that the senior 
staff
could cope with his death was to make silly jokes about it, ie they 
said
things to me like "Go down and see if Fred is dead yet". On the 
outside I
laughed with them, but inside I was crying.

Back to messaging style and quelling flames etc.

 SW> I still think its a
 SW> case of just starting and seeing what happens,

Yes, it does eventually come down to that, sooner or later we must 
all
walk the land of grey clouds, eh? Mind you I think having somebody 
to hold
my hand at the outset would have helped a little, I am quite sure I
alienated myself from more than on person, simply because the 
medium was
not familiar and I probably still do and will from time to time 
alienate
myself, but I think people need to accept that and my other 
imperfections
too. Even outside of cyberspace I am known to make the occasional 
error
and would you believe I even had a wart on my foot once, (said with 
my
<TIC> and big cheesy <GRIN>.


 RS>> I would love you to 'start on the culture' if and when you are
 RS>> inclined.

 SW> Music to my ears! Oh yes, I am inclined alright, its just not 
knowing
 SW> *where* to start.

 SW>                          (a few moments of silence)

Where did you go... did you go off to meditate, to light a candle, 
make a
coffee or did you just need to answer a call of nature? don't tell 
me you
were thinking intellectual thoughts, shame on you Ruby. <G>

 SW> I think the best place to start is with my experience right
 SW> here, right now...

Oh yes I like that, here and now is as a good a place as any to 
start.

 SW> and what strikes me is how incredibly
 SW> frustrated I feel to be in the midst of a system that is
 SW> becoming more and more foreign to me as time goes by.

Which particular system, or do you mean the entire universe?

 SW> It feels
 SW> unbearable to me at times. How we hold fast to everything, how
 SW> we lock things up tight, how we are locked up in pain from our
 SW> clenched jaws and clenched fists.

I notice you changed tenses here Ruby, ie you have 'itified' the 
feelings,
you talk about *it* feeling unbearable to you and how *we* hold 
fast etc.
I wonder if your experience would be any different if you named 
what it
was
more specifically that brought on the feelings that were so 
unbearable. I
find that when I view the world as one big horrible place I feel
completely overwhelmed and want to give up. When I look at one 
little tiny
thing right before me, I can deal with that and then move on to 
something
else.

 SW> We are lonely here, we are terrified, we are powerless...

Again, who is the we? Certainly at times I feel very lonely in my 
life,
and once I had a dream when I was chased by a werewolf and I was
terrified, and yes I have felt powerless too on many occasions in my
life, but I am not like that all the time. Or do you mean *we* as
in you and other women?

 SW> and as much as I might *heal*
 SW> myself of the effects of this system, I cannot truly be free
 SW> unless there is a place for me to *be* in all my wholeness and
 SW> healed-ness.

Ah, yes the need to *be*, I wonder are you likely to achieve this 
in one
lifetime, I doubt it, I only need to turn the TV on for five 
minutes as
confirmation of this, but I am forever hopeful <G>.

 SW> I would like to find a place where the power of connectedness,
 SW> the power of sustenance, the power of healing, the power of
 SW> love, the power of creativity is upheld and cherished instead
 SW> of the constant 'power over' I am faced with every day.

Such a place does exist, well actually I am not so sure about it 
being a
place more a space, but I can't tell you about it here for some 
consortium
might here of it and try an aggressive takeover bid or some other 
such
tactic born of the system you speak of <G>.

Or are you meaning a smaller community, I believe that there was a 
tribe
of Amazons who were entirely female and the only thing they had to 
do with
men was when they abducted them from a neighbouring tribe for 
breeding
purposes. Some even have it that they killed them off when they had
finished with them much as the black widow spider does. Perhaps 
some still
survive and you could join them <G>. Closer to home I have heard of 
some
feminist communities where men are banned and any boys are sent 
away when
they get to about nine years of age. Trouble is, I hear that in the
absence of men, women just take up the same roles, but then that 
might
just have  been a rumour of propaganda spread by some nasty
chauvinists.... <G>.

 SW> I have written about this a little in the women's conference
 SW> and have called it the 'search for home'.

We have set things up so I do not have access to it, so have not
read it, but dare I say that perhaps the women's conference might 
be  a
suitable retreat for you when the oppressive 'power over' forces 
get the
better of you <G>. Or are such forces operating there too? <G>.

...... Then again perhaps you were not thinking of the gender 
aspects at
all, perhaps I am guilty of 'genderising' <G> I hope you don't mind 
me
bringing that in and also that I make jokes about some of these 
things, it
is a habit of mine from way back that I joke about serious matters,
something to do with survival I think, it is not to deny that
the world is without the oppressive forces you speak of.

 SW> Sometimes I feel like an alien here, that *my* world is very
 SW> different from this one...

Perhaps you *are* an alien from another planet <G>. Do you by 
chance have
green skin, or have the scientists back home done a good job of
'humanising' you into one of the popular shades of black, white or 
beige?

 SW> other times I wonder if home is to be
 SW> found right here, that we are all searching for the same thing
 SW> and it is our fear that holds us back.

A strong possibility, but I think being in the flesh here on earth 
is not
really our natural state, I think most of our troubles begin when 
we take
on our physical human form, I think things are quite different in the
spirit world, wherever that might be.

 SW> It is a constant theme for me.

I don't know how old you are, but it would seem 'normal' that such 
a theme
is constant, particularly if you are in your thirties. If not then 
you are
either an early starter or late developer <G>.

 SW> And then again, perhaps it is to be found within myself
 SW> and has nothing to do with the external world.

Mmmm......  what about a bit of both. My view is that: all which 
happens
externally is happening internally and vise versa.

 SW> I guess for me
 SW> at the moment it is a case of 'walking the land of grey
 SW> clouds'....I am unsure what I am looking for, unsure how to
 SW> find it, although I am sure I will know when I am there...

Or, that there may be bugger all there when you arrive, but the 
journey
itself was what it was all about. (Hillman go take a flying leap).

 RS>> ... I guess too it depends on whether
 RS>> we are talking about feeling unsafe in a safe space or 
feeling safe
 RS>> in an unsafe place, if you get my drift.

 SW> I can only judge a place on its 'safety' or 'non-safety' by how
 SW> I feel. ie if I feel safe then the place is safe, if I feel
 SW> unsafe then the place is unsafe.

Mmmmm....  a different perspective, I know what you are saying, but 
that
is not how I think. I think of the times when I have *felt* safe 
only to
find that I was in a very *unsafe* place. Not such a common 
occurrence for
me these days, but familiar nonetheless.


 SW> GRIN....it took me a while to realise what that meant!!!
 SW> (ROTFL). And I worked it out all by myself! <g>

Oh great, I purposely did not explain, I figured you would ask 
Walter if
you did not work it out yourself.

 SW> Well Reg, I have enjoyed writing this message, as a response to
 SW> yours. I hope there is no flammable material in it, if you get
 SW> my drift <g>

I did not find anything volatile and I trust that this reply of 
mine will
stimulate and warm, but not inflame.



Love & Regards 
 Reg

... God heals, but always someone else wants a fee.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:41 2000
Date: (1286)   Thu 10 Mar 94  1:35                         
From: Ruby
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 221517d3
@REPLY: 3:770/270 58ba920f
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

It has taken me a while to reply but here I am <g>. I said to W, 
Uh-oh,
I'd better do it tonight, or he'll think flames are brewing...that 
was my
fantasy anyway.

I'm writing this on the bulletin board, someone is trying to ring 
at the
moment, I hope its not you Reg...the other computer is being used to
penetrate ...(drum roll or two)....*THE NET*...I tell you Reg, this 
is an
exciting place to be at the moment, I feel as if, very shortly, the 
whole
house will begin glowing and buzzing while alien aircraft start to 
circle
overhead.

Anyway, to reply to your message...

 > Yes, one has to be *fortunate* enough to have the
 > money or *fortunate*
 > enough to have a kind and generous friend to buy a
 > ticket in the first
 > place <G>. Even if you brought the ticket with money
 > you had come by
 > through luck beforehand there is still that aspect of
 > good fortune, eg to
 > have the ability to know how to get to the shop and so
 > on. To have the
 > good fortune of a generous friend will not be entirely
 > outside ones own
 > control, it might seem that we come by good friends by
 > chance, but I
 > question that, I think many things occur because they
 > are destined to
 > occur, but also it is up to us whether we utilise
 > wisely what comes our
 > way.

So how does one come by this *good fortune* ??
It is something I really don't understand.
I think it is because I have so many different thoughts on the 
matter,
some of them conflicted, and this is (so I am told) a typical'Libran'
trait...
98% of the time this feels like a curse.(By who I do not know-be it 
the
'will of the gods', bad fortune, destiny, unconscious choice etc etc)
My mind is working hard tonight, everything I think about seems
extraordinarily complex and multi-faceted.

Anyway, right now, in this moment, I do not understand any of this.
And that fact will probably make no difference whatsoever to what 
happens
in the next moment.
Or maybe it will.
<g>

 >  SW> As for the 'will of
 >  SW> the Gods', I'm not sure about that one... to me it seems 
quite
 >  SW> separate from me as a human being and dependant also on 
chance,
 >  SW> having nothing to do with my *own* will, determination or 
vision.

 > I guess it depends on your perception of God, if one
 > views God as being
 > both within and without then the within aspect is not
 > beyond our control.

Tonight I do not believe in 'God'.
That could change any moment. <g>
I am wondering....what if there is no God/Goddess, no power greater 
than
me, no destiny, no guidance, no higher truth....other than me right 
here
this second; seeing, hearing, thinking, dreaming, fearing, 
touching(etc).

Would it make *any* difference if I was right??
What do you reckon?

And then I think, ah, its all a huge joke, worrying about all this 
stuff,
and I just .....(ROTFL)!

 >  SW> I would like to believe that I am guided, that I am
 >  SW> part of a greater purpose...

 > You would like to believe that, or you do believe
 > that? <G>

I do believe that.
Sometimes I *have* to believe that in order to go on.
Sometimes, in my darker moments, I disbelieve and cannot comprehend 
such a
truth.
Other times I just believe it and hope like hell I'm right.
Right now? God only knows!!! HA!! <vvbg>

 >  SW> it is not necessary for me to understand this purpose,

 > I think likewise, but also that it is important to
 > recognise there is some
 > point in it all.

Must be!

 >  SW> I don't even know if it is possible to understand it.

 > I have moments of understanding such things, but
 > usually it is short
 > lived..<G>.

Oh, me too. Just glimpses. Glimpses of glimpses.

 >  SW> Yes, one has to be careful. I am becoming more aware of this
 >  SW> the more I write and participate here. So often in
 >  SW> conversation, I have more trust in what is behind the words
 >  SW> than the actual words themselves. That one sentence can mean
 >  SW> any one of a million things, depending on how it is said, on
 >  SW> what resides behind the words. It is difficult to do that 
here!

 > Yes and I have found that it is a bit like the runners
 > who train at high
 > altitude, they run much better when they return to
 > sea-level. I have
 > spoken
 > elsewhere of the swimmers too who tie there legs
 > together to develop their
 > arms and kick with a board to develop their legs. The
 > cybernetic medium,
 > as well as being valuable in itself is a good training
 > aid in further
 > developing our ability to communicate in face to face
 > situations.

So you think being 'face to face' is the *ultimate* reality?
I am interested to hear your thoughts on this as W and I have been
discussing it with great passion - Ordinary reality vs. Virtual 
reality.

 > Something we might perhaps need to guard against would
 > be forgetting to
 > utilise all our abilities when we return from
 > cyberspace <G>. I can just
 > see it, a clients come into my consulting room and
 > every time they speaks
 > I
 > pass them a typed message because I have forgotten how
 > to talk <G>.

Yes! <g> I can imagine. Or being late for dinner because you were 
trapped
in cyberspace. (this has actually happened) <g>

I think there are definite dangers to it all, and for me, 'ordinary'
reality *is* the ultimate experience. By this I mean the world of 
contact
- looking into the others eyes as I speak or listen, touch, 
laughter, the
simple power and healing contact of real presence.
There is joy for me in that.

 >  SW> Although often the truth can be painful.

 > Yes, I know that all too well, perhaps I should have
 > said 'not *too*
 > painful', for when it is *too* painful, people tend to
 > withdraw and if
 > the pain is too great they will not return. It is a
 > fine balance knowing
 > just how far to go in revealing the truth, I encounter
 > it in my practice
 > all the time.

Oh that is so true.
I like the way you have written that.

 > ... I shy away from the use of the word detachment as
 > it conjures up
 > images of a very cold and clinical person, who is not
 > emotionally
 > present. Some people who call themselves therapists
 > are like that, the
 > ones that sit behind desks or coffee tables, they
 > usually have a clip
 > board and look over the top of their glasses at
 > people, writing down
 > everything they say.

Appalling! And worse, there are cases where it really happens, I have
observed psychiatrists working in this fashion, after which they will
prescribe a few pills for depression and then leave the room 
without even
acknowledging that the person has a name, without even really 
*looking* at
the person.
There have been times when I have observed such atrocities and kept 
myself
sane by imagining various ways in which I could assault the bastard.

 > it was my nursing background that taught me the
 > importance of explaining
 > procedures, seeing how frightened people could be,
 > simply because they did
 > not know what was happening.

Yes, oh yes, I also have a nursing background so I know exactly 
what you
mean. And it is amazing to me *still* how frightened people are and 
how
their power and dignity is stripped away from them, actually the most
amazing thing (and this *never* ceases to amaze me <g>) is the 
colossal
amount of absolute heartless, discompassionate *bullies* within the
'caring' profession.

Incidentally, what prompted you to leave?
<g>

 > In case I have worded all this badly, I am not saying
 > that I experience
 > you as detached in any way, more that the word has
 > negative connotations
 > for me.

Oh, no worries.

 > I have experienced
 > a number of close
 > encounters with death in this lifetime and they have
 > all taught me a lot
 > and dramatically changed the course of my life.

I would like to hear about them sometime.

 >  SW> I think what I am trying to say is that I am able to remain 
far
 >  SW> more present if I am open to the outcome, but not attached to
 >  SW> it. Ideally, that is. In reality it is a difficult practice 
and
 >  SW> one that our culture doesn't encourage.

 > Ah! right, now I *understand* you <G>, sorry if I was
 > waffling before.

Oh, I thought it was me that was waffling. <g>
As long as you *understand* me, I don't care how long it takes to get
there. (huge sigh of relief)
<g>

 > They try to teach nurses how to do that, but in
 > reality it can not be
 > taught, it is learned from experience, sadly some
 > never quite learn it. I
 > remember as a student nurse my first day working in a
 > psychogeriatric
 > ward, a man lay dying of cancer and the only way that
 > the senior staff
 > could cope with his death was to make silly jokes
 > about it, ie they said
 > things to me like "Go down and see if Fred is dead
 > yet". On the outside I
 > laughed with them, but inside I was crying.

Oh yes, I also have heard this happen many times.
I don't laugh with them anymore.

 >  but I think people need to accept that and my
 > other imperfections
 > too. Even outside of cyberspace I am known to make the
 > occasional error
 > and would you believe I even had a wart on my foot
 > once, (said with my
 > <TIC> and big cheesy <GRIN>.

Oh Reg, how disappointing, I had so hoped that we would have 
something in
common.
<g>

 >  RS>> I would love you to 'start on the culture' if and when you 
are
 >  RS>> inclined.

 >  SW> Music to my ears! Oh yes, I am inclined alright, its just not
knowing
 >  SW> *where* to start.

 >  SW>                          (a few moments of silence)

 > Where did you go... did you go off to meditate, to
 > light a candle, make a
 > coffee or did you just need to answer a call of
 > nature? don't tell me you
 > were thinking intellectual thoughts, shame on you
 > Ruby. <G>

Wrong on all counts.
I popped outside for a cigarette.
You see, even *I* have an imperfection.
Now I jest.
Ah, we *do* have something in common. <g>

 >  SW> I think the best place to start is with my experience right
 >  SW> here, right now...

 > Oh yes I like that, here and now is as a good a place
 > as any to start.

 >  SW> and what strikes me is how incredibly
 >  SW> frustrated I feel to be in the midst of a system that is
 >  SW> becoming more and more foreign to me as time goes by.

 > Which particular system, or do you mean the entire
 > universe?
The Western Culture, for a start.

 >  SW> It feels
 >  SW> unbearable to me at times. How we hold fast to everything, 
how
 >  SW> we lock things up tight, how we are locked up in pain from 
our
 >  SW> clenched jaws and clenched fists.

 >  SW> We are lonely here, we are terrified, we are powerless...

 > Again, who is the we? Certainly at times I feel very
 > lonely in my life,
 > and once I had a dream when I was chased by a werewolf
 > and I was
 > terrified, and yes I have felt powerless too on many
 > occasions in my
 > life, but I am not like that all the time. Or do you
 > mean *we* as
 > in you and other women?

By *we* I mean *I* and the majority of others I have observed so 
far in my
life here. Others as in men and women. And children.
And no, I don't mean all of the time.
Not now.
But I was feeling that when I wrote it.
OK, OK, *I* was feeling that when I wrote it. *I*.

 >  SW> and as much as I might *heal*
 >  SW> myself of the effects of this system, I cannot truly be free
 >  SW> unless there is a place for me to *be* in all my wholeness 
and
 >  SW> healed-ness.

 > Ah, yes the need to *be*, I wonder are you likely to
 > achieve this in one
 > lifetime, I doubt it, I only need to turn the TV on
 > for five minutes as
 > confirmation of this, but I am forever hopeful <G>.

I do want to achieve this in one lifetime, as I don't intend to 
come back
if I can help it.
But I do have a few years to go yet. <g>
And I do try to avoid the tv, radio and newspaper wherever possible.

 >  SW> I would like to find a place where the power of 
connectedness,
 >  SW> the power of sustenance, the power of healing, the power of
 >  SW> love, the power of creativity is upheld and cherished instead
 >  SW> of the constant 'power over' I am faced with every day.

 > Such a place does exist, well actually I am not so
 > sure about it being a
 > place more a space, but I can't tell you about it here
 > for some consortium
 > might here of it and try an aggressive takeover bid or
 > some other such
 > tactic born of the system you speak of <G>.

Yeah, *bastards*!!!

 > Or are you meaning a smaller community, I believe that
 > there was a tribe
 > of Amazons who were entirely female and the only thing
 > they had to do with
 > men was when they abducted them from a neighbouring
 > tribe for breeding
 > purposes. Some even have it that they killed them off
 > when they had
 > finished with them much as the black widow spider
 > does. Perhaps some still
 > survive and you could join them <G>. Closer to home I
 > have heard of some
 > feminist communities where men are banned and any boys
 > are sent away when
 > they get to about nine years of age. Trouble is, I
 > hear that in the
 > absence of men, women just take up the same roles, but
 > then that might
 > just have  been a rumour of propaganda spread by some
 > nasty
 > chauvinists.... <G>.

Quite possible.
I am interested that you have changed this into a gender issue when 
I had
not even remotely hinted at this.
Perhaps it is you who secretly yearns to join the black widow 
spiders, or
join a feminist community where men are banned.<g>
Or perhaps you are a nasty chauvinist in disguise, starting the 
rumour in
this very message!

 >  SW> I have written about this a little in the women's conference
 >  SW> and have called it the 'search for home'.

 > We have set things up so I do not have access to it,
 > so have not
 > read it, but dare I say that perhaps the women's
 > conference might be  a
 > suitable retreat for you when the oppressive 'power
 > over' forces get the
 > better of you <G>. Or are such forces operating there
 > too? <G>.

Not as far as I know.
I chose to write that in the Women's Conference because I knew I 
would be
taken seriously there.
That is not to say that you don't.
You don't appear to, but I know that your humour isn't coming from a
*nasty* place, you *must* understand about these oppressive forces, 
how
can you live in this world and not!!??

 > ...... Then again perhaps you were not thinking of the
 > gender aspects at
 > all, perhaps I am guilty of 'genderising' <G> I hope
 > you don't mind me
 > bringing that in and also that I make jokes about some
 > of these things, it
 > is a habit of mine from way back that I joke about
 > serious matters,
 > something to do with survival I think, it is not to
 > deny that
 > the world is without the oppressive forces you speak
 > of.

Oh! Well that's OK then.
I think I would have to say that you *are* guilty of genderising in 
this
case, but you are forgiven. Only if you're truly sorry, that is. <g>
No, I don't mind you bringing that in, in fact I am glad you did.
And relieved.
I was wondering whether a flame or two might have been necessary to 
put
you in your place. Either that or a visit from a couple of my Black 
Widow
friends.<g>
No, quite seriously, I think I have deduced that you are not to be 
feared,
that you sometimes joke about these things as do I, and that you 
have the
courage to acknowledge that it is to do with your survival.
And, dare I say it, that you are quite possibly on my side, against 
the
'power over' forces.(?)
I want to write some more about the culture. Seriously. I am not in 
the
mood for that right now, also it is late.
Perhaps you could share some of your own thoughts on the matter?
I would like that.

 >  SW> Sometimes I feel like an alien here, that *my* world is very
 >  SW> different from this one...

 > Perhaps you *are* an alien from another planet <G>. Do
 > you by chance have
 > green skin, or have the scientists back home done a
 > good job of
 > 'humanising' you into one of the popular shades of
 > black, white or beige?

Actually, I have seriously considered this possibility.
As a child I was secretly convinced that I was an alien, and 
terrified to
go to the doctor because I thought everyone would find out if a 
blood test
was taken.
Needless to say, I have since had blood tests and it hasn't been 
detected.
No, my skin isn't green, I am not *that* kind of alien!
(Just proves how little you know about us)

 >  SW> other times I wonder if home is to be
 >  SW> found right here, that we are all searching for the same 
thing
 >  SW> and it is our fear that holds us back.

 > A strong possibility, but I think being in the flesh
 > here on earth is not
 > really our natural state, I think most of our troubles
 > begin when we take
 > on our physical human form, I think things are quite
 > different in the
 > spirit world, wherever that might be.

I agree.
I find this 'being in the flesh' very difficult, it certainly does 
not
come naturally to me.
How do you interpret these 'troubles'?
Lessons that we need to learn?
Perhaps we are advanced spirits indeed, that we have the courage to 
come
to this earth, knowing what we know, and knowing what we are in for.

 >  SW> I guess for me
 >  SW> at the moment it is a case of 'walking the land of grey
 >  SW> clouds'....I am unsure what I am looking for, unsure how to
 >  SW> find it, although I am sure I will know when I am there...

 > Or, that there may be bugger all there when you
 > arrive, but the journey
 > itself was what it was all about. (Hillman go take a
 > flying leap).

Yes I have often wondered at that myself.
The journey is the goal, the prize is the game, etc etc.
Who is Hillman?
Or should I have not let on that I didn't know that. <g>

 >  RS>> ... I guess too it depends on whether
 >  RS>> we are talking about feeling unsafe in a safe space or 
feeling
safe
 >  RS>> in an unsafe place, if you get my drift.

 >  SW> I can only judge a place on its 'safety' or 'non-safety' by 
how
 >  SW> I feel. ie if I feel safe then the place is safe, if I feel
 >  SW> unsafe then the place is unsafe.

 > Mmmmm....  a different perspective, I know what you
 > are saying, but that
 > is not how I think. I think of the times when I have
 > *felt* safe only to
 > find that I was in a very *unsafe* place. Not such a
 > common occurrence for
 > me these days, but familiar nonetheless.

So how do you now know that it *wasn't* safe??
Which sense tells you?

 >  SW> Well Reg, I have enjoyed writing this message, as a 
response to
 >  SW> yours. I hope there is no flammable material in it, if you 
get
 >  SW> my drift <g>

 > I did not find anything volatile and I trust that this
 > reply of mine will
 > stimulate and warm, but not inflame.

Oh yes Reg, it did. Stimulate and warm, that is.<g>
And thank you, I do enjoy your humour and honesty.
Must sign off, its late and I have to get up in a few hours...
Bye for now,
            Ruby.


 > Love & Regards
 >  Reg

 > ... God heals, but always someone else wants a fee.
 > --- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 >  * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics
 > +64-3-365-6876+V42b (3:770/270)

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:41 2000
Date: (1378)   Sun 13 Mar 94  0:14                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b33bad7e
@REPLY: 3:770/270@fidonet 221517d3

 R> I'm writing this on the bulletin board, someone is trying to
 R> ring at the moment, I hope its not you Reg...the other computer
 R> is being used to penetrate ...(drum roll or two)....*THE
 R> NET*...I tell you Reg, this is an exciting place to be at the
 R> moment, I feel as if, very shortly, the whole house will begin
 R> glowing and buzzing while alien aircraft start to circle
 R> overhead.

It is coming, but unfortunately not quite yet to Psybernet.  That 
is what
i'd like though to get the psyberspace material from all over, 
right here
in one place.  I have not got onto most of the functions yet, but 
have got
e-mail working well and have subscribed to some e-lists.  Ill post 
up some
of the material on "who owns the words"  That is relevant isnt it 
as I
post them here.  Ill ask permission.

 R> Anyway, to reply to your message...

And you did!

See you soon,

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:42 2000
Date: (1433)   Mon 14 Mar 94 16:29                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 fbebb90b
@REPLY: 3:770/270@fidonet 221517d3

Reg is replying to Ruby who replied to Reg on 10 Mar 94 01:35am


Hello Ruby,


 R> It has taken me a while to reply but here I am <g>.

I did not mind waiting as I would have been too busy to reply until 
now
anyway, what's say that we have an agreement that we just reply 
when we
can
and not to worry about time delays.

 R> Uh-oh, I'd better do it tonight, or he'll think flames are
 R> brewing...that was my fantasy anyway.

It crossed my mind, I started thinking, O oh....  have I said the 
wrong
thing, but I did cheat a little by asking Walter how things were
with you when I saw him on Thursday and he said you had been busy, 
so I
relaxed again.

 R> I'm writing this on the bulletin board, someone is trying to
 R> ring at the moment, I hope its not you Reg...

No it wasn't, working in town I am now an infrequent caller,
compared to the numerous calls I would have made every day.

 R> to penetrate ...(drum roll or two)....*THE
 R> NET*...

Do you mean the Internet?


 R> So how does one come by this *good fortune* ??

I don't think one 'comes by it' as such, I think it just is, but then
again, maybe it is not good fortune at all, but the result of good 
will or
deeds of the past, *mis*fortune would be of the same elk, I think 
some
people call it karma.

 R> It is something I really don't understand.

Me neither, at least not very fully, but I do have moments of 
insight <G>.

 R> I think it is because I have so many different thoughts on the
 R> matter, some of them conflicted, and this is (so I am told) a
 R> typical'Libran' trait...

Oh my God, not one of those, always having to balance every thing 
up, I am
bad enough at that and I am not even a Libran...., maybe I have a 
moon
ascending or descending there or however it is that astrologers put 
it.

 R> 98% of the time this feels like a curse. (By who I do not know-be
 R> it the 'will of the Gods', bad fortune, destiny, unconscious
 R> choice etc etc) My mind is working hard tonight, everything I
 R> think about seems extraordinarily complex and multifaceted.

See above reference to karma <G>.

 R> Tonight I do not believe in 'God'.
 R> That could change any moment. <g>
 R> I am wondering....what if there is no God/Goddess, no power
 R> greater than me, no destiny, no guidance, no higher
 R> truth....other than me right here this second; seeing, hearing,
 R> thinking, dreaming, fearing, touching(etc).
 R> Would it make *any* difference if I was right??
 R> What do you reckon?

I don't see it as a question of right and wrong, to me God is a 
reality,
both within and without everyone and everything. The higher power you
mention is also very much within, something a lot of people do not 
appear
very keen to acknowledge. The mere fact that we and the rest of the 
cosmos
exist is evidence enough of that reality. On hearing this, many 
people
would say "So who made God" ?  I have asked silly questions like that
myself and my reply to that sort of question is usually "stuffed if 
I know
or really care for that matter. I think part of all this is a 
question of
naming, it does not matter to me if God is male or female, but I 
suspect
both actually. It is also not so relevant to me how other people 
view God,
I once came up with the idea that God might very well be the 
collective
unconscious of the cosmos, but this too is just a way of naming 
something.


 R> And then I think, ah, its all a huge joke, worrying about all
 R> this stuff, and I just .....(ROTFL)!

Yes to worry about it is not so good eh?

 >>  SW> I would like to believe that I am guided, that I am
 >>  SW> part of a greater purpose...

 >> You would like to believe that, or you do believe
 >> that? <G>

 R> I do believe that.

Ah, so by my definition you believe in God, but by yours and many 
others
you perhaps wouldn't, or am I just being a smart arse?

 R> Sometimes I *have* to believe that in order to go on.
 R> Sometimes, in my darker moments, I disbelieve and cannot
 R> comprehend such a truth.

I think that is an interesting phenomenon, so many people say they 
do not
believe in God, but when all is dark and maybe they think they will 
perish
they reach for something, some will even pray for the very first 
time in
their life.

 R> Other times I just believe it and hope like hell I'm right.
 R> Right now? God only knows!!! HA!! <vvbg>

Yes and I suspect if she has anything resembling a face she would 
have had
a very very big grin on it when she saw you typing that <G>.

 SW> it is not necessary for me to understand this purpose,

No, that is what gives us ulcers, the mere fact that you exist is 
evidence
enough of a purpose.

 >> I have moments of understanding such things, but
 >> usually it is short
 >> lived..<G>.

 R> Oh, me too. Just glimpses. Glimpses of glimpses.

And that is enough eh?



 R> So you think being 'face to face' is the *ultimate* reality?

Perhaps I do, I was not conscious that is what I was communicating 
when I
spoke of 'training aids'. Perhaps it is even linked to this whole God
theme we have gotten onto. You know... the bit where we are 
supposed to
croak and ascend through a sort of shiny spirally tunnel thingy that
resembles a giant sewer pipe that is filled with light & mist and 
we meet
face to face with God.

 R> I am interested to hear your thoughts on this as W and I have
 R> been discussing it with great passion - Ordinary reality vs.
 R> Virtual reality.

Ah yes, I have had some discussions with Walter on this one too, I 
think
he has not liked some of my inferences that cyberspace as a partial
reality, but I must also say that I am starting to see it as a 
*different*
reality and the comparisons are perhaps not so useful or fair if 
you like,
a bit like saying: which is best male or female, black or white etc.?


 R> Yes! <g> I can imagine. Or being late for dinner because you
 R> were trapped in cyberspace. (this has actually happened) <g>

Hang on I need to go to the loo, I needed to fifteen minutes ago, 
but the
medium detained me.............

......  Back again, ah! I feel much relieved <G>.

I know what you mean, I have done very well lately in not even 
entering in
the first place, this is actually easier than pulling myself away 
from the
keyboard once there. Mind you I started this reply to you before 
tea and
very easily entered a few

 **************************************************'s to mark my 
place,
saved the message and picked it up shortly after.

 R> I think there are definite dangers to it all, and for me,
 R> 'ordinary' reality *is* the ultimate experience. By this I mean
 R> the world of contact - looking into the others eyes as I speak
 R> or listen, touch, laughter, the simple power and healing contact
 R> of real presence. There is joy for me in that.

Yes, me too, I would never want cyberspace to replace all that.

 >>  SW> Although often the truth can be painful.
 >> Yes, I know that all too well, perhaps I should have said 'not 
*too*
 >> painful', for when it is *too* painful, people tend to withdraw 
and if
 >> the pain is too great they will not return. It is a fine balance
 >> knowing just how far to go in revealing the truth, I encounter
 >> it in my practice all the time.

 R> Oh that is so true.
 R> I like the way you have written that.

Thankyou.

 >> ... I shy away from the use of the word detachment as
 >> it conjures up
 >> images of a very cold and clinical person, who is not
 >> emotionally
 >> present. Some people who call themselves therapists
 >> are like that, the
 >> ones that sit behind desks or coffee tables, they
 >> usually have a clip
 >> board and look over the top of their glasses at
 >> people, writing down
 >> everything they say.

 R> Appalling! And worse, there are cases where it really happens, I
 R> have observed psychiatrists working in this fashion, after which
 R> they will prescribe a few pills for depression and then leave
 R> the room without even acknowledging that the person has a name,
 R> without even really *looking* at the person.

Yes, I have seen them at work too and my blood boils at the picture 
of it,
but I can't help but wonder what happened that they reduced 
themselves to
functioning at that level.

 >> it was my nursing background that taught me the
 >> importance of explaining
 >> procedures, seeing how frightened people could be,
 >> simply because they did
 >> not know what was happening.

 R> Yes, oh yes, I also have a nursing background so I know exactly
 R> what you mean. And it is amazing to me *still* how frightened
 R> people are and how their power and dignity is stripped away from
 R> them, actually the most amazing thing (and this *never* ceases
 R> to amaze me <g>) is the colossal amount of absolute heartless,
 R> discompassionate *bullies* within the 'caring' profession.

 R> Incidentally, what prompted you to leave? <g>

Quite a few things...  one being the fear that I might become a 
heartless,
discompassionate bully if I stayed working in an environment that was
grossly understaffed etc. I wanted the freedom to work with people 
with
methods that might actually help them, I do value some of what the 
few who
really cared were able to do, but the final straw was when I 
applied for a
transfer to another area to extend my knowledge and skills etc. and 
was
put on night shift for weeks on end and was not be able to sleep 
during
the day and requests for change fell on deaf ears. Cathy was also 
itching
to get back into the paid workforce so we did a role reversal of 
sorts and
I became the primary care giver for a while. I really valued the 
time I
got to spend with the kids, particularly my youngest and when she 
started
school I started developing my private practice. There are probably 
other
factors too, but this gives you a few clues eh?

 >> I have experienced
 >> a number of close
 >> encounters with death in this lifetime and they have
 >> all taught me a lot
 >> and dramatically changed the course of my life.

 R> I would like to hear about them sometime.

Quite a few really but the main ones would have been when I: fell 
into a
flooded creek when aged nine and nearly drowned, went to sleep at the
wheel when aged 17 in the middle of the Nullabor plain in Aus and 
when 21
ended up with a bullet through me, the latter probably being the most
traumatic, physically and psychologically.

 >> Ah! right, now I *understand* you <G>, sorry if I was
 >> waffling before.

 R> Oh, I thought it was me that was waffling. <g>
 R> As long as you *understand* me, I don't care how long it takes
 R> to get there. (huge sigh of relief) <g>

Oh that is great to hear! I am told that I am often too blunt in this
medium and overinclusive in others, I personally like taking my 
time at
most things, but I can be efficient and fast should the need really 
be
there.

 >> yet". On the outside I
 >> laughed with them, but inside I was crying.

 R> Oh yes, I also have heard this happen many times.
 R> I don't laugh with them anymore.

No, me neither, not that I have lost my sense of humour, but there 
is a
time and place eh?

 >> and would you believe I even had a wart on my foot
 >> once, (said with my <TIC> and big cheesy <GRIN>.

 R> Oh Reg, how disappointing, I had so hoped that we would have
 R> something in common. <g>>

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, reminds of the guy who
walks in and says: "I used to be conceited........ but I gave that 
up, I
realise now I am perfect" <G>.


Re the oppressive culture ......

 >> Which particular system, or do you mean the entire
 >> universe?

 R> The Western Culture, for a start.

Ah, right got yuh.

 R> By *we* I mean *I* and the majority of others I have observed so
 R> far in my life here. Others as in men and women. And children.
 R> And no, I don't mean all of the time.
 R> Not now.
 R> But I was feeling that when I wrote it.
 R> OK, OK, *I* was feeling that when I wrote it. *I*.

Sorry, I was not trying to be smart, I just did not quite get who 
or what
you were talking about.

 >> Ah, yes the need to *be*, I wonder are you likely to
 >> achieve this in one
 >> lifetime, I doubt it, I only need to turn the TV on
 >> for five minutes as
 >> confirmation of this, but I am forever hopeful <G>.

 R> I do want to achieve this in one lifetime, as I don't intend to
 R> come back if I can help it.

You may not have much choice in the matter <G>


 >> but then that might just have  been a rumour of propaganda 
spread by
 >> some nasty chauvinists.... <G>.

 R> Quite possible.
 R> I am interested that you have changed this into a gender issue
 R> when I had not even remotely hinted at this.

Ah, I don't actually think I changed it into a gender issue as 
such, I
tend not to want to make an *issue* of anything, but yes I did 
bring out
that aspect, probably because it was there, but not named. Unlike 
me in
some ways to bring it out so directly, perhaps all the messages 
from Sue
and Walter with such a flavour have infiltrated my psyche <G>.


 R> Perhaps it is you who secretly yearns to join the black widow
 R> spiders, or join a feminist community where men are banned.<g>

Nah, that is not a secret desire of mine, I have spent many years
associating with feminist women, I have also spent a lot of time 
being the
only male in groups of women and recently have moved into that 
situation
again where I work.

 R> Or perhaps you are a nasty chauvinist in disguise, starting the
 R> rumour in this very message!

No, not me, I am too innocent for that sort of thing <G>, but I 
also make
no secret of the fact that some of my habits and traits may still be
tainted by the chauvinistic world I have grown up in, but I would not
describe myself as a *chauvanist*, that is too encompassing a title.

 >>  SW> I have written about this a little in the women's conference
 >>  SW> and have called it the 'search for home'.

 >> We have set things up so I do not have access to it,
 >> so have not
 >> read it, but dare I say that perhaps the women's
 >> conference might be  a
 >> suitable retreat for you when the oppressive 'power
 >> over' forces get the
 >> better of you <G>. Or are such forces operating there
 >> too? <G>.

 R> Not as far as I know.
 R> I chose to write that in the Women's Conference because I knew I
 R> would be taken seriously there.
 R> That is not to say that you don't.
 R> You don't appear to, but I know that your humour isn't coming
 R> from a *nasty* place, you *must* understand about these
 R> oppressive forces, how can you live in this world and not!!??

Yes I do take you seriously in that respect at least <G> and I do
*understand* the oppressive forces you speak of and more 
importantly what
it is like to have to live with their presence.

 R> Oh! Well that's OK then.
 R> I think I would have to say that you *are* guilty of genderising
 R> in this case, but you are forgiven. Only if you're truly sorry,
 R> that is. <g>

No, I am not sorry for bringing that *out*, noticed I have changed 
from
*in* to *out*, (see comments in earlier part of message), but thank 
you
for your forgiveness anyway <G>.

 R> No, I don't mind you bringing that in, in fact I am
 R> glad you did. And relieved.

err...... No worries mate. (said with fair dinkum Aussie accent)

 R> I was wondering whether a flame or two might have been necessary
 R> to put you in your place. Either that or a visit from a couple
 R> of my Black Widow friends.<g>

I think they called in advance <G> and they said that I was to behave
myself around particular webs, but I was not to start acting all
apologetic for being male, seemed like good advice really.

 R> No, quite seriously, I think I have deduced that you are not to
 R> be feared, that you sometimes joke about these things as do I,
 R> and that you have the courage to acknowledge that it is to do
 R> with your survival. And, dare I say it, that you are quite
 R> possibly on my side, against the 'power over' forces.(?)

Thankyou.

 R> I want to write some more about the culture. Seriously. I am not
 R> in the mood for that right now, also it is late.

Yes, one must be in the mood to write about such things eh?

 R> Perhaps you could share some of your own thoughts on the matter?
 R> I would like that.

Yes, I will do that, not right now because I have been at the 
computer
quite a bit today and I want to go and see how my daughter is 
getting on,
as she is home sick, but I will get back to it.

 >>  SW> Sometimes I feel like an alien here, that *my* world is very
 >>  SW> different from this one...

 >> Perhaps you *are* an alien from another planet <G>. Do
 >> you by chance have
 >> green skin, or have the scientists back home done a
 >> good job of
 >> 'humanising' you into one of the popular shades of
 >> black, white or beige?

 R> Actually, I have seriously considered this possibility.
 R> As a child I was secretly convinced that I was an alien, and
 R> terrified to go to the doctor because I thought everyone would
 R> find out if a blood test was taken.
 R> Needless to say, I have since had blood tests and it hasn't been
 R> detected. No, my skin isn't green, I am not *that* kind of alien!
 R> (Just proves how little you know about us)

Ah, but you do not know how much I do know, if I were to release 
all I
know about aliens, it would start a mass hysterical reaction?  <G>

More seriously, I feel for the little girl and I hope she has 
gained some
sense of security now re this.

 >>  SW> other times I wonder if home is to be
 >>  SW> found right here, that we are all searching for the same 
thing
 >>  SW> and it is our fear that holds us back.

 >> A strong possibility, but I think being in the flesh
 >> here on earth is not
 >> really our natural state, I think most of our troubles
 >> begin when we take
 >> on our physical human form, I think things are quite
 >> different in the
 >> spirit world, wherever that might be.

 R> I agree.
 R> I find this 'being in the flesh' very difficult, it certainly
 R> does not come naturally to me.
 R> How do you interpret these 'troubles'?
 R> Lessons that we need to learn?
 R> Perhaps we are advanced spirits indeed, that we have the courage
 R> to come to this earth, knowing what we know, and knowing what we
 R> are in for.

I know you said that you try to avoid TV and radios etc. but have 
you ever
seen a TV program called "Hard Time On Planet Earth", I do not 
think it is
such a silly concept, watch it sometime and get back to me.


 R> The journey is the goal, the prize is the game, etc etc.
 R> Who is Hillman?
 R> Or should I have not let on that I didn't know that. <g>

There was discussion in this echo some time back that referred to 
James
Hillman and how he tries to debunk the notion of life being a 
journey.


 >> Mmmmm....  a different perspective, I know what you
 >> are saying, but that
 >> is not how I think. I think of the times when I have
 >> *felt* safe only to
 >> find that I was in a very *unsafe* place. Not such a
 >> common occurrence for
 >> me these days, but familiar nonetheless.

 R> So how do you now know that it *wasn't* safe??
 R> Which sense tells you?

Probably the *sixth* one in the first place, but I did not listen 
to it,
because I did not trust it at the time, but after, I guess it is all
senses that told me.

Well I must be off now, again I have enjoyed responding to your 
message,

Take care.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Any certainty is a delusion.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:44 2000
Date: (1730)   Fri 25 Mar 94 11:33                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter


 WL> What a stimulating piece of writing Stanley, thanks.

 SR>> no one dare suggest that you hand *everything* over!

 WL> And you dare!  All ego, ego responsibility, ego creativity, the
 WL> heroic structure of the cities and our civilisation,
 WL> civilisation itself, are not what they appear, products of our
 WL> *will* and control and power and choice. It is all a happening,
 WL> like the blossoming of a cosmic flower.  Even our illusion that
 WL> we make anything happen good or bad, is just a little petal of
 WL> the unfolding blossom.

Beautifully said my little lotus blossom.   A bright jewel for our
collection  in  Zenberspace.

 WL> This perspective is very fundamental to your being.

 WL> I can hear Sue come in saying, well that is one way of letting
 WL> the bastards off the hook!  I recall a discussion where the
 WL> outcome was along the lines of:  OK, if is all in the lap of
 WL> the gods, tough, I will not give up the battle anyway!  I call
 WL> that the art of Heroic Zen.

Well, why not, Walter. To be heroic in one's actions, to fight the 
good
fight without it being *personal* and to know that it really is 
just the
unfolding of the cosmic blossom is just what Krishna advocated, 
wasn't it?

 WL> I think I am a boring advocate of Practical Zen.  Along the
 WL> lines of:

 WL> God grant me the
 WL> Serenity to accept the things I cannot change
 WL> Courage to change the things I can & the
 WL> Wisdom to know the difference

 WL> And this is an appeal to the higher power, a prayer, a reaching
 WL> out to all the gods not to squabble to my detriment.  I think
 WL> the AA are all the more profound because they are willing to
 WL> live with the power struggle between humans and gods.  First
 WL> meeting they say:  Total abstinence  *and*  Step 1, you are
 WL> powerless over your addiction.  Step 1 is not giving up the
 WL> booze, that isn't even a step!  Step one is to let go of the
 WL> fantasy of the ego.  And the mundane behavioural change is
 WL> there, as an epiphenomenon, but not ignored.  Would that be
 WL> enough Stanley?  To turn the tables on what is 'primary'
 WL> reality?  Or MUST it be that there is 'one' world that embraces
 WL> all perspectives, explains every other as the view from the eye
 WL> of a god.  Must I let go entirely of my heroic courage to
 WL> change what I can?

Yes, marvellous, isn't it! Step one, which is submission to my
powerlessness is the *real* step. Not giving up the booze. As 
though to
say: that's not what it is about. The real step is becoming 
anonymous.
To really decide that I am powerless, if I really give up the 
fantasy of
the ego and its ability to control and decide - if I really, really 
do -
then I have to ask *THEM* to give up the booze, or rather I have to
supplicate the gods to leave the things they will not change, and to
favour me in the things they will. Then my behaviour would really 
be, as
you say, an epiphenomenon:

          Oh! Dionysos, god of wine
          I beseech you,
          Much and all as I love your gift,
          and the ravishment of your spell,
          Make room for the others!
          For I have served you well.

 WL> I am enjoying this 'fierce' debate very much and feel love and
 WL> warmth for you Stanley and the other main users of the board as
 WL> I write.  I hope that also comes through in the body of my
 WL> writing, if not I would appreciate some coaching.

It comes through indeed Walter. Loud and clear.


                    Warmth and love too

                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:46 2000
Date: (1790)   Mon 28 Mar 94  1:17                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 2b801f19
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

 > Beautifully said my little lotus blossom.   A bright
 > jewel for our
 > collection  in  Zenberspace.

 >  WL> This perspective is very fundamental to your being.

 >  WL> I can hear Sue come in saying, well that is one way of 
letting
 >  WL> the bastards off the hook!  I recall a discussion where the
 >  WL> outcome was along the lines of:  OK, if is all in the lap of
 >  WL> the gods, tough, I will not give up the battle anyway!  I 
call
 >  WL> that the art of Heroic Zen.

 > Well, why not, Walter. To be heroic in one's actions,
 > to fight the good
 > fight without it being *personal* and to know that it
 > really is just the
 > unfolding of the cosmic blossom is just what Krishna
 > advocated, wasn't it?

I am sure you are right, I don't know but I recall a time in my 
life when
I was very busy creating a community, a comune, in the early 
seventies.  I
was flat out.  I heard that sing by the Beatles 'Let it be' and I 
thought,
yeah, I should give up all this heroism, & then I thought NO, let 
*that*
be too! and went on with all my proactivism, letting it be, pleasind
Krishna no doubt.

 >           Oh! Dionysos, god of wine
 >           I beseech you,
 >           Much and all as I love your gift,
 >           and the ravishment of your spell,
 >           Make room for the others!
 >           For I have served you well.

 >  WL> I am enjoying this 'fierce' debate very much and feel love 
and
 >  WL> warmth for you Stanley and the other main users of the 
board as
 >  WL> I write.  I hope that also comes through in the body of my
 >  WL> writing, if not I would appreciate some coaching.

 > It comes through indeed Walter. Loud and clear.

Thanks, and it seems the debate is over, the gods have won and the 
humans
when they defy the gods are just unfolding petles in the lap of 
Krishna.
Even when we hold onto the fantasy of a whole self we are gripped 
by some
meme (the idea as parasite looking for host messages to creep into,
analogous to a gene which seeks to reeproduce itself in bodies) 
that wants
whole selves around.

Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (2041)   Mon 4 Apr 94 16:24                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a62345e4

Hello Stanley,

 SR> If you were in therapy with me at this point I would
 SR> say to you in my best Viennese accent:

 SR> " Zo, you 'ave been with me zix years, yes, and now
 SR> you zink you are nozink?  Now we begin zee analyziz!

Funny and wonderfully to the point!  Whatever name I use I am 
anonymous, -
no name as there is nothing to name no ego -- nozink!  I am 
experiencing
that state here.  But it is not nozink eh!  For now vee begin ze 
analyziz.
The analysis of what?  Of the forces at play.

It brings me to see that these forces are here in 
Psybernet-as-a-whole,
the synchronycity is at a peak.  I could look into my soul and see 
the
flow or here on the board & see the mirror of my soul and the whole 
world
is a hall of mirrors echoing into infinity.  Does it work like that 
for
others, or is this more intricately entwined with my nozink than 
other's
nozinks?

Do you see the themes alive in the sub groups mirroring each-other? 
 Is
god within or without?  Are ideas alive like people.  Is there a core
personality?


 SR> It must even be THEY who are thinking: 'I'm nobody!'

They probably think they are just a metaphor <g>.  Yes.  WHO is a 
nozink?
It is the one who thought he was zomezink.  I am powerless over my
addiction and I hand all to the higher power.

 SR>                                    My Deepest Sympathy

Thank you.

Is that addressed to the poor shell of an ego, which like the tomb of
Jesus is an empty chamber whose very existence is under continual
question?


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (1997)   Sun 3 Apr 94 18:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter


 WL> Thanks, and it seems the debate is over, the gods have won and
 WL> the humans when they defy the gods are just unfolding petles in
 WL> the lap of Krishna. Even when we hold onto the fantasy of a
 WL> whole self we are gripped by some meme (the idea as parasite
 WL> looking for host messages to creep into, analogous to a gene
 WL> which seeks to reeproduce itself in bodies) that wants whole
 WL> selves around.

          Does it seem as though the debate is over? Like you've 
reached a
point where even the idea of 'myself', my 'true real self', the 
'whole me'
has lost its ontological status. I guess that's right, that is when 
the
gods have won. It must even be THEY who are thinking: 'I'm nobody!'

          If you were in therapy with me at this point I would say 
to you
in my best Viennese accent:

           " Zo, you 'ave been with me zix years, yes, and now you 
zink
you are nozink?  Now we begin zee analyziz!

(Pinched from Portnoy's Complaint)

                                   My Deepest Sympathy

                                             Stanley



--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (2058)   Tue 5 Apr 94 15:29                          
From: Reg Smith
To: All
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 db614644

Hello World,

 WL>> The one is many and the many are one. There, that is it.

 WL>> To see the world in a grain of sand
 WL>> Infinity in an hour.

 SR> Walter, by placing Reg and myself in the
 SR> meta-psychological-speculation jar and going off into all these
 SR> grains of sand and everything you are playing a naughty
 SR> poet-type person who can play havoc with us poor philosophers.
 SR> But we forgive you I'm sure.

I am not so sure I like you speaking for me like that Stanley, but 
yes, if
that is what is needed and seems appropriate then forgive I will. 
Now I
see where you were coming from in the other message too Stanley. How
interesting that when it is put poetically I know what is being 
talked
about. Perhaps this is my difficulty, I do not want to be placed in 
any
jar or well or pigeon hole or anything that is restrictive. I need 
to be
able to breath not just with my lungs but with my brain too. I want 
and
need the freedom to be a philosophical poet and a poetic 
philosopher, all
this division is too painful for me. I need to be able to open my 
mouth
and share what is within me. I am starting to think that my 
involvement in
this BBS is having a destructive effect on my life. It requires 
that I
spend many hours saying what I could say in a matter of minutes 
elsewhere
only to be taken up the wrong way, misquoted, misunderstood and 
judged. It
could be that I am just not competent enough to use this medium, 
but I am
fast approaching the point where I might abandon this medium 
altogether.


Love & Regards
 Reg

... Living well is the best revenge!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:54 2000
Date: (2455)   Mon 18 Apr 94 23:25                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 bcdf1002

On the 5th January I wrote a message about anonymity in cyberspace 
and we
have had a lot of discussion and a major experiment the ALTERWORLD.

Here was my original question:

>> The question is not a technical one nor even a pragmatic one but
a musing on the nature of *personality*, that is the Psybernetic
question.  Also I contemplate the desirability of a culture where 
this
is possible. <<

At the time I did not want to form opinions but now I think I can 
throw a
few in, and as Stanley says all opinions are lies, so what the hell.

== Personality. ==
I lived that message where Stanley envisaged all the alters arguing 
about
whether they were roles or archetypes, alters, ids or egos etc.  It 
did
not quite come to that.  I think all these descriptions relate to
different schools.  In psychodrama the word role means something 
different
to what it does in ordinary language, and it is a confusing concept 
in
psychodrama anyway.  When we enact say, Bertrand Russell in the
psychodrama stage the director will say reverse roles.  However 
Bertrand
Russell might be in the role of a philosopher or in the role of an
activist campaigner or making love to a tree!

My point is we can describe personality any way we like.  It is a 
rack on
which we hang our thoughts and feelings. I just made that up.  It 
is the
interface of our soul with the world.  How is that?  It is what our
parents tried to suppress and failed.  It is what psychologists try 
to
measure and always fail.  It is the result of the placement of the 
stars
in the 12 houses at the time of our birth.  Any advances on those?

I think the alters in the alter world are whatever we or they think 
they
are, I know that all mine were different not only in content but 
form.  So
the question for me is what is a good word to describe all those that
wrote in the ALTERWORLD?  Alters?  Perhaps not because it has 
connotations
of disassociation which most of us did not have most of the time 
<g>, I
think.  Auxiliary egos?  I think I like 'characters'.  I'd like to 
see us
have another go some time, in a slightly different way.

== The Culture ==
I have got that really clear.  I don't like the total anonymity 
thing,
both as a result of my experience in the ALTERWORLD and my 
explorations in
cyberspace and my reading on the matter.

One thing relates to a message I wrote to Stanley on Sick Ideas.  I 
think
the cyberspace worlds are built on the EDR and I like to see that
acknowledged.  The MUDs where there is a high degree of anonymity 
lead
easily to cyberspace addiction, acting out and power tripping.  I'm 
open
to correction but that is my impression, from reading rather than 
direct
experience.

The relationships formed in cyberspace are real but when they are 
with one
aspect of a person and not related to the other aspects that can 
create a
false relationship.  I know, what is false?  Well it is false from 
an EDR
perspective and I am going with that as primary.

Another thing, true anonymity is difficult to create and the sysops 
have
all the extra opportunities to check out who is who.  I did not try 
to do
it but knew who was who anyway, and I did not enjoy the artificial
disparity.

== Where to from here? ==
Well the debate is not over of course, never will be.  I would love 
to
build up a library of relevant files on the whole subject.  
References to
written material too.  One excellent book is:

Rheingold, Howard, 1993,
_The Virtual Community, Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier._
Addidon - Wesley.

I also have revived an idea I had earlier:  Two message areas, for
subscribers only.  One with real names and another for 
'characters'.  Only
people in area 1 would have access to area 2.  At the end of a given
period there would be an unmasking and a full sharing of what it 
was like.
Everyone knows that the characters are creations of the people in 
area
one.  This seems to me to be more like a psychodrama and could 
evolve into
a simple but structured method.  I agree with Reg that being a 
participant
as well as facilitator is not be a good idea.  Psyberdrama?  
Theatre &
Stage?  Director?

I am pleased how this whole discussion & experiment has gone, and 
though I
am keen to direct a psyberdrama I think it is important to fully 
complete
the ALTERWORLD sharing that is happening and also to discuss the 
project
here, as well as build up some idea of who would be interested in 
that.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (2544)   Sat 23 Apr 94  1:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 24c2f529

This is the third message I have started in reply to one of yours.  
I am
not sure if that is a good idea or fragmenting or what, it is in no 
way to
suggest that your message was not *fine* just as it was.  However 
this bit
eemed to be right on target for the discussions here.

 MT>  I now realise what
 MT>  I missed out on in not taking part in the last Alterworld. I
 MT>  hope there is another or similar thing soon. Only now do I
 MT>  believe that it is possible to take on a role within this
 MT>  environment. In other BBS's I have used an alias, for the hell
 MT>  of it, but that doesn't mean anything when it is so wide open
 MT>  that people won't necessarily know what your character is
 MT>  like. This brings us back to the idea of defining a space to
 MT>  allow freedom. I guess the Alterworld concept works without
 MT>  restricted access because this is such a close-knit community
 MT>  here.

Yes I have made some suggestions for another go at it in this 
'Anonymity'
thread about a PyberGroup, or PsyberDrama.  I am in the process of 
working
on a full message about it.  I would like to do the Theatre and 
Stage in
restricted areas, and with a predetermined group and dates.  I have 
you as
the first taker?  I am not in a rush and we are still in the 
process of
closure in the ALTERWORLD and I'd like some more comments on the 
specifics
of my suggestions, and some more interest.  I am mastering ansi 
screens
and so we may see some colourful announcements.

What do you think?

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4837)   Tue 17 May 94  1:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Anonymity
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ad729b1a

Rape in Cyberspace.

I have uploaded a file I first heard about in the FutureCulture 
Mailing
list.  I FTPed it , my first go at that on the Internet.  It is an 
article
from the Village Voice about a MOO.  I found it interesting.  It 
bought up
a lot of matters for me about power and ethics as they relate to
cyberspace.  It gives a good insight into the MOO system and raises 
all
the questions about anonymity and identity that we have been 
discussing.
Here is one quote from the paper which is in the main library as 
VV.TXT
for Village Voice.


>>     But it was also having some unsettling effects on the way I
>> looked at the rest of the world.  Sometimes, for instance, it
>> was hard for me to understand why RL society classifies RL rape
>> alongside crimes against person or property. Since rape can
>> occur without any physical pain or damage, I found myself
>> reasoning, then it must be classed as a crime against the mind-
>> -more intimately and deeply hurtful, to be sure, than cross
>> burnings, wolf whistles, and virtual rape, but undeniably
>> located on the same conceptual continuum.  I did not, however,
>> conclude as a result that rapists were protected in any fashion
>> by the First Amendment.  Quite the opposite, in fact: the more
>> seriously I took the notion of virtual rape, the less seriously
>> I was able to take the notion of freedom of speech, with its
>> tidy division of the world into the symbolic and the
>> real.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:13 2000
Date: (7872)   Tue 31 May 94 14:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hi Walter,
 WL> Rape in Cyberspace.

 WL> I have uploaded a file I first heard about in the FutureCulture
 WL> Mailing list.  I FTPed it , my first go at that on the
 WL> Internet.  It is an article from the Village Voice about a MOO.
 WL>  I found it interesting.  It bought up a lot of matters for me
 WL>  about power and ethics as they relate to cyberspace.  It gives
 WL>  a good insight into the MOO system and raises all the
 WL>  questions about anonymity and identity that we have been
 WL>  discussing. Here is one quote from the paper which is in the
 WL>  main library as VV.TXT for Village Voice.


>>>     But it was also having some unsettling effects on the way I
>>> looked at the rest of the world.  Sometimes, for instance, it
>>> was hard for me to understand why RL society classifies RL rape
>>> alongside crimes against person or property. Since rape can
>>> occur without any physical pain or damage, I found myself
>>> reasoning, then it must be classed as a crime against the mind-
>>> -more intimately and deeply hurtful, to be sure, than cross
>>> burnings, wolf whistles, and virtual rape, but undeniably
>>> located on the same conceptual continuum.  I did not, however,
>>> conclude as a result that rapists were protected in any fashion
>>> by the First Amendment.  Quite the opposite, in fact: the more
>>> seriously I took the notion of virtual rape, the less seriously
>>> I was able to take the notion of freedom of speech, with its
>>> tidy division of the world into the symbolic and the
>>> real.

Interesting indeed, and so are the corollaries. It implies 
something I
think is a good move: that what we call 'the real' is only a form 
of the
imagination. That's the same as what he is implying above about not 
taking
seriously the 'tidy division between the symbolic and the real'. I'll
definitely DL VV.Txt.  Thanks.   Please, what does 'FPT' mean?


                    Best,
                         Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:14 2000
Date: (7886)   Tue 31 May 94 23:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 9461e6b3


Dear Stanley,

WL>> Rape in Cyberspace.

>>>> Quite the opposite, in fact: the more
>>>> seriously I took the notion of virtual rape, the less seriously
>>>> I was able to take the notion of freedom of speech, with its
>>>> tidy division of the world into the symbolic and the
>>>> real.

 SR> Interesting indeed, and so are the corollaries. It implies
 SR> something I think is a good move: that what we call 'the real'
 SR> is only a form of the imagination. That's the same as what he
 SR> is implying above about not taking seriously the 'tidy division
 SR> between the symbolic and the real'.

I hate it when you put it like that.  'The imagination is another 
form of
the real.' I can handle.  The reverse as you have it appears to me 
to be a
denial of Mother Earth as we have spoken of.

I have a story in my mind about Freud.  (I call it a story as I 
have no
idea of it's source)  He discovered that most neurosis were 
actually the
result of sexual abuse.  The neurosis could be cured by the 'talking
cure', ie in the imaginal realm, hence the imaginal side of the 
abuse was
seen as a real factor.  It became obvious that once the flood gates 
were
opened that far more people were abused in this way than seemed 
credible -
- also some very influential people were perpetrators.  Freud came 
under
the same sort of attack that anyone does who discloses sexual 
abuse.  'It
is all in the imagination.'  Of course, is Freud's reply, sticking 
to his
powerful discovery that the imaginal is really significant.  Phew, 
say the
people in high places, and provide Freud with more accolades than 
he got
with the literal theory.

I know Stanley, that you do not repeat this Freudian slip, or am I 
wrong?
Can you see how I might think that you do?  How I am concerned that 
others
might?  Some events are purely imaginal 'only in the imagination'.  
Others
have their roots in a material experience.  The difference is 
enormous.

I am to blame of course, for the fact that we are at this familiar 
point.
I was attracted to the article because it seemed relevant to our 
whole
anonymity discussion, and particularly our old theme.  So I have 
provoked
you!  However, why do you take up my bait so blatantly!

Perhaps I just misunderstand you.  More of the anima mundi thing?



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:17 2000
Date: (9984)   Tue 7 Jun 94  0:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Anonymity
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter


WL>>> Rape in Cyberspace.


 SR>> Interesting indeed, and so are the corollaries. It implies
 SR>> something I think is a good move: that what we call 'the real'
 SR>> is only a form of the imagination. That's the same as what he
 SR>> is implying above about not taking seriously the 'tidy division
 SR>> between the symbolic and the real'.

 WL> I hate it when you put it like that.  'The imagination is
 WL> another form of the real.' I can handle.  The reverse as you
 WL> have it appears to me to be a denial of Mother Earth as we have
 WL> spoken of.

 WL> I have a story in my mind about Freud.  (I call it a story as I
 WL> have no idea of it's source)  He discovered that most neurosis
 WL> were actually the result of sexual abuse.  The neurosis could
 WL> be cured by the 'talking cure', ie in the imaginal realm, hence
 WL> the imaginal side of the abuse was seen as a real factor.  It
 WL> became obvious that once the flood gates were opened that far
 WL> more people were abused in this way than seemed credible - -
 WL> also some very influential people were perpetrators.  Freud
 WL> came under the same sort of attack that anyone does who
 WL> discloses sexual abuse.  'It is all in the imagination.'  Of
 WL> course, is Freud's reply, sticking to his powerful discovery
 WL> that the imaginal is really significant.  Phew, say the people
 WL> in high places, and provide Freud with more accolades than he
 WL> got with the literal theory.

 WL> I know Stanley, that you do not repeat this Freudian slip, or
 WL> am I wrong? Can you see how I might think that you do?

     Oh yes, I can. And I can see what you are getting at. What 
hits you
immediately I say something like the above is the whole problem of 
sexual
abuse,  the power problem and the absolute necessity that the 
victim's
perceptions be accepted and validated against all those who would 
say it
was *just* her imagination.
     But - how can I put it? - because I want to joining 
imagination and
reality doesn't mean invalidating real events. You are taking the 
common
meaning of imagination to think that it INVALIDATES or is the 
OPPOSITE of
reality. This is the meaning of imagination that the abusers use - 
that
something is *just* imagination. Meaning really non-existent and 
unreal.
     I do understand how important it is to secure a baseline of 
certainty
and that your concern is not with the niceties of the matter, but 
with the
power struggle that is involved.

 WL> I am to blame of course, for the fact that we are at this
 WL> familiar point. I was attracted to the article because it
 WL> seemed relevant to our whole anonymity discussion, and
 WL> particularly our old theme.  So I have provoked you!  However,
 WL> why do you take up my bait so blatantly!

I didn't feel bit as though I was taking your bait. I didn't feel 
bated or
blatant. I really am quite happy with 'the imagination is another 
form of
the real'. And  I certainly don't want to be of any comfort to the 
abusers
of this world.
                         Love,
                              Stanley

                         


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (395)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Such are my lives!
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 88fb5490


I came across the word multiplicity today used connection with this 
medium.
( MONDO 11, p 53 in an interview of Allucquere Rosanne (Sandy) 
Stone. )  She
is the author, in _Cyberspace, First Steps_ of 'Will the Real Body 
Please
Stand Up'  She speculates in the interview with titles such as 'Lost
Boundaries: The History of Media-Induced Experience.'

Multiplicity is what I experience when I meet face to face with 
some of the
people i write to here.  We have a separate existence here.  This 
is after
only a few months of first steps into the medium.

I introduced myself in a new echo today.  I wrote about my *off-line*
existence, and felt that i was just acting out an atavistic 
remnant.  Yet I
am not fully born in this new alter.

Brings a whole new meaning to identity crisis.  More grist for 
Psybernet.

Walter lead me to the alter. <G>


Walter.


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (394)   Wed 5 Jan 94 11:18                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Alternate Worlds Sydrome
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d2f7e4af

I have been reading an interview with Michael Heim in MONDO 11.  He 
is the
author of 'The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality", here are some quotes.

'MH:  Alternate Worlds Syndrome is when is when one aspect of the 
psyche
remains in a virtual world when you return to primary reality or 
enter
another virtual world ..... for example if you want to fly in the 
real
world, and you point your finger as if you are in VR, you're not 
going to
fly.'

I have difficulty returning sometimes.  Also have you ever had that 
feeling
that you want to press the reset button when you are confused?  
<grin>

The interview made me think about the nature of the Psybernet 
enterprise.
We are in and of a VR.  OK, it is text-based, and perhaps MH was not
thinking of that, but he could and should be.  Each VR requires its 
own art-
form, the art required here is literacy, among other things.  It is 
the
experience in *this* cybernetic world that I think Psybernet is 
focussed on.
I thought that as i have been reading a lot of other echos, 
including the
THERAPIST echo.  Usually the focus is to use this reality to assist 
in the
other one.  Fair enough, but who is looking at the impact on the 
psyche of
cyberspace.  We go further too.  Psyberspace is evolving.

Psybernet *is* about depth psychology as i have been saying quite a 
bit,
more important is that Psybernet works with the depths of 
cyberspace, with
the emerging culture and collective unconscious associated with 
this medium.
I think we do that with the focus we have had on what is *real* , 
on gender
issues (which are *vital* to psyberspace) and with the discussion on
metaphor.  These themes have emerged *here* in this medium because 
they are
relevant here.

I feel enthused as i write, because i see that this echo will have 
a life in
cyberspace because it can fill a niche.  Here such issues as 
Alternate
Worlds Syndrome, can be more suitably discussed than in the 
psychology
forums or in such places as the THERAPIST echo, where the focus is 
the
consulting room in the primary reality.

There are many other psychological matters which are specific to 
cyberspace.
See for instance a message I will write after a short break, 
associated with
the requirements of another reality, where the body requires 
ergonomic care
and some social relationships require attention!  Such are my 
lives!  (That
is what I'll call the message.)


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (416)   Fri 7 Jan 94  1:14                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Alternate Worlds Sydrome
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b5d0b722
@REPLY: 3:770/270 d2f7e4af


 WL> I have been reading an interview with Michael Heim in MONDO 
11.  He is
 WL> the author of 'The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality", here are 
some
 WL> quotes.

 WL> 'MH:  Alternate Worlds Syndrome is when is when one aspect of 
the
 WL> psyche remains in a virtual world when you return to primary 
reality or
 WL> enter another virtual world ..... for example if you want to 
fly in the
 WL> real world, and you point your finger as if you are in VR, 
you're not
 WL> going to fly.'

What is so significant about this is that MH has named a disorder of
cyberspace.  Now that means that there is a place for psychotherapy 
in
cyberspace, quite distinct from the other world.  AWS is 
interesting that it
is not even associated with ordinary reality.  We could have a 
virtual
DSM3!!   Computer addiction (that *is* associated with ordinary 
reality),
relationship therapy for various identities, etc.

However his attempt to name a disorder here is replicating the 
focus of
psychotherapy we already have.  What about the *orders* of 
cyberspace?

In otherwords, just as there is a development of disorders that can 
be
named, so is there a development for the enhancement of the psyche. 
 Are
they named?


Walter





... Psybernet BBS, Psych. Dreams, Groups etc, 64-3-365-6876 
(3:770/227)
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (383)   Fri 31 Dec 93 13:11                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Role Theory
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 24914294

Reg is replying to Stanley who replied to Reg on 30 Dec 93 06:46pm


Hello Stanley,

 RS>> I am not sure now where all this is leading, I originally
 RS>> started this thread to clarify something about role theory, I
 RS>> hope you and others find it useful.

 SR> Thank you Reg. I am learning something about psychodramatic
 SR> techniques from what you have written above.

I am pleased you are learning something, a more accurate statement 
would
be that you are learning something about Moreno's role theory, which
underpins the psychodramatic method. The term psychodramatic 
techniques,
would more accurately describe:

role reversal; mirroring; modelling; doubling; concretisation;
maximisation; future projection;

It is also important to realise that psychodrama does not just 
entail the
application of techniques, which might be the case in some other 
methods.

As well as the techniques, and a theory of roles there is the actual
development of the director, this entails the mastery or 
development of
numerous specific roles that among other things enable the director 
to not
only direct dramas, but to make accurate assessments and apply the 
various
techniques.

I think it is this focus on the development of the director that 
sets the
psychodramatic method aside from most other methods. The same would 
be
true for the application of the method in therapy situations. The 
emphasis
is not on developing *skills* but *roles* which I think are vastly
different. All the skills in the world are of little use unless we 
have
adequate roles developed that enable us to apply the skills.




Bye for now 
 Reg

... Reg Smith expresses himself with Silver Xpress
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:23 2000
Date: (379)   Thu 30 Dec 93 18:46                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Role Theory
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Reg

 RS> They are talking about: Role Theory and related topics, others
 RS> are most welcome to jump in and share their thoughts or
 RS> feelings and ask questions.
 RS> ****************************************************************
 RS> ********

 RS>>>  +  That language emergence and role emergence are not the 
same
 RS>>>  thing.

 SR>> Yes, I get that they are not the same thing, but you would need
 SR>> language to be able to name a role, yes?


 RS> Yes, most definitely; we also need to be very careful about our
 RS> choice of language because of the subtle "warm-ups we create",
 RS> which among other things is what my thesis is about.


 SR>> Have you ever done a psychodrama totally in mime?  Would that 
be
 SR>> possible?

 RS> It depends on what you define as a psychodrama, I have never
 RS> directed what might be called a "full blown psychodrama"
 RS> totally on that basis, but I have directed many a protagonist
 RS> to "sculptor" various aspects of their life; to simply allow
 RS> themselves to experience fully that "sculpture"; to express
 RS> without words their experience and so on. Sometimes I do this
 RS> is *within* a "full blown psychodrama" and at other times as a
 RS> vignette, I may do this type of thing within a psychotherapy
 RS> session. Some of the most significant moments in a psychodrama
 RS> or therapy session are often devoid of any structured language
 RS> or verbal expression..... I am talking about those moments when
 RS> two people just look at one another, or the wall or out the
 RS> window or whatever, nothing needs to be said, especially to
 RS> start with, sometimes there are tears, sometimes the eyes are
 RS> simply moist, sometimes the parties smile or laugh.

 RS> I can imagine doing a whole drama in mime, but I can't see the
 RS> point unless, like I said in my last message the participants
 RS> were deaf or mute, other than for reasons like a swimmer
 RS> sometimes trains by just kicking the legs, or just with the
 RS> arms while the legs are tied together.


 SR>> I mean what difference would
 SR>> it make to his whole theory if the psyche were infiltrated by
 SR>> language.

 RS> I think he is saying that the psyche is *partially* infiltrated
 RS> by language, but not *totally*.


 SR>> I suppose he wants to say that there are depths that can
 SR>> only be reached by dramatic action rather than just talking.


 RS> Yes, I think that is what he is saying, he also speaks
 RS> elsewhere of "basic" or "primordial language" ie language
 RS> without structure. In my thesis I suggest that psychodramatists
 RS> and therapists make more use of this.


 SR>> But dramatic action always needs words doesn't it.

 RS> No, I don't think so, it depends on how you define drama, I was
 RS> hinting above that there is value in dramatic enactment without
 RS> the use of *structured* language. Particularly for instance
 RS> with people who have the tendency to hide behind words,
 RS> conversely I think for people like myself who were constantly
 RS> told whilst growing up, to shut up and that they could not
 RS> write well it is very good to encourage more structured
 RS> expression.


 SR>> I suppose he means that roles in some way precede
 SR>> language and give rise to it.

 RS> Yes, I think so and like many others he does not always draw
 RS> clear distinctions between verbal and non-verbal when he uses
 RS> the term language, which can create a little confusion.

 RS> I think under normal circumstances the process might go
 RS> something like this:

 RS> The baby is born with the ability to enact the psychosomatic
 RS> roles of:

 RS>  "noise maker",  "listener",  "seer"  "arm flinger" and so on.

 RS> The enactment of these roles eventually leads to the
 RS> development of the roles of:

 RS>  "happy goo gooer", "semi-coherent talker" and eventually
 RS>  "clear speaker".

 RS> The former BTW are most definitely *psychosomatic* roles whilst
 RS> the latter... "clear speaker" is not really psychosomatic,
 RS> (don't quote me on this one) but it is more *psychodramatic*.

 RS> If the baby is born deaf it will have one heck of a job
 RS> developing the role of "clear speaker", but it is not
 RS> impossible.

 RS> The roles of "arm flinger" and "seer" can eventually be refined
 RS> and lead to the development of "effective signer" and so on.

 RS> I am not sure now where all this is leading, I originally
 RS> started this thread to clarify something about role theory, I
 RS> hope you and others find it useful.

Thank you Reg. I am learning something about psychodramic techniques
     from what you have written above.

                         Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:24 2000
Date: (405)   Wed 5 Jan 94 22:06                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Happy New year
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

     To All



 WL>          /\
 WL>         /  \
 WL>        /    \
 WL>       /      \
 WL>      /        \
 WL>          ||


 WL> Merry Christmas, and a Happy New year!


 WL> from Walter
 WL> and Psybernet.


   PROSPEROUSS  AND PREPOSTEROUS

            OOOOOOOOOOO               O
           O          O              O
          O           O             O
          O           O            O
           O          O           O
             OOOOOOOOOO          O
                      O         O
                      O        O       O
                      O       O        O
                      O      O         O
                      O     OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
                      O                 O
                      O                O
                      O                 O

                    And I can tell you that piece of art work 
really took
some doing

                         Best   Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:26 2000
Date: (449)   Sat 15 Jan 94 22:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Eros
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d8ccc8af



Hi Stanley,

Thank you for the beautiful document you wrote and uploaded, 
'Eros'.  I
have put it in the Psybernet Main Library.  I have just read it 
from cover
to cover <G>.  I admire your style and understanding.  I also am 
fully
with you on what I see as the main import of the document.  Live
dangerously, fully, go beyond norms and fashion and do not attempt 
to cure
or drown what is part of human loving, longing and pain.

Here are some quotes that I particularly liked and that may whet the
appetite of other users to d/l the file.

------------------%------------quotes-----------------%--------------

It means being true to what draws one on by it's own magnetism, its 
own
beauty. Of course, with our religious background, we find this idea
profoundly disturbing and dangerous; and in a sense it is.


Eros can marry these two realms of being without conflating them, 
where
the soul of the body hungers for the spirit and the spirit longs 
for the
soul of the body.


From a civilised  point of view he is the ruination of our 
harmonies. He
is the wrecker of our stabilities, of marriages, of well-founded
institutions, of social order, our structures of convenience, the
comfortable life.  This is why, in spite of ourselves, we are so 
often
attracted to trouble.


As we always say, what the client wants from analysis when he 
starts the
work, his goal for his own therapy,  is part of the neurosis.


By this move we are transformed from the animal who seeks only 
immediate
libidinal discharge without an imaginative realm, into humans for 
whom
thought and fantasy is the real world we inhabit.


Impossible love, pothos, is a god -given experience. Our task is 
not to
cure it, but to care for it.


------------------%---------end quotes----------------%--------------


I am reminded of Zorba the Greek, perhaps you could sign yourself 
Zorba!

Zorba had a troublesome English friend who worried a lot.  I forget 
his
name.  I might have to sign off as him in my next message.  NO!  
that is
not true.  I want to make comments, I want to  *dance*  with you!

Cheers,


Vaslav Nijinsky.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:29 2000
Date: (516)   Sun 23 Jan 94 13:54                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Eros
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 22 January, 1994,
 Psybernet Conference, public.



Hello Walter,

 WL> Thank you for the beautiful document you wrote and uploaded,
 WL> 'Eros'.  I have put it in the Psybernet Main Library.  I have
 WL> just read it from cover to cover <G>.  I admire your style and
 WL> understanding.  I also am fully with you on what I see as the
 WL> main import of the document.  Live dangerously, fully, go
 WL> beyond norms and fashion and do not attempt to cure or drown
 WL> what is part of human loving, longing and pain.

 WL> Here are some quotes that I particularly liked and that may
 WL> whet the appetite of other users to d/l the file.

 WL> ------------------%------------quotes-----------------%---------
 WL> -----

 WL> It means being true to what draws one on by it's own magnetism,
 WL> its own beauty. Of course, with our religious background, we
 WL> find this idea profoundly disturbing and dangerous; and in a
 WL> sense it is.


 WL> Eros can marry these two realms of being without conflating
 WL> them, where the soul of the body hungers for the spirit and the
 WL> spirit longs for the soul of the body.


 WL> From a civilised  point of view he is the ruination of our
 WL> harmonies. He is the wrecker of our stabilities, of marriages,
 WL> of well-founded institutions, of social order, our structures
 WL> of convenience, the comfortable life.  This is why, in spite of
 WL> ourselves, we are so often attracted to trouble.


 WL> As we always say, what the client wants from analysis when he
 WL> starts the work, his goal for his own therapy,  is part of the
 WL> neurosis.


 WL> By this move we are transformed from the animal who seeks only
 WL> immediate libidinal discharge without an imaginative realm,
 WL> into humans for whom thought and fantasy is the real world we
 WL> inhabit.


 WL> Impossible love, pothos, is a god -given experience. Our task
 WL> is not to cure it, but to care for it.


 WL> ------------------%---------end
 WL> quotes----------------%--------------


 WL> I am reminded of Zorba the Greek, perhaps you could sign
 WL> yourself Zorba!

 WL> Zorba had a troublesome English friend who worried a lot.  I
 WL> forget his name.  I might have to sign off as him in my next
 WL> message.  NO!  that is not true.  I want to make comments, I
 WL> want to  *dance*  with you!


Well, thank you very much for your generous comments. I know there 
are one
or two points you want to 'dance' with me about and I will welcome 
a neat
little fox-trot or even a tango with you - it takes two, you know, my
troublesome, worried friend of Zorba. Perhaps we could do a Greek 
dance.

          Perhaps because I too am just as worried about your coming
comments, I have already added something to the paper since I 
uploaded it.
Oh dear. oh dear! Will it ever end?

                    Best,    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (553)   Sat 29 Jan 94 13:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Eros
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 04d5a187


Hello Stanley,


 WL>> Zorba had a troublesome English friend who worried a lot.  I
 WL>> forget his name.  I might have to sign off as him in my next
 WL>> message.  NO!  that is not true.  I want to make comments, I
 WL>> want to  *dance*  with you!

 SR> Well, thank you very much for your generous comments. I know
 SR> there are one or two points you want to 'dance' with me about
 SR> and I will welcome a neat little fox-trot or even a tango with
 SR> you - it takes two, you know, my troublesome, worried friend of
 SR> Zorba. Perhaps we could do a Greek dance.

Not 'dance', but *dance* !  So I am not the troublesome friend of 
Zorba.

 SR>           Perhaps because I too am just as worried about your
 SR>           coming comments, I have already added something to
 SR>           the paper since I uploaded it. Oh dear. oh dear! Will
 SR>           it ever end?

I am honoured that I have this effect, but *who* really are you 
responding
to?  <G>.

My main 'point' is that I think there are addictions, which are 
avoidances
as a result of the *danger* inherent in the flow of life.  A fear of
transitions, a seeking of stability, pull towards death.  When 
there is a
pull to death is that still Eros at work?  Even when there is strong
'attraction' to oblivion?

Making the distinction will make for a freer and lighter dance.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:31 2000
Date: (580)   Sun 30 Jan 94 19:54                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Eros
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 29 January, 1994,
 Psybernet Conference, public.


> Hello Walter,


 WL>>> Zorba had a troublesome English friend who worried a lot.  I
 WL>>> forget his name.  I might have to sign off as him in my next
 WL>>> message.  NO!  that is not true.  I want to make comments, I
 WL>>> want to  *dance*  with you!

 SR>> Well, thank you very much for your generous comments. I know
 SR>> there are one or two points you want to 'dance' with me about
 SR>> and I will welcome a neat little fox-trot or even a tango with
 SR>> you - it takes two, you know, my troublesome, worried friend of
 SR>> Zorba. Perhaps we could do a Greek dance.

 WL> Not 'dance', but *dance* !  So I am not the troublesome friend
 WL> of Zorba.

The difference between 'dance' and *dance*. Do the asterisks denote a
certain celebratory joyfulness perhaps? A certain sumptuous 
togetherness?
A dialectical ballet; a symphonic-cybernetical pas de deux?

 SR>>           Perhaps because I too am just as worried about your
 SR>>           coming comments, I have already added something to
 SR>>           the paper since I uploaded it. Oh dear. oh dear! Will
 SR>>           it ever end?

 WL> I am honoured that I have this effect, but *who* really are you
 WL> responding to?  <G>.

Ah! Good question. I'll just leave it at that: GOOD QUESTION!

 WL> My main 'point' is that I think there are addictions, which are
 WL> avoidances as a result of the *danger* inherent in the flow of
 WL> life.  A fear of transitions, a seeking of stability, pull
 WL> towards death.  When there is a pull to death is that still
 WL> Eros at work?  Even when there is strong 'attraction' to
 WL> oblivion?

Well now, my friend, the *dance* begins:

          Those who would have Eros as the symbol of life, 
exclusively, I
am sure would agree with you. So Eros would be the 'flow of life' 
as you
say and the avoidances, the attraction to oblivion, are the pull 
towards
death and are anti-eros. This oppositional thinking - not 
mythological
and, in my view, not psychological thinking.
     Didn't Shakespeare speak of 'half in love with easeful
death' - putting love and death together. And what are we to 
conclude from
those ancient representations of Eros as the god of death, not only 
in the
Renaissance where they fixed on the Roman funerary representations 
of Eros
with torch turned down, but also from Orphic sources which stressed 
the
shadow side of Eros, from which the Romans probably inherited the 
image,
     I like to take mythological figures, not as inseparably fixed
identities, but to see how they interpenetrate - dance together. 
Mythology
shows this in their marriages, cross-marriages, incestuous affairs,
unlikely offspring and vastly complicated genealogies.

          One asks, for example, why Aphrodite had an affair with 
Ares,
the god of war; ie what is there of beauty in war?  This is a 
paradox only
if we insist on the radical opposition between fighting and beauty.

          Or why did Dionysos share a shrine at Delphi with Apollo; 
ie
what is there that attracts these two seeming opposites to each 
other?  A
paradox only on the assumption of the unqualified opposition between
reason and madness
          
          Or similarly, why is Eros also the god of death; ie what is
there about death that is loving and what is there about love that 
is also
dying. A paradox only if we insist on the exclusive opposition  
between
the two.
          Well, there are some thoughts, Walter. Thank you for the
stimulating turn about the floor - I'm sure you'll be back for the 
last
waltz if not sooner.

                         
                              Best      Stanley.


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:26 2000
Date: (456)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: IT IT PSYBERNET?
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>***********************PSYBERNET*********************

WL>The Psybernet Echo is for discussion about: etc

WL>We aim to make the Echo: etc

WL>The Echo is open to all comers, note that it is not focussed per 
se on
WL>treatment or recovery nor on clinical discussions, though these 
things m
WL>happen.  In short it is in and for Psyberspace in itself,


WL>------------------%--------------------%---------------------


WL>This still seems too long and not *focussed* enough.

That's my immediate reaction, too.  If I came across it on another 
BBs I'd 
possibly think it was a little too enthusiastic and diffuse.  Also, 
I find 
unstructured lists like that a bit difficult to read.  Is that a 
reasonable 
criticism?

How about ...

WL>***********************PSYBERNET*********************

WL>Psybernet is an adventure in psyberspace which is open to all 
comers.  
Discussion of treatment and recovery and of clinical issues is 
welcome, but 
these are not the main focus of the echo.

Topics with a psychological orientation range from psychotherapy, 
psychodrama and psychoanalysis to the unconscious, the imagination, 
archetypes, dreams, myths and metaphors. 

Of wider appeal are discussions on literature and poetry, movies 
and music, 
relationships and parenting, gender issues, love, learning and 
everyday 
life.

Psybernet is an experiment with vision, soul and mystery.  We also 
wish to 
make it both accessible and challenging, and, most of all, 
entertaining, 
enjoyable and accessible

------------------%--------------------%---------------------




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:26 2000
Date: (457)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: ALTERNATE WORLDS SYDROME
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>I have difficulty returning sometimes.  Also have you ever had 
that feel
WL>that you want to press the reset button when you are confused?  
<grin>

Absolutely, I know that feeling well.  Another thing I get is: when 
I'm 
reading something in the `printed on paper' medium and want to find 
a 
particular word or concept, I find myself trying to pull down the 
text 
search facility.  Indexing is a noble and venerable art, but a 
frustratingly 
imprecise one much of the time, and I'm just so damned used to the 
PC and 
all its whizz-bang gadgets!

WL>The interview made me think about the nature of the Psybernet 
enterprise
WL>We are in and of a VR.

But are we really?  It doesn't strike me like that at all.  This is 
just me 
talking to you - and whoever else is reading - on my PC.  I am 
still the me 
I am all the rest of the time.  Or perhaps I'm just not that INTO 
it?  Do 
you know what I mean?

WL>It is the experience in *this* cybernetic world that I think 
Psybernet is 
WL>focussed

But again, is it really?  We do spend most of our time talking about 
`things' and not talking about talking about `things'.  No?

WL>I thought that as i have been reading a lot of other echos, 
including th
WL>THERAPIST echo.  Usually the focus is to use this reality to 
assist in t
WL>other one.

I think the point I pick up on here is that I don't think of this 
as a 
`reality'. To me at the moment, `reality' is me sitting in a 
slightly 
uncomfortable position in front of monitor and keyboard with my 
monkey 
beside me, hearing and partially attending to the clacking and 
sounds of 
games coming from one or two other keyboards in adjacent rooms and 
ditto to 
children rushing up at frequent intervals to get me to look at them 
and 
their coloured faces or how much of the dishes they have(n't) 
dried.  I 
suppose, in short, I don't experience it as a `reality'.

WL>but who is looking at the impact on the psyche 
WL>cyberspace.

Yes, interesting question.  Are we doing that?  Are we aiming to do 
that?  I 
suspect that is the thing I talk about LEAST here, although I 
suppose I have 
done a reasonable amount of it to you in private mail.

WL>There are many other psychological matters which are specific to 
cybersp
WL>See for instance a message I will write after a short break, 
associated 
WL>the requirements of another reality, where the body requires 
ergonomic c
WL>and some social relationships require attention!  Such are my 
lives!  (T
WL>is what I'll call the message.)

I'm intrigued.  Damn software is cutting the ends of the quote 
lines.  I'm 
thinking about your phrase `such are my lives'.  I don't think of 
myself as 
having any more than one of them.  Why is that, and why do you 
think you 
have more than one?  And, out of interest, how many do you think 
you have?

Looking forward to hearing from you, although I suppose you're away 
from the 
modem at present.


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (462)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: ANTI-QUARIAN.
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>I am adding to this a few days later,  thinking that the body 
counts for
WL>something!

Ah, it does me good to read this!

WL>Perhaps conrary to what I have been saying.  Wherever we
WL>encounter a personality, ( or any sort of 'nality <Grin> ) 
somewhere the
WL>is or was a physical being.  There is a tendency (in me and in the
WL>cyberspace culture) to want to say this is a disembodied virtual 
reality
WL>and here bodies do not exist but they DO.

Perhaps I lean the way I do because I have a lot of physical pain 
in my 
life.  Bloody difficult to get all abstract about it when it 
reminds you 
that it IS you and you ARE it every so often, and there's no way to 
avoid 
it.

WL>When the personality in the V
WL>shot, and shoots, then the body at the end of the medium is 
affected, an
WL>will affect others.

I've lost a bit here, but do you mean that what one reads and 
writes has an 
effect on the body?  If so, I would agree - when I come across 
literal and 
verbal pornography wafting through the ether, my body receives the 
blow.

WL>I am glad i have got that clear, as i was begining to think that 
there w
WL>gap between the realities which ethics could not jump over.

I follow your twists and turns with interest.

WL>Experience in the VR is experience grounded in the body of the 
cybernaug
WL>not just in the electronic ether.

Facile as it may seem, all I can say is YES.

WL>All for now on this, though I am not thru with this.

Nor I.  Write more and I shall read and perhaps chip in.


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (458)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: SUCH ARE MY LIVES!
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>Multiplicity is what I experience when I meet face to face with 
some of 
WL>people i write to here.

Please elucidate on this.  Do you mean literally with some of them 
and not 
with others?  If this is so, what's the distinction?

WL>We have a separate existence here.

As I wrote previously, I don't experience it that way myself.  This 
is very 
much part of my one and only existence - it is part of my work, my 
relationship, my entertainment, my stress, my insurance bills, my 
everything.

WL>I introduced myself in a new echo today.

Was that FEMINISM?  Or have you been dabbling somewhere else 
interesting?

WL>I wrote about my *off-line*
WL>existence, and felt that i was just acting out an atavistic 
remnant.

I'm being a bit thick here, but do you mean a remnant of your 
off-line 
existence or your on-line one?

WL>am not fully born in this new alter.

The on-line one, or am I hopelessly confused now?

WL>Walter lead me to the alter. <G>

Does this mean you wish to wed yourself? =8}


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:27 2000
Date: (461)   Sat 15 Jan 94 23:18                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: CONNECTING TO THE CO
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 SR> So that everything in the world was
 SR> anima-ted, the product of soul.

WL>Yes I have a notion of that idea of the world being full of 
soul, or ali
WL>and breathing as it were.  I still see that as a god like 
quality.  More
WL>pagan than Christian.

Oh, but very Christian too.  To mind come the mystics - Meister 
Eckhardt, 
Dame Julian, even Teresa of Avila - with their lofty pneumatology 
mingled 
with the warmth of the sunlight and the dampness of the soil ...

The spirit breathes through the earth ...

WL>My urge for connection that i still feel is not with that for 
some reaso
WL>When i say world or cosmos, it is people creating a new web of
WL>communication, and a new culture.

I feel that, too, but I want to connect with both.  I want us all 
to connect 
with both, for there is no future, personally or collectively, if 
we do 
either to the exclusion of the other.

WL>Thomas Paine  1737-1809
TP> My country is the world and my religion is to do good.
WL>(The Rights of Man, pt. II [1792], ch. 5)

Hmmmm.  Yes, as above.  But I think of Steve's comments to me about 
an 
National Geographic article he saw in a dentist's waiting room last 
week - 
it was about the goings-on in Docklands, London.  The old rabbit 
warren 
neighbourhood is being torn apart to make way for glass towers and 
other 
shrines dedicated to the God Pound (called Dollar down this way).  
He spoke 
of a photo of an elderly man meticulously trimming a vine in his 
jumbly and 
ancient backyard, while skyscrapers loomed behind and an electric 
train 
whizzed perilously close by.  Those vines and the old, creaky gate 
would 
have been bulldozed perhaps a week later, taking with them that 
man's home 
for how many decades, but all in the name of progress and the 
global city.  
What about the village, the neighbourhood, of human size?  I may 
speak at 
some point about my thoughts about the size of things in our 
environment and 
the effect I think they have on our soul.  Fancy me remembering 
that - I 
haven't thought of it for years.  Had nobody to tell about it, I 
suppose.


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (475)   Mon 17 Jan 94 22:56                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: CONNECTING TO THE CO
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 9dc2133d


 ST> The spirit breathes through the earth ...

WL>> My urge for connection that i still feel is not with that for
WL>> some reason. When i say world or cosmos, it is people creating a
WL>> new web of communication, and a new culture.

 ST> I feel that, too, but I want to connect with both.  I want us 
all
 ST> to  connect with both, for there is no future, personally or
 ST> collectively, if we do either to the exclusion of the other.

Yes, I think i connect with the natural world here in the bush, and
tramping and even siting on the river Avon's banks.  Somehow wherever
there is nature.  Also within my family and relationships, all this 
is
earthy and connected and relatively easy for me.

Relative to this *other* aspect of the urge, to live in the ether.



See you soon,


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (476)   Mon 17 Jan 94 23:37                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Testing the origin line
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 52d9beaa

The messages have been coming out of this Echo with the incorrect 
node number attached.  this one dhould have the correct fido #  
3:770/227.  Perhaps it will have it 2x & Ill have to log on again 
to fix it.


walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6876) 8-N-1 14.4k Chch N.Z. 
(3:770/270)




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (491)   Thu 20 Jan 94 23:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: BALLANCED IS DISTORT
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c47486b4

 ST> I wouldn't have thought, just off the cuff, that social workers
 ST> would be the people most likely to receive disclosure that 
wasn't
 ST> taken to police or GPs. It would be interesting but impossible 
to
 ST> get some idea of the true numbers from therapists/counsellors 
and
 ST> personal friends/family.  My guess (and personal experience)
 ST> would be that the last would be the group receiving greatest
 ST> disclosure.

Yes the true numbers are just not available as people do not disclose
for years and often in highly confidential situations.  I was
including counsellors and therapists, though social workers often see
people who do not *seek* help but who come into contact with the
hospital and justice system, and have help foisted upon them, often
quite good help too.  Perhaps i am just biased having a strong Social
work background!  I am writing with a subject heading that excuses
that!

 ST> What a lot of pain goes unhealed.

 ST> And that they even perpetuate it?  Most of the women I have 
known
 ST> who have gone to the police after being raped have described the
 ST> experience from that point as being another rape, and one
 ST> engendering an even greater sense of powerlessness.  That's why
 ST> they don't report, and the principal perpetrator goes about his
 ST> business.

Yes and this can be one of the factors why the 'false memory 
syndrome'
comes to the for.  "If I have to go through *this* I'll just forget 
it
again!



 ST> I wrote an interesting article for the Tablet a couple of months
 ST> ago about marae-based justice.  Until I did so, I had no
 ST> particular opinions about that topic - I suppose I saw it as 
just
 ST> another form of separatism.  But, yet again, I have been caught
 ST> judging in the absence of facts.

 ST> The marae system, on the other hand,
 ST> allows the perp to see and hear the human reality of the victim
 ST> and of those who care for him/her.  I have become very 
interested
 ST> in the concept as a result of my research, and think it would be
 ST> ideal for rape cases.  I have even thought that if my `turn'
 ST> comes I will try to organise this for myself.  A Maori friend
 ST> tells me those kaumatua do a great job of deflating the mana!
 ST> Much more effective than a court case and prison sentence!

I really hope this effective, I'd like to think so, it is more or 
less
what i ask you to imagine below, and you see that as unlikely.  Do 
you
think the Maori Culture escapes the domination of the rape culture,
having suffered so much from it?

WL>> Imagine this:  An organization to deal with sexual crimes.  An
WL>> organizat that is about healing, not punishment  (though that is
not excluded).
 ST> I can imagine it, but ...

WL>> Will we need a revolution to attain this?

 ST> Yes.  The rape culture has too great a vested interest in the
 ST> status quo to allow change to happen on that scale.

 ST> Great to hear you talking.


Yes, we seem to be able to do a good number on this!    :-)



See you soon,


Walter.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:28 2000
Date: (484)   Wed 19 Jan 94 19:04                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: BALLANCED IS DISTORT
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>I know from my work and association with social workers that 
about 500 +
WL>100 rapes occur to adult women each month in Christchurch, ie 
exclusive 
WL>incest etc.

How come I'm shocked yet not shocked?

The thought those data bring to mind is `when is it my turn?'

WL>Most of these do not go to the police or even to GPs etc.

Obviously they are seeking help in some form, though, or else the 
social 
workers wouldn't know about it.   Would it be accurate to say that 
many of 
these disclosures occurred a significant time post the event?

WL>These figures were established and extrapolated from the 
experience of
WL>several social workers and the figure may be much higher, who 
knows abou
WL>those who *never* tell?

I wouldn't have thought, just off the cuff, that social workers 
would be the 
people most likely to receive disclosure that wasn't taken to 
police or GPs. 
It would be interesting but impossible to get some idea of the true 
numbers 
from therapists/counsellors and personal friends/family.  My guess 
(and 
personal experience) would be that the last would be the group 
receiving 
greatest disclosure.

What a lot of pain goes unhealed.

WL>I know that I sound like I am on a 'cause' bandwagon BUT what is 
'civili
WL>justice' that it just can't respond to the sexual & gender 
crimes in our
WL>culture?  What is civilisation that the media can't.  That the 
medical
WL>profession can't.

And that they even perpetuate it?  Most of the women I have known 
who have 
gone to the police after being raped have described the experience 
from that 
point as being another rape, and one engendering an even greater 
sense of 
powerlessness.  That's why they don't report, and the principal 
perpetrator 
goes about his business.

It may be a `cause', but it is also a daily reality for women.  It 
certainly 
is for me, and I am one of the more assertive, informed ones (or so 
I like 
to think, with no offence to my sisters who have followed different 
paths).

Late last year I took a women's self-defence course, which would 
have to be 
one of the most empowering, enjoyable, fun things I have done in a 
long 
time.  I learned an immense amount from it - not just some handy 
physical 
techniques to cause exquisite pain to male attackers, but also about 
attitudes - those of rapists and assaulters, those of society, and 
my own.  
It made me examine the self-care advice I had been given as a child 
- all 
meticulous and well-intentioned, as is my mother's way with things 
- and I 
was forced to conclude that it was all designed to protect the 
rapist, not 
me.  The information was given by a very loving, concerned parent, 
who 
wished only that her children should be safe, but if I had ever 
taken it I 
would have been handing it to the rapist or whatever on a plate.

I now know different, but it took me 36 years to get there, and 
that with 
absolutely no help from family, school, university, or any other 
part of the society I live in and contribute to.  What if my `turn' 
had come 
before I did the self-defence course?

If my turn ever does come, I will not be doing what my mother 
taught me.

WL>That 'process' is not designed to heal or address the problems 
at the ro
WL>It is not a 'process' in any organic way at all, rather a 
ritual.  The
WL>family court is a step in the right direction, where they can 
operate wi
WL>different level of evidence.

I wrote an interesting article for the Tablet a couple of months 
ago about 
marae-based justice.  Until I did so, I had no particular opinions 
about 
that topic - I suppose I saw it as just another form of separatism. 
 But, 
yet again, I have been caught judging in the absence of facts.  The 
family 
court is a good beginning, as you say, as it is able to bring both 
parties 
and their whanau to the table.  The conventional justice system 
divides the 
perp and the victim in a way which allows the perp to remain 
unaware of the 
true nature and consequences of his/her actions.  The marae system, 
on the 
other hand, allows the perp to see and hear the human reality of 
the victim 
and of those who care for him/her.  I have become very interested 
in the 
concept as a result of my research, and think it would be ideal for 
rape 
cases.  I have even thought that if my `turn' comes I will try to 
organise 
this for myself.  A Maori friend tells me those kaumatua do a great 
job of 
deflating the mana!  Much more effective than a court case and 
prison 
sentence!

WL>Imagine this:  An organization to deal with sexual crimes.  An 
organizat
WL>that is about healing, not punishment  (though that is not 
excluded).
WL>Professional workers who *attend* to each case in a human way 
with the
WL>artistry of therapy.

I can imagine it, but ...

WL>Will we need a revolution to attain this?

Yes.  The rape culture has too great a vested interest in the 
status quo to 
allow change to happen on that scale.

Great to hear you talking.


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet, Psychological Cybernetics 64-3-365-6876 
(500:1100/20)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:30 2000
Date: (559)   Sat 29 Jan 94 22:51                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: BALLANCED IS DISTORT
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>Yes the true numbers are just not available as people do not 
disclose
WL>for years and often in highly confidential situations.

Yes, that would be my experience, and that of friends and others 
I've had 
cause to discuss this with.

WL>Perhaps i am just biased having a strong Social
WL>work background!  I am writing with a subject heading that excuses
WL>that!

Why not be?

 ST> That's why
 ST> they don't report, and the principal perpetrator goes about his
 ST> business.

WL>Yes and this can be one of the factors why the 'false memory 
syndrome'
WL>comes to the for.  "If I have to go through *this* I'll just 
forget it
WL>again!

Yes, you push it under the carpet in your head.  The injustice is 
just so 
enormous, you can't contain it inside yourself, so you make it go 
away.

 ST> I wrote an interesting article for the Tablet a couple of months
 ST> ago about marae-based justice.

 ST> Much more effective than a court case and prison sentence!

WL>I really hope this effective, I'd like to think so,

My Maori informant said it certainly is, as she has seen it 
practised.

WL>it is more or less
WL>what i ask you to imagine below, and you see that as unlikely.

It's difficult to prevent my despair and sense of hopelessness from 
coming through.  But I did feel a great sense of power and hope 
when I 
was in the process of getting the article together.

WL>Do you
WL>think the Maori Culture escapes the domination of the rape 
culture,
WL>having suffered so much from it?

I can't claim to know enough about it to be able to comment 
effectively. 
I guess as it stands in 1994 it is thoroughly imbued with the rape 
culture, or at least very large segments of it are - they stand at 
the 
centre of it, even.  I think of the gang subculture, and some of the 
literal rape practices enshrined there.

Bye for now


Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (599)   Thu 3 Feb 94  0:15                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Re: Group?
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6bd66bb3
@REPLY: 3:770/270 52ee9dd6

 LD> I wonder if there is any one interested in a group to discuss
 LD> the problems of working with patients?

This is an excellent idea, and we are onto it.  Within a few days we
hope to have on this BBS the THERAPIST echo, which is also on about 
20
other BBSs around the world.  It has restricted access to
professionals working with patients, thus it has a sense of being a
group, to some extent.  We are honour bound to respect the criteria
for access stipulated as part of the rules for the echo and I think 
it
will do exactly what you suggest.  I have been calling the US
regularly to keep up with the THERAPIST echo and it has serious
clinical discussion.

Echo, BTW (by the way), for anyone not familiar with the term, is a
conference which is sent from one BBS to another.  We anticipate that
our Psybernet Conference will become an Echo soon.

I am hopeful that the THERAPIST Echo will give us connection with 
like
minded people around the world.

We hope to have this running soon, knowing what software etc is like,
and how we are still learning, that may take longer than I think,
however expect days not weeks!  Will keep you posted.  Let us know
here what you think of this response to your idea, and how far the
THERAPIST Echo goes towards meeting your expectations.

Thanks for the initiative!


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:32 2000
Date: (597)   Wed 2 Feb 94 19:34                          
From: Lanktree Davies
To: All
Subject: Group?
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 52ee9dd6

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:36 2000
Date: (739)   Wed 16 Feb 94 13:27                         
From: Reg Smith
To: All
Subject: Women Resisting Violence
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 0d5bd0a6

Hello All,

Think about this:

Yesterday I downloaded the file from the Psybernet Main Library about
women resisting violence, I found it both interesting and disturbing.

I think the thing that disturbed me was not so much the level of 
fear that
people, especially women and senior citizens live with on a day to 
day
basis but the manner in which the whole tone of the thread changed 
to side
issues. It was as if most of them wanted to avoid the reality of 
it, a
slightly obscure form of denial perhaps.

My own initial reaction was to start thinking along the lines of: 
Ah, but
this is the USA they are talking about, it is not that bad in N.Z. 
Then I
got to thinking, does it really matter what the statistics might 
be, the
fear is very real for New Zealanders too, I see it in my day to day 
life
and work.


Bye for now

 Reg




... Civilization is a movement, it is a voyage not a harbor.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:36 2000
Date: (743)   Thu 17 Feb 94 21:42                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sarah Wadeson
Subject: Beware of Cyberspace
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 19821b03

Beware of cyberspace.  It is infinite, it knows not the boundaries 
of time
and space as we were accustomed to experience them.  You enter here 
and do
what you do and when you return, you will find that many things have
happened in your absence, and you will need to readjust to the 
mundane
world.  No longer will you be able to fly to any part of the known 
(or
unknown) world.  No longer will you be able to use the backspace 
key to
unsay what you started to say.  You wont be able to go back into 
what you
said and just have the rest move along.  No longer will you be able 
to
unsee people you don't want to see, or copy what you said last week 
or
year, and feed it in to the eternal present.  You will not have the
surprise of a new person responding to something you said months 
ago.  And
when things get confusing you wont be able just to switch off 
reality.
Worst of all you wont be able to keep your grins contained in the 
pert
boundaries of a punctuation mark <g>.

I think it is all worth it though and I hope you make the transitions
bearable.

Warm wishes,


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:36 2000
Date: (746)   Fri 18 Feb 94 22:39                         
From: Sarah Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Beware of Cyberspace
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 58
@MSGID: 3:770/270 03a7b725
@REPLY: 3:770/270 19821b03

                            Ruby.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 58
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:36 2000
Date: (745)   Fri 18 Feb 94 17:43                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Groups as Art.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d36c348e

CYBERGP.THD

This is a thread from CompuServe MEDSIG FORUM Section 16, Mental 
Health.

The topic is behaviour in cyberspace.  As so often happens in 
groups the
abstract discussion becomes a live drama in the group.  I am still
following the thread at the time of writing and have in fact joined 
the
fray.  Will post more later.

A thought to ponder:

Is it ethical to post public discussions from CIS on Psybernet BBS?

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:39 2000
Date: (952)   Sun 27 Feb 94 16:05                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Groups as Art.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 994babe7
@REPLY: 3:770/270 6a955f73

 WL>> Is it ethical to post public discussions from CIS on Psybernet
 WL>> BBS?

 RS> I don't see anything wrong with it ethically, provided they are
 RS> from public forums or whatever else they are called on CI$.

 RS> Whether they have rules or guidelines about it is another
 RS> matter again.

I think you are right, it is ethical AND there are probably rules 
about
it.  I am discovering another thing.

I do not like posting them here in public areas.  It just doesn't 
feel
right.  I think I would profer to post these things more 
purposefully.  IE
in areas with a definite purpose, to assist in the contribution to
facilitation of the discussion.

I have done that with this one now.  The file is no longer in the 
Main
Library.  If people are interested we can *find a Way*.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:39 2000
Date: (943)   Sat 26 Feb 94 18:16                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Groups as Art.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6a955f73
@REPLY: 3:770/270 d36c348e

Reg is replying to Walter who replied to All on 18 Feb 94 05:43pm

Hello Walter,


 WL> A thought to ponder:

 WL> Is it ethical to post public discussions from CIS on Psybernet
 WL> BBS?

I don't see anything wrong with it ethically, provided they are from
public forums or whatever else they are called on CI$.

Whether they have rules or guidelines about it is another matter 
again.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Ethics is not necessarily the handmaiden of theology.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:40 2000
Date: (975)   Mon 28 Feb 94 11:32                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Groups as Art.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 45177253
@REPLY: 3:770/270 994babe7

Hello Walter,


 WL>>> Is it ethical to post public discussions from CIS on Psybernet
 WL>>> BBS?

 RS>> I don't see anything wrong with it ethically, provided they are
 RS>> from public forums or whatever else they are called on CI$.

 RS>> Whether they have rules or guidelines about it is another
 RS>> matter again.

 WL> I think you are right, it is ethical AND there are probably
 WL> rules about it.  I am discovering another thing.

 WL> I do not like posting them here in public areas.  It just
 WL> doesn't feel right.  I think I would profer to post these
 WL> things more purposefully.  IE in areas with a definite purpose,
 WL> to assist in the contribution to facilitation of the discussion.

Yes that sounds like a good idea. I posted a message referring to 
one of
the ones you ULed. I guess too, that if they were not particularly 
long
ones you could import the file into a message and respond to it, that
might create a more specific and clearer warm-up.


Bye for now 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:37 2000
Date: (782)   Mon 21 Feb 94 20:51                         
From: Sarah Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Hello
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 61
@MSGID: 3:770/270 4f0c409d

This is my first truly independant message. <grin>
Thank you for all your time, help and patience, I really have 
appreciated
it. See you soon,
                  Ruby
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 61
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:38 2000
Date: (785)   Mon 21 Feb 94 21:44                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sarah Wadeson
Subject: Re: Hello
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 28e61081
@REPLY: 3:770/270 4f0c409d

 SW> This is my first truly independant message. <grin>


.PAUSE
.WIN    Fanbloodytastic!


 SW> Thank you for all your time, help and patience, I really have
 SW> appreciated it. See you soon,

No worries see you soon, I must reply to some of your mail <vvbg>.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:16 2000
Date: (8625)   Fri 3 Jun 94 10:14                          
From: Monty Townsend
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Hello
St: Rcvd
@MSGID: 3:770/135.0 2deff228

WL>got from Monty.  I still will phone you as soon as I can.  In 
the mean
WL>time I see that Monty has written in the Psybernet Echo.  I was 
really
WL>surprised as I have made this a 'Real Names' only board,

Excuse me, but that *is* my real name.  I don't use an alias.

And anyway, the message(s) w(as)ere not on your BBS, they were on 
Steve's, 
of which I am a fully card carrying member and honorary 
semi-functional sysop.

WL>This means Monty does not have access to write as he did from 
this point
WL>on.

I am deeply miffed.  I have tried to rejoin your board as a 
legitimate 
user without any attempt to use an alias or otherwise disguise my 
identity.  Does this mean my efforts have been unsuccessful?

WL>However it is possible for him to use your access to the BBS to 
say
WL>what he pleases.

Why am I not allowed to speak in my own right?  Are you being 
toyist against 
me, Watler?

WL>I realise this may be difficult all round.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is deeply difficult.  I 
thought 
Psybernet was supposed to be all about the inner world in a way 
that was 
non-controlling and free of power.  I thought it was supposed to be 
a place 
where the inner realities of people would be accepted as long as 
they were 
not being abusive but were genuine and reaching out for growth and 
life, and 
all that slushy stuff.  But I am left feeling controlled and not 
accepted.

You are making a judgement about my personhood.  On what grounds 
can you be 
sure I am less real than you are?

WL>Please
WL>accept my apology for having the access structure unclear.

Not able to comment at present.

WL>Let me add
WL>that I welcome the sentiments and intentions of the messages and 
that I
WL>hope the discussion continues.

I'm not sure I can continue to discuss with you at this point.

Sue may possibly speak on my behalf, although I'm not sure.  I 
think she is 
pretty disappointed and fed up.

Monty Townsend

 * Wave Rider 1.0 [NR] *
... UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- Blue Wave/Maximus
 * Origin: Prompt OnLine Information Service & Helpline (3:770/135)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:37 2000
Date: (757)   Sun 20 Feb 94 13:36                         
From: SUE TOWNSEND
To: REG SMITH
Subject: WOMEN RESISTING VIOLENCE
St: Local Rcvd Sent

RS>Yesterday I downloaded the file from the Psybernet Main Library 
about
RS>women resisting violence, I found it both interesting and 
disturbing.

Glad to see you have seen this.  It is an interesting and disturbing 
thread, isn't it?

RS>I think the thing that disturbed me was not so much the level of 
fear 
th
RS>people, especially women and senior citizens live with on a day 
to day
RS>basis but the manner in which the whole tone of the thread 
changed to 
si
RS>issues.

I can't say it struck me that way when I read it.  At the time most 
of 
the side issues seemed to be to be valid aspects of the wider 
issue, but 
I will certainly look at it again with your interpretation in mind.

RS>It was as if most of them wanted to avoid the reality of it, a
RS>slightly obscure form of denial perhaps.

I'm positively certain there is a lot of this.  To cut it up along 
the 
gender lines, women need to exercise a level of denial just to make 
it 
bearable to live in a world which contains this ever-present 
threat.  
Possibly for men it is because of the business of `all men are 
potential 
rapists' phenomenon.  There was an interesting thread on this on 
Fido 
FEMINISM a while back - before the feed got cut! - that opened up a 
whole 
can of worms - men frightened of their own capacity to rape and 
commit 
other forms of violence against women, etc.  Further to this, I was 
horrified by stats quoted on there that up to half of men would 
rape a 
woman if they believed they could do so with complete impunity from 
detection and punishment.  Ken McMaster has had a similar finding 
here in 
Christchurch, I believe.

RS>My own initial reaction was to start thinking along the lines 
of: Ah, 
bu
RS>this is the USA they are talking about, it is not that bad in 
N.Z. 

I think it is, relatively speaking.  See Walter's recent stat and 
comments about the occurence of 500 +- rapes in Christchurch per 
month.  
And that is the tip of the iceberg.

RS>Then 
RS>got to thinking, does it really matter what the statistics might 
be, 
the
RS>fear is very real for New Zealanders too, I see it in my day to 
day 
life
RS>and work.

Yes.  It's good that you see it.  And the fear is very real.  Best 
thing 
I ever did was a women's self defence course.  Fear will never go 
away, 
but nor will it ever be the same.  As one of the participants said 
on the 
CIS thread, transform fear into anger and you are suddenly a whole 
lot 
safer.




Sue
___
 * WaveRdr 1.0 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COP
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:39 2000
Date: (945)   Sat 26 Feb 94 21:24                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Re: WOMEN RESISTING VIOLENCE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53f88b1b

Reg is replying to SUE who replied to REG on 20 Feb 94 01:36pm

Hello Sue,

RS>> Yesterday I downloaded the file from the Psybernet Main 
Library about
RS>> women resisting violence, I found it both interesting and 
disturbing.

 ST> Glad to see you have seen this.  It is an interesting and
 ST> disturbing thread, isn't it?

Yes.

RS>> I think the thing that disturbed me was not so much the level 
of fear
 ST> the
RS>>people, especially women and senior citizens live with on a day 
to day
RS>>basis but the manner in which the whole tone of the thread 
changed to
 ST> si
RS>>issues.

 ST> I can't say it struck me that way when I read it.  At the time
 ST> most of the side issues seemed to be to be valid aspects of the
 ST> wider issue, but I will certainly look at it again with your
 ST> interpretation in mind.

Yes valid, but I had a general sense that they were not direct 
responses
to the main theme that one particular woman raised.

RS>>It was as if most of them wanted to avoid the reality of it, a
RS>>slightly obscure form of denial perhaps.

 ST> I'm positively certain there is a lot of this.

Me too, we hear a lot about individual men denying things, but the 
stuff
embedded in the culture is sometimes more subtle, obscure and less 
easily
addressed.

 SR> To cut it up
 ST> along the gender lines, women need to exercise a level of
 ST> denial just to make it bearable to live in a world which
 ST> contains this ever-present threat.

Yes.

 ST> Possibly for men it is because of the business of `all men are
 ST> potential rapists' phenomenon.

Yes I think this comes into it *and* there are also quite a few other
factors.

 ST> There was an interesting thread on this on Fido
 ST> FEMINISM a while back - before the feed got cut! - that opened
 ST> up a whole can of worms - men frightened of their own capacity
 ST> to rape and commit other forms of violence against women, etc.
 ST> Further to this, I was horrified by stats quoted on there that
 ST> up to half of men would rape a woman if they believed they
 ST> could do so with complete impunity from detection and
 ST> punishment.  Ken McMaster has had a similar finding here in
 ST> Christchurch, I believe.

I think the stats mean little unless they actually say who exactly 
was
surveyed, how and by who etc. I have seen such wide variations I do 
not
trust stats like that. Some people contend that all child abusers for
instance have been victims themselves. While others say only 10% 
have. To
me the actual figures are not that relevant.

Bye for now
 Reg

Bye for now 
 Reg

... Living well is the best revenge!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:38 2000
Date: (824)   Wed 23 Feb 94  2:16                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Echo
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d987f203

            ͻ
                                                       
                           INTRODUCTION                
                                To                     
                            Psybernet                  
                                                       
            1/4


Psybernet derives its name from Psyche and Cybernetics.  Psyche is 
a Greek
word for the soul and cybernetics is the art of information systems.

Psybernet is an psychological adventure in cyberspace open to all. 
It is
an experiment with vision, soul and mystery.  We wish to make it
accessible, challenging, and, enjoyable.  The unconscious realms of 
the
psyche, communication and relationship skills are all affected and
evolving in cyberspace.  With Psybernet you can explore and 
experience
this process.

=== Psybernet Echo ===
Topics range from psychotherapy, psychodrama and psychoanalysis to 
the
unconscious, the imagination, archetypes, dreams, myths and 
metaphors.
There is often an emphasis on working within the medium of 
cyberspace.

Of wider appeal are discussions on literature and poetry, movies and
music, relationships and parenting, gender issues, love, learning and
everyday life.  Discussion of treatment and recovery and of clinical
issues is welcome, but these are not the main focus of the echo.

=== The Psybernet Bulletin Board ===
Psybernet Echo has its origin on The Psybernet BBS.  A Women's 
Conference
is available to women users only and we have The ALTERWORLD, a 
place for
anonymous dramatic writing .  The BBS specialises in small GROUPS, 
on such
themes as dreams and relationships.  These groups are 'for a fee', 
they
have a leader, and are confidential to members only.


I look forward to meeting with you in this Echo and/or on the 
Psybernet
BBS.

Walter Logeman.

----------------------== Contact points  ==-------------------
Psybernet BBS
Walter Logeman, Reg Smith (Sysops)
Bulletin Board:    +64-3-365-6876
Fidonet:            3:770/270

Walter Logeman
24hr Answer phone: +64-3-377-1206
Fax:               +64-3-377-1207
Compuserve:         100026,3145

Psybernet,
PO Box 13 543,
Christchurch,
New Zealand 8001.

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:40 2000
Date: (1242)   Mon 7 Mar 94  1:05                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Rowan Scott
Subject: PSYBERNET ECHO
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 21009a69
@REPLY: 3:770/270 53173632
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

 > HAVE BEEN SCANNING THE MAIL - HAVE FOUND SOME
 > INTERESTING CONVERSATIONS.
 > I TAKE IT THIS IS BASICALLY A FORUM FOR PROFESSIONAL
 > DISCUSSION.

Glad you found something of interest.  No it is not for 
professionals and
I hate to think that we speak in such a way as to give that 
impression,
but alas we do!  Yes Do continue to browse, you are welcome.  What 
are
your interests in life.  You say you are lucky, was that also good
management?


See you


Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:40 2000
Date: (1226)   Sat 5 Mar 94 14:35                          
From: Rowan Scott
To: All
Subject: PSYBERNET ECHO
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53173632

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 30 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:41 2000
Date: (1264)   Mon 7 Mar 94 21:12                          
From: Rowan Scott
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: PSYBERNET ECHO
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 531a3622
@REPLY: 3:770/270@fidonet 21009a69

Most of all I like people over any other likes, they are my 
priority when it
comes to decisions of importance.

Many times I'm afraid to relate this - and to my perill.

Psybernet is just a little intimidating but there is a voice within 
not
my own that compells me to speak.

I do not know myself

Sorry about WYSIWYG - Blame Bill Gates

Rowan

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 32 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:40 2000
Date: (1227)   Sat 5 Mar 94 14:42                          
From: Rowan Scott
To: All
Subject: BETA-TESTERS
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 531737e0

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 30 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:41 2000
Date: (1243)   Mon 7 Mar 94  1:09                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Rowan Scott
Subject: BETA-TESTERS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 21009a6b
@REPLY: 3:770/270 531737e0
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

 > IN REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE INTRO MESSAGES. I TAKE IT
 > ALL PARTICIPANTS ON THIS
 > BBS ARE BETA TESTERS ? PLEASE EXPLAIN

I must change that Intro, we are of the opinion that we are open and
beyond the testing stage, just :-) .  Now subscriptions are free 
and will
nort come in for a while so KEEP BROWSING.

Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:41 2000
Date: (1263)   Mon 7 Mar 94 20:52                          
From: Rowan Scott
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: BETA-TESTERS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 531a318e
@REPLY: 3:770/270@fidonet 21009a6b

Hooked!

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 32 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:40 2000
Date: (1232)   Sat 5 Mar 94 22:58                          
From: Daniel Logeman
To: All
Subject: What am I?
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1a844646

This is my debut letter onto the Psybernet echo.  After lurking all 
day
within other peoples discussions, (not on Psybernet) I have decided 
to
make my entrance here a fresh one, not confused or overwhelmed by 
reading
hours of on going Psybernet correspondence.  This is no comment on my
expectations on the quality of discussion, but rather a desire to 
approach
this activity unlike how I might normally have approached it.

For years I have listened to my Father discussing all sorts of
philosophical, and psychological matters with his friends late into 
the
night.  As a child I would fall asleep reluctantly as I struggled 
to keep
a track of him and his friends talking.  Today I continued the 
tradition
by reading some of his posts and replies in a conference / forum 
(insert
correct terminology).  Today I wish to enter the late night (as I 
suspect
it often is) psyber-discussions.  If I don't I may never get to 
hear my
Dad's late night conversations (is this an appropriate word for this
medium?) again, because now the only thing I can hear in his room 
is the
repetitive thump of fingers (RSI afflicted) on the keyboard.  
Unless of
course I become a lurker of the Psybernet world.

Well I don't want to become a lurker!  It sounds so horrible!  So 
what am
I?  That is the title of this message.  I know a some things about 
what I
am.  I know lots of things about my self in the world of sound and 
smell,
but I have only just been born into the communicative world of 
electronic
text and phone lines.  What am I in psyberspace?  Oh no I feel like 
I am
turning into a psyber-ontologist, god forbid!  Will I have the same 
cyber
personality or set of roles as in the world of night and day?  In 
some
ways I hope not, this is a chance to develop another part of me, a 
psyber-
self that may be interact and influence other parts of me.  I am 
looking
forward to the growth of this new self, and hope that this 
(Psybernet)
will be a supportive and nurturing kindergarten In which I can 
grow.  I am
confident that it will be.

I have often thought about the opportunities that going to a new 
place and
being surrounded by totally new people can do for the self, or as 
the case
will be (in six weeks): MYself.  In a huge city for example I 
imagine I
will find some security in the anomnimity.  I could reinvent who I 
am.  I
imagine that this is both true and untrue. eg.

1.  I may find that I can just not suddendly develop new roles to 
act out
of.  Old experiences will inevitably shape the way I think, feel 
and act
the new place.
2.  On the other hand how can I do anything but radically change, 
when I
am surrounded by people and places very different from those who I 
am used
to.  One's context is an integral part of one's self as I see it.

So I look forward to being influenced by this place and you people. 
 I
hope not to grow into a lurker (or worse, (what is worse?- a flame-
thrower?, a psybervert?), but rather someone more like Miles was
suggesting in the Psybernet conference (okay I didn't start totally
fresh!) who can help psyberspace and cyberspace be a productive,
supportive, inspirational and perhaps even revolutionary!

I am a newborn in this medium and am here for shaping.  I am sure 
that my
psyber/cyber self is about to go through my most intensive years of
learning.

I will be happy that if I do find out what I am here it is as least 
as
pleasant as it was for the Bunyip of Berkely's Creek.

I'm starving for interaction now! I can't wait to begin 
experiencing this
world some more!

Daniel Logeman.

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:42 2000
Date: (1537)   Fri 18 Mar 94 18:25                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Daniel Logeman
Subject: Re: What am I?
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 81666ea6
@REPLY: 3:770/270 1a844646

Great message.  I enjoyed the debut.
 DL> As a child I would fall asleep reluctantly as
 DL> I struggled to keep a track of him and his friends talking.

Stubborn refusal to go to sleep I would call it!  But that is well 
behind
us now.

 DL> I may
 DL> never get to hear my Dad's late night conversations (is this an
 DL> appropriate word for this medium?) again, because now the only
 DL> thing I can hear in his room is the repetitive thump of fingers
 DL> (RSI afflicted) on the keyboard.

I took that quite hard and it was good to have the conversation 
with you,
to hear that you do not find me unavailable or that you have 
resentment.
I dont reaaly believe it though!

 DL> What am I in psyberspace?

This is THE psybernettic quetion that we are all grappling with.  The
medium demands that we re-assess who & what we are.  I am doing 
that in
the anonymity thread, alterworld, sanity & insanity thread etc.


 DL> I am a newborn in this medium and am here for shaping.  I am
 DL> sure that my psyber/cyber self is about to go through my most
 DL> intensive years of learning.

It will be really good to have you on board while you are in Japan, 
I hope
you can get all the technology going there up & down load 
Psybernet, some
little 286 notebook should be areadily available in the rubbish 
bins in
Tokyo.  I'll give you some disks of software before you depart.

 DL> I will be happy that if I do find out what I am here it is as
 DL> least as pleasant as it was for the Bunyip of Berkely's Creek.

How was it for the Bynyip?  He could tell us in the ALTERWORLD
.
 DL> I'm starving for interaction now! I can't wait to begin
 DL> experiencing this world some more!

Go for it.


Love

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:43 2000
Date: (1615)   Sun 20 Mar 94 13:50                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Daniel Logeman
Subject: Re: What am I?
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 88
@MSGID: 3:770/270 79a94664
@REPLY: 3:770/270 1a844646

Hi Dan,

Finally I find and read your message, finally I reply to it...

 DL> This is my debut letter onto the Psybernet echo.  After 
lurking all
 DL> day within other people's discussions, (not on Psybernet) I have
 DL> decided to
 DL> make my entrance here a fresh one, not confused or overwhelmed 
by
 DL> reading hours of on going Psybernet correspondence.

I like that, that your entrance here is 'fresh' and in response to 
nothing
but your own desire to begin.
I 'began' by reading alot of messages first and as a consequence felt
overwhelmed and tangled up in some issues I had never even considered
before...actually I have alot of topics I would like to discuss 
here but
they are still incubating, most of my messages have been 'in 
response'.

 DL> For years I have listened to my Father discussing all sorts of
 DL> philosophical, and psychological matters with his friends late 
into
 DL> the night.
 DL> As a child I would fall asleep reluctantly as I struggled to
 DL> keep a track of him and his friends talking.  Today I 
continued the
 DL> tradition by reading some of his posts and replies in a 
conference /
 DL> forum (insert correct terminology).  Today I wish to enter the 
late
 DL> night (as I suspect it often is) psyber-discussions.  If I 
don't I
 DL> may
 DL> never get to hear my Dad's late night conversations (is this an
 DL> appropriate word for this medium?) again, because now the only 
thing
 DL> I
 DL> can hear in his room is the repetitive thump of fingers (RSI
 DL> afflicted)
 DL> on the keyboard.  Unless of course I become a lurker of the 
Psybernet
 DL> world.

Sounds like a wonderful way to fall asleep, or not fall asleep. <g>
I feel sad to think people talking late into the night could be 
replaced
by the clatter of the keyboard...it seems so solitary by comparision.
 I wonder how this will change as this medium and form of 
communication
becomes more widespread; I like to think of this world enriching 
the real
world and vice versa.
I like this form of communication, I like the clatter of the 
keyboard, I
like the solitary-ness (is that a word?) of it all, but I would never
NEVER want it to take anything away from 'real' contact and 
presence and
conversation. And so far it hasn't.

 DL> What am I in psyberspace?  Oh no I
 DL> feel like I am turning into a psyber-ontologist, god forbid!  
Will I
 DL> have the same cyber personality or set of roles as in the 
world of
 DL> night and day?  In some ways I hope not, this is a chance to 
develop
 DL> another part of me, a psyber- self that may be interact and 
influence
 DL> other parts of me.  I am looking forward to the growth of this 
new
 DL> self, and hope that this (Psybernet) will be a supportive and
 DL> nurturing
 DL> kindergarten In which I can grow.  I am confident that it will 
be.

I ask myself the same question, what am I in psyberspace? and find 
that my
answer is paradoxical. I am the same, only different. Perhaps it is
another alter who writes here, I do not know for sure, perhaps 
there are
many of us writing here. If there are, I encourage them to do so, 
to meet
and explore each other, to see each other as seperate, THEN to 
integrate.
I see this as a place I can explore, learn and discover...about 
myself,
about others, about myself through others, it is definately not a 
solitary
process, even though it may seem so, upon glancing into the room 
now it
would certainly seem so.

 DL> So I look forward to being influenced by this place and you 
people
 DL> I
 DL> hope not to grow into a lurker (or worse, (what is worse?- a 
flame-
 DL> thrower?, a psybervert?), but rather someone more like Miles was
 DL> suggesting in the Psybernet conference (okay I didn't start 
totally
 DL> fresh!) who can help psyberspace and cyberspace be a productive,
 DL> supportive, inspirational and perhaps even revolutionary!

A flame thrower is definately worse. I think the word psybervert 
probably
has no meaning in this medium! Unless of course you happen to be the
Systems Operator...ooh that word sends chills down my spine.<g>
Revolutionary...yes I would like to think so, I hope so. It 
definately has
the potential.

 DL> I will be happy that if I do find out what I am here it is as 
least
 DL> as
 DL> pleasant as it was for the Bunyip of Berkely's Creek.

Who was he?

 DL> I'm starving for interaction now! I can't wait to begin 
experiencing
 DL> this world some more!

OK so reply to this message! <g> I too am hungry for interaction in 
this
medium.

See you soon,
             love Ruby.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 88
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:41 2000
Date: (1274)   Wed 9 Mar 94  0:24                          
From: Rowan Scott
To: All
Subject: Now
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 531bb4a4

I saw a slow CAM of the NZ-Pakistan one dayer in Auckland today. 
Mainly
looking at the incident involving the walk off.

We could only identify a player struck by a tomatoe! What did u see ?

Bob Jones Says "That the Dominion article proclaiming a Scicilian 
connection
in the double murder in Wellington was written by the prime police 
suspects
brother" - I hope it is not true!

Talk about making news.

We saw a rather boring program about Americans who had found Noah's 
Ark -
What do u people think ? Evidence looks impressive.

I need sleep but cannot - Anyone help me

Suggestions for Violent sleep patterns mixed with no sleep patterns 
will be
gratefully received.

I made another 1700 dollars today God I hate work

Rowan

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 33 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:41 2000
Date: (1377)   Sun 13 Mar 94  0:14                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Rowan Scott
Subject: Re: Now
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 82c95410
@REPLY: 3:770/270 531bb4a4

 RS> Bob Jones Says "That the Dominion article proclaiming a
 RS> Scicilian connection in the double murder in Wellington was
 RS> written by the prime police suspects brother" - I hope it is
 RS> not true!

I'm not sure I catcht eh drift:

You hope it is a Scicillian connection?  Or that the suspects 
brother did
not write it?

Does it scare you that the news may be all one BIG lie?  Well, get 
used to
it, the media distorts.

 RS> Talk about making news.

I think I got your point.

 RS> We saw a rather boring program about Americans who had found
 RS> Noah's Ark - What do u people think ? Evidence looks impressive.

How will that make out lives different?  Is it finally proof that God
exists?  Has he stopped being media shy :-).

 RS> I need sleep but cannot - Anyone help me
 RS> Suggestions for Violent sleep patterns mixed with no sleep
 RS> patterns will be gratefully received.

I'll make a bold suggestion.  Don't wory about it but describe here 
in
this echo, more of the details of the violence, the mixture and any 
whisps
of dreams and all the toughts of the night.  If it gets too 
personal write
to someone in Private mail (LOCAL MAIL) and thus attend to all the
struggles in your being.  Get in touch with all the details, the 
colours
and shapes and moods.  I'll bet it works, after a few years :-).

 RS> I made another 1700 dollars today God I hate work

What do you do that you hate that earns so much?  Or is that a rude 
q?
just ignore if so.

And Rowan  . . . RU under 18? I am suggesting a message area called 
R18-
NOT.  Psybernetting for the young.  Preparation for the future of
psyberspace.

Good to have you on board, see you soon.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:42 2000
Date: (1538)   Fri 18 Mar 94 18:25                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: CyberCulture
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1686aa31

I have uploaded CyberPoet's Guide to Virtual Culture.  CYBER-GD.TXT,
Psybernet Main Library. It is from an elist called FutureCulture 
that I
subscribe to via Internet email.

What I find interesting is that there is a close relationship in 
ethos
between the somewhat psychologically minded ethos of the guide and 
the
culture it describes.  Possibly THE closest thing I have found in
cyberspace, it is miles away from the Psybernet ethos that I hope can
exist in this neck of the wood in cyberspace.

The main thing I hope for is a cultural climate that values the 
soul.  Now
I guess that is more to do with the feminine aspects of  . . .  
[that is
what I call genderising, I'll restate.]   that is more to do with
qualities such as listening, feeling, equanimity, softness.  In our
present culture these qualities are more fully developed in women and
suppressed in men.  The CyberCulture is too male dominated.  AND 
the focus
on the soul is a post midlife activity.  No wonder the culture of
cyberspace, created by young men is not a reflection of the ethos I
require for my own development.

Just wait till these boys mature!!  But even then, for there to be 
more
women in cyberspace, the men will need to develop an ethos of where
listening, feeling, equanimity, softness and many other qualities are
UNSUPPRESSED.  Certain other qualities that are overdeveloped in the
medium will require containment.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:42 2000
Date: (1541)   Fri 18 Mar 94 22:31                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Power in Cyberspace
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 61242182

I found a discussion in FC FutureCulture very interesting I will post
several messages that capture the theme which we may wish to pursue 
here.
The first message is by HMR. The jargon is a bit much at first but 
hang in
there it *is* english (see also the CYBER-GD.TXT I posted which has a
glossary)  :

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------


Date:         Wed, 16 Mar 1994 02:40:35 -0600
Reply-To: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
Sender: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
From: HEATH MICHAEL REZABEK <REZABEH1648@COBRA.UNI.EDU>
Subject:      Subject: Noise
Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU
(imported from txt file) of list FUTUREC <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
Status: O

>indigo

>This extra spam had the same effect that all the new AOL people 
had, it
>raised the volume and made it more difficult to filter out what I
>consider noise. This is a bad thing. Being stupid and annoyed, 
after I
>was kicked off  the channel for some reason, i decided two could 
play at
>the spam game... to make a long story short... (I'm sure somebody 
has the
>logs) i was kicked off the channel by [pc] when he, apparently had 
enough
>of my spamming (ie, his was okay, mine wasn't).

>Joining the ranks of the .rez'd...

ha.  hmm.



power is a very tenuous thing down in here.  power only exists so 
long as
there are people willing to entertain it.  sure, the person can 
still pull
the plugs and push the buttons, but if there's no-one there to be 
pushed
or pulled, the *phoof* their power is gone.

i have slowly been learning this the hard way.  i have been forced 
several
times to Prioritize the places i spend my time and the friends i 
trust,
even, on the basis of how i percieve their approach to power.

just as power only exists so long as there are people willing to 
entertain
it by the power-full's rules, so also community only ONLY exists in 
the
space of the trust between its constituents.  [or so i've found, 
all imho
amen.  ;) ]

so there's this other list i'm on, which consists of a few [maybe 20]
people who i've fleshmet quite a number of times and with whom i've 
grown
very close. there was recently a crisis of sorts in which i again 
felt
that power was being granted or conceded in an environment 
[virtuality]
where it was neither necessary nor productive.  rather that let 
everything
fall apart when that person left, [they've since returned and 
healing is
underway], we opted to stay.  s/he had been Administrator for the 
list;
the list had been set up as a favor to them.  the person who'd set 
it up,
when the other had left, attempted to hand Administrative Duties 
over to
me.

i said, fuck off, post the stuff we need to know to sub and unsub 
people
[this was a large part of where the powerr lay, as it is a very 
small list
of relatively close people; inclusion and exclusion is a tricky 
gnot.]

so there it was: to the list at large, instructions were posted..

" send to the list..

::administrate listX subscribe whoever@wherever.com

.. or replace the word sub with unsub.  any person, anywhere."

talk ensued: what if someone doesn't like it if another subs a 
person they
hate?  well, they vote with their feet; they unsub, thus making it a
public Issue which must be worked through.  or better yet: they 
unsub the
offending person themselves and again, publically, answer to their
decision.

there ARE such things as self-organizing systems.  and the ONLY 
principle
they operate on [well, for communities] is the tenuous fabric of 
mutual
trust, dignity, and respect.

 one of the things that amazes the fuck out of me about the nexus
community is the way it sprung up.  hell; you all were here, halfway
through november the nexus-meme ate fc's brain [as bookish [i 
think, or
mindy] so eloquently put it. :)]  within the space of 5 days, at 
least
that many people SIMULTANEOUSLY said, "hm, maybe we oughtta have a 
list
for this thing..."

poof.  the time was right.  it happened.  not a damn person 
steering the
fucker, so far as i can see..  [though dwayne works his arse off 
trying to
remote-admin.  ;) ]  i was boggled.  it seems like fc has gone 
through
HELLISH bifurcations which would have been the death of many other
communities.  yeah, the founder pulls the plug on a list of 700 
people.
it came back [along with, evolutionarily unstable and untennable. of
course, the scuttlebut from various #channels and alt.groups 
assuring all
the The Edge(tm) had moved ElseWhere.  i'm fucking sick of trying 
to think
I always oughtta be ElseWhere. i'm gonna put energy into a 
goddamned Here
if it kills me, and it just might.  but it just might save me, so 
hey,
life's a gamble all around.

the thing is, lack of centralization is an EXTREMELY THREATENING 
CONCEPT
to human beings who have a goodly amount of grey stuff 
all-but-hardwired
to take it for granted.  it takes time for this thing to evolve, and
individual decisions.  i decided when i was booted from leri for 
something
that occorred on ALEPH for Gum's sake -- that i would never ever 
again
entertain or humor the power-broker.  if they want their power they 
can
have it without me.  i'll take my fucking dignity, thanks.  i've 
had to
stick to that decision a couple of times, and it sucked shit and it 
is
rough as hell.  but i'm only ever more convinced that such moves are
crucial, necessary.

because a centralized system is top-heavy.  a centralized system is 
power-
hungry.  and let's fucking face facts, as a Post-Existential 
Memeticist ;)
if i've learned anything, it's that the good ol' fashioned 
centralized
system is becoming just plain evolutionarily untennable.  unstable.
unworkable.  unsupportable.  for me anyway.  pardon my rant.  :)

 hmr

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------



I will post some more in this thread and than write some comments 
of my
own.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:42 2000
Date: (1542)   Fri 18 Mar 94 22:31                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Power in Cyberspace
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c48bedd6

This is the second message in this thread!  Read the other one first.
In the Next message i will make some comments.

Walter

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------
Date:         Wed, 16 Mar 1994 07:38:30 CST
Reply-To: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
Sender: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
From: Erich Schneider <erich@BUSH.CS.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:      thought for the day - process loss
Comments: To: futurec@uafsysb.uark.edu
(imported from txt file) of list FUTUREC <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
Status: O

So, we had a brief flareup of Libertarian Stuff, lots of Social
Contract Discussion, and now we turn to the Rise of Lag and the Horde
of Newbies.

Last spring I took a special topics course on "computer supported
collaborative work". (Don't be put off by the fact that I was 
taking a
course; it was very much a "read 1000 pages of journal articles and
discuss them" type of thing.) CSCW researchers work on systems 
designed
to help people work together. They think about email, they think 
about
Usenet, they think about real-time multi-user graphics editors,
"electronic community systems", etc. They also implement many of 
these
things.

A set of concepts that are referred to again and again are "dual 
level
languages" and "process loss".

The first refers to the fact that, when conversing over a given
medium, there is communication that is the doing of whatever it is 
one
is supposed to be doing (socializing, discussing the future,
assembling a report, etc.) and there is communication about how one
and all will use the medium to do the type 1 communication (how to 
sub
and unsub, how to determine who will talk when, how to determine who
can change what objects, etc.). Of course, it can happen that this
type 2 communication can so dominate use of the medium that it
effectively becomes "type 1" communication; this well-known 
phenomenon
is known as "flipover" (it happens in the other direction, too).
(Sideline: I've argued that Jaron Lanier's claim about VR ushering in
post-symbolic communication is bogus because it doesn't allow for
this.)

The second refers to "loss" of time spent in type 2 communication.
Time spent negotiating process rather than doing what it is one wants
to do is considered "process loss". It's an open issue among
researchers as to which is best in a given situation - implementing
technical solutions to help solve these negotiation problems (e.g.
some sort of podium-passing system built in to the system so only one
person can have the "floor" at a given time) or to "let social
protocols mediate", i.e., let the participants wrangle. One thing is
pretty clear, though, and it's that people don't like process loss.
People don't like having to slog through extra much to do what they
want to do.

The net is ballyhooed by many for its social environment. "It's a
working anarchy! There's total anonymity!" Right now, there's little
penalty in real terms for obnoxious behavior on the net, but this 
will
change. Also, many people are vocal proponents of the "we have no
dispute-settling mechanism here" point of view. Frontier justice, as
befits the electronic frontier. You don't like it here, pull out your
gun and shoot, or pick up stakes and leave. These twin items force 
the
migration of many a decent person from a once-nice place.

Axiomatic libertarians seem to want this kind of environment IRL as
well. No overarching mechanisms. Everybody negotiates contracts with
everybody else.

A problem with both of these situations, though, is that while 
process
loss can be kept to a minimum with a small, elite group of 
like-minded
participants, process loss starts to build up when more people with
divergent points of view are included. On the net, people spend lots
of time migrating from list to list looking for a community they can
live with, or just try to live in lots of places at once and suffer
Andy Hawks-style burnout.

It seems that the 3x5 Social Contract theorists here want a perfectly
open, "transparent" social contract. However, most people do not like
process loss. They do not want to spend large portions of their time
negotiating with other people as to "how will we share this medium to
do what it is we want to do". It is the case, however, that
present-day centralized bureaucracies also increase process loss,
because the negotiation mechanism is so clunky.

People on the net, and IRL, are getting bugged about process loss, 
and
it seems they hunger for mechanisms to reduce it so they can get on
doing whatever it is they want to do.

Maybe this set of terms will help steer someone's energy into
productive use.

-Erich  erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu


------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:43 2000
Date: (1543)   Fri 18 Mar 94 22:31                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Power in Cyberspace
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 604dbe45

The thing I am thinking of as I read these two messages I posted is 
that
Psybernet is a place for like minded people to meet, and that while 
the
subject matter often is process, there is little process loss, as the
structure of the place is clearly defined.  There are both message 
areas
open to all and Message Area with restricted access.  All of this 
and the
purpose of the place is clearly established.  Hence little process 
loss.


I am reminded of the training I have had in psychotherapy to create 
a very
clearly defined space to create the conditions for very free
communication.  In my mind that is not a power trip of the 
therapist but
an obligation.  Certain things are not (or very rarely) negotiable in
psychotherapy, eg time & place.

There are certain powers inherent in the positions of therapist and 
sysop.
I think these are not power-over numbers but as it has so often been
usefully put:  functional differences.  ie each of us have a 
particular
JOB to do.

Yet. . .  hmr's values of anarchy and freedom of information (if I 
have
read him right) are attractive .  I thin he may minimise the power 
that
can exist in cyberspace, and he also confuses doing a certain job 
with
having power.

Perhaps I am making the mistake again of seeing virtual reality in 
terms
of everyday reality.

What do you think?


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:42 2000
Date: (1492)   Thu 17 Mar 94  0:19                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Life,the universe and everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 84
@MSGID: 3:770/270 7a5f87b4
@REPLY: 3:770/270 fbebb90b

Hello Reg!

I am supposed to be cooking dinner at the moment and trying to 
delay the
inevitable by setting myself up to be trapped in cyberspace.
I detest cooking and have cooked approximately twice in the last 
year, but
everyone is sick here and the formidable task must be done.
At least they will know I care...to eat a meal created by me is the
highest expression of love I could ever give <g>.
Now that I have said that, I am ready.
Back soon.
Don't you go 'way now! (said with Southern twang)

 RS> I did not mind waiting

Oh well that's good then. Ha Ha, sorry to take your quote out of 
context
like that, what a nasty trick. <g>

Anyway, here I am, back again in surprisingly high spirits after
performing that detestable task.

 RS> anyway, what's say that we have an agreement that we just 
reply when
 RS> we can
 RS> and not to worry about time delays.

OK.

 RS> I did cheat a little by asking Walter how things were
 RS> with you when I saw him on Thursday and he said you had been 
busy, so
 RS> I relaxed again.

No cheating! <g>

 R>> to penetrate ...(drum roll or two)....*THE
 R>> NET*...

 RS> Do you mean the Internet?

Yes. It still isn't up and running as it should be, but it *did* 
inform us
of Charles Bukowski's death before the news media found out. This was
actually quite significant as he is one of my favourite poets.
I used to live with a guy who aspired to being as much like C.B. as 
he
could manage, alcohol 24 hours of the day, chain smoking, writing....
Despite the obvious desperation of his life, there was something 
romantic
about it, and I  used to like what he wrote from the depths of that 
place.
He would constantly beat his fists on the gates to the underworld, 
he said
for him there was no other way into his creativity....Ah, that life 
seems
very far away from me now.

 R>>... this is (so I am told) a
 R>> typical'Libran' trait...

 RS> Oh my God, not one of those, always having to balance every 
thing up,
 RS> I
 RS> am bad enough at that and I am not even a Libran...., maybe I 
have a
 RS> moon ascending or descending there or however it is that 
astrologers
 RS> put it.

Oh yes, one of those, lucky for you, the *peacemakers* of the 
zodiac. I
bet a million bucks you are a Virgo, making a comment like that. <g>
You could have a Libra moon or a Libra Ascendant but not an 
ascending or
descending moon...I studied astrology for a while if you're 
interested.
Used to be really into the natal side of it, never delved into the
transits at all (predicting the future). Nowadays tend to take a more
cynical view...but I still find it interesting to look at people's 
charts,
probably because I am so curious by nature and it is a way of 
seeing what
possibly lurks beneath the surface.

 RS> to me God is a reality
 RS> both within and without everyone and everything. The higher 
power you
 RS> mention is also very much within, something a lot of people do 
not
 RS> appear very keen to acknowledge.

So, we *are* God, and *of* God, I like that paradox (very Libran).
To me, God means different things on different days, but I like 
that, ever
changing and moving with the changes I don't get locked into any one
particular way of thinking or being, or close myself to all other
possibilities.
 I don't like it when people say they know *the truth*, I mean its 
alright
to know one's own truth, but not when they think they are right and
everyone else is wrong. It reminds me of the catholic church and 
how the
cardinals of the Vatican (or the hierarchy or whoever the hell they 
are)
spent months arguing over whether Mary remained a virgin or not 
after she
married Joseph, they eventually decided through God's divine 
guidance,
that she remained one until she died. I mean, can you BELIEVE 
that!!!???
I was once engaged to a man who believed that...I think that probably
marked a turning point for me in our relationship <G>.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is...WHO CARES!!! (Jesus cares 
<ROTFL>)
No, seriously, it really is unbelievable isn't it, that such a 
thing can
then be declared doctrine and anyone who challenges it is going 
against
God's word and therefore a sinner.
I just think its really funny.

 RS> The mere fact that we and the rest of
 RS> the cosmos exist is evidence enough of that reality. On 
hearing this,
 RS> many people would say "So who made God" ?  I have asked silly
 RS> questions like that myself and my reply to that sort of 
question is
 RS> usually "stuffed if I know or really care for that matter. I 
think
 RS> part of all
 RS> this is a question of naming, it does not matter to me if God 
is male
 RS> or female, but I suspect both actually. It is also not so 
relevant to
 RS> me how other people view God, I once came up with the idea 
that God
 RS> might very well be the collective unconscious of the cosmos, 
but this
 RS> too is just a way of naming something.

When I was a little person I would play games with my mind and try to
imagine the vastness of the universe by pretending the galaxy, as 
far as
it was known, had boundaries. And then I would try to imagine what 
lay
outside those boundaries...one day I came across the idea that if you
could get to the end, you would be back at the beginning again.
Amazing, isn't it.
I like what you say about naming too, this I also used to consider 
as a
child, that nothing really was as it was named, eg. what was a tree
*really* if tree was just a word we made up.
Now I think, ah, it doesn't *really* matter, but it is interesting to
discuss it with others.

 RS> Ah, so by my definition you believe in God, but by yours and 
many
 RS> others
 RS> you perhaps wouldn't, or am I just being a smart arse?

Yes!
By my definition, I do and I don't, but I do.
By yours, well, I can't make any sense of it <g>.

 R>> Sometimes I *have* to believe that in order to go on.
 R>> Sometimes, in my darker moments, I disbelieve and cannot
 R>> comprehend such a truth.

 RS> I think that is an interesting phenomenon, so many people say 
they do
 RS> not believe in God, but when all is dark and maybe they think 
they
 RS> will
 RS> perish they reach for something, some will even pray for the 
very
 RS> first
 RS> time in their life.

Yes I suppose that is interesting, but now I am going to tell you
something real...as a child I had many moments of darkness and I 
used to
be on my knees, pleading for God to help me as I had been taught he 
always
would. And do you know what? He never did.

 R>> Just glimpses. Glimpses of glimpses.

 RS> And that is enough eh?

No! Nothing is ever enough for me. And when it is, I suspect it 
will be
time for me to leave this earth and go home.

 RS> Hang on I need to go to the loo, I needed to fifteen minutes 
ago, but
 RS> the medium detained me.............

 RS> ......  Back again, ah! I feel much relieved <G>.

Another danger of cyberspace comes to light...
    (puff of white smoke....)
    (voice coming from deep within cyberspace....
     ....I AM URETHRA, THE GODDESS OF KIDNEY FAILURE.....)

 RS> Thankyou.

That's alright, just a friendly warning....ooh sorry I'm misquoting 
you
again <g>.

 R>> Appalling! And worse, there are cases where it really happens, I
 R>> have observed psychiatrists working in this fashion, after which
 R>> they will prescribe a few pills for depression and then leave
 R>> the room without even acknowledging that the person has a name,
 R>> without even really *looking* at the person.

 RS> Yes, I have seen them at work too and my blood boils at the 
picture
 RS> of it, but I can't help but wonder what happened that they 
reduced
 RS> themselves to functioning at that level.

Yes, all that stuff comes from fear, I think. And then, I think, who
taught them to fear that much? And what has been done to them to 
make them
that afraid of contact?
Do you think there is any such thing as a *true* abuser? I mean one 
who
hasn't been hurt themselves...
And is it a choice or what? To abuse or not, is it conscious or
unconscious, if its unconscious does that make it alright?
I ask these questions as I do not have any contact with 'abusers' 
as such,
I only get to see the damage they have done. And I really desire to
understand *why*.
There is a part of me that has no compassion for 'abusers', that 
believes
they are all evil bastards and should be wiped off the skin of the 
earth..
This is an easy reality to have as it focuses on good/bad, 
black/white
etc, very simplistic and not requiring too much thought, just a lot 
of
anger.
Surprisingly enough it is directed toward people who have not hurt me
directly...or is that not surprising?

On near death experiences..

 RS> Quite a few really but the main ones would have been when I: 
fell
 RS> into a
 RS> flooded creek when aged nine and nearly drowned, went to sleep 
at the
 RS> wheel when aged 17 in the middle of the Nullabor plain in Aus 
and
 RS> when
 RS> 21 ended up with a bullet through me, the latter probably 
being the
 RS> most traumatic, physically and psychologically.

I have had one brush with death but I don't remember anything about 
it and
certainly did not experience anything like the books talk about. 
Actually
it was a bit of a non-event in that respect, I had no idea of what 
was
going on until I woke up alive in hospital the next morning and 
didn't
know how I got there.
Its strange, there are other times in my life when I have been in no
mortal danger yet have felt as if I was dying.

 >>> Ah, yes the need to *be*, I wonder are you likely to
 >>> achieve this in one
 >>> lifetime, I doubt it, I only need to turn the TV on
 >>> for five minutes as
 >>> confirmation of this, but I am forever hopeful <G>.

 R>> I do want to achieve this in one lifetime, as I don't intend to
 R>> come back if I can help it.

 RS> You may not have much choice in the matter <G>

Oh yes I do. <g>

 R>> I want to write some more about the culture. Seriously. I am not
 R>> in the mood for that right now, also it is late.

 RS> Yes, one must be in the mood to write about such things eh?

Yes, and I'm still not.

 R>> As a child I was secretly convinced that I was an alien, and
 R>> terrified to go to the doctor because I thought everyone would
 R>> find out if a blood test was taken.
 R>> Needless to say, I have since had blood tests and it hasn't been
 R>> detected. No, my skin isn't green, I am not *that* kind of 
alien!
 R>> (Just proves how little you know about us)

 RS> Ah, but you do not know how much I do know, if I were to 
release all
 RS> I
 RS> know about aliens, it would start a mass hysterical reaction?  
<G>

How do you know I do not know how much you know? You may be 
surprised, I
may be an alien who has access to your every thought now that you 
have
entered cyberspace, I am telling you all this to throw you off the 
trail..

 RS> More seriously, I feel for the little girl and I hope she has 
gained
 RS> some sense of security now re this.

Thank you, and yes, she is getting there.

 R>> So how do you now know that it *wasn't* safe??
 R>> Which sense tells you?

 RS> Probably the *sixth* one in the first place, but I did not 
listen to
 RS> it,
 RS> because I did not trust it at the time, but after, I guess it 
is all
 RS> senses that told me.

So if something *feels* safe now, as a result of all the senses 
coming
together, do you trust it?

On that note, I have come to the end or your quoted message...it is 
late,
however that does not bother me as I do not need to get up early, 
but I am
tired and hopefully when I try to disengage myself from cyberspace 
some
nasty trap won't spring up in front of me....<g>

Goodbye for now.
Take care,
            Ruby.

PS. You can now send messages to 'Ruby Wadeson', not Sarah as that 
won't
work now.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 84
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:43 2000
Date: (1570)   Sat 19 Mar 94 16:25                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life,the universe and everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a88dacad
@REPLY: 3:770/270 7a5f87b4

Hello Ruby,

 RW> I detest cooking and have cooked approximately
 RW> twice in the last year, but everyone is sick here and the
 RW> formidable task must be done.

I used to do nearly all the cooking at our place a few years back, 
but
somehow have slipped out of that role lately, perhaps they did not 
like my
cooking <G>. Last year I instigated a plan that everyone takes a turn
cooking at least one meal per week and that works quite well, 
particularly
on the days my son aged 14 cooks as he loves it, he plans to be a 
chef.

Cooking to me is somewhat like gardening, when I do it for fun or 
pleasure
I enjoy it, if it is something that *has* to be done, yet another 
task to
complete, I hate it.


 RW> informed us of Charles Bukowski's death before the news
 RW> media found out. This was actually quite significant as he is
 RW> one of my favourite poets.

I am not familiar with Bukowski, pity we don't have a scanner so we 
could
grab things from books and post them as appropriate, mind you I guess
there
are legalities re this.

 RW> I used to live with a guy who
 RW> aspired to being as much like C.B. as he could manage, alcohol
 RW> 24 hours of the day, chain smoking, writing.... Despite the
 RW> obvious desperation of his life, there was something romantic
 RW> about it, and I  used to like what he wrote from the depths of
 RW> that place. He would constantly beat his fists on the gates to
 RW> the underworld, he said for him there was no other way into his
 RW> creativity....Ah, that life seems very far away from me now.

An obsession with writing appeals, but not the self abuse with 
substances,
nor too does the man inclined to imitate another to that extent. To 
have a
role model, hero or teacher is one thing, but to clone oneself is 
almost
shameful.


 RW> I bet a million bucks you are a Virgo, making a comment
 RW> like that. <g>

Just make the cheque out to Reg Smith, thanks a million for the 
million, I
is not no Virgo, but I did marry one.

 RW> I studied astrology
 RW> for a while if you're interested. Used to be really into the
 RW> natal side of it, never delved into the transits at all
 RW> (predicting the future). Nowadays tend to take a more cynical
 RW> view...

I am an open minded sceptic on this subject <G>.

 RW> So, we *are* God, and *of* God, I like that paradox (very
 RW> Libran). To me, God means different things on different days,
 RW> but I like that, ever changing and moving with the changes I
 RW> don't get locked into any one particular way of thinking or
 RW> being, or close myself to all other possibilities.

Yes, a good way to be, so long as we don't get locked into 
worshiping the
principle of going with the flow and nothing more <G>.

 RW>  I don't like it when people say they know *the truth*, I mean
 RW>  its alright to know one's own truth, but not when they think
 RW>  they are right and everyone else is wrong.

No, I don't like people acting like dogmatic bigots either.

 RW>  It reminds me of
 RW>  the catholic church and how the cardinals of the Vatican (or
 RW>  the hierarchy or whoever the hell they are) spent months
 RW>  arguing over whether Mary remained a virgin or not after she
 RW>  married Joseph, they eventually decided through God's divine
 RW>  guidance, that she remained one until she died.

I don't know what was in their minds, but if one takes it all 
literally
then it does sound pretty stupid. I think this whole virgin thing was
perhaps more to do with purity of spirit than wholesome 
satisfaction of
the flesh.

 RW>  I was once engaged to a man who
 RW>  believed that...I think that probably marked a turning point
 RW>  for me in our relationship <G>

Yes, I can see why.

 RW>  No, seriously, it is
 RW>  really is unbelievable isn't it, that such a thing can then be
 RW>  declared doctrine and anyone who challenges it is going
 RW>  against God's word and therefore a sinner. I just think its
 RW>  really funny.

Yes, funny and sad too perhaps.

 RS>> ....... just a way of naming something.

 RW> When I was a little person I would play games with my mind and
 RW> try to imagine the vastness of the universe by pretending the
 RW> galaxy, as far as it was known, had boundaries. And then I
 RW> would try to imagine what lay outside those boundaries...one
 RW> day I came across the idea that if you could get to the end,
 RW> you would be back at the beginning again. Amazing, isn't it.
 RW> I like what you say about naming too, this I also used to
 RW> consider as a child, that nothing really was as it was named,
 RW> eg. what was a tree *really* if tree was just a word we made up.
 RW> Now I think, ah, it doesn't *really* matter, but it is
 RW> interesting to discuss it with others.

Yes.

 RS>> Ah, so by my definition you believe in God, but by yours and 
many
 RS>> others you perhaps wouldn't, or am I just being a smart arse?

 RW> Yes!
 RW> By my definition, I do and I don't, but I do.
 RW> By yours, well, I can't make any sense of it <g>.

Sorry for being obscure, I can't understand myself either sometimes 
<G>.

 RW> now I am going to tell you something real...
 RW> as a child I had many moments of darkness
 RW> and I used to be on my knees, pleading for God to help me as I
 RW> had been taught he always would. And do you know what? He never
 RW> did.

Maybe he did, but you didn't recognise it at the time, <G> you are 
still
here on planet earth and I do not think that prayer quite works 
like that
anyway, like we want something and God is meant to magic it up. I 
tend to
think it is more to do with believing in ourselves enough to make 
what
needs to happen, happen and somewhere along the way there is the 
element
of divine intervention.

 R>>> Just glimpses. Glimpses of glimpses.

 RS>> And that is enough eh?

 RW> No! Nothing is ever enough for me. And when it is, I suspect it
 RW> will be time for me to leave this earth and go home.

When you have glimpsed all you need to and perhaps a little more.


 RS>> Yes, I have seen them at work too and my blood boils at the 
picture
 RS>> of it, but I can't help but wonder what happened that they 
reduced
 RS>> themselves to functioning at that level.

 RW> Yes, all that stuff comes from fear, I think. And then, I
 RW> think, who taught them to fear that much? And what has been
 RW> done to them to make them that afraid of contact?
 RW> Do you think there is any such thing as a *true* abuser? I mean
 RW> one who hasn't been hurt themselves...
 RW> And is it a choice or what? To abuse or not, is it conscious or
 RW> unconscious, if its unconscious does that make it alright?
 RW> I ask these questions as I do not have any contact with
 RW> 'abusers' as such, I only get to see the damage they have done.
 RW> And I really desire to understand *why*.
 RW> There is a part of me that has no compassion for 'abusers',
 RW> that believes they are all evil bastards and should be wiped
 RW> off the skin of the earth.. This is an easy reality to have as
 RW> it focuses on good/bad, black/white etc, very simplistic and
 RW> not requiring too much thought, just a lot of anger.
 RW> Surprisingly enough it is directed toward people who have not
 RW> hurt me directly...or is that not surprising?


Firstly, I do not think that this polarisation is at all helpful to
anyone, generally I try to view people as whole beings that 
sometimes act
abusively toward others. Such behaviour is *not* excusable, but it is
forgivable, (eventually) <G>. Everyone has choices, even those 
suffering
from mental disorders, who as you will know are by and large 
sensitive and
loving people, few of whom abuse others.

I think the great danger of rigid polarisation of everyone into 
categories
of abuser, victim (surviver if you are into euphemisms) and rescuer 
is
that it is counter productive to the healing process and makes the
possibilities of those who act abusively toward others getting help 
almost
zero. So they go on to make more victims who in turn 'choose' to 
abuse
themselves with self hatred, self pity, drugs, food, sex and 
unfulfilling
relationships etc. OR they 'choose' to abuse other people one way 
or the
other. Terms such as abuser and victim are far too encompassing and
diminish hope, it is just a nasty form of name calling. This is not 
to
deny that there may be some therapeutic gain in calling someone 
else all
the names under the sun, whether they be illegitimate or not <G>. 
It is
also most definitely not to say that I condone abusive behaviour.

In an earlier message we spoke of the culture and I said I would 
speak
again on this. It might appear as if I have not done so as yet, but 
as I
read through what I have written here, I think I have spoken of 
little
else <G>.

 R>>> So how do you now know that it *wasn't* safe??
 R>>> Which sense tells you?

 RS>> Probably the *sixth* one in the first place, but I did not 
listen to
 RS>> it, because I did not trust it at the time, but after, I 
guess it is
 RS>> all senses that told me.

 RW> So if something *feels* safe now, as a result of all the senses
 RW> coming together, do you trust it?

Yes, but I remain ever watchful <G>.

 RW> PS. You can now send messages to 'Ruby Wadeson', not Sarah as
 RW> that won't work now.

Oh great, I was wondering when you were going to get around to 
doing that.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:43 2000
Date: (1689)   Wed 23 Mar 94 15:56                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life,the universe and everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 91
@MSGID: 3:770/270 83660720
@REPLY: 3:770/270 a88dacad

Hello Reg,

          Something is wrong with this word processor and 
everything is in
black and white, it is quite irritating but I will just bear with 
it for
as long as I can and if you see flames licking up the side of the 
screen
you will know it is not you it is the machinery getting to me.<g>

 RS> I used to do nearly all the cooking at our place a few years 
back,
 RS> but
 RS> somehow have slipped out of that role lately, perhaps they did 
not
 RS> like
 RS> my cooking <G>.

Sounds strange to me, my favourite kind of food is food cooked by 
someone
else, no way would I ever turn that down.

 RS> Cooking to me is somewhat like gardening, when I do it for fun 
or
 RS> pleasure I enjoy it, if it is something that *has* to be done, 
yet
 RS> another task to complete, I hate it.

Same. And it is very rarely that I do it for fun or pleasure, 
although I
do like gardening and anything pertaining to the outdoors. It 
probably
goes back to when I was a child and detested anything to do with 
housework
or basically anything that was classed a 'woman's' job, (horror of
horrors). I would have been more than happy to mow the lawns or 
paint the
fences but I think my parents saw this 'tomboy' and thought it was 
some
kind of nasty affliction, and so I was made to do all the chores I 
hated
so intensely, perhaps in the hope that I might be cured. In the 
meantime
my brother mowed the lawns and painted fences quite happily and I 
didn't
forgive him for many years.<g> I remember feeling this burning fury 
and
helpless rage that I was a girl and had to stay inside and make 
everything
tidy...I still feel angry now when I think about it. How we have been
tamed and domesticated!!!! (or should I say *I* <g>)

Never again.

 RS> I am not familiar with Bukowski, pity we don't have a scanner 
so we
 RS> could grab things from books and post them as appropriate, 
mind you I
 RS> guess there
 RS> are legalities re this.

Never mind, I will give you and all the millions reading this a small
taste.

DRUNK WITH THE BUDDHA
the typewriter now hums and roars like an old
washing machine
as I sit in these green shorts on this hot summer night
waiting on the luck:

I don't know
how much more I can expect out of this
machine or out of
me
but
we continue to work
knowing all about death and
demise
we still search the walls for answers that will not
arrive and

there is this small Buddha
he
sits on the desk
across from me and he
appears to be
laughing at
me.

I attempt to read
him: it seems as if he was saying:
our limitations are our
strengths.
let
everything else
go.

well,
I was never much good at
taking
advice
so

I put my cigarette into his
mouth.

he refuses to inhale.

I
take the cigarette
back.

I tell him:
you've come a long way, baby,
just to sit there
looking at
me

but
in another way
I think:
you're just as
fucked up as I
am...
right?

right, he
laughs...

I type on
scattering any number of
horizons.

by Charles Bukowski

 RS> Yes, a good way to be, so long as we don't get locked into 
worshiping
 RS> the principle of going with the flow and nothing more <G>.

Or so long as we don't get locked into anything, even getting 
locked into
not getting locked into anything.<g>

 RW>>  It reminds me of
 RW>>  the catholic church and how the cardinals of the Vatican (or
 RW>>  the hierarchy or whoever the hell they are) spent months
 RW>>  arguing over whether Mary remained a virgin or not after she
 RW>>  married Joseph, they eventually decided through God's divine
 RW>>  guidance, that she remained one until she died.

 RS> I don't know what was in their minds, but if one takes it all
 RS> literally
 RS> then it does sound pretty stupid. I think this whole virgin 
thing was
 RS> perhaps more to do with purity of spirit than wholesome 
satisfaction
 RS> of
 RS> the flesh.

I don't know what was on their minds either! The crazy thing is, I 
think
it all *was* literal, you know how they have a fixation with all 
matters
sexual.

I don't care about the whole virgin issue either way, whether she 
was,
wasn't or never did. It means absolutely nothing to me! I do, 
however,
believe that whole story, I believe that it all happened.

I grapple with its significance, however, whether it was really all 
*from
God* or was it just a man who thought he knew how to save the world.
Of course, one can never be sure that it happened as it was told.
I rather like the whole Pagan tradition, not the bloody and murderous
parts where people were sacrificed etc etc but the celebration of the
seasons and the observation of natural cycles. I also like the idea 
that
there are many Gods and Goddesses, that the earth is the Great 
Mother, and
the inclusion of darkness *and* light instead of light *over* 
darkness.

 RW>>  No, seriously, it is
 RW>>  really is unbelievable isn't it, that such a thing can then be
 RW>>  declared doctrine and anyone who challenges it is going
 RW>>  against God's word and therefore a sinner. I just think its
 RW>>  really funny.

 RS> Yes, funny and sad too perhaps.

Yes I suppose it is sad, I hadn't really thought about that, yes it 
*is*
sad but I don't feel sad, if that makes any sense to you.

 RS>>> Ah, so by my definition you believe in God, but by yours and 
many
 RS>>> others you perhaps wouldn't, or am I just being a smart arse?

 RW>> Yes!
 RW>> By my definition, I do and I don't, but I do.
 RW>> By yours, well, I can't make any sense of it <g>.

 RS> Sorry for being obscure, I can't understand myself either 
sometimes
 RS> <G>

Now I am not sure what you really are saying, did you get my joke 
or are
you *really* apologising, or are you now having me on?! It was the 
grin
that got me confused.<G>

 RW>> now I am going to tell you something real...
 RW>> as a child I had many moments of darkness
 RW>> and I used to be on my knees, pleading for God to help me as I
 RW>> had been taught he always would. And do you know what? He never
 RW>> did.

 RS> Maybe he did, but you didn't recognise it at the time, <G> you 
are
 RS> still
 RS> here on planet earth and I do not think that prayer quite 
works like
 RS> that anyway, like we want something and God is meant to magic 
it up
 RS>.I
 RS> tend to think it is more to do with believing in ourselves 
enough to
 RS> make what needs to happen, happen and somewhere along the way 
there
 RS> is
 RS> the element of divine intervention.

Well this has stimulated *much* thought for me in my poor Libran 
confused
state...no, I take that back, it is good to see many sides and not 
to get
'locked in' to any of them.
OK, so I am still here on planet earth, is that through my own
determination and courage or is it some kind of divine grace that 
allows
me to be here. I do not believe that my prayers were answered back 
then
and there is no answer on earth that satisfies my questioning of 
why that
child had to suffer so.
It is quite crazy-making when I hear people say, ah, but you chose 
it to
learn a certain lesson, I think I *never* in a million years would
*choose* to suffer like I did as a child, the only way of looking 
at it
that makes any sense whatsoever is to think of it as a terrible 
mistake.
The only other way of looking at it, and this is what children do, 
is to
think that I was bad and deserved it all. And it takes many years 
to shake
that one!
This may all sound terribly obscure as you don't really know *what* 
I am
talking about, ie I haven't said what it was that happened that was 
so
terrible, but I don't think it is necessary for you to know the 
details.
And who *hasn't* had a painful childhood? We all have some kind of 
a deep
scar or old story somewhere along the way...
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that the child refuses to 
believe in
something that isn't there, she thinks she has been fooled, all these
people saying God will help you and answer your prayers, he loves 
you and
will keep you safe etc etc when in actual fact her reality is that 
no-one
is there, not even God, she isn't safe and isn't protected...for 
her the
betrayal is made complete when it is made to seem that it is her 
own lack
of faith or inability to percieve or feel this divine, all-loving
presence.
To her this God is a master of pain that he can sit by and watch her
suffer so. No I do not believe in this God of my childhood.

 RW>> No! Nothing is ever enough for me. And when it is, I suspect it
 RW>> will be time for me to leave this earth and go home.

 RS> When you have glimpsed all you need to and perhaps a little 
more.

Who knows? It is all so unpredictable. I have no idea what is 
around the
next corner, it is as if I wait for something to happen, and 
everything is
about to happen and then WHAM! something happens and I am completely
surprised, every time a coconut.<G>

 RS> Firstly, I do not think that this polarisation is at all 
helpful to
 RS> anyone, generally I try to view people as whole beings that 
sometimes
 RS> act abusively toward others. Such behaviour is *not* 
excusable, but
 RS> is forgivable, (eventually) <G>.

I don't know about that, I suppose it depends on your 
interpretation of
forgiveness, we were just talking about this the other night over 
dinner.

Clarissa Estes, in her book 'Women Who Run With the Wolves' writes 
about
this in her chapter on rage and forgiveness...
"Oh, argh, forgiveness? you say. Anything but that! But you know in 
your
heart someday, sometime, it will come to that. It may not come until
deathbed time, but it will come...Forgiveness has many layers, many
seasons. In our culture there is a notion that forgiveness is a 100%
proposition. All or nothing. It is also taught that forgiveness 
means to
overlook, to act as though a thing had not occurred. This is not true
either.
The important part of forgiveness is to begin and to continue. The
finishing of it is a life work. Truly, if we could understand all, 
all
could be forgiven."

"To truly heal we must say our truth, and not only our regret and 
pain but
what harm was caused, what anger, what disgust, and also what 
desire for
self-punishment or vengeance was evoked in us. The old healer of the
psyche understands human nature with all its foibles and gives pardon
based on the telling of the naked truth."

Still, although I like all that and it sits well with me, there are 
still
somre things I hold to be unforgiveable. Call it what you will, but 
that
is how it is with me.

 RW>> So if something *feels* safe now, as a result of all the senses
 RW>> coming together, do you trust it?

 RS> Yes, but I remain ever watchful <G>.

Me too. <g>

 RW>> PS. You can now send messages to 'Ruby Wadeson', not Sarah as
 RW>> that won't work now.

 RS> Oh great, I was wondering when you were going to get around to 
doing
 RS> that.

Yes, gradual integration of the alters! Its a start, anyway.<g>

 RS> ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers.

Now, why would that be? I think I may have quoted one of those in 
this
very message!
Oh well, it is just as well that you remain 'ever watchful', isn't 
it.

Ah, it is such a beautiful day outside, I just noticed it and 
suddenly
felt so cooped up and unhealthy sitting in here hunched over the 
keyboard.
I'm off!!! <g>

See you soon,
Shall remain,
the best of cyberspatial companions,
                                     Ruby.

...we must bring our own light to the darkness.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 91
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:45 2000
Date: (1754)   Sat 26 Mar 94 12:45                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life,the universe and everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 13680954
@REPLY: 3:770/270 83660720

Hi there Ruby,

Good to hear from you as usual.

 RW>           Something is wrong with this word processor and
 RW>           everything is in black and white, it is quite
 RW>           irritating but I will just bear with it for as long
 RW>           as I can and if you see flames licking up the side of
 RW>           the screen you will know it is not you it is the
 RW>           machinery getting to me.<g>

What an interesting  coincidence, for some strange reason mine went 
all
pink and blue about two days ago, I must have pressed a Ctrl key by
mistake and can't for the life of me see which one. Perhaps it is a 
sign,
maybe the black and white is symbolic of your messages, perhaps you 
are
needing greater clarity in you life or in the messages you are 
writing
.... <G>. Perhaps the blue and pink says something about me and 
messages
about gender <G>.

 RS>> I used to do nearly all the cooking at our place a few years 
back,
 RS>> but somehow have slipped out of that role lately, perhaps 
they did
 RS>> not like my cooking <G>.

 RW> Sounds strange to me, my favourite kind of food is food cooked
 RW> by someone else, no way would I ever turn that down.

When I think about it more I realise that what actually happened 
was that
the kids from an early age had got used to Cathy's fairly plain 
food and I
liked cooking *terribly exotic* things <G> like a simple stir fry 
and they
would not want to eat it. In the end I gave up and started palming 
the
task off on to Cathy and them. As it turns out they have now 
broadened
their tastes, so I can foresee me doing more cooking again.

 RW> It probably goes back to when I was a child and
 RW> detested anything to do with housework or basically anything
 RW> that was classed a 'woman's' job, (horror of horrors).
 RW> have been more than happy to mow the lawns or paint the fences
 RW> but I think my parents saw this 'tomboy' and thought it was
 RW> some kind of nasty affliction, and so I was made to do all the
 RW> chores I hated so intensely, perhaps in the hope that I might
 RW> be cured. In the meantime my brother mowed the lawns and
 RW> painted fences quite happily and I didn't forgive him for many
 RW> years.<g> I remember feeling this burning fury and helpless
 RW> rage that I was a girl and had to stay inside and make
 RW> everything tidy...I still feel angry now when I think about it.
 RW> How we have been tamed and domesticated!!!! (or should I say
 RW> *I* <g>)

Yes, these things can affect us deeply eh? I used to have to do far 
too
much as a child and even today with my own children I have to 
constantly
remind myself that they are children and they need time to 'play' and
study etc. The gender stereotyping was present in my childhood to 
some
degree, particularly as far as my father was concerned, but my 
mother was
perhaps a bit of a feminist at heart, she used to get me to cook 
and iron
etc. and told my sisters they could be anything they wanted, but my
sisters never used to do bugger all outside the house and I ended 
up with
almost double the load and I guess harboured a bit of resentment at 
the
time. I think this has long gone, but who knows what lurks deep in my
unconscious <G>.

As far as *I* and *we* go I suppose it depends whether you are 
talking
personally or politically, but then again the personal is 
political, is it
not?  Or so I am told <G>.

 RW> DRUNK WITH THE BUDDA  ................................

 RW> by Charles Bukowski

Oh yes, I like what he writes, but then again there is little that 
I can't
find value in, so does my opinion count? <G>. What era was or is he 
from?

Subject: Cardinals

 RW> I don't know what was on their minds either! The crazy thing
 RW> is, I think it all *was* literal, you know how they have a
 RW> fixation with all matters sexual.

I am aware of this, but I did not know it was such a blanket 
fixation, oh
dear, I just used the word blanket, does that mean I am now 
condemned to
burn in hell or something? <G>.

 RW> I don't care about the whole virgin issue either way, whether
 RW> she was, wasn't or never did. It means absolutely nothing to
 RW> me! I do, however, believe that whole story, I believe that it
 RW> all happened.

Yes so do I, but unlike the cardinals I do not take it all literally.

 RW> I grapple with its significance, however, whether it was really
 RW> all *from God* or was it just a man who thought he knew how to
 RW> save the world.

Again, I think this depends somewhat on your perception of who or 
what God
is.

 RW> I also like the idea that there
 RW> are many Gods and Goddesses, that the earth is the Great
 RW> Mother, and the inclusion of darkness *and* light instead of
 RW> light *over* darkness.

Yes, me too.

 RS>> Sorry for being obscure, I can't understand myself either 
sometimes
 RS>> <G>

 RW> Now I am not sure what you really are saying, did you get my
 RW> joke or are you *really* apologising, or are you now having me
 RW> on?! It was the grin that got me confused.<G>

All of them! <G> <G> <G>.

 RS>> the element of divine intervention.

 RW> Well this has stimulated *much* thought for me in my poor
 RW> Libran confused state...no, I take that back, it is good to see
 RW> many sides and not to get 'locked in' to any of them.
 RW> OK, so I am still here on planet earth, is that through my own
 RW> determination and courage or is it some kind of divine grace
 RW> that allows me to be here.

I reckon: perhaps a bit of both.

 RW> I do not believe that my prayers
 RW> were answered back then

Not knowing the exact nature, content and context of them I can't 
really
comment, having long lost most of my psychic abilities.

 RW> and there is no answer on earth that
 RW> satisfies my questioning of why that child had to suffer so.

Yes, this is incredibly difficult to comprehend for you and me too 
I might
add, but for me I have a sort of trust in the process. Some might 
say that
I am simply a misguided fool. Others might say I am merely 
rationalising
away something that is painful, but I think not, let them think 
what they
like. Mostly I manage these days to make some sense of all the 
things I
have experienced, both pleasant and unpleasant.

 RW> It is quite crazy-making when I hear people say, ah, but you
 RW> chose it to learn a certain lesson, I think I *never* in a
 RW> million years would *choose* to suffer like I did as a child,

I don't think you chose it to be like that, certainly not in a 
conscious
or human way.

 RW> the only way of looking at it that makes any sense whatsoever
 RW> is to think of it as a terrible mistake. The only other way of
 RW> looking at it, and this is what children do, is to think that I
 RW> was bad and deserved it all.

For me personally I do not see it as either, I definitely do not 
think you
were *bad* in any way whatsoever as a child, I do not think anybody 
is
*bad* for that matter as an adult either. Like I said in an earlier
message people often *behave* badly, but the person is not totally 
bad.
Nor do I see it as a terrible mistake, but if that helps you in 
some way
to think like that then that is what you need to do. That way of 
thinking
does not work for me personally. I look at that young girl Eve who
recently died of AIDS, I reckon she achieved, or learned if you 
prefer,
more in her short life this time round than what many would achieve 
in ten
times as many years. I read in this mornings paper of a man in 
U.S.A. who
was recently sentenced to death for the murder of his neighbour and 
her
five year old daughter, I know nothing about them and I do not 
pretend to
know why any of them should die, but I do think there will be some 
purpose
to it all. If I ever find out for sure I will let you know.

 RW> And it takes many years to shake
 RW> that one!

Yes, I know.

 RW> This may all sound terribly obscure as you don't
 RW> really know *what* I am talking about, ie I haven't said what
 RW> it was that happened that was so terrible, but I don't think it
 RW> is necessary for you to know the details.

No it is not necessary, I think I know what you are talking about.

 RW> And who *hasn't* had
 RW> a painful childhood? We all have some kind of a deep scar or
 RW> old story somewhere along the way...

True, but some are deeper than others and I think this does need to 
be
recognised, otherwise it just serves to minimise the pain or 
difficulty,
sort of like sweeping something under the rug.

 RW> Anyway, what I am trying
 RW> to say is that the child refuses to believe in something that
 RW> isn't there, she thinks she has been fooled, all these people
 RW> saying God will help you and answer your prayers, he loves you
 RW> and will keep you safe etc etc when in actual fact her reality
 RW> is that no-one is there, not even God,

I find it difficult to respond to you here Ruby, but I will do the 
best I
can. I think the people who told you such things were the ones who 
did the
fooling, I do not think it was God, those actions do not fit with my
perception of God. It could very well be that the people who 
tricked the
little girl in that way were also tricked into believing they were 
doing
the right thing.

 RW> she isn't safe and isn't
 RW> protected...for her the betrayal is made complete when it is
 RW> made to seem that it is her own lack of faith or inability to
 RW> perceive or feel this divine, all-loving presence. To her this
 RW> God is a master of pain that he can sit by and watch her suffer
 RW> so. No I do not believe in this God of my childhood.

No, neither do I.


 RS>> When you have glimpsed all you need to and perhaps a little 
more.

 RW> Who knows? It is all so unpredictable. I have no idea what is
 RW> around the next corner, it is as if I wait for something to
 RW> happen, and everything is about to happen and then WHAM!
 RW> something happens and I am completely surprised, every time a
 RW> coconut.<G>

I too do not know what is around the next corner, but I somehow 
trust that
it will not all be doom and gloom, I often say to myself: "With 
such a
rat-shit start to this life it can only get better!" It might be I 
am just
kidding myself when I think like that and I too have many doubts 
and fears
like most, I think one difference is that I mostly acknowledge 
them. I
recall somebody logging on recently and writing a message saying 
something
about what terrible lives some of the people on the BBS have, I 
thought to
myself:

"He is a grandiose little shit, or maybe he just does have a 
wonderful
life, the world is not so bad after all, so many of the people I 
come in
contact with have been hurt and are suffering in some way, it is 
pleasant
to hear of someone getting on so nicely in life, but then again, he 
could
have been hurting so much he needed to see things the way he did 
because
he was not ready to face the truth of his own life. Who know? 
Perhaps God
does? <G>".


Subject: forgiveness.

 RW> I suppose it depends on your interpretation of forgiveness, we 
were
 RW> just talking about this the other night over dinner.

 RW> Clarissa Estes, in her book 'Women Who Run With the Wolves'
 RW> writes about this in her chapter on rage and forgiveness...
 RW> "Oh, argh, forgiveness? you say. Anything but that! But you
 RW> know in your heart someday, sometime, it will come to that. It
 RW> may not come until deathbed time, but it will
 RW> come...Forgiveness has many layers, many seasons. In our
 RW> culture there is a notion that forgiveness is a 100%
 RW> proposition. All or nothing. It is also taught that forgiveness
 RW> means to overlook, to act as though a thing had not occurred.
 RW> This is not true either. The important part of forgiveness is
 RW> to begin and to continue. The finishing of it is a life work.
 RW> Truly, if we could understand all, all could be forgiven."

What can I say, she writes so well and I would say she knows of
forgiveness, well at least that is what she communicates in this
paragraph, I have not read the book.

 RW> "To truly heal we must say our truth, and not only our regret
 RW> and pain but what harm was caused, what anger, what disgust,
 RW> and also what desire for self-punishment or vengeance was
 RW> evoked in us. The old healer of the psyche understands human
 RW> nature with all its foibles and gives pardon based on the
 RW> telling of the naked truth."

I think it was the quest for truth that drew me to psychodrama and 
led me
to train as a psychodrama director.  Again I like what Clarissa Estes
writes, I also like her style here, sort of clear flowing and poetic.

 RW> Still, although I like all that and it sits well with me, there
 RW> are still some things I hold to be unforgivable. Call it what
 RW> you will, but that is how it is with me.

Ah, I want to react strongly and at the same time with warmth and 
humour,
so here goes, (if I drown then I drown): Maybe like Estes says "It 
may not
come until deathbed time", maybe you are not ready, willing or able 
to
forgive at that depth as yet, but I feel confident you will 
eventually.


 RS>> ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers.

 RW> Now, why would that be? I think I may have quoted one of those
 RW> in this very message!

Impossible.

 RW> ...we must bring our own light to the darkness.

Yes and if the darkness is on the mountain and it is too big too 
shift,
then speak to Mahomad, I believe he has some experience in these 
matters.


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... A wise person sees as much as ought, not as much can.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:46 2000
Date: (1783)   Sun 27 Mar 94 18:02                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life,the universe and everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 95
@MSGID: 3:770/270 669f29b1
@REPLY: 3:770/270 13680954

 RS> Hi there Ruby,

Hi there Reg,

 RS> Good to hear from you as usual.

Et tu (or is it vous) aussi.
Figure that one out. <g>

 RW>>           Something is wrong with this word processor and
 RW>>           everything is in black and white, it is quite
 RW>>           irritating but I will just bear with it for as long
 RW>>           as I can and if you see flames licking up the side of
 RW>>           the screen you will know it is not you it is the
 RW>>           machinery getting to me.<g>

And what happened here?
My words as you quote them are all so far from my initials.
Is this also significant and what does it mean?
What are you telling me between the lines!? <g>

 RS> Perhaps it is a
 RS> sign, maybe the black and white is symbolic of your messages, 
perhaps
 RS> you are needing greater clarity in you life or in the messages 
you
 RS> are writing <G>. Perhaps the blue and pink says something 
about me
 RS> and messages about gender <G>.

I am always in need of *greater* clarity in my life, but, 
extraordinarily,
at this time in my life I have far more clarity than usual.
Perhaps this is not reflected in my messages.<g>
I found the black and white irritating, I didn't want to see things 
in
that way.
I imagine that blue and pink would also be difficult to look at 
after a
time.

 RS> As it turns out they
 RS> have now broadened their tastes, so I can foresee me doing more
 RS> cooking again.

Actually, and this is interesting to me, since I mentioned my avid 
dislike
of cooking, I have cooked quite a few times and *enjoyed* it.
Significantly, my meals have been met with praise and appreciation.
I think what goes deeper than my whole dislike of cooking is my 
belief in
my ability to nurture others and how they recieve this 
nourishment...for
so long I have stated that I cannot cook, that I hate cooking, that 
I just
won't do it, but somewhere underneath all that has been a fear of 
failure
and rejection and also of visibility.
And its true, when I cook for others whom I care about, I put far 
more in
to the meal than ingredients, there is love there too and that also 
will
nourish.
I think it has been my fear that perhaps my love will not nourish, 
that it
will not be acceptable, that it could even contaminate. This is 
harsh, I
know, but none-the-less a shadow that I have carried around until 
now and
it has somehow just slipped un-noticed from my grasp.
Amazing, eh. <g>

 RS> As far as *I* and *we* go I suppose it depends whether you are
 RS> talking
 RS> personally or politically, but then again the personal is 
political
 RS>, is
 RS> it not?  Or so I am told <G>.

Well, I don't know...I changed it to *I* as I thought, well, I can 
really
only speak personally, in all truth. And I left the *we* to 
illustrate how
easily I slip into using that word, but there is a process which 
occurs,
and I am suddenly aware that I do want to say *I*, but that it does 
take
courage, to truly own one's statement.

  DRUNK WITH THE BUDDA  ................................

 RW>> by Charles Bukowski

 RS> Oh yes, I like what he writes, but then again there is little 
that I
 RS> can't find value in, so does my opinion count? <G>. What era 
was or
 RS> is he from?

Charles Bukowski: Born in Germany in 1920 and moved to the U.S. at 
the age
of 3. Lived there for the rest of his life. Published his first 
story when
he was 24 and began writing poetry at 35. Published 45 books of 
poetry and
prose, most of which have been published in translation in over a 
dozen
languages. DRUNK WITH THE BUDDHA came from a book called 
SEPTUAGENARIAN
STEW which was published in 1990.

 RS> Subject: Cardinals

 RW>> I don't know what was on their minds either! The crazy thing
 RW>> is, I think it all *was* literal, you know how they have a
 RW>> fixation with all matters sexual.

 RS> I am aware of this, but I did not know it was such a blanket
 RS> fixation,
 RS> oh dear, I just used the word blanket, does that mean I am now
 RS> condemned to burn in hell or something? <G>.

You're pretty close to it! You like living on the edge don't you.
Now what would be really daring, and this will illustrate to you 
how much
of a daredevil I am, is using the word *sheet*. Now I am not clever 
enough
to tie it in with the Catholic Church and their views on sex, but 
never-
the-less, there it is. Sheet. Ooooohhh....<g>

 RW>> I grapple with its significance, however, whether it was really
 RW>> all *from God* or was it just a man who thought he knew how to
 RW>> save the world.

 RS> Again, I think this depends somewhat on your perception of who 
or
 RS> what God is.

Yes.
Or isn't.

 RS>>> the element of divine intervention.

 RW>> Well this has stimulated *much* thought for me in my poor
 RW>> Libran confused state...no, I take that back, it is good to see
 RW>> many sides and not to get 'locked in' to any of them.
 RW>> OK, so I am still here on planet earth, is that through my own
 RW>> determination and courage or is it some kind of divine grace
 RW>> that allows me to be here.

 RS> I reckon: perhaps a bit of both.

Determination and courage, I reckon.
And there is something divine about that.

 RW>> I do not believe that my prayers
 RW>> were answered back then

 RS> Not knowing the exact nature, content and context of them I 
can't
 RS> really
 RS> comment, having long lost most of my psychic abilities.

That probably wouldn't change my belief.
Besides which, nature, content and context seem tiny words in the 
light of
the plea of the spirit.
Did you really lose your psychic abilities? Or are you afraid to 
use them?

 RW>> and there is no answer on earth that
 RW>> satisfies my questioning of why that child had to suffer so.

 RS> Yes, this is incredibly difficult to comprehend for you and me 
too I
 RS> might add, but for me I have a sort of trust in the process.

I also have a trust in the process.
And getting to that place of trust has required allowing that child 
to
exist, in all her desparation.
The questioning came *after* that. If she was not to blame, then 
who was?
If she did not deserve it, then why did it happen?
I have asked my therapist this many times, and she says, if I ever 
find
out, can I let her know...this response is very healing for me as it
validates the questioning of that child who lies masked beneath the 
woman,
acknowledging her reality and allowing her to *be* in all that. The 
pain
is not taken away, it is allowed to be, and in this admission and
acceptance of the wound, she can then begin to heal.
The answer, if it is ever to be found, lies in me.
And who is me?
Ah, that's still a-borning...and the questioning is part of it.

 RW>> Anyway, what I am trying
 RW>> to say is that the child refuses to believe in something that
 RW>> isn't there, she thinks she has been fooled, all these people
 RW>> saying God will help you and answer your prayers, he loves you
 RW>> and will keep you safe etc etc when in actual fact her reality
 RW>> is that no-one is there, not even God,

 RS> I find it difficult to respond to you here Ruby, but I will do 
the
 RS> best
 RS> I can. I think the people who told you such things were the 
ones who
 RS> did the fooling, I do not think it was God, those actions do 
not fit
 RS> with my perception of God. It could very well be that the 
people who
 RS> tricked the little girl in that way were also tricked into 
believing
 RS> they were doing the right thing.

Yes, Yes, but all she needs is to be heard.
Explanations do not make sense to her.
She needs someone to say, yes, I hear you, you are so alone and so
abandoned, even by God, how terrible that is, how painful that is, 
I hear
you, I believe you.
Ah, what relief then, for that child. A witness, someone who 
understands.
Then, you see, she is no longer alone.
*Then* she can do the rest, *then* she can heal, *then* perhaps she 
can
ask the question why, *then* perhaps she can understand.

It is not that I require that from you, we are not doing therapy 
here,<g>,
I just want you to understand how it is for her.

 RS> I too do not know what is around the next corner, but I 
somehow trust
 RS> that it will not all be doom and gloom.

No. Not doom and gloom.
 Some darkness, some light, some joy, some sorrow....so it goes.

 RS> "He is a grandiose little shit, or maybe he just does have a
 RS> wonderful
 RS> life, the world is not so bad after all, so many of the people 
I come
 RS> in
 RS> contact with have been hurt and are suffering in some way, it is
 RS> pleasant to hear of someone getting on so nicely in life, but 
then
 RS> again, he could have been hurting so much he needed to see 
things the
 RS> way he did because he was not ready to face the truth of his own
 RS> life.

I've met people like that,and usually they lack depth, from my 
point of
view and in my experience of them. And there is also a part of me 
that
thinks, BASTARD!!! How dare he have a nice simple happy uncomplicated
existence!!!
I have never been close enough to anyone like that to find out if 
it is
true that they are happy, or if they are just suppressing all their 
pain.
I have never *wanted* to be close to anyone like that. <g> What 
would we
talk about? Where could we meet each other? If there is no 'darkness'
allowed in a relationship, is there a purpose for relationship?

 RW>> Still, although I like all that and it sits well with me, there
 RW>> are still some things I hold to be unforgivable. Call it what
 RW>> you will, but that is how it is with me.

 RS> Ah, I want to react strongly and at the same time with warmth 
and
 RS> humour, so here goes, (if I drown then I drown): Maybe like 
Estes
 RS> says
 RS> "It may not come until deathbed time", maybe you are not ready
 RS> willing
 RS> or able to forgive at that depth as yet, but I feel confident 
you
 RS> will eventually.

Why do you feel confident?
You know this to be true, you have experienced forgiveness yourself?
Or are in the process of doing so?

 RS>>> ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers.

 RW>> Now, why would that be? I think I may have quoted one of those
 RW>> in this very message!

 RS> Impossible.

How? Do tell.<g>

Well, I must away. The end of this message is rather rushed, more 
so than
I would have liked, but again I manage to disentangle from the 
cybernetic
traps all around me...

I have enjoyed your message Reg, it has been thought provoking and
stimulating with not a hint of a flame. <g>

Till next time.
Love,
     Ruby.

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 95
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:47 2000
Date: (1832)   Tue 29 Mar 94  0:11                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life,the universe and everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 cbc9ceef
@REPLY: 3:770/270 669f29b1

Hello Ruby,

 RW> Et tu (or is it vous) aussi.
 RW> Figure that one out. <g>

And you also, (good thing my oldest daughter is doing 6th form 
French) I
never got to study a second language.

 RW>>>           Something is wrong with this word processor and
 RW>>>           everything is in black and white, it is quite
 RW>>>           irritating but I will just bear with it for as long
 RW>>>           as I can and if you see flames licking up the side 
of
 RW>>>           the screen you will know it is not you it is the
 RW>>>           machinery getting to me.<g>

 RW> And what happened here?

I really do not know.

 RW> My words as you quote them are all so far from my initials.

That is how it came to me.

 RW> Is this also significant and what does it mean?

Bound to mean something, but as yet I do not know what.

 RW> What are you telling me between the lines!? <g>

Oh lots.


 RW> I am always in need of *greater* clarity in my life, but,
 RW> extraordinarily, at this time in my life I have far more
 RW> clarity than usual.

Great, it is good to be clear about some things eh?

 RW> Perhaps this is not reflected in my messages.<g>

No, I mostly find your messages quite clear.

 RW> I found the black and white irritating, I didn't
 RW> want to see things in that way.

No, we get used to certain things eh?

 RW> I imagine that blue and pink would also be difficult to look at
 RW> after a time.

Yes and I have fixed the problem now, but still do not know what 
caused it
in the first place.

 RS>> As it turns out they
 RS>> have now broadened their tastes, so I can foresee me doing more
 RS>> cooking again.

 RW> Actually, and this is interesting to me, since I mentioned my
 RW> avid dislike of cooking, I have cooked quite a few times and
 RW> *enjoyed* it. Significantly, my meals have been met with praise
 RW> and appreciation.

This helps eh?

 RW> I think what goes deeper than my whole
 RW> dislike of cooking is my belief in my ability to nurture others
 RW> and how they receive this nourishment...for so long I have
 RW> stated that I cannot cook, that I hate cooking, that I just
 RW> won't do it, but somewhere underneath all that has been a fear
 RW> of failure and rejection and also of visibility.

Perhaps you are in a good place or space now, so that you are able to
express yourself more adequately in that way?

 RW> And its true,
 RW> when I cook for others whom I care about, I put far more in to
 RW> the meal than ingredients, there is love there too and that
 RW> also will nourish.

Yes, preparing food has traditionally had much significance in many
cultures, I guess in the Western world the advent of fast foods and 
TV
dinners has put paid to that to some extent. Not forgetting the 
Christian
tradition of course, breaking bread and sharing a meal etc.

 RW> I think it has been my fear that perhaps my

 RW> love will not nourish, that it will not be acceptable, that it

 RW> could even contaminate. This is harsh, I know, but

 RW> none-the-less a shadow that I have carried around until now and

 RW> it has somehow just slipped unnoticed from my grasp. Amazing,

 RW> eh. <g>

I don't understand the <G>, I am moved by what you have written here,
perhaps I have missed something, I even tried spaces so I could read
between the lines <G>.

 RW> it does take courage, to truly own one's statement.

Yes and I fully support you in doing that, it is also good for 
preventing
misunderstandings etc. as you most likely know, but I think there 
are some
situations where the collective we is ok too.


 Charles Bukowski

 RW> Charles Bukowski: Born in Germany in 1920 and moved to the U.S.
 RW> at the age of 3. Lived there for the rest of his life.
 RW> Published his first story when he was 24 and began writing
 RW> poetry at 35. Published 45 books of poetry and prose, most of
 RW> which have been published in translation in over a dozen
 RW> languages. DRUNK WITH THE BUDDHA came from a book called
 RW> SEPTUAGENARIAN STEW which was published in 1990.

Thanks for the info, I may seek him out sometime, ah ...... so much 
is
available to us these days it is difficult to choose whose world we 
enter.


 RW> You're pretty close to it! You like living on the edge don't
 RW> you. Now what would be really daring, and this will illustrate
 RW> to you how much of a daredevil I am, is using the word *sheet*.
 RW> Now I am not clever enough to tie it in with the Catholic
 RW> Church and their views on sex, but never- the-less, there it
 RW> is. Sheet. Ooooohhh....<g>

Good on you Ruby, I wonder how many HM's that is going to cost? <G>.

 RS>> I reckon: perhaps a bit of both.

 RW> Determination and courage, I reckon.
 RW> And there is something divine about that.

Yes.

 RW> Did you really lose your psychic abilities? Or are you afraid
 RW> to use them?

I think almost everyone has lost their capacity to use them these 
days and
the few who say they have not are mostly quacks or charlatans, but 
I could
tell you some interesting stories sometime.

 RW> I also have a trust in the process.

So why do you doubt the existence of God so much, the potential for
diaster has always been here on this planet along with all that is
beautiful, much of the disaster is actually brought about by acts of
mortals rather than God. I mean stupid people rape the land by 
burning off
all the vegetation etc., build on flood plains and then get pissed 
off
because they get flooded out, they say it as an act of God etc. I 
don't
even think it would make sense to try and pin it on God by saying 
that God
is whin the people, so it is Gods fault. I don't really have any 
concept
of hell, the devil and all that shit, but if the devil exists then it
would make more sense to blame it on the work of the devil than 
God, who I
think has more to do with love than disaster.

 RW> And getting to that place of trust has required allowing that
 RW> child to exist, in all her desperation.

Yes and only a fool (or someone out of touch with their own feelings)
would try to deny her that.

 RW> The questioning came *after* that. If she was not to blame,
 RW> then who was?

Ah! and here lies the trap, the moment we look for someone to blame 
we are
lost in a vicious triangle. (Except of course when people have shit 
for
brains and go on raping the land and building on flood plains when
they have been told not to do this for thousands of years.) <G>.

 RW> If she did not deserve it, then why did it happen?

Again, the *deserve it* aspect is to do with blame and totally 
counter
productive to the healing process. It is as you rightly say 
somewhere the
thinking of that little girl trying to make sense of the world when 
no one
is there to help her. The messages given by those who might have 
helped
her are useless and confusing, but as I said earlier were given by 
those
who were probably lost and confused themselves so were of little 
help to
her. I have said much the same as this before in an earlier 
message, *AND*
I have also differentiated *BLAME from the expression of *RAGE* 
which I
think also needs to happen somehow and somewhere during the process,
usually before the point of understanding or forgiveness is reached.

I hope this does not sound too direct or blunt, but I have this 
hunch that
you either missed me saying this part of it in an earlier message (in
different words) OR (consciously or unconsciously) chose to respond 
to
only part of what I said. I certainly would not want to deny that 
little
girls feelings of rage, or any other feelings she has. I feel close 
to the
edge here, I take it that this is all ok, feel free to let me know
otherwise if not.

 RW> I have asked my therapist this many times, and she says, if I
 RW> ever find out, can I let her know...this response is very
 RW> healing for me as it validates the questioning of that child
 RW> who lies masked beneath the woman, acknowledging her reality
 RW> and allowing her to *be* in all that. The pain is not taken
 RW> away, it is allowed to be, and in this admission and acceptance
 RW> of the wound, she can then begin to heal. The answer, if it is
 RW> ever to be found, lies in me. And who is me?
 RW> Ah, that's still a-borning...and the questioning is part of it.

Yes.

 RW>>> Anyway, what I am trying
 RW>>> to say is that the child refuses to believe in something that
 RW>>> isn't there, she thinks she has been fooled, all these people
 RW>>> saying God will help you and answer your prayers, he loves you
 RW>>> and will keep you safe etc etc when in actual fact her reality
 RW>>> is that no-one is there, not even God,

 RS>> I find it difficult to respond to you here Ruby, but I will 
do the
 RS>> best I can. I think the people who told you such things were 
the
 RS>> ones who did the fooling, I do not think it was God, those 
actions
 RS>> do not fit with my perception of God. It could very well be 
that the
 RS>> people who tricked the little girl in that way were also 
tricked
 RS>> into believing they were doing the right thing.

 RW> Yes, Yes, but all she needs is to be heard.

Ah, I think she needs far more than that, she certainly needs to be
'HEARD', but she needs her reality fully validated and acknowledged 
in
every which way possible. She needs also to be SEEN, TOUCHED, HELD, 
SMELT,
and loved, sure the hearing is important and is usually a safe 
place to
start. I am not saying that all these things should take place in a
therapy session, but eventually she will need to experience all 
this and
more for the healing to be anywhere near complete.

I think also that these words have quite varied connotations, 
especially
the affective (feeling) ones, 'hearing' has for instance 
unfortunately
become almost a cliche in some circles through its over use by non 
genuine
and insincere people. You know, the "I hear what you are saying" 
brigade,
the ones who lean forward almost falling out of their chair in 
pretence of
some empathic involvement when every thing else they do somehow
communicates that they would not have a fucking clue as to what the 
other
person feels or thinks.

 RW> Explanations do not make sense to her.
 RW> She needs someone to say, yes, I hear you, you are so alone and
 RW> so abandoned, even by God,

I think this all depends a little on the forum and the relationship
between her and who she is relating too.

In my case what you suggest would be bullshitting her, as I do not 
think
she was abandoned by God. If I were her therapist, which I most 
definitely
am not, I would actually say to her something along the lines:

 "You feel abandoned and you think you were abandoned by God!.....
....     ......     ......    ..........   ........  and so on !"

That way I am honest with her yet acknowledge the feelings and 
thoughts,
how can she learn to trust again if people continue to bullshit her?

 RW> Ah, what relief then, for that child. A witness, someone who
 RW> understands. Then, you see, she is no longer alone.

Oh dear, you sound a little patronising hear Ruby, are we into our 
first
flame? Or are we able to hear one another fully here <G> and keep 
going?

 RW> *Then* she can do the rest, *then* she can heal, *then* perhaps
 RW> she can ask the question why, *then* perhaps she can understand.

I don't actually think she can do the rest all by herself, but 
certainly
there is a process and some things must come before others. As you 
know,
the healing process takes time and I am surprised that you are 
trying to
make it sound so simple, like: "all she needs is to be heard."

Or were you just talking about that particular moment, not the whole
process? Perhaps I should have checked that out before writing all 
I have
here? But I will leave it all as I think it is still of value.

 RW> It is not that I require that from you, we are not doing
 RW> therapy here,<g>,

Ah great, what a relief. This does cause me however to become 
thoughtful
about the nature of our relationship, it is somewhat unique isn't it?
We have not ever met in person and have only ever had very brief 
telephone
conversations such as:

"Is Walter about?"
"Yes I'll put him on."

 RW> I just want you to understand how it is for her.

Are you really wanting me to *understand* how it is for her, or do 
you
want me to hear how it was? I think I understand very well how it 
was for
that little girl and I hear her loud and clear <G>.


*********************************************************************

Subject: Grandiose Little Shits, Rich Bitches and other miscellaneous 
bits and
pieces of potentially inflammable material.

 RW> I've met people like that,and usually they lack depth, from my
 RW> point of view and in my experience of them. And there is also a
 RW> part of me that thinks, BASTARD!!! How dare he have a nice
 RW> simple happy uncomplicated existence!!!

Yes I think like that too sometimes, but not as much as I used to. I
remember once being at a training seminar and there was a woman 
there who
was a millionaire. I thought .... bloody rich bitch, tootles all 
around
the world and look at me how hard I struggle, how much I sacrifice 
just to
get to one training seminar. As I got to know her I realised the 
great
pain she felt in her life, the plastic world she lived in, with 
people
always taking her down and judging her for what she had and not 
really
knowing her for who she was.

 RW> I have never been close enough to anyone like that to find out
 RW> if it is true that they are happy, or if they are just
 RW> suppressing all their pain.

I have, but not many, but I do still doubt and wonder what they 
really
felt sometimes.

 RW> I have never *wanted* to be close
 RW> to anyone like that. <g> What would we talk about? Where could
 RW> we meet each other? If there is no 'darkness' allowed in a
 RW> relationship, is there a purpose for relationship?

Yes, I think the Jungians say this is one of the means by which we
individuate.

 RS>> Ah, I want to react strongly and at the same time with warmth 
and
 RS>> humour, so here goes, (if I drown then I drown): Maybe like 
Estes
 RS>> says "It may not come until deathbed time", maybe you are not 
ready
 RS>> willing or able to forgive at that depth as yet, but I feel
 RS>> confident you will eventually.

 RW> Why do you feel confident?
 RW> You know this to be true, you have experienced forgiveness
 RW> yourself? Or are in the process of doing so?

I just do! <G>

But if I must give a reason then perhaps it is to do with the fact 
that
you communicate with me relatively easily without projecting all 
sorts of
hateful shit onto me, but then again maybe you just haven't had 
time to
warm-up to it yet <G>. I think our current message comes the 
closest to
anything inflammatory between us and yet I feel confident the 
messages
will keep flowing and I don't mean like lava <G>. Of course, I 
could just
be an ostrich escaped from the ALTERWORLD <G>, no doubt I will find 
out in
due course when I UL my message.

And yes my own process or journey does give me many insights.

 RW> I have enjoyed your message Reg, it has been thought provoking
 RW> and stimulating with not a hint of a flame. <g>

Ah, now I read this, after having waffled on about the potential for
flames etc. mind you I think that is the key to stopping them, 
talking
through what seem like critical moments, when we feel on the edge 
etc.

Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Doctrine is the skin of truth set up and stuffed.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:42 2000
Date: (1437)   Tue 15 Mar 94  1:39                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Youth Conference
St: Local Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 25016826
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

A brief here in the Psybernet Echo to announce that we have a Youth
Conference on the Psybernet BBS.  The idea is that it is for people 
under
the age of say 18 or 20 to get together in a place with a 
psychological
focus.

All the topics that are part of the Psybernet Echo would be 
suitable in
the Youth Conference.  I hope that there is a greater freedom there 
for
people of the same generation to get together, and to raise matters.

I have access to the group and will participate as the 'moderator' 
from
time to time.  Though I might do more accelerating than moderating. 
All in
all I intend to keep out of it.  (Senior Citizens conference 
anyone? :-)

As I see this development on the BBS as providing places more 
specialised
than the public Conferences.  While this is still a public space, 
it will
not be accessible to parents!  Now for some this may add an 
enormous sense
of security.

Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:43 2000
Date: (1670)   Tue 22 Mar 94 22:17                         
From: John Hicks
To: All
Subject: Personality Assessment
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 532e0bfc

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 47 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:44 2000
Date: (1713)   Thu 24 Mar 94  1:47                         
From: John Hicks
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Personality Assessment
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 532f8ec0
@REPLY: 3:770/270 532f4aca
 > > Hi everyone out there in cyberspace.  I have just a few
 > > moments ago, uploaded a program called Mind-Prober.  This

 > Where is this programme.  Sounds interesting but I cant find
 > it in files

 > Lanktree
Walter said he would transfer it into the main library.  When I 
uploaded it, it was into, I thought, the main library, but on 
looking in there after the transfer it was no-where to be seen.  
Contact Walter Subject: its whereabouts. Thanks.

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 48 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:44 2000
Date: (1715)   Thu 24 Mar 94 12:16                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Personality Assessment
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 92
@MSGID: 3:770/270 7187cd01
@REPLY: 3:770/270 532f8ec0

 >> > Hi everyone out there in cyberspace.  I have just a few
 >> > moments ago, uploaded a program called Mind-Prober.

I downloaded it last night and have been assessing everyone in the 
house.
It was just for a joke but to my alarm it is quite accurate!

I am interested to see the difference between an assessment I do on 
myself
and an assessment done by another.
Walter assessed me last night and I found it to be startlingly true.
However, I assessed myself this morning and got quite a distorted 
picture,
not at all how I see myself.
Interesting, eh.
Also raises the point of different people seeing different alters. 
ie my
assessment of Walter may produce a very different picture than yours.

Anyway thanks for uploading that program, it was great to have you 
log on
with something to offer like that.
Keep writing.
See you soon,
              Ruby.



 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 92
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:44 2000
Date: (1714)   Thu 24 Mar 94  1:53                         
From: John Hicks
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Personality Assessment
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 532f8ffc
@REPLY: 3:770/270 532f4aca

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 48 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:44 2000
Date: (1716)   Thu 24 Mar 94 16:48                         
From: John Hicks
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Personality Assessment
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 533061e0
@REPLY: 3:770/270 7187cd01
 > It was just for a joke but to my alarm it is quite accurate!

 > I am interested to see the difference between an assessment I
 > do on myself and an assessment done by another.

I thought my assessment of myself was more accurate than that done 
by another person but then it depends on how one sees themselves, 
probably not the way everyone else see's them.  This could be a 
good money spinner at a fair if you have a laptop and portable 
printer.  I have thought about doing this very thing and typed up a 
questionaire for people to fill out.  I don't know where it is at 
the moment and I've "lost" the computer copy/file but you could 
probably charge between $5-00 and $10-00 at a guess.

 > Walter assessed me last night and I found it to be
 > startlingly true.
Scary, huh.
 > Keep writing.
 > See you soon,
 >               Ruby.
Thanks for the reply.  I am pleased you enjoyed the program.  It 
could become profitable if you put your mind to it.

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 49 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:44 2000
Date: (1692)   Wed 23 Mar 94 20:57                         
From: Lanktree Davies
To: John Hicks
Subject: Personality Assessment
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 532f4aca
@REPLY: 3:770/270 532e0bfc
 > Hi everyone out there in cyberspace.  I have just a few
 > moments ago, uploaded a program called Mind-Prober.  This

Where is this programme.  Sounds interesting but I cant find it in 
files

Lanktree

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 48 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:45 2000
Date: (1752)   Sat 26 Mar 94 12:40                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Personality Assessment
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 2a8c1bad
@REPLY: 3:770/270 7187cd01
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

 > Also raises the point of different people seeing
 > different alters. ie my
 > assessment of Walter may produce a very different
 > picture than yours.

 > Anyway thanks for uploading that program, it was great
 > to have you log on
 > with something to offer like that.
 > Keep writing.
 > See you soon,


Yes I have enjoyed it all too, I think the stimulation Johns upload
provides into a place like this makes it all worth it despite what 
I have
said in another message.  Jung said that he never worried too much 
about
'damaging the psyche' as it was such a robust and self healing thing.
Perhaps I worry too much ( the prober said that too!!)

Astrology & and tarot are like that I think whatever their nature, 
whether
it is accurate or not the discussion that results from the question 
: what
star sign are you?  is usually very meaningful!  Harvey Cox if I 
recall
right wrote a book about that very point called Secular City.

see you all in virtuality


Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:45 2000
Date: (1751)   Sat 26 Mar 94 12:29                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Personality Assessment
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 2a8c1bab
@REPLY: 3:770/270 532e0bfc
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG


Thanks for the upload, you managed to do the technical thing ok too.

Well we have been busy at home doing everyone & it has been fun. It 
is
somehow very accurate eh!

For all that the prog represents something I dont like about the 
use of
tests and measurements.  Note it is not computers that are the 
p[roblem or
the programming, but the notion of a test like this.  IO tests too. 
 I
have suffered from those in my life!

I'll go into one thing here about my result, to give an example:

It called me a recluse.  Now that is close enough to be called 
'accurate'
but far enough off the mark to be w r o n g.  Now I have enough 
experience
and self esteme and knowledge of personality assesment to say that, 
so
that's fine.  I'd say I valued my own personal space and time, I 
have at
this point in my life found a way of not always being at the beck 
and call
of others.  Recluse?  perhaps.  Solitary?  Perhaps.  One thing is 
that
cyberspace is a meeting ground for us while we are solitary, now 
that was
not included in the assessment.  I think as I mutter here I am 
getting to
the point.  Far from being a recluse I want these sorts of things 
said to
me by a person in a relationship, in a context.  I can then say AH! 
you
experience me as a recluse we can then dialogue about that.  I did 
that
with my partner & she immediatly said no not a recluse.  I never 
feel like
a computer widow.  So I managed to have the dialogue.  So that was 
fine.

Now what of others?  Some may take these tests as gospel.  
Especially when
it is not Mindprober off the computer but the Myers Briggs 
administered by
an expert.  That is a worry!

What do others think.  It brings up the whole mature of psychology 
and I
am aware that there are exellent people doing good work with people 
who
use these abominations of modern research.  I'd say the good work is
despite the tests, the humanity winningout over the obstacles.  
Call me a
luddite.

Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:43 2000
Date: (1573)   Sat 19 Mar 94 17:19                         
From: LANKTREE DAVIES
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
WL>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 02:40:35 -0600
WL>Reply-To: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
WL>Sender: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
WL>From: HEATH MICHAEL REZABEK <REZABEH1648@COBRA.UNI.EDU>
WL>Subject: Subject: Noise
WL>Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU
WL>Status: O

Who is this from; I cannot figure the above out

WL>power is a very tenuous thing down in here.  power only exists 
so long as
WL>there are people willing to entertain it.  sure, the person can 
still pull
WL>the plugs and push the buttons, but if there's no-one there to 
be pushed
WL>or pulled, the *phoof* their power is gone.

I am a bit concerned about this "power" thing.  One of the nice 
aspects
of this medium is that I thought I had left the power struggle
behind.......silly me.

WL>i said, fuck off, post the stuff we need to know to sub and 
unsub people

I really enjoy a funny story.  One that stcks with is "an old man is
sitting on the running board of an even older truck in the middle 
of the
Australian dessert.  A land rover stops and the occupants 'whats
happened?'        'Fuckin fucker's fucking well fucked' is the 
reply."

The remark is so over the top I find it very funny.
But otherwise, though I swear a lot, I don't find swearing all that
great an addition to the written word.
Prissy, aint I?

WL>there ARE such things as self-organizing systems.  and the ONLY 
principle
WL>they operate on [well, for communities] is the tenuous fabric of 
mutual
WL>trust, dignity, and respect.

Now you are talking.

Lanktree

___
  SLMR 2.1a  
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:43 2000
Date: (1579)   Sun 20 Mar 94  0:56                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Re: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6b31d1b2

WL>>Date:         Wed, 16 Mar 1994 02:40:35 -0600
WL>>Reply-To: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
WL>>Sender: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
WL>>From: HEATH MICHAEL REZABEK <REZABEH1648@COBRA.UNI.EDU>
WL>>Subject:      Subject: Noise
WL>>Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU
WL>>(imported from txt file) of list FUTUREC 
<FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
WL>>Status: O

 LD> Who is this from; I cannot figure the above out

From: HEATH MICHAEL REZABEK <REZABEH1648@COBRA.UNI.EDU> He has no 
idea I
pinched it for discussion here, I hope he doesn't mind.  I have 
changed
the quote marks below to reflect the true author.

HMR>>power is a very tenuous thing down in here. power only exists 
so long
HMR>>as there are people willing to entertain it.  sure, the person 
can
HMR>>still pull the plugs and push the buttons, but if there's no-one
HMR>>there to be pushed or pulled, the *phoof* their power is gone.

 LD> I am a bit concerned about this "power" thing.  One of the nice
 LD> aspects of this medium is that I thought I had left the power
 LD> struggle behind.......silly me.

I was amazed to see the commands in the software people use to 
conference
live on CompuServe.  There are commands to just never see anything a
particular person writes, and also to hide anything you write from 
that
person.  This can be made obvious to them or not!!  It is this sort 
of
power we have here, eliminate someone by the push of a key.

HMR>>i said, fuck off, post the stuff we need to know to sub and 
unsub
HMR>>people

 LD> I really enjoy a funny story.  One that stcks with is "an old
 LD> man is sitting on the running board of an even older truck in
 LD> the middle of the Australian dessert.  A land rover stops and
 LD> the occupants 'whats happened?'        'Fuckin fucker's fucking
 LD> well fucked' is the reply."

 LD> The remark is so over the top I find it very funny.
 LD> But otherwise, though I swear a lot, I don't find swearing all
 LD> that great an addition to the written word.
 LD> Prissy, aint I?

Ah well I imagine the Australian story is true, that is how the 
fuckers
fuckin well talk over there, I know I am one.  Also I imagine the 
chap
from the internet is just babbling on in his usual way, I agree it 
looks
worse in the written word, but then again we are here somewhere 
between
talking & writing.  As the glossary said in the Cyber-Guide, TBT 
talking
by typing.

HMR>>there ARE such things as self-organizing systems.  and the ONLY
HMR>>principle they operate on [well, for communities] is the tenuous
HMR>>fabric of mutual trust, dignity, and respect.

 LD> Now you are talking.

Well, Heath is, er well TBT that is!  Yes his sentiment is 
wonderful here
but the underlying idea is that if we have all those things then we 
do not
need restricted access to message areas, to me that is cart before 
horse.
I think if there is a little less reliance on the self-organizing
principle and the organizers do a good job then the trust dignity &
respect is more likely to flow.  The trouble is that if organizers 
do a
good job then often they are accused of power trips.


What do you think Lanktree?

I hope Miles will respond here as, I imagine may have another 
perspective
on this.


Warm regards,

Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:53 2000
Date: (2383)   Sat 16 Apr 94  1:55                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 55
@MSGID: 3:770/270 457e49ba
@REPLY: 3:770/270 6b31d1b2


HMR>>>if there's noone there to be pushed or pulled, 
HMR>>>the(n) *phoof* their power is gone.

 LD>> I am a bit concerned about this "power" thing.
Me too, even though I am a young male person. Still, unless 
information
becomes important, material, literal? or hardformed, theres not too 
much
problems. The nutty sysop isn't going to leap out of the screen and 
grab 
you by the neck, is he? 
I recieved an interesting ticking off from an angered sysop...
"(we) don't want to pay for that sort of crap to be sent around the 
country
and if you don't like it you can (fuck off)" sort of thing. I was 
much
taken aback that he should be so in a position that he actually 
went to
the point of JUDGING me... how naieve of me. All I did was write 
HAHAHAHAHA
x50 in reply to someone who had predicted that we would have FPP, 
and some
other stuff. I thought maybe it was an automatic message based on 
looking 
for repitition. THEN I got a special (presumably automatic) bulletin
coming up to "thank me for contribution to POLITI_..." It looks 
like its 
going to be the computers that end up with all the "power" in 
cyberspace????
But I'm heading for "process loss" 
 
HMR>>> there are such things as self-organising systems.
Well I believe there are. In my mind its a mathematical term, and 
applying maths to social systems is obviously oversymplifing things,
so HMR's point should have been left to stand on its own, without
using the phrase, since his next comment 
HMR>>> they operate on [well, for communities]
HMR>>> the tenuous fabric of mutual trust dignity and respect. 
Which is all very well but probably is not in any way linked to the
fact that he is talking about "self organising systems". Do I
sound like I'm defending my discipline and trying to maintain
its proprieteriship of certain concepts... OH NO.. I DO.
I probably AM.
I apologise.

Any way, in terms of what I can offer as another perspective I'll 
concentrate on the light which Maths can offer to the debate.
Self organising systems need to be 
Far from equilibrium (and must therefore have high energy levels)
which I interpret (in terms of relevance to here) as meaning that 
it  
is full of energy and each input tends to resolve less than 
stimulate more.
bla bla.
OK I'm confused.
But the *key* thing in terms of s.o.s.'s is COMPLEXITY. Complexity 
creates 
its own order to sit within. To understand this better, lets say 
you have
a picture, you can store it in memory in many ways. If it is highly 
complex
it will not be possible to summarise with a few short rules, ie. "a 
blue
square on a white background" and thus it will take a larger amount 
of 
memory. The thing about sos's is that they have complexity (A) and 
then 
they must naturally store this complexity(B) within the confines of 
the
system. In the real world this rule is forced ????? and so the 
complexity
AS of its OWN nature creates a set of rules and ORGANISATION within 
which
it can store itself. But THEN it is a far from equilibrium system, 
so, 
somehow more complexity is sucked in from the outside (C) (perhaps 
it is
attracted to a set of organistaion within which it can make sense) 
and so 
then it has even more complexity and thus keeps building 
organisation.
This is essentially garbage, but its relevance to the sysops may be 
that...
They should make rules that encourage the growth of more rules.
Perhaps organistation is inevitable, but perhaps the better way to 
look 
at it is that where there is a need, organisation will become 
neccessary 
to increase energy, and wherever there is a lot of (disorganised)
energy, there is a need for organisation. Otherwise, organisation 
will not
help to stimulate energy, but rather crush it.
I am disturbed at the fact that each of my above sentences 
don't even slightly imply the next and that I keep sucking in ideas 
from  
intuition, because it suggests that this is not an argument but a 
rant.
Never mind.(Do not reply to that -just try not to)
What is really exciting me at the moment is the concept of 
*complexity*.
What does it mean to you? Can you think of examples which
contrast or define it?






Miles Thompson

... Oh never mind!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 55
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:53 2000
Date: (2386)   Sat 16 Apr 94  3:43                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 bd2d16eb
@REPLY: 3:770/270 457e49ba

Great to see you back on.  with a COMPLEX message <g>.  I will pick 
up on
a couple of sentences and then go to bed, look at the time!

 MT> ... They should make rules that encourage the growth of
 MT> more rules.

What a good idea.  Along the lines of not giving the 3rd world food 
but
tractors.  Rules to you of course are simply operators in 
mathematical
space.  For most of us they are the things that bloody teachers 
tried to
stuff up our lives with.  So I'd like a word with warmer 
connotations.  I
am thinking too that it is not just the word.  More like good 
deeds.  one
good deed deserves another.  Pleasant behaviour generates a 
climate, or a
norm of the same.  perhaps a tendency to conformity?  Entropy?
Equilibrium?

 MT> What is
 MT> really exciting me at the moment is the concept of
 MT> *complexity*. What does it mean to you? Can you think of
 MT> examples which contrast or define it?

One wonderful thought I have had is that the uncanny phenomena of 
parallel
process that psychotherapists are very familiar with is because human
interaction is a fractal.  For example shops tend to do well or 
poorly on
the same day, for inexplicable reasons.  My brothers antique shop 
seemed
to have high takings on the same day that a hairdresser friend had 
high
takings 50k away.  I can sort of see us surfing on the waves of role
relationships and generating more waves as we go.  Our higher 
power?  I
can see how it would despond to prayer!

I have no idea if this is at all related to your thoughts or your 
message,
but WTH.

May we have many more interesting discussions!

BTW Daniel got off to Japan fine, but we have not heard from him as 
yet.
he is intending to get onto Psybernet  when he settles down.  So he 
may
get tin on the act.  I expect the real world be too demanding for 
much
virtual world to be attractive.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:54 2000
Date: (2389)   Sat 16 Apr 94 12:10                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 534e7352
@REPLY: 3:770/270 bd2d16eb
 > a couple of sentences and then go to bed, look at the time!

 > Rules to you of course are simply operators in
 > mathematical space.  For most of us they are the things
 > that teachers tried to bloody stuff up our lives with.
I'm really happy that I was understood as intended. I actually
thought the word 'rule' had the wrong connotations. Language is
a better concept, in the sense that language is a set of rules
associating meaning with TBT/sounds etc.

 > MT> What is really exciting me at the moment is the concept of
 > MT> *complexity*.
 > One wonderful thought I have had is that...
 > interaction is a fractal.  For example shops tend to do well
 > or poorly on the same day, for inexplicable reasons.
 > I can see how it would (r)espond to prayer!
 > I have no idea if this is at all related to your thoughts or
 > your message,

In a way it is suprising, but I think these two things are related,
to get back to the idea of complexity not having room to fit into
reality, how can our ideas, and thoughts fit into reality. They are
ordered according to an incredibly large organised set of rules, 
and so can
be *complex*. Thankyou for *stimulating* this idea of fitting in etc.
I never looked at it like that before, I think I'll need to think 
about this
a bit more.
NB notice that the words "fitting in" also describe the same sort 
of phenomenon when applied to a person meshing with another groups 
set of rules.???

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 71 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:55 2000
Date: (2514)   Thu 21 Apr 94 21:50                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 61
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ec6526ac
@REPLY: 3:770/270 c6a5f70d
 MT>> ...language is a set of rules
 MT>> associating meaning with TBT/sounds etc.
 WL> What is TBT?
 TalkingByTyping or something wasn't it?, as you shall see later,
 its a shame if acronyms are not remembered.
 
 WL> I suppose that is one way of looking at it, that all language 

 WL> ...make for democracy?  I am still thinking about... developing 
 WL> a good climate and creating 'rules' that create 
 WL> 'rules'.  
 Perhaps we should get away from this 'rule' concept entirely. The 
Sysop 
 imposes limits and structures in ther ways than this. In your
 work as a facilitator? I'm sure you don't say... "Rule one:no 
speaking 
 while others speak, rule two: etc... or maybe you do, except more 
subtly.

 WL> I'd like to see us develop styles of work 
 WL> and teachable principles that would have the potency to have 
far 
 WL> reaching effects into the cyberspace (and every day) culture.  
 Who better to develop these new realities than a group of 
psychologists/
 counsellors? BTW I hope their are others listening into this 
conversation
 and that they'll jump in ifwhatsoeveras they see fit, I would've 
addressed
 it to all, but i keep finding myself using the second person.
 I'd love to develop new styles of...etc
 I was very impressed with your new introduction to Psybernet,
 it was very inspiring and put into my head all the things you can
 do that I hadn't thought of. Two things with relation to that;
 I like the idea of psybernet_echo summary thing. Also, it seems 
that if 
 you could get things to leap out at people, to be more active, 
then, in 
 a psychology/ergonomics way it would make people more able to work 
 with the environment (and excite them to). An idea perhaps for 
later 
 (when the data transfer rates go up), is to show the threads 
 of discussion as a tree diagram 
 which you could click on at various locations to enter, and to 
have  
 votes from those engaged in the discussion to determine which 
message 
 they think best for the title page/entry point/summary or conclusion
 of their argument.
 Secondly, I now realise what I missed out on in not taking part in
 the last Alterworld. I hope there is another or similar thing soon.
 Only now do I believe that it is possible to take on a
 role within this environment. In other BBS's I have used an alias,
 for the hell of it, but that doesn't mean anything when it is so
 wide open that people won't necessarily know what your character
 is like. This brings us back to the idea of defining a space
 to allow freedom. I guess the Alterworld concept works without 
 restricted access because this is such a close-knit community here.

 WL> I can't see censorship working, or I would be all for it.
 I think I'm always against censorship in that it tends to subvert
 reality in a way not intended as a result of the power relations
 it entails? It is too blunt an instrument. - Although, if there is 
censor
 ship in the world at large, there should be censorship here too.
 The actions of a number of people, or of a particular cultural 
heritage
 /newly created culture are a much more complex instrument that 
attack
 the issue in the areas that count, and more accurately because 
 large numbers of people are making judgement calls in a lot of
 different places.

 WL> Perhaps looking at these social issues obscures the microcosm 
of 
 WL> one BBS and the development of principles that could come from 
 WL> just looking at what we are doing here.  We have had several 
 WL> power struggles here and they have not been fully explored as 
 WL> yet. 

 Oh yeah. Well, I don't know what to say about the power issues on 
 this board except, stick with it. I think it is a good idea to
 work on what we have and not be too abstract the whole time.
 Although I seldom put this into practice.

 
 Good on Daniel for getting a job so SOON!! Japan, what an
 extraodinary place. Excellent, I hope he is wowed out and excited.
 (I am).


 "See" you later.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 61
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:55 2000
Date: (2460)   Tue 19 Apr 94 15:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c6a5f70d
@REPLY: 3:770/270 534e7352

 MT> What on earth ARE you doing up at this time? Or me for that
 MT> matter.

Addicted?

 MT> I'm really happy that I was understood as intended. I actually
 MT> thought the word 'rule' had the wrong connotations. Language is
 MT> a better concept, in the sense that language is a set of rules
 MT> associating meaning with TBT/sounds etc.

What is TBT?

 >> MT> What is really exciting me at the moment is the concept of
 >> MT> *complexity*.
 >> One wonderful thought I have had is that...
 >> interaction is a fractal.  For example shops tend to do well
 >> or poorly on the same day, for inexplicable reasons.
 >> I can see how it would (r)espond to prayer!
 >> I have no idea if this is at all related to your thoughts or
 >> your message,

 MT> In a way it is suprising, but I think these two things are
 MT> related, to get back to the idea of complexity not having room
 MT> to fit into reality, how can our ideas, and thoughts fit into
 MT> reality. They are ordered according to an incredibly large
 MT> organised set of rules, and so can be *complex*. Thankyou for
 MT> *stimulating* this idea of fitting in etc.

Did I do that?  I am a bit lost.
I suppose that is one way of looking at it, that all language is a 
sort of
huge conceptual framework that has no real bearing on reality, is 
that
what you are getting at?

 MT> NB notice that the words "fitting in" also describe the
 MT> same sort of phenomenon when applied to a person meshing with
 MT> another groups set of rules.???

Hmmm, yes, that brings us back again to relationships and power.

I have been reading Howard Rheingolds book on virtual communities and
thinking a lot about power in cyberspace.  There was a BBS that 
sounded
wonderful called CommuniTree.  Started in the stone age:  1979 or
something.  It had conferences on starting your own religion etc.  
They
allowed everyone to do their own thing and it got choked up and 
died with
mostly boys writing puerile stuff.

He also speaks of BBSes being a democratising force, enabling 
freedom of
speech, I wonder though . . . given that there are very violent and
pornographic and right wing boards, does that make for democracy?  
I am
still really thinking of your message about developing a good 
climate and
creating 'rules' that create 'rules'.  I have seen quite a few 
guidelines
to behaviour in cyberspace.  They are OK I will post them here if you
like, but they are artefacts.  I'd like to see us develop styles of 
work
and teachable principles that would have the potency to have far 
reaching
effects into the cyberspace (and every day) culture.  I see that 
there are
moves afoot to bring in censorship in NZ of BBSes.  I hate the 
thought of
the pornographic material being out there free in cyberspace and 
worse,
perhaps not so free with companies like Playboy getting in on the 
act.  I
can't see censorship working, or I would be all for it.

Perhaps looking at these social issues obscures the microcosm of 
one BBS
and the development of principles that could come from just looking 
at
what we are doing here.  We have had several power struggles here 
and they
have not been fully explored as yet.

So much on that for now.


BTW Daniel has a job teaching English and an apartment.  Homesick 
for all
that.

seeya soon

Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (2542)   Sat 23 Apr 94  1:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: POWER IN CYBERSPACE
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 84ae6885
@REPLY: 3:770/270 ec6526ac

 MT>  But there is more to it than that, for when a new
 MT>  language is constructed, a new chance to define a conceptual
 MT>  base is being created. e.g. words such as 'history' create the
 MT>  conceptual reality of a fixed and immutable past in everyone's
 MT>  mind, without acknowledging this - a sick concept.

You put this very clearly.  What you just wrote will have an impact 
on the
other 'pairing' I am in with Stanley.  Reg may find this relevant 
to his
psychodrama thesis which is on language and the warm-up it creates

 MT>  to the power in cyberspace question you seem so interested in
 MT>  (we are all interested in). The sysop can create some of the
 MT>  relevances (the items, or units with which people conceptually
 MT>  work). What you want, for a culture to spring up, is for there
 MT>  to be many of these with which people can work - such as Alias
 MT>  names, or message areas? An interesting book on this subject
 MT>  is "The Social Construction Of Reality" by Peter L Berger and
 MT>  Thomas Luckmann. (England, 1966)

In correspondence on Sick Ideas, we are just up to the question of 
how
much power ideas can have.  This has been a theme here since day 
one when
I wondered about the use of metaphor here.  I wanted to have a DEPTH
conference to create a warm-up to looking beneath the surface etc.
Perhaps it worked and we are riding a ripple of that input.  Do you 
think
there should be more 'relevance units' available for people to 
build the
culture?  I like that, stimulates me, and you will see that I am 
about to
put up two other messages with new words, perhaps we could call 
them RU's
('relevance units').

 MT>  Perhaps software could be
 MT>  written which would cross reference the acronyms to their
 MT>  definitions while a person was reading the text

I am using WORD and I have just saved TBT and RU as glossaries, all 
I need
to do (while in WORD) is type the acronym and the full description 
comes
up with a press on <f3> (different key in older versions), 
TalkingByTyping
& 'relevance units'.  I also have them for EDR (every day reality) 
NZAP
New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists etc.

 MT>  Me and my friends have
 MT>  played with the idea of creating words when we cannot find the
 MT>  right one, (such as -'The isle of Arin'; an island into which
 MT>  one sometimes can travel, and in which you are isolated from
 MT>  reality, but connected to your mind and a place in which
 MT>  'psyconscious' thoughts spring easily to mind - a place which
 MT>  you enter to attain the state of 'aris'. (Are-ris). Or
 MT>  "psyconscious"; the type of thinking which you engage in when
 MT>  your subconsciousness and your consciousness are perfectly
 MT>  linked, encouraging the full utilisation of our subconscious
 MT>  abilities to the ends which we require in the moment.)

Wow, sounds like what Jung called the active imagination.  Keep at 
it and
you could start an area here called 'The Isle of Arin' where we 
could go
for a bit of a trip.  BTW what about using the conscious to serve 
the ends
of the subconscious?  Who is the boss?  <g>

 MT>  Perhaps
 MT>  we can all play with creating words on this message base, it
 MT>  should enable us to begin working easily with concepts that we
 MT>  have defined for ourselves - thus spring boarding us into a
 MT>  new conceptual world??

Interesting.  One of the things the ALTERWORLD did not have was a 
spatial
metaphor.  The creatures hung in cyberspace, relating to the living 
and
the dead.  The MUD (for definition see the PsyGloss file which I 
have just
updated and have with due respect added the 'The Isle of Arin'.  
Could we
create a conceptual world that was not spatial?  We are in a thing 
called
a thread, ie 'Power in Cyberspace' with in that thread we are 
'pairing' ie
creating a 'string' of correspondence between two people.  Some one 
could
ask us to PMFJI (Pardon me for jumping in, ), though as Reg has 
pointed
out we could use better descriptions than jumping which creates a 
sense of
a somewhat aggressive intrusion.  Do all these words create the 
start of a
new conceptual world?  Could we develop words for the ways threads 
cross
over, the ways they are born and live & die?  I have been 
discussing this
quite a bit in MEDSIG on CIS, and it became clear that the 
terminology of
group work can be successfully used to look at the life in a
correspondence in cyberspace.  I will post up some bits of my 
unfinished
psychodrama thesis explaining the focal conflict model developed by

Whitaker, D.S. and Lieberman, M.A. 1965
Psychotherapy Through the Group Process.  Atherton Press, N.Y.

But not to get too side tracked, I'll sum up where I think our 
discussion
is at:

'Power in Cyberspace' has led onto how we can use language to create
worlds.  But can we? see Stanley's message today in 'Sick Ideas'. 
Heroes
that we are we will give it a good go.

 MT>  Something you mentioned in another discussion seems relevant
 MT>  here, that as a therapist you often need to define a space in
 MT>  which people can speak freely. This general principle probably
 MT>  translates across into the net culture issue, but I think it
 MT>  would be a mistake simply to think of the role of the Sysop as
 MT>  equivalent to the "facilitator?". The question is more
 MT>  complicated.

I am so pleased you have named this.  Reg & I have spoken of it
frequently, yet not quite defined the distinction.  I have in mind
something of the difference between the 'producer' and the 
'director' in a
movie.  As Sysop I do run the whole show but who I get to do what, 
while
up to me, will determine the actual nature of the place.  Reg has 
had a go
at the ALTERWORLD, I have got something brewing, the Theatre and 
Stage,
you may have the 'The Isle of Arin' going one day. That is more the 
role
of facilitator etc.  Did you have something else in mind?

 MT>  BTW I hope their are others
 MT>  listening into this conversation and that they'll jump in
 MT>  ifwhatsoeveras they see fit

I love that feeling, it starts by posting up something with a new 
title
then 'pairing' starts or perhaps there is a 'flurry' of response, 
then
others come in. . .

 MT>  Although, if there is censor ship in the world at large, there
 MT>  should be censorship here too.

Is that because if it does not apply here it creates a porn 
enclave.  A
bit like Amsterdam?  It will be relatively easy to keep this board 
free
from out right porn, I do not need a definition to work from, I 
know it
when I see it and it is my job to state the boundaries.  When it 
comes to
the finer tuning I hope that there is a high degree of involvement. 
 That
means I am laying down the broad confines of what this BBS is on 
about and
one thing is to have intelligent discussion about these very things.

"See" you later.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:45 2000
Date: (1773)   Sun 27 Mar 94 12:45                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 6
@MSGID: 3:770/270 fc6f1672
@REPLY: 3:770/270 2cec412e

On 27 Mar 94 12:47am, Walter Logeman wrote to John Hicks:

 WL> Hello John,

 WL> Yes that too, but I recall speaking to you when you were 
having a bit of
 WL> difficulty uploading the file.

I am not sure what happened there.  It worked alright the next time 
I tried
it and I didn't do anything different.

 JH>> I am thinking about getting the more up to date version of
 JH>> mindprober and offering to do analyses, for a small fee, say
 JH>> between $5 - $10 to begin with. Then if it catches on, I may
 JH>> get a few more programs from the states, depending on whether I
 JH>> can afford them and they don't cost the earth and form a small
 JH>> business out of it <--- that reads, very small business.

 WL> Hmmm

I have reserved a book at the public library which has the address 
in it as
well as a bit about the mindprober program (1989 edition) as well 
as other
programs along similar lines.  I have also faxed a request to the 
states to a
company which sells hardware and some softare for psychological 
uses eg sound
and light machines, some of which plug into an ibm computer as 
cards, and
they can source any thing along those lines if its available 
anywhere.

 JH>> I've had a myers-briggs one done and it closely resembled the
 JH>> mindprober in that both said I was introverted and intuitive.
 JH>> I think the myers-briggs evaluation was INFP or INFT -
 JH>> something like that anyhow.

 WL> Ah do you think it was accurate?  Was it useful to have those 
traits
 WL> mirrored back to you?  Did you have to pay or was it part of 
some work
 WL> sponsored training group.

I've known for a long time that I'm introverted and prefer my own 
company to
that of other people and can spend long periods without seeing much 
of anyone
as that is what I grew up with and therefore I'm used to it.  As 
for being
intuitive, I listen to my intuition alot although I don't always 
follow its
advice and learn the hard way.  Being a Christian, its like hearing 
the
"still, small voice" - in actual fact there's practically no 
difference.  I
had to pay about $20 to have it done and it was in a group setting 
where the
leader took us through a questionaire and we filled in the blanks, 
honestly.
Near the end of the session, we found out about the different 
groupings of
letters and what they meant and applied them to our questionaire to 
find out
what group we belonged to.  The secretary at my workplace a few 
years ago had
done a similar course as part of further training in her job and 
did the test
on me and came out with almost the same result of INFP.  She told 
me she knew
there was something about my comprehension in understadning logical 
things
and having a high score on intuition was the thing she sussed out 
about me.
I have had to get people to repeat simple things ( ie to most 
people) and
"draw" a picture of what was being said before I could understand it.

WL>> Call me a luddite.

 JH>> A what?  Where's my thesaurus....?

 WL> Did you find the thesaurus?  (It was not in mine in Word)

No.
 WL> A follower
 WL> of a chap called Ludd who did not trust machines.  They went 
around
 WL> smashing them up.  If you read my message you will see that I 
may want
 WL> to start doing the same!

A friend looked it up in his dictionary and came up with a similar
definition.

 WL> Good to hear from you,

And from you too.  Bye.

John Hicks

... Happy as a Pig in Mud!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 6
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:45 2000
Date: (1766)   Sun 27 Mar 94  0:47                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2cec412e

 WL>> Thanks for the upload, you managed to do the technical thing 
ok too.

 JH> You mean leave a message in the description area of the file
 JH> upload?

Yes that too, but I recall speaking to you when you were having a 
bit of
difficulty uploading the file.

 WL>> Well we have been busy at home doing everyone & it has been 
fun. It
 WL>> is somehow very accurate eh!

 WL>> For all that the prog represents something I dont like about 
the use
 WL>> of tests and measurements.  Note it is not computers that are 
the
 WL>> problem or the programming, but the notion of a test like 
this.  IQ
 WL>> tests too. I have suffered from those in my life!

 JH> I am thinking about getting the more up to date version of
 JH> mindprober and offering to do analyses, for a small fee, say
 JH> between $5 - $10 to begin with. Then if it catches on, I may
 JH> get a few more programs from the states, depending on whether I
 JH> can afford them and they don't cost the earth and form a small
 JH> business out of it <--- that reads, very small business.

Hmmm

 JH> I've had a myers-briggs one done and it closely resembled the
 JH> mindprober in that both said I was introverted and intuitive.
 JH> I think the myers-briggs evaluation was INFP or INFT -
 JH> something like that anyhow.

Ah do you think it was accurate?  Was it useful to have those traits
mirrored back to you?  Did you have to pay or was it part of some 
work
sponsored training group.

 WL>> Call me a luddite.

 JH> A what?  Where's my thesaurus....?

Did you find the thesaurus?  (It was not in mine in Word)  A 
follower of a
chap called Ludd who did not trust machines.  They went around 
smashing
them up.  If you read my message you will see that I may want to 
start
doing the same!


Good to hear from you,


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:45 2000
Date: (1762)   Sat 26 Mar 94 21:32                         
From: JOHN HICKS
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 WL> Hi John,
 >> Hi everyone out there in cyberspace.  I have just a
 >> few moments ago, uploaded a program called Mind-
 >> Prober.


 WL> Thanks for the upload, you managed to do the technical thing 
ok too.
You mean leave a message in the description area of the file upload?

 WL> Well we have been busy at home doing everyone & it has been 
fun. It is
 WL> somehow very accurate eh!

 WL> For all that the prog represents something I dont like about 
the use of
 WL> tests and measurements.  Note it is not computers that are the 
problem
 WL> or the programming, but the notion of a test like this.  IQ 
tests too.
 WL> I have suffered from those in my life!

I am thinking about getting the more up to date version of 
mindprober and
offering to do analyses, for a small fee, say between $5 - $10 to 
begin with.
Then if it catches on, I may get a few more programs from the states,
depending on whether I can afford them and they don't cost the 
earth and form
a small business out of it <--- that reads, very small business.

  WL> I'll go into one thing here about my result, to give an 
example:

 WL> It called me a recluse.  Now that is close enough to be called
 WL> 'accurate' but far enough off the mark to be w r o n g.  Now I 
have
 WL> enough experience and self esteme and knowledge of personality
 WL> assesment to say that, so that's fine.  I'd say I valued my own
 WL> personal space and time, I have at this point in my life found 
a way of
 WL> not always being at the beck and call of others.  Recluse?  
perhaps.
 WL> Solitary?  Perhaps.  One thing is that cyberspace is a meeting 
ground
 WL> for us while we are solitary, now that was not included in the
 WL> assessment.

 WL> Now what of others?  Some may take these tests as gospel.  
Especially
 WL> when it is not Mindprober off the computer but the Myers Briggs
 WL> administered by an expert.  That is a worry!

I've had a myers-briggs one done and it closely resembled the 
mindprober in
that both said I was introverted and intuitive.  I think the 
myers-briggs
evaluation was INFP or INFT - something like that anyhow.

 WL> Call me a luddite.

A what?  Where's my thesaurus....?


JOHN HICKS

... CAUTION! Silver Xpress roaring through here!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 5
 * Silver Xpress V4.00
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:46 2000
Date: (1777)   Sun 27 Mar 94 13:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b2b45259
@REPLY: 3:770/270 fc6f1672

 JH> I've known for a long time that I'm introverted and prefer my
 JH> own company to that of other people and can spend long periods
 JH> without seeing much of anyone as that is what I grew up with
 JH> and therefore I'm used to it.

Yes me too, I guess that is one of the reasons this way of being with
people suits, best of both worlds, the space & silence of solitude 
plus
the company of the whole clan here and perhaps the WORLD, you never 
know
how far these messages go echoing around the world.

 JH> As for being intuitive, I listen
 JH> to my intuition a lot although I don't always follow its advice
 JH> and learn the hard way.  Being a Christian, its like hearing
 JH> the "still, small voice" - in actual fact there's practically
 JH> no difference.

Ah!  "still, small voice"  what does this little stream of life 
have to
say, .... perhaps right now ....  being here  ....  so exposed .... 
for
the whole world to see???  Maybe give it some life anonymously in the
ALTERWORLD or let us know here, I think I will like that little 
voice.  I
have been noticing that here in Psybernet as people let these voices
speak, something divine emerges & struggles to be free.

Look forward to hearing from you.


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:46 2000
Date: (1784)   Sun 27 Mar 94 18:59                         
From: JOHN HICKS
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent

On 27 Mar 94 01:27pm, WALTER LOGEMAN wrote to JOHN HICKS:

 WL> Hello John,

 JH>> I've known for a long time that I'm introverted and prefer my
 JH>> own company to that of other people and can spend long periods
 JH>> without seeing much of anyone as that is what I grew up with
 JH>> and therefore I'm used to it.

 WL> Yes me too, I guess that is one of the reasons this way of 
being with
 WL> people suits, best of both worlds, the space & silence of 
solitude plus
 WL> the company of the whole clan here and perhaps the WORLD, you 
never know
 WL> how far these messages go echoing around the world.

I find that when I am by myself, there's a lot more "inner talk" 
than when I
am with other people.  That is when my mind "blanks out" and I am 
stuck for
something to say and come across as being shy.  Although I have 
come out of
my shell over the past several years, I feel there is still a wee 
way to go.
I've had my confidence boosted on two occasions recently, and 
unexpectedly.
It was like I was "injected with a hyperdermic needle" with fresh 
confidence.
Where it came from, I don't know but I haven't been the same since. 
 I feel
a lot better within myself because of these two boosts.


 JH>> Being a Christian, its like hearing
 JH>> the "still, small voice" - in actual fact there's practically
 JH>> no difference.

 WL> Ah!  "still, small voice"  what does this little stream of 
life have to
 WL> say, .... perhaps right now ....  being here  ....  so exposed 
.... for
 WL> the whole world to see???  Maybe give it some life anonymously 
in the
 WL> ALTERWORLD or let us know here, I think I will like that 
little voice.
 WL> I have been noticing that here in Psybernet as people let 
these voices
 WL> speak, something divine emerges & struggles to be free.

The "still, small voice" in Christian circles, is the "voice" of 
your spirit
and it's not often heard unless you're waiting to hear it OR your 
mind is
relatively calm and not cluttered with everyday things, then it 
could pop up
unexpectedly.  I've learnt to recognise this "voice" by practise.  
It isn't
an audible voice in your head, it's more of a very quick impression 
but a lot
can be "said" in a moment using this form of communication between 
your
spirit or the Holy Spirit and your mind.

As for being exposed, well, I don't really mind that much as long 
as it's
through this type of medium.  If it was face to face, I feel I 
couldn't be so
open.  I have had counselling with Arahua Counselling Centre and my
counseller discovered that it was a lot easier for me to close my 
eyes and
block out my surroundings and talk about anything than for my eyes 
to be open
and my mind to be reasonably blank.  She drew a diagram on a 
whiteboard with
me in the centre, a bubble surrounding me then another bubble 
surrounding the
first bubble and I think another bubble surrounding the 2nd bubble. 
 I can't
quite remember the gist of the bubbles but I think they represented 
walls
that I had put up to block out other people and the innermost bubble
protected me from peoples ridicule.  I think those bubbles are now 
beginning
to burst and other people, myself included are starting to see a 
"me" we've
never seen before.  I guess I am starting to see the real me, the 
way I was
created to be (xcuse the rhyme - not intended).

   WL> Look forward to hearing from you.

And you too.

 Bye.
Ŀ
Xpress User                                                     


... Strike it RICH, with Silver Xpress!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 6
 * Silver Xpress V4.00
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:47 2000
Date: (1830)   Mon 28 Mar 94 18:12                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5593412d

 JH> across as being shy.  Although I have come out of my shell over
 JH> the past several years, I feel there is still a wee way to go.
 JH> I've had my confidence boosted on two occasions recently, and
 JH> unexpectedly. It was like I was "injected with a hyperdermic
 JH> needle" with fresh confidence. Where it came from, I don't know
 JH> but I haven't been the same since.  I feel a lot better within
 JH> myself because of these two boosts.

Thank goodness for the boosts!

 JH> The "still, small voice" in Christian circles, is the "voice"
 JH> of your spirit and it's not often heard unless you're waiting
 JH> to hear it OR your mind is relatively calm and not cluttered
 JH> with everyday things, then it could pop up unexpectedly.  I've
 JH> learnt to recognise this "voice" by practise.  It isn't an
 JH> audible voice in your head, it's more of a very quick
 JH> impression but a lot can be "said" in a moment using this form
 JH> of communication between your spirit or the Holy Spirit and
 JH> your mind.

Yes, I am still curious to hear what it is saying as you enter 
Psybernet.
I understand it is a profound voice, and that is why I wondered if it
would wish to be 'heard' here.  Can "still, small voice" actually 
begin to
speak here!  Can you listen to it now and do the typing for it?

 JH> As for being exposed, well, I don't really mind that much as
 JH> long as it's through this type of medium.

 JH> walls that I had put up to block out other people and the
 JH> innermost bubble protected me from peoples ridicule.  I think
 JH> those bubbles are now beginning to burst and other people,
 JH> myself included are starting to see a "me" we've never seen
 JH> before.  I guess I am starting to see the real me, the way I
 JH> was created to be (xcuse the rhyme - not intended).

The counselling sounds like it was useful for you.  Do you see a
connection between the "still, small voice" and the real you who 
you are
discovering.  It is this question of who you really are and knowing 
that
that I grapple with in my life, so I am not asking this as just a
bystander!


see you,'


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (2028)   Mon 4 Apr 94  2:56                          
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 14
@MSGID: 3:770/270 73d1b9ce
@REPLY: 3:770/270 5593412d

On 28 Mar 94 06:12pm, Walter Logeman wrote to John Hicks:

 WL> Hello John,

Hi Walter,

 JH>> The "still, small voice" in Christian circles, is the "voice"
 JH>> of your spirit and it's not often heard unless you're waiting
 JH>> to hear it OR your mind is relatively calm and not cluttered
 JH>> with everyday things, then it could pop up unexpectedly.

 WL> Yes, I am still curious to hear what it is saying as you enter
 WL> Psybernet. I understand it is a profound voice, and that is 
why I
 WL> wondered if it would wish to be 'heard' here.  Can "still, 
small voice"
 WL> actually begin to speak here!  Can you listen to it now and do 
the
 WL> typing for it?

To listen to the still, small voice, your environment would 
preferably be a
quiet place although it can "pop" up at any time, say its piece and 
rapidly
disappear.  It's not something I can turn on and off like a tap,
unfortunately.  If you know how to listen to your intuition, then 
that is
much the same thing.  No, I can't dictate what it is saying because 
when it
does 'say' something then that is personal to me and probably 
wouldn't make
much sense to an outsider.  As for listening to it now, as I said 
above, I
can't turn it on and off like a light switch - when it comes it 
comes and
then its gone until next time.

 WL> Do you see a
 WL> connection between the "still, small voice" and the real you 
who you are
 WL> discovering.  It is this question of who you really are and 
knowing that
 WL> that I grapple with in my life, so I am not asking this as 
just a
 WL> bystander!

The still small voice is either the voice of my spirit or the Holy 
Spirit.
Everyone has their own spirit but not everyone has the Holy Spirit 
until it
is invited into a persons' life.

I've had numerous prophecies over my life from different pastors 
and gospel
teachers which, boiled down, basically say the same thing, that I 
am going to
hear very, very clearly from God.  I understand that listening to 
the still,
small voice and OBEYING it is a first step in hearing from God and 
I think
this is when the real me will start to emerge fully although I am 
starting to
open up like a sunflower now, in the past 6 months.  I've learnt to 
recognise
the voice of my spirit from the voice of my mind or another spirit by
practice.  The still, small voice is just that - still, small and 
more of an
impression than a voice.  I've only ever heard a literal voice 
twice and that
was last year on two different occasions.  Both were for guidance I 
believe.
I heard both while I was in a light sleep - actually a twilight 
state - and
it said its piece and was gone.  I had previously been wondering 
about
setting up a bbs and have wanted to do so since I first heard about 
computer
bbs's 15 years ago.  The "audible voice" said "Your business in 
life is to set
up a very large computer bbs system".  It took me by complete 
surprise and I
jumped awake fully to see who was in my room - there was no one 
there.  I was
left wondering about that for some months later.  I am still not 
sure about
it's origins.  It was certainly not threatening or menacing in any 
way and
sounded authoritative more than anything.  Do you have any clues as 
to why I
heard this, audibly?  Maybe, this is what was meant by hearing from 
God very
clearly. Maybe he is going to be audible?  What do you think?

Ŀ
Xpress User                                                     


... If you're not the lead dog, everything looks the same!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 14
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:50 2000
Date: (2061)   Tue 5 Apr 94 19:01                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 976fa25a
@REPLY: 3:770/270 73d1b9ce

 JH> To listen to the still, small voice, your environment would
 JH> preferably be a quiet place although it can "pop" up at any
 JH> time, say its piece and rapidly disappear.  It's not something
 JH> I can turn on and off like a tap, unfortunately.  If you know
 JH> how to listen to your intuition, then that is much the same
 JH> thing.  No, I can't dictate what it is saying because when it
 JH> does 'say' something then that is personal to me and probably
 JH> wouldn't make much sense to an outsider.  As for listening to
 JH> it now, as I said above, I can't turn it on and off like a
 JH> light switch - when it comes it comes and then its gone until
 JH> next time.

I understand what you are saying, you are speaking from a far more 
every-
day perspective and the "still, small voice" could pop up but it is
unlikely.

To call it much the same as intuition makes it clearer to me, but 
it is
the same by any name.  It is what it is, debate about that is not 
the same
as listening to it, which is the more worthwhile activity I think.  
My job
is to sit quietly with people for many hours each day and we both 
tune in
with intuition, though "still, small voice" is a fine description 
for what
I experience.  I would even link it in with something more than 
ordinary,
divine, spiritual.  The exact words are important to me, but mere 
fine
tuning in some way.

 WL>> Do you see a
 WL>> connection between the "still, small voice" and the real you 
who you
 WL>> are discovering.  It is this question of who you really are and
 WL>> knowing that that I grapple with in my life, so I am not 
asking this
 WL>> as just a bystander!

 JH> The still small voice is either the voice of my spirit or the
 JH> Holy Spirit. Everyone has their own spirit but not everyone has
 JH> the Holy Spirit until it is invited into a persons' life.

Ah John, welcome to this Virtual Community.  You may not 
consciously be
aware of it but this theme just who we are at a spiritual level and 
how
God (however we have come to understand him or her, as they say in 
AA)
relates to us is already very present here.  Have you gleaned that 
reading
the messages?  Your perspective on this is very different to the main
writers so far & I hope that you will find it OK to hang in there 
with the
differences!  I feel quite different to you on all this but I am 
willing
to hang in with our discussion.  I think you may have a lot to 
contribute
to this place.

 JH>  The "audible voice" said "Your business
 JH>  in life is to set up a very large computer bbs system".  It
 JH>  took me by complete surprise and I jumped awake fully to see
 JH>  who was in my room - there was no one there.  I was left
 JH>  wondering about that for some months later.  I am still not
 JH>  sure about it's origins.  It was certainly not threatening or
 JH>  menacing in any way and sounded authoritative more than
 JH>  anything.  Do you have any clues as to why I heard this,
 JH>  audibly?  Maybe, this is what was meant by hearing from God
 JH>  very clearly. Maybe he is going to be audible?  What do you
 JH>  think?

Well, I find your story amazing!  I have never experienced an audible
voice, though plenty that are loud and clear from 'within' or 
'without'
but not literally audible.  I am such a hard nosed type that I 
think of
the event you describe as psychological.  But when I say that I 
bring in
my experience of the psyche as a divine thing.  So yes I think God 
spoke
to you!  What I mean by that may not be exactly what you may mean, 
but who
knows.  What ever the interpretation, I trust that voice, to be 
listened
to, and to be listened to in a way that is true to the voice.  You 
say it
was authoritative, did that mean you wanted to obey or rebel? What 
does
authority mean for you?  God is hardly likely to come on 
authoritative
with someone who has suffered at the hands of authority, but it 
sounds
like it was a guiding voice eh!

See you soon,


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2169)   Sun 10 Apr 94  2:23                         
From: JOHN HICKS
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent


 JH>> To listen to the still, small voice, your environment would
 JH>> preferably be a quiet place although it can "pop" up at any
 JH>> time, say its piece and rapidly disappear.  It's not
 JH>> something I can turn on and off like a tap, unfortunately. If
 JH>> you know how to listen to your intuition, then that is much
 JH>> the same

 WL> I understand what you are saying, you are speaking from a
 WL> far more every- day perspective and the "still, small voice"
 WL> could pop up but it is unlikely.


I was preparing to go for a motorbike ride the other day when my
intuition told me to check my oil which is something I rarely do.
I said within myself "Nah, its alright" and proceeded to warm up
my engine.  My intuition again said "Check your oil" and again I
said "She'll be right".  The still small voice said once more to
check it so I thought to myself, "well it couldn't hurt and would
only take a moment" so I checked the dipstick and found there was
no oil in the motor - none on the dipstick anyhow where there
should be.  So I filled it up and am quite pleased I did and
obeyed the inner voice otherwise I might have had a nasty
accident.


 WL>  The exact words are important to me, but mere fine tuning
 WL>  in some way.

I have found in past experience that the more I listen and obey
the still small voice, the more regular it becomes and much more
accurate.  It is indeed, as you say, fine tuning.

 JH>> The still small voice is either the voice of my spirit or
 JH>> the Holy Spirit. Everyone has their own spirit but not
 JH>> everyone has the Holy Spirit until it is invited into a
 JH>> persons' life.

 WL> I think you may have alot to contribute to this place.

 JH>>  It was certainly not threatening or menacing in any
 JH>>  way and sounded authoritative more than anything.

 WL> You say it was authoritative, did that mean you wanted to
 WL> obey or rebel? What does authority mean for you?  God is
 WL> hardly likely to come on authoritative with someone who has
 WL> suffered at the hands of authority, but it sounds like it
 WL> was a guiding voice eh!


I believe in obeying people in authority.  What I think I meant
is that the voice didn't scare me at all as some "voices" can put
the sh*ts up a person and threaten a persons mental welfare - I
have a few friends that `hear "voices"' and they are often
threatening.  The voice I heard had no negativity about it at
all, that I recall.  Yes, I think it is kind of like a guiding
voice.  I would really like what it said to come true but I need
to win a lottery first to buy the equipment, rent office space,
hire staff to do research etc but then nothing is impossible
if you put your mind to a task and desire to see it through to
its completion.

Thanks for the reply.

see ya

<Enter Your Name Here>

... Silver Xpress!...... Don't Read Mail Without it!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 20
 * Silver Xpress V4.00
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:52 2000
Date: (2310)   Wed 13 Apr 94 18:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: PERSONALITY ASSESSMEN
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f0f0b30a

 JH> So I filled it up and am quite
 JH> pleased I did and obeyed the inner voice otherwise I might have
 JH> had a nasty accident.

Great!!
 JH> I believe in obeying people in authority.

Can you trust them though?  I'd let my 'still small voice' have the 
last
say (if that was safe of course.

 JH> I would really like what it said to come true but I need
 JH> to win a lottery first to buy the equipment, rent office space,
 JH> hire staff to do research etc but then nothing is impossible
 JH> if you put your mind to a task and desire to see it through to
 JH> its completion.

Hmmm, it can be done as a one man band on an ordinary machine.  It 
is an
enormous amount of work, but I imagine no matter how big it got 
youd need
to start small.  Thats whats happening here!  The soft ware and 
hard ware
etc is the half of it.  What about the theme or purpose?  Also you 
are
most welcome to clarify your thoughts here on these matters, who 
knows you
may find kindred spirits.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:46 2000
Date: (1788)   Mon 28 Mar 94  0:58                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: FutureCulture
St: Local Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 2b801f16
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

I am a subscriber to a Mailing list on the

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:46 2000
Date: (1789)   Mon 28 Mar 94  0:58                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: FutureCulture
St: Local Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 2b801f17
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

I am a subscriber to a Mailing list on the Internet called 
FutureCulture.
It comes into my machine every say as about 50 messages in the form 
of a
Digest.  I am finding it excellent reading but can't keep it up.  I 
am
learning there about memes, virus competitions, noise vs signal as 
a way
of speaking about too many crappy messages in cyberspace etc etc.  
I have
already posted some messages re Power in cyberspace.  That is also 
where I
got the CyberPoet Guide.

I have zipped them up called them FCDxxx.ZIP (give me a day or two 
as it
is too late right now).  I will keep putting them up for a while, 
perhaps
it will be of use.  I'd really like to link things from Internet  to
Fidonet, must be possible as the GRAND ROUND Echo has both, I think 
it is
a program called FRED  any ideas anyone?

So please have a look, see if you think we can use this for our
Psybernettic purposes and how?

Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:47 2000
Date: (1944)   Fri 1 Apr 94  2:56                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 24c09a2e
@REPLY: 3:770/270 67c2a404

Dear Ruby,

I was, as always, pleased to get your message, but more so than usual
today. Perhaps it is because you have taken the time to write 
despite not
feeling well, or maybe because we get close to flames and we keep 
going
despite this.

 RW> I write this from my sick-bed, with a temperature of 38.5, I'm
 RW> telling you that so I may be absolved from anything I say which
 RW> does not quite make sense, in the face of possible delirium. <G>

Wow you sure are hot <G>. I hope you get well soon and trust you are
getting looked after there.

 RW> I read your message up to here and appreciated all you wrote.
 RW> I had nothing further to add, and I'm writing that so you know
 RW> I am not just ignoring all your comments.<G>

Message received and ....  err  .... no worries mate.

 SUBJECT: Psychic abilities

 RW> Yes. And now it is a rare thing indeed, to have psychic
 RW> abilities. The few people I have encountered who do have this
 RW> ability intact, have not had the training required to 'temper'
 RW> it, if you know what I mean. And as a consequence it has the
 RW> potential to be used very destructively.

Yes.

 RW> I was in a
 RW> relationship with a person who was very psychic, he was also
 RW> very ungrounded and was not ready to face his own 'demons', so
 RW> to speak.

Yes, this is quite often the case that people with special gifts 
will also
be troubled or ungrounded, many of our famous artists are like that 
eh?
Some of the most creative and intelligent people I have met have 
been in
psychiatric hospitals. I don't think that it is a prerequisite <G>, 
but it
is sometimes a factor.

 RW> He had extraordinary abilities, and I am sad to say
 RW> he mis-used them and as a consequence people were hurt. I do
 RW> not believe that he in any way intended that to happen, but it
 RW> also reflects on our culture I think in that there are no
 RW> 'teachers' for us, no initiation ceremonies, no rites of
 RW> passage, no recognition even for the gifts that we do have in
 RW> terms of the deeper aspects of our psyches.

Yes and often those with such gifts are seen as 'crazy' etc. simply
through fear and ignorance, when they are of quite sound minds 
really.


Subject: God

 RS>> As I recall it, you were the one who brought this element in 
when
 RS>> you talked about feeling abandoned by God.

 RW> Yes. But the difference is, and I think this is where some 
confusion
 RW> may have entered the picture, I do not blame 'God'.

Ah yes, this is where the confusion came in, now it is clear. You 
felt
*abondoned* by God and I somehow took this to mean you were blaming 
God.
When you put the two words in the same sentence it is so crystal 
clear, I
wonder how we could have ever got at crossed purposes. Perhaps it was
meant to happen so we could get to experience something resembling 
our
first flame and we would both learn and grow from the experience 
<G>. A
sort of divine intervention neither of us knew about <G> <G>.

 RW> When I say God does not exist, I mean the false one that I have
 RW> rejected. My *own* God....I cannot name her, I cannot find the
 RW> words for what I want to say. I have touched upon this a little
 RW> in my message to the alterworld.

Yes, I read it and will respond there.

 RW> *Looking* for someone to blame is different than actually
 RW> blaming someone.

Yes.

 RW> The person may never *find* someone to blame.

True, I think also, I was placing different connotations on the 
word blame
in the context we were using it.

 RW> It may just be a part of their process, and that person is the
 RW> only one who can arrive at their own truth in their own way.
 RW> Ah, now I'm getting argumentative. <G>

Sorry, I am not going to argue back, because I now agree with you, 
that we
have gained clarity on this abandonment / blame thing.

 RW>>> It is a part of her process, to question. It
 RW>>> is probably the sanest thing she has ever done for herself.

 RS>> Oh yes to question, great! And maybe even vent her rage or 
wrath
 RS>> toward the people who were actually responsible for the harm 
caused
 RS>> her, but not *blame* in the sense I was talking about.

 RW> Yes, exactly. I agree with you here wholeheartedly.
 RW> I was getting defensive because I thought you were implying
 RW> that I was doing it all wrong. I am not blaming anybody or
 RW> anything in this... I do however question many things, that is
 RW> my nature and is also quite sane, I think.

Oh no! You are definitely not doing it all wrong. I think you seem 
to be
very much on the right track.

 RW>>> Well its *her* question!!!
 RW>>> Its a hell of a big step for her to stop blaming *herself* and
 RW>>> thinking that *she* must deserve it.

 RS>> Yes, I know, but it will not actually help her in the end to 
get
 RS>> locked into any of the three above mentioned roles or *Blame* 
the
 RS>> wrong parties for the harm caused her.

 RW> And I do not in all truth see her as doing any of those things.
 RW> For fuck's sake, leave her alone!!!!!

Ah! I see what has happened here. Further to the misunderstanding 
we talk
about above, I think I can see another one here. I was saying it 
was not
helpful for anyone to get locked into a 'blame' dynamic and it 
appears
that you took it that I was accusing you/her of doing this. I 
should have
spotted this earlier, when you were asking me about who was *we* 
and I
went off into a spiel about how the collective *we* is ok in some
circumstances, but alas my imperfect human traits have inched their 
way
out of my imperfect core <G>. I have erred, will I have to wait 
until my
death bed until I forgive myself <G>.

 RW> And that is the closest to flames I have been with you.

Yes, I felt a bit of a jolt when I read  "For fuck's sake, leave her
alone!!!!!"  I wondered what had gone wrong. It is an imperfect world
we live in eh?

 RW> And I am still here.
 RW> Hopefully you are too.

Probably more so than ever, I especially appreciate people who keep 
with
things even when there are difficulties and misunderstandings.

 RW> You come so close to her truth at times, enough to move me to
 RW> tears. But right then I just felt so infuriated, that you
 RW> weren't seeing her at all, you'd got her all wrong.

Mmmmm ..... I don't know about *all* wrong, partly perhaps, but to be
honest with you (which BTW does from time to time get me into a lot 
of
trouble) I think it was more a misunderstanding. I hope this does not
sound like I am trying to wheedle out of something, it is what I 
sincerely
believe. I am afraid I simply can not go against my own truth. This
probably sounds like I am waffling off on a tangent, perhaps I am, 
but I
am sure there will be a reason for it.

 RS>> somehow we are now at crossed purposes on this blame thing. I 
talk
 RS>> about the futility of getting stuck in 'blaming' and you talk 
about
 RS>> asking questions.

 RW> Yes I think we have been talking about different things. I
 RW> spoke of ceasing to blame myself, a major positive step, and
 RW> this meant I began to question...why did it happen? I never
 RW> went so far as blaming anybody, but I can see how that would
 RW> not be constructive. Unless I did go ahead and blame somebody
 RW> only to find out that it did not heal me and then arrived at
 RW> the same truth anyway. I think also what I am trying to say is
 RW> that I have been taking this personally and feeling accused of
 RW> *blaming* and doing everything wrong.

I think what I have written above in several places ties in with 
all you
say here.

 RW> I don't know if that is
 RW> the case or not, I suspect not, but just to get this straight,
 RW> for the record, I do not blame anyone for my pain.

I think that is now very clear.

 RW> And I agree
 RW> with you, that to blame is futile and empty and does not assist
 RW> the healing process.

Oh goody we agree on that.

 BUT that is not to say that if anyone is
 RW> in the act of blaming another, its their process, hopefully
 RW> they would arrive somehow at their own truth on this matter.
 RW> Unless of course they were blaming me and in that case I
 RW> wouldn't have it on.<G>

There is a season for everything <G>.

Subject: The film (sorry I cut that bit out and can't spell the guys name)

 RW> Terrible. And now on hindsight, as it has stayed with me so
 RW> deeply and touched me so profoundly, I question why I had to
 RW> stay when I so wanted to leave and felt so sick from it all.
 RW> I do not need to explore *every* dark corner.

No, it reminds me of what I was saying above about keeping going, but
sometimes we are not ready for some things and we need do be able 
to tell
ourselves this without feeling we have copped out eh?

 RS>> This may sound like an odd response, but sometimes when I 
encounter
 RS>> those situations I am more moved by the little gestures made 
and the
 RS>> embers that are struggling to burst into tiny flames than all 
the
 RS>> atrocities.  Perhaps it is my way of coping.

 RW> No it is a wonderful response. I feel like you do.
 RW> I left the picture theatre feeling all that outrage and
 RW> sickness and despair and grief but I also had a very strong,
 RW> passionate feeling, that life is so precious and never to
 RW> forget that. This was summed up at the end of the
 RW> film...Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.

That last sentence reminds me a lot of my work. Not that I am into 
saving
people as such, but sometimes what I do seems so insignificant, the 
few
clients I work with and reach somehow makes it all worthwhile in a 
world
that seems very large, harsh and cruel at times.

 RW> Amazing!
 RW> We must be guided, eh? <G>

There are too many coincidences in the world for us not to be <G>.

 RW> Changing the subject a little, it is funny how your name has
 RW> popped up in conversations this week.

I hope what was said was not all bad or indifferent <G>.

 RW> I met a woman today who knew you from psychodrama,

Mmmmm she could be one of many, but oh I wonder who? Perhaps you 
better
not say here, but a private message would be ok.

 RW> also a very good friend of mine knows
 RW> you from psychodrama and was talking to you just the other day.

Ah, I think I know who that will be....  JB she was living in T. Am I
right?

 RW> So far I have not dwelt on the fact that we write in a public
 RW> forum,

I have not dwelt on it, but I have pondered the whys and wherefores 
of it.

 RW> I must admit it is a little frightening when I think about it.

Yes and for me too in that I am displaying much of my values, 
beliefs,
ideas and even a few feelings from time to time <G>. I am left 
wondering
how much I am being judged by all those people who log on and read
messages, but never write any and I guess too by those who write 
them <G>.

 RW> I do however like the fact that all this is visible.
 RW> I think it provides us with a good boundary.

Yes.

 RS>> The bullshit would be to say that I agreed with
 RS>> something that I did not, to go against my own truth just to 
please
 RS>> her

 RW> Oh yes, I get your drift now.
 RW> Sorry, I had misunderstood you.

Why that's ok mamma, not a problem, even cow girls get the blues
sometimes.

 RS>> It may have more impact in the short term, but what about the 
long
 RS>> term?

 RW> I guess it would depend for me on how available I was able to
 RW> make myself to her. I think this is definitely the realm of
 RW> therapist/client, and as I do not have sufficient training or
 RW> expertise in this area, I just do not know.

I guess I am being suggestive that the long term effects are more
important, but I am sure there will be many people who want to argue
otherwise. I think psychotherapy is probably one of the least exact
processes there is in the world <G>.

 RW> "Let us be boldly and gladly out of character.
 RW>  Let us be creatures of paradox and variety: creatures of
 RW>  contrast; of light and shade: creatures of faith. Let us step
 RW>  out of character into the unknown, to struggle and love and do
 RW>  what we do." Amen.

Yes, let us be like that and like that not <G>


Love & Regards 
 Reg

... A person in a passion rides a mad horse.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:47 2000
Date: (1882)   Tue 29 Mar 94  5:19                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 97
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1f1323d3
@REPLY: 3:770/270 cbc9ceef

Hello Reg,

I just recieved your message and feel compelled to reply straight 
away,
and despite the fact that it is 2 am, I am far more awake and alert 
in the
middle of the night than during the day. My thoughts are clearer and
sharper, the veil between worlds is thin and all is still and 
quiet...

 RW>> Et tu (or is it vous) aussi.
 RW>> Figure that one out. <g>

 RS> And you also, (good thing my oldest daughter is doing 6th form
 RS> French) I never got to study a second language.

I studied French to the 5th form only, it was German I went further 
with,
but funnily enough its always the French that springs to mind.

 RW>> I think what goes deeper than my whole
 RW>> dislike of cooking is my belief in my ability to nurture others
 RW>> and how they receive this nourishment...for so long I have
 RW>> stated that I cannot cook, that I hate cooking, that I just
 RW>> won't do it, but somewhere underneath all that has been a fear
 RW>> of failure and rejection and also of visibility.

 RS> Perhaps you are in a good place or space now, so that you are 
able to
 RS> express yourself more adequately in that way?

Do you mean: that I am able to express myself more adequetely in 
terms of
nurturing others? I am not quite sure what you mean.
I knew I had always hated cooking, but never knew, until recently, 
that
far more lay beneath that. Being in a good place, there was safety 
for the
fear to surface. And I thought Ah, that makes sense...
It is still quite new, I have yet to see its impact, but I do know 
I am
able to be more fully here.
And that *could* mean that more fear comes in.
There's a kind of paradox that occurs...fear comes up when I feel 
loved,
and that could be taken simply as a fear of not being loved or not 
being
able to love or whatever. But I think it is also that *because* I 
am being
loved, it is safe then for all that fear that has resided in me to 
then
come up and flow out.
What do you think?

 RW>> I think it has been my fear that perhaps my

 RW>> love will not nourish, that it will not be acceptable, that it

 RW>> could even contaminate. This is harsh, I know, but

 RW>> none-the-less a shadow that I have carried around until now and

 RW>> it has somehow just slipped unnoticed from my grasp. Amazing,

 RW>> eh. <g>

 RS> I don't understand the <G>, I am moved by what you have 
written here,
 RS> perhaps I have missed something, I even tried spaces so I 
could read
 RS> between the lines <G>.

I *did* grin when I realised that I had let go of something without 
even
realising. I grinned at the vision of it sneaking off like that. I 
grinned
because I felt happy, that it truly *was* amazing.
Also it is kind of like, here I am, talking about myself quite 
deeply,
seriously, earnestly, and I maintain a certain distance when I do 
that;
and then, its like looking up at the person who is listening, and 
smiling,
to make contact, to come fully back from where I have been and make
contact again.

 RW>> You're pretty close to it! You like living on the edge don't
 RW>> you. Now what would be really daring, and this will illustrate
 RW>> to you how much of a daredevil I am, is using the word *sheet*.
 RW>> Now I am not clever enough to tie it in with the Catholic
 RW>> Church and their views on sex, but never- the-less, there it
 RW>> is. Sheet. Ooooohhh....<g>

 RS> Good on you Ruby, I wonder how many HM's that is going to 
cost? <G>.

Oh heaps. But it was worth it. And I figure I've done enough HM's 
to last
me a lifetime of sins already.
It says in my 'Baby Book', you know, where parents write down 
everything
their baby ever did or said etc, that I said the entire Hail Mary 
when I
was ....(now just a second, I have to go and check this).....2 
years old!
Now I'm not exactly sure how much training that took, but I think 
that
would just about put me in the running for being a child prodigy.
And, what's more, a *forgiven* child prodigy. <G>

 RW>> Did you really lose your psychic abilities? Or are you afraid
 RW>> to use them?

 RS> I think almost everyone has lost their capacity to use them 
these
 RS> days

Do you think there was a time when we did use them?
A time on this planet?
What do you think caused them to be lost?

 RS> I could tell you some interesting stories sometime.

Do tell.
I could probably dredge up a few too.

 RW>> I also have a trust in the process.

 RS> So why do you doubt the existence of God so much, the 
potential for
 RS> diaster has always been here on this planet along with all 
that is
 RS> beautiful, much of the disaster is actually brought about by 
acts of
 RS> mortals rather than God.

What does it have to do with God?
I am confused by what you say.
I trust my process, I trust I am guided, I trust there is deeper 
meaning
to all of this, that I am on my path...where does God come into all 
that?
You make a distinction between acts of mortals and acts of God, I 
see them
as one and the same.
God to me is not *out there*, is not separate. That is why He doesn't
exist for me...I see the idea of Him as something that mortals have
created.
Now there is a difference for me between *this* God, the one which 
I see
to be false, and *my* God.
I am unable to put that into words right now.

 RS> I mean stupid people rape the land by burning
 RS> off all the vegetation etc., build on flood plains and then get
 RS> pissed
 RS> off because they get flooded out, they say it as an act of God 
etc. I
 RS> don't even think it would make sense to try and pin it on God by
 RS> saying
 RS> that God is whin the people, so it is Gods fault. I don't 
really have
 RS> any concept of hell, the devil and all that shit, but if the 
devil
 RS> exists then it would make more sense to blame it on the work 
of the
 RS> devil than God, who I think has more to do with love than 
disaster.

I am unsure how all that ties in with my trust in my process.
I also think it is stupid of people to blame 'God' for their 
troubles.
If mortals are the ones to 'rape' the land, wound each other, etc 
etc,
then where does God actually come into it? What does He actually 
*do*? It
seems to me that he takes a very back seat. I don't actually think 
that we
need him at all.

 RW>> The questioning came *after* that. If she was not to blame,
 RW>> then who was?

 RS> Ah! and here lies the trap, the moment we look for someone to 
blame
 RS> we
 RS> are lost in a vicious triangle.

I don't think so. It is a part of her process, to question. It is 
probably
the sanest thing she has ever done for herself. What is this vicious
triangle composed of? And who do you mean by *we*?

 RW>> If she did not deserve it, then why did it happen?

 RS> Again, the *deserve it* aspect is to do with blame and totally
 RS> counter productive to the healing process

Well its *her* question!!!
Its a hell of a big step for her to stop blaming *herself* and 
thinking
that *she* must deserve it.
And if that's not healing, then what is?
We are dealing with a child here. This is what she's up to. I have 
no idea
what her next step will be. But she has been frozen in time for 26 
years
and is making *extraordinary* progress.
For her to stop blaming herself and start questioning *why*, is in 
no way
counter-productive to the healing process as I see it.

 RS> It is as you rightly say somewhere
 RS> the thinking of that little girl trying to make sense of the 
world
 RS> when
 RS> no one is there to help her.

Yes.

 RS> I certainly would not want to deny that
 RS> little girls feelings of rage, or any other feelings she has. 
I feel
 RS> close to the edge here, I take it that this is all ok, feel 
free to
 RS> let
 RS> me know otherwise if not.

She doesn't feel rage, not yet. At this point in time she is simply 
asking
a question.
I went to see SCHINDLER'S LIST today. I have never been so close to
walking out of a movie, not as a protest or because I disliked the 
movie,
but because there came a point after a series of scenes when I felt
absolutely unable to see any more.
I did stay and I am still sane.
But throughout that whole movie as I watched man's inhumanity and
brutality to man, at the suffering inflicted, the cruelty, the
humiliation, there was a voice inside me that was screaming to the 
sky,
WHY!!!??? And there is just no answer that will suffice. I cannot
understand those that do have an answer. I am too overwhelmed 
emotionally
and spiritually, my mind and intellect are a thousand miles behind 
in the
face of what was done to those people.
And yes, I felt rage, I felt grief, I felt tearing sorrow, I felt
tremendously overwhelmed by the fragility and precious-ness of 
life, but
through all that, still, the question.
This is how it is for the little one.
I question, she questions. This is how it is.

And yes, I too feel close to the edge here, but it is alright.

 RW>> Yes, Yes, but all she needs is to be heard.

 RS> Ah, I think she needs far more than that, she certainly needs 
to be
 RS> 'HEARD', but she needs her reality fully validated and 
acknowledged
 RS> in
 RS> every which way possible. She needs also to be SEEN, TOUCHED, 
HELD,
 RS> SMELT, and loved, sure the hearing is important and is usually 
a safe
 RS> place to start

I have tears in my eyes when I read this.
And I struggle with my response...I am moved by what you have 
written here
and have a feeling that something has changed, I feel that I want 
to thank
you, I have a sense of relief...and this changes the boundaries 
somehow,
it all feels very strange. Perhaps it is the fact that I have never 
met
you, have barely spoken to you, and here I am, crying at something 
you
have written...it is suddenly all very real.
You are right, she does need more than to be heard.
But being heard is the first thing that happens, before any of 
those other
things can happen.

 RW>> Explanations do not make sense to her.
 RW>> She needs someone to say, yes, I hear you, you are so alone and
 RW>> so abandoned, even by God,

 RS> I think this all depends a little on the forum and the 
relationship
 RS> between her and who she is relating too.

Well I don't think she would relate it to those who could not 
respond with
heart and meaning.

 RS> In my case what you suggest would be bullshitting her, as I do 
not
 RS> think
 RS> she was abandoned by God. If I were her therapist, which I most
 RS> definitely am not, I would actually say to her something along 
the
 RS> lines:

 RS>  "You feel abandoned and you think you were abandoned by 
God!.....
 RS> ....     ......     ......    ..........   ........  and so on 
!"
 RS> That way I am honest with her yet acknowledge the feelings & 
thoughts

How can acknowledging her reality be bullshitting her?
She *is* abandoned, she *is* abandoned by God. To me it has alot more
impact to say, you are abandoned and that is terrible, than to say, 
you
feel abandoned. As long as I did not allow the abandonment to 
continue
after that point, that is. (As her therapist, that is, which I *most*
definately am not.<g>

RS> how can she learn to trust again if people continue to bullshit 
her?

Ah, but it is not her trust in people not to hurt her that will 
change
her, it is her trust thst new life follows old, that wounds will 
heal.
There will always be bullshitters, there's just no avoiding it.

 RW>> Ah, what relief then, for that child. A witness, someone who
 RW>> understands. Then, you see, she is no longer alone.

 RS> Oh dear, you sound a little patronising hear Ruby, are we into 
our
 RS> first
 RS> flame? Or are we able to hear one another fully here <G> and 
keep
 RS> going?

You think I am patronising you?
Not intended.
I do not see this as anywhere near a flame, the more honesty there 
is, the
more willing I am to keep going.
We're nearly there! <g>
What was it that sounded patronising?

 RW>> *Then* she can do the rest, *then* she can heal, *then* perhaps
 RW>> she can ask the question why, *then* perhaps she can 
understand.

 RS> I don't actually think she can do the rest all by herself, but
 RS> certainly
 RS> there is a process and some things must come before others. As 
you
 RS> know,
 RS> the healing process takes time and I am surprised that you are 
trying
 RS> to make it sound so simple, like: "all she needs is to be 
heard."

I need to keep it simple. One step at a time for this kid!

 RS> Or were you just talking about that particular moment, not the 
whole
 RS> process? Perhaps I should have checked that out before writing 
all I
 RS> have here? But I will leave it all as I think it is still of 
value.

Yes. I wasn't talking about the whole process, just about where she 
was up
to. And in that particular moment also.

 RW>> It is not that I require that from you, we are not doing
 RW>> therapy here,<g>,

 RS> Ah great, what a relief. This does cause me however to become
 RS> thoughtful
 RS> about the nature of our relationship, it is somewhat unique 
isn't it?
 RS> We have not ever met in person and have only ever had very brief
 RS> telephone conversations such as:

 RS> "Is Walter about?"
 RS> "Yes I'll put him on."

Oh yes, it is very strange isn't it. I feel awkward on the phone 
and don't
know what to say, I suppose I could always launch straight into our 
latest
discussion! <g>

 RW>> I just want you to understand how it is for her.

 RS> Are you really wanting me to *understand* how it is for her, 
or do
 RS> you
 RS> want me to hear how it was? I think I understand very well how 
it was
 RS> for that little girl and I hear her loud and clear <G>.

Thank you
She does need recognition.

 RS>>> Ah, I want to react strongly and at the same time with 
warmth and
 RS>>> humour, so here goes, (if I drown then I drown): Maybe like 
Estes
 RS>>> says "It may not come until deathbed time", maybe you are 
not ready
 RS>>> willing or able to forgive at that depth as yet, but I feel
 RS>>> confident you will eventually.

 RW>> Why do you feel confident?
 RW>> You know this to be true, you have experienced forgiveness
 RW>> yourself? Or are in the process of doing so?

 RS> I just do! <G>

Ah, psychic!! <g>

 RS> But if I must give a reason then perhaps it is to do with the 
fact
 RS> that
 RS> you communicate with me relatively easily without projecting all
 RS> sorts
 RS> of hateful shit onto me, but then again maybe you just haven't 
had
 RS> time
 RS> to warm-up to it yet <G>.

Ah, so you think you've got me all sussed out, do you.
And is it the grand rule that everyone must forgive?
Forgive me <g>, I jest, it is excruciatingly late, or perhaps early 
would
be a better word.

 RS> I think our current message comes the closest
 RS> to anything inflammatory between us and yet I feel confident the
 RS> messages will keep flowing and I don't mean like lava <G>.

No worries. Of all your messages, this I have enjoyed the most.
I said to Walter as I read it on-line, ah, now we're talking.<g>

 RS> Ah, now I read this, after having waffled on about the 
potential for
 RS> flames etc. mind you I think that is the key to stopping them
 RS>, talking
 RS> through what seem like critical moments, when we feel on the 
edge
 RS> etc.

Indeed.

Must away,
          yours,
               unextinguishably,
                                Ruby.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 97
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:47 2000
Date: (1908)   Thu 31 Mar 94  0:19                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 9b593cc1
@REPLY: 3:770/270 1f1323d3

Hello Ruby,


 RW> despite the fact that it is 2 am, I am far
 RW> more awake and alert in the middle of the night than during the
 RW> day. My thoughts are clearer and sharper, the veil between
 RW> worlds is thin and all is still and quiet...

Yes, I am sometimes like that in the early hours of the morning, 
but more
often it is early in the day after I have had a good sleep.

 RS>> Perhaps you are in a good place or space now, so that you are 
able
 RS>> to express yourself more adequately in that way?

 RW> Do you mean: that I am able to express myself more adequately
 RW> in terms of nurturing others?

Yes.

 RW> There's a kind of paradox that occurs...fear comes up when I
 RW> feel loved, and that could be taken simply as a fear of not
 RW> being loved or not being able to love or whatever. But I think
 RW> it is also that *because* I am being loved, it is safe then for
 RW> all that fear that has resided in me to then come up and flow
 RW> out. What do you think?

I think yes perhaps all of this, plus there is something about 
newness of
a situation bringing a certain vulnerability. I hope this does not 
sound
to obscure, it is the best I can word it in this moment.

 RS>> perhaps I have missed something, I even tried spaces so I 
could read
 RS>> between the lines <G>.

 RW> I *did* grin when I realised that I had let go of something
 RW> without even realising. I grinned at the vision of it sneaking
 RW> off like that. I grinned because I felt happy, that it truly
 RW> *was* amazing.

Ah, I think I get your drift now.

 RW> Also it is kind of like, here I am, talking
 RW> about myself quite deeply, seriously, earnestly, and I maintain
 RW> a certain distance when I do that; and then, its like looking
 RW> up at the person who is listening, and smiling, to make
 RW> contact, to come fully back from where I have been and make
 RW> contact again.

Yes, I have a similar experience when I am a protagonist in a drama.

 RS>> Good on you Ruby, I wonder how many HM's that is going to 
cost? <G>.

 RW> Oh heaps. But it was worth it. And I figure I've done enough
 RW> HM's to last me a lifetime of sins already.
 RW> It says in my 'Baby Book', you know, where parents write down
 RW> everything their baby ever did or said etc, that I said the
 RW> entire Hail Mary when I was ....(now just a second, I have to
 RW> go and check this).....2 years old! Now I'm not exactly sure
 RW> how much training that took, but I think that would just about
 RW> put me in the running for being a child prodigy. And, what's
 RW> more, a *forgiven* child prodigy. <G>

Yes, I think so and I can see all the humour and sadness in all of 
this.

SUBJECT: Psychic abilities

 RS>> I think almost everyone has lost their capacity to use them 
these
 RS>> days

 RW> Do you think there was a time when we did use them?
 RW> A time on this planet?

Yes.

 RW> What do you think caused them to be lost?

Technology, so called progress and lack of use are perhaps a few 
factors.

 RS>> So why do you doubt the existence of God so much, the 
potential for
 RS>> disaster has always been here on this planet along with all 
that is
 RS>> beautiful, much of the disaster is actually brought about by 
acts of
 RS>> mortals rather than God.

 RW> What does it have to do with God?

As I recall it, you were the one who brought this element in when you
talked about feeling abandoned by God.

 RW> I am confused by what you say.
 RW> I trust my process, I trust I am guided, I trust there is
 RW> deeper meaning to all of this, that I am on my path...where
 RW> does God come into all that?

In this context God is merely a word to apply to what you are talking
about, others might call it a guiding star, arch angel, holy 
spirit, or
for the more psychologically minded the real self.

 RW> You make a distinction between
 RW> acts of mortals and acts of God, I see them as one and the same.

I don't.

 RW> God to me is not *out there*, is not separate.

To me God is within the person *and* without.

 RW> That is why He
 RW> doesn't exist for me...I see the idea of Him as something that
 RW> mortals have created.

I used to think that way too, but don't anymore.

 RW> Now there is a difference for me between *this* God, the one
 RW> which I see to be false, and *my* God.
 RW> I am unable to put that into words right now.

I hear your struggle to name this, I too struggle with naming such 
things
and I also find it interesting that you talk about *your* God and 
at the
same time you say God does not exist.

 RW> I am unsure how all that ties in with my trust in my process.

I think your confusion arose because there was a breech of trust 
back when
you were a child, actually it was a sort of double whammy breach. 
It ties
in because when one breech occurred the source of comfort whose 
existence
you had been promised did not appear to exist for you.

 RS>> Ah! and here lies the trap, the moment we look for someone to 
blame
 RS>> we are lost in a vicious triangle.

 RW> I don't think so.

I do think so.

 RW> It is a part of her process, to question. It
 RW> is probably the sanest thing she has ever done for herself.

Oh yes to question, great! And maybe even vent her rage or wroth 
toward
the people who were actually responsible for the harm caused her, 
but not
*blame* in the sense I was talking about.

 RW> What is this vicious triangle composed of? And who do you mean
 RW> by *we*?

There is a guy called Carpman (? spelling) who put it in quite simple
terms, Victim, Persecutor and Rescuer.
By we I mean all of humanity in this instance, I think this is one of
those occasions where the collective *we* fits and the *I* or *you* 
does
not have to be used.

 RW> Well its *her* question!!!
 RW> Its a hell of a big step for her to stop blaming *herself* and
 RW> thinking that *she* must deserve it.

Yes, I know, but it will not actually help her in the end to get 
locked
into any of the three above mentioned roles or *Blame* the wrong 
parties
for the harm caused her.

 RW> And if that's not healing, then what is?

We have already discussed what *is* healing and are in agreement 
about
this, somehow we are now at crossed purposes on this blame thing. I 
talk
about the futility of getting stuck in 'blaming' and you talk about 
asking
questions.

 RW> We are dealing with a child here.

Perhaps this accounts for the crossed purposes <G>, but then again 
maybe
the grin should not be there.

 RW> This is what she's up to. I
 RW> have no idea what her next step will be. But she has been
 RW> frozen in time for 26 years and is making *extraordinary*
 RW> progress. For her to stop blaming herself and start questioning
 RW> *why*, is in no way counter-productive to the healing process
 RW> as I see it.

No neither is it to me and I wonder why you need to say that, it is 
as if
we are talking about two different things.

 RS>> I certainly would not want to deny that
 RS>> little girls feelings of rage, or any other feelings she 
has....

 RW> She doesn't feel rage, not yet.

Oh yes she does and I saw her expressing a tiny bit of it in the
ALTERWORLD the other day toward that imposter masquerading as God.


 RW> I went to see SCHINDLER'S LIST today. I have never been so
 RW> close to walking out of a movie, not as a protest or because I
 RW> disliked the movie, but because there came a point after a
 RW> series of scenes when I felt absolutely unable to see any more.
 RW> I did stay and I am still sane.

I have not seen it, but I know that if I do I will have a similar 
struggle
just from what you say here.

 RW> But throughout that whole movie as I watched man's inhumanity
 RW> and brutality to man, at the suffering inflicted, the cruelty,
 RW> the humiliation, there was a voice inside me that was screaming
 RW> to the sky, WHY!!!??? And there is just no answer that will
 RW> suffice.

No answer as yet and I don't pretend I have one either, but I know 
there
is one and don't ask me why, I just do <G>.

 RW> I cannot understand those that do have an answer. I am
 RW> too overwhelmed emotionally and spiritually, my mind and
 RW> intellect are a thousand miles behind in the face of what was
 RW> done to those people. And yes, I felt rage, I felt grief, I
 RW> felt tearing sorrow, I felt tremendously overwhelmed by the
 RW> fragility and preciousness of life, but through all that,
 RW> still, the question. This is how it is for the little one.
 RW> I question, she questions. This is how it is.

This may sound like an odd response, but sometimes when I encounter 
those
situations I am more moved by the little gestures made and the 
embers that
are struggling to burst into tiny flames than all the atrocities.  
Perhaps
it is my way of coping.


 RW> And yes, I too feel close to the edge here, but it is alright.

Yes, that is often when the most significant breakthroughs etc occur.

 RW> I have tears in my eyes when I read this.
 RW> And I struggle with my response...I am moved by what you have
 RW> written here and have a feeling that something has changed, I
 RW> feel that I want to thank you, I have a sense of relief...and
 RW> this changes the boundaries somehow, it all feels very strange.

You are not the only one that feels strange, some of those words I 
used
are from my psychodrama thesis that I have been writing on and off 
for
about eight years. The strange thing is I had completely forgotten 
I had
written them there, they just sort of flowed out of me into the 
message.
Yesterday my thesis arrived back in the mail and there were those 
words
again almost word for word. There must be some sort of truth in 
them for
me to say the same thing twice so far apart and not even be aware 
of it.

 RW> Perhaps it is the fact that I have never met you, have barely
 RW> spoken to you, and here I am, crying at something you have
 RW> written...it is suddenly all very real. You are right, she does
 RW> need more than to be heard. But being heard is the first thing
 RW> that happens, before any of those other things can happen.

Yes.

 RS>> I think this all depends a little on the forum and the 
relationship
 RS>> between her and who she is relating too.

 RW> Well I don't think she would relate it to those who could not
 RW> respond with heart and meaning.

I think this is meant to be complementary, so thank you. The other
interesting thing here is that all our messages are in a public echo,
perhaps this fact helps too in some way, I don't know, I would have
thought it would be counter productive, but so far it has not been 
that
way as far as I can tell.

 RW> How can acknowledging her reality be bullshitting her?

It is not the acknowledgment of her reality that is the bullshit? 
That
part is fine and necessary like I said in my last message, the one 
you
were so moved by. The bullshit would be to say that I agreed with
something that I did not, to go against my own truth just to please 
her or
make her feel good. Eventually she would spot that and feel cheated 
or
conned all over again. That is why I chose my words very carefully, 
the
difference is perhaps so subtle that she did not consciously spot 
it, but
I reckon at a deeper level she would.

 RW> She *is* abandoned, she *is* abandoned by God. To me it has
 RW> alot more impact to say, you are abandoned and that is
 RW> terrible, than to say, you feel abandoned.

It may have more impact in the short term, but what about the long 
term?
It is also fine if it is the truth of the person saying it, but for 
me it
would be bullshitting her. It would be more of this same old non 
sincere I
what you are saying shit. But just to contradict myself, on the 
day, who
knows what I would say to her <G>. I would speak whatever was my 
truth in
the moment. Which could be any bloody thing <G>.

RS>> how can she learn to trust again if people continue to 
bullshit her?

 RW> Ah, but it is not her trust in people not to hurt her that will
 RW> change her,

I think it is a factor, whether her grown up self agrees or not <G>.

 RW> it is her trust that new life follows old, that wounds will 
heal.

And Yes this a big factor too.

 RW>>> Ah, what relief then, for that child. A witness, someone who
 RW>>> understands. Then, you see, she is no longer alone.

 RS>> Oh dear, you sound a little patronising hear Ruby

 RW> What was it that sounded patronising?

"...... Then you see"

You are telling me something as if I have not seen it when I have, 
when
the truth is that you had not seen or heard what I was saying <G>.

 RW> I need to keep it simple. One step at a time for this kid!

Yes, a good way to be sometimes.

 RS>> Or were you just talking about that particular moment, not 
the whole
 RS>> process? Perhaps I should have checked that out before 
writing all I
 RS>> have here? But I will leave it all as I think it is still of 
value.

 RW> Yes. I wasn't talking about the whole process, just about where
 RW> she was up to. And in that particular moment also.

I kind of realised that after I had written quite a bit, but I 
thought the
discussion was useful anyway so did not delete it, something to do 
with
valuing the whole process.

 RS>> We have not ever met in person and have only ever had very 
brief
 RS>> telephone conversations such as:

 RS>> "Is Walter about?"
 RS>> "Yes I'll put him on."

 RW> Oh yes, it is very strange isn't it. I feel awkward on the
 RW> phone and don't know what to say, I suppose I could always
 RW> launch straight into our latest discussion! <g>

You could, but I would probably not be on board with you if I had 
rung to
talk to Walter, it would require a change in warm-up. We would have 
to
make quite a marked shift if we suddenly swapped mediums I think, 
but who
knows? I think I am actually not so good with phones anyway, I 
think I am
much better face to face and second to that in text, straight voice 
is
probably my worst mode.


 RW> Ah, so you think you've got me all sussed out, do you.

No, not at all, I don't ever think that about anybody, only people 
with
oversized egos think like that.

 RW> And is it the grand rule that everyone must forgive?

No, I don't have grand rules, but I do think forgiveness is part of 
the
healing process, be it the last or whatever.

 RW> Forgive me <g>, I jest

You are forgiven, go now and enjoy life! <G>.

Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Any certainty is a delusion.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:47 2000
Date: (1931)   Thu 31 Mar 94 18:15                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 99
@MSGID: 3:770/270 67c2a404
@REPLY: 3:770/270 9b593cc1

Dear Reg,

I write this from my sick-bed, with a temperature of 38.5, I'm 
telling you
that so I may be absolved from anything I say which does not quite 
make
sense, in the face of possible delerium. <G>

I read your message up to here and appreciated all you wrote.
I had nothing further to add, and I'm writing that so you know I am 
not
just ignoring all your comments.<G>

 RS> SUBJECT: Psychic abilities

 RS>>> I think almost everyone has lost their capacity to use them 
these
 RS>>> days

 RW>> Do you think there was a time when we did use them?
 RW>> A time on this planet?

 RS> Yes.

Me too.

 RW>> What do you think caused them to be lost?

 RS> Technology, so called progress and lack of use are perhaps a few
 RS> factors.

Yes. And now it is a rare thing indeed, to have psychic abilities. 
The few
people I have encountered who do have this ability intact, have not 
had
the training required to 'temper' it, if you know what I mean.
And as a consequence it has the potential to be used very 
destructively.
I was in a relationship with a person who was very psychic, he was 
also
very un-grounded and was not ready to face his own 'demons', so to 
speak.
He had extraordinary abilities, and I am sad to say he mis-used 
them and
as a consequence people were hurt. I do not believe that he in any 
way
intended that to happen, but it also reflects on our culture I 
think in
that there are no 'teachers' for us, no initiation ceremonies, no 
rites of
passage, no recognition even for the gifts that we do have in terms 
of the
deeper aspects of our psyches.
And I do believe that we all have this ability, that it lies 
dormant in
most of us, with the odd stirring now and then, and we usually call 
it co-
incidence.
Forgive me if I am rabbiting on, its probably the delerium.<G>

 RS>>> So why do you doubt the existence of God so much, the 
potential for
 RS>>> disaster has always been here on this planet along with all 
that is
 RS>>> beautiful, much of the disaster is actually brought about by 
acts
 RS>>> of
 RS>>> mortals rather than God.

 RW>> What does it have to do with God?

 RS> As I recall it, you were the one who brought this element in 
when you
 RS> talked about feeling abandoned by God.

Yes.
But the difference is, and I think this is where some confusion may 
have
entered the picture, I do not blame 'God'.

 RW>> Now there is a difference for me between *this* God, the one
 RW>> which I see to be false, and *my* God.
 RW>> I am unable to put that into words right now.

 RS> I hear your struggle to name this, I too struggle with naming 
such
 RS> things and I also find it interesting that you talk about 
*your* God
 RS> and at the same time you say God does not exist.

When I say God does not exist, I mean the false one that I have 
rejected.
My *own* God....I cannot name her, I cannot find the words for what 
I want
to say. I have touched upon this a little in my message to the 
alterworld.

 RS>>> Ah! and here lies the trap, the moment we look for someone 
to blame
 RS>>> we are lost in a vicious triangle.

 RW>> I don't think so.

 RS> I do think so.

*Looking* for someone to blame is different than actually blaming 
someone.
The person may never *find* someone to blame.
It may just be a part of their process, and that person is the only 
one
who can arrive at their own truth in their own way.
Ah, now I'm getting argumentative. <G>

 RW>> It is a part of her process, to question. It
 RW>> is probably the sanest thing she has ever done for herself.

 RS> Oh yes to question, great! And maybe even vent her rage or wrath
 RS> toward
 RS> the people who were actually responsible for the harm caused 
her, but
 RS> not *blame* in the sense I was talking about.

Yes, exactly. I agree with you here wholeheartedly.
I was getting defensive because I thought you were implying that I 
was
doing it all wrong. I am not blaming anybody or anything in this...
I do however question many things, that is my nature and is also 
quite
sane, I think.

 RW>> Well its *her* question!!!
 RW>> Its a hell of a big step for her to stop blaming *herself* and
 RW>> thinking that *she* must deserve it.

 RS> Yes, I know, but it will not actually help her in the end to get
 RS> locked
 RS> into any of the three above mentioned roles or *Blame* the wrong
 RS> parties
 RS> for the harm caused her.

And I do not in all truth see her as doing any of those things.
For fuck's sake, leave her alone!!!!!

And that is the closest to flames I have been with you.
And I am still here.
Hopefully you are too.

You come so close to her truth at times, enough to move me to tears.
But right then I just felt so infuriated, that you weren't seeing 
her at
all, you'd got her all wrong.

 RS> somehow we are now at crossed purposes on this blame thing. I 
talk
 RS> about the futility of getting stuck in 'blaming' and you talk 
about
 RS> asking questions.

Yes I think we have been talking about different things. I spoke of
ceasing to blame myself, a major positive step, and this meant I 
began to
question...why did it happen? I never went so far as blaming 
anybody, but
I can see how that would not be constructive. Unless I did go ahead 
and
blame somebody only to find out that it did not heal me and then 
arrived
at the same truth anyway.
I think also what I am trying to say is that I have been taking this
personally and feeling accused of *blaming* and doing everything 
wrong.
I don't know if that is the case or not, I suspect not, but just to 
get
this straight, for the record, I do not blame anyone for my pain.
And I agree with you, that to blame is futile and empty and does not
assist the healing process. BUT that is not to say that if anyone 
is in
the act of blaming another, its their process, hopefully they would 
arrive
somehow at their own truth on this matter. Unless of course they were
blaming me and in that case I wouldn't have it on.<G>

 RW>> We are dealing with a child here.

 RS> Perhaps this accounts for the crossed purposes <G>, but then 
again
 RS> maybe
 RS> the grin should not be there.

Perhaps it does, I don't know, there is alot of emmeshment that 
occurs.
I like the grin there. <G>

 RS>>> I certainly would not want to deny that
 RS>>> little girls feelings of rage, or any other feelings she 
has....

 RW>> She doesn't feel rage, not yet.

 RS> Oh yes she does and I saw her expressing a tiny bit of it in the
 RS> ALTERWORLD the other day toward that imposter masquerading as 
God.

OK so she does.
A little bit.
Watch out...GRRR
<G>

 RW>> I went to see SCHINDLER'S LIST today. I have never been so
 RW>> close to walking out of a movie, not as a protest or because I
 RW>> disliked the movie, but because there came a point after a
 RW>> series of scenes when I felt absolutely unable to see any more.
 RW>> I did stay and I am still sane.

 RS> I have not seen it, but I know that if I do I will have a 
similar
 RS> struggle just from what you say here.

Terrible. And now on hindsight, as it has stayed with me so deeply 
and
touched me so profoundly, I question why I had to stay when I so 
wanted to
leave and felt so sick from it all.
I do not need to explore *every* dark corner.

 RW>> I cannot understand those that do have an answer. I am
 RW>> too overwhelmed emotionally and spiritually, my mind and
 RW>> intellect are a thousand miles behind in the face of what was
 RW>> done to those people. And yes, I felt rage, I felt grief, I
 RW>> felt tearing sorrow, I felt tremendously overwhelmed by the
 RW>> fragility and preciousness of life, but through all that,
 RW>> still, the question. This is how it is for the little one.
 RW>> I question, she questions. This is how it is.

 RS> This may sound like an odd response, but sometimes when I 
encounter
 RS> those situations I am more moved by the little gestures made 
and the
 RS> embers that are struggling to burst into tiny flames than all 
the
 RS> atrocities.  Perhaps it is my way of coping.

No it is a wonderful response. I feel like you do.
I left the picture theatre feeling all that outrage and sickness and
despair and grief but I also had a very strong, passionate feeling, 
that
life is so precious and never to forget that. This was summed up at 
the
end of the film...Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.

 RW>> I have tears in my eyes when I read this.
 RW>> And I struggle with my response...I am moved by what you have
 RW>> written here and have a feeling that something has changed, I
 RW>> feel that I want to thank you, I have a sense of relief...and
 RW>> this changes the boundaries somehow, it all feels very strange.

 RS> You are not the only one that feels strange, some of those 
words I
 RS> used
 RS> are from my psychodrama thesis that I have been writing on and 
off
 RS> for
 RS> about eight years. The strange thing is I had completely 
forgotten I
 RS> had
 RS> written them there, they just sort of flowed out of me into the
 RS> message.
 RS> Yesterday my thesis arrived back in the mail and there were 
those
 RS> words
 RS> again almost word for word. There must be some sort of truth 
in them
 RS> for
 RS> me to say the same thing twice so far apart and not even be 
aware of
 RS> it.

Amazing!
We must be guided, eh? <G>
Changing the subject a little, it is funny how your name has popped 
up in
conversations this week. I met a woman today who knew you from 
pschodrama,
also a very good friend of mine knows you from psychodrama and was 
talking
to you just the other day.
I won't say who, it is good to have a little bit of mystery, n'est 
ce pas?
And actually, that reminds me I must leave here very soon to cook a 
meal
for her.

 RS>>> I think this all depends a little on the forum and the 
relationship
 RS>>> between her and who she is relating too.

 RW>> Well I don't think she would relate it to those who could not
 RW>> respond with heart and meaning.

 RS> I think this is meant to be complementary, so thank you. The 
other
 RS> interesting thing here is that all our messages are in a 
public echo,
 RS> perhaps this fact helps too in some way, I don't know, I would 
have
 RS> thought it would be counter productive, but so far it has not 
been
 RS> that
 RS> way as far as I can tell.

Yes it was meant to be complimentary. And you're welcome.
So far I have not dwelt on the fact that we write in a public 
forum, I
must admit it is a little frightening when I think about it.
I do however like the fact that all this is visible.
I think it provides us with a good boundary.

 RW>> How can acknowledging her reality be bullshitting her?

 RS> The bullshit would be to say that I agreed with
 RS> something that I did not, to go against my own truth just to 
please
 RS> her

Oh yes, I get your drift now.
Sorry, I had misunderstood you.

 RW>> She *is* abandoned, she *is* abandoned by God. To me it has
 RW>> alot more impact to say, you are abandoned and that is
 RW>> terrible, than to say, you feel abandoned.

 RS> It may have more impact in the short term, but what about the 
long
 RS> term?

I guess it would depend for me on how available I was able to make 
myself
to her. I think this is definately the realm of therapist/client, 
and as I
do not have sufficient training or expertise in this area, I just 
do not
know.
Especially right in this moment as I feel a sudden increase in 
delerium.
(Lets me off the hook, doesn't it <G>)

 RS> It is also fine if it is the truth of the person saying it, 
but for
 RS> me
 RS> it would be bullshitting her. It would be more of this same 
old non
 RS> sincere I what you are saying shit. But just to contradict 
myself, on
 RS> the day, who knows what I would say to her <G>. I would speak
 RS> whatever
 RS> was my truth in the moment. Which could be any bloody thing <G>.

Yeah I'm a bit like that too. <G>

"Let us be boldly and gladly out of character.
 Let us be creatures of paradox and variety: creatures of contrast; 
of
light and shade: creatures of faith. Let us step out of character 
into the
unknown, to struggle and love and do what we do."
Amen.

 RS>>> We have not ever met in person and have only ever had very 
brief
 RS>>> telephone conversations such as:

 RS>>> "Is Walter about?"
 RS>>> "Yes I'll put him on."

 RW>> Oh yes, it is very strange isn't it. I feel awkward on the
 RW>> phone and don't know what to say, I suppose I could always
 RW>> launch straight into our latest discussion! <g>

 RS> You could, but I would probably not be on board with you if I 
had
 RS> rung
 RS> to talk to Walter, it would require a change in warm-up. We 
would
 RS> have
 RS> to make quite a marked shift if we suddenly swapped mediums I 
think,
 RS> but who knows? I think I am actually not so good with phones 
anyway
 RS>, I
 RS> think I am much better face to face and second to that in text,
 RS> straight voice is probably my worst mode.

I wasn't serious about launching into the latest discussion. <G>
Rest assured.

 RW>> Forgive me <g>, I jest

 RS> You are forgiven, go now and enjoy life! <G>.

And off I go...<G>
Take care,

           Love Ruby.

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 99
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:48 2000
Date: (1962)   Sat 2 Apr 94 15:31                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 30299052
@REPLY: 3:770/270 2d9596e7

Hello Ruby,

I read your message late last night, but was tired so thought I would
leave replying until the light of day after a good sleep.

 RW> ...... we are complex and emotional creatures and considering 
also
 RW> the nature of this medium where everything is so drawn out and
 RW> easily misunderstood. The whole content of this thread, for 
example,
 RW> could have taken place in a conversation in a couple of hours.
 RW> But then, we would not have the *process* that we have had
 RW> here, and I think a conversation would have had far less impact
 RW> on me than all this has in the last few days.
 RW> Again it comes back to the value of the process doesn't it.

Yes it does and I think the biggest factor is that we can see what 
has
been said and read it over as many times as we like, before 
responding.
Whereas we can not do that so much in face to face interactions, 
the other
person would soon get bored or annoyed with having to repeat every
sentence. The disadvantage is that the potential to kill off some 
of the
spontaneity is there, we might hold back on saying a lot of things. 
As far
as this medium is concerned, I just think, it is different and I 
wonder if
the comparisons are that helpful. I also loose interest in all the
discussions about the medium itself after a while. I like to keep a
balance between content, process and medium.

 RS>> we have gained clarity on this abandonment / blame thing.

 RW> Yes, we have.
 RW> Great, isn't it.

Yes.

Subject: Flagellation for imperfection.
***********************************

RS> ....I should have spotted that....

 RS>> .....I have erred, will I have to
 RS>> wait until my death bed until I forgive myself <G>.

 RW> Now listen here <G>, let there be no BLAME...<G>
 RW> I hate that word 'should'.

Yes me too, in TA terms, words such as *should* and *must* are an
indicator that the person is interacting from the critical parent ego
state. I find it interesting that I used the term here, I was not
consciously being critical of myself, perhaps it was because I felt
criticised from other quarters and this was contaminating my thought
processes. I don't mean you here, I mean from elsewhere by other 
people. I
find when others become critical of me I do have a tendency to 
warm-up to
self criticism and sometimes, dare I say it even criticise others 
<G>.

 RW> You did what you did and what
 RW> happened happened and it was alright.
 RW> But I don't know how the hell you'll ever forgive yourself. <G>

No, me either <G>, I wonder what would be a suitable punishment for 
me to
inflict on myself <G>. Perhaps I could get a little whip and get 
around
whipping myself and repeating the words. "I am a bad person, I 
interacted
with another being from the critical parent ego state." whip, whip, 
whip.
The trouble with that plan is that others would probably find it
distracting and worse than that they might start imitating me. I 
think it
would be much better if I just forgave myself and went on with my 
life.

 RW> Please do not throw yourself at my feet like that, <G> begging
 RW> forgiveness and mercy,it does not become you. <G>

Don't worry I wasn't <G> well at least I don't think I was <G>.


Subject: Waffling
*************

 RW> .....Yes you are waffling a little, it makes interesting 
reading,
 RW> would that be a good enough reason?

Yes it would be. The trouble is it is difficult for the waffler to 
know
whether what he writes is interesting or not. He is also at times
criticised for being overinclusive and at others too abrupt. So he 
finds
it difficult to achieve a suitable or workable balance in the 
absence of
unbiased feedback.

 RW> Also the fact that you get
 RW> your message across, it doesn't really matter if you waffle,

Perhaps not to you, but I could name a few who it does matter to, 
but then
again I guess it takes someone who appreciates the value of being 
heard to
be able to accept and value a waffler. I think people who waffle, 
do so
for a reason eh? That is not to say that they might not benefit from
developing their ability to become more clear and concise.

 RW> after all its your perogative, is it not, and now I am waffling
 RW> but that also is my perogative etc etc <G> and so it goes, on
 RW> and on and on and on....I think I am getting slightly delirious
 RW> again, just bear with me, there will be some reason for it...

Yes there is a reason for everything even if we do not know what it 
is.

 RW> Oh you are just logging on, what a pity, a few moments too early
 RW> for this, I feel like such a voyeur when that happens, its
 RW> great.<G>

Mmmm... well personally I don't actually mind at all because I use 
the SX
off-line reader, but you would not want to watch those who write 
using the
on line editor, I think that would be somewhat unethical and an 
invasion
of privacy.

Subject: Fight or Flight.
*********************
I hope you don't mind me naming this dynamic like that, it is the 
best I
can come up with at the moment.

 RS>> sometimes we are not ready for some things and we need do be 
able to
 RS>> tell ourselves this without feeling we have copped out eh?

 RW> Oh I don't know really.

I do <G>. I have an image of Spartan soldier with an animal inside 
his
garments gnawing away at his flesh and he is standing there without
flinching. How bloody ridiculous, nothing is really gained from 
such an
action that I can see, he is just proving he is a tough guy in 
front of
his mates. But to endure something unpleasant or painful out of 
love for
another or that we might grow in some way, that is quite different.

 RW> I just think, oh well, I stayed, that was what I did and this
 RW> is how I feel, no mistakes, just what happens.

Yes. Perhaps I am just looking deeper, or is it because it is 
Easter that
I write this.


Subject: Being Seen
**************

 RW> No, rest assured. I see you have grinned but it is a tiny bit
 RW> anxious, or am I wrong. <G>

Oh yes, like most others, I like to be seen in good light. The other
dimensions are always there of course, but I can highlight them well
enough
myself without others doing it <G>.

 RW> Wrong! I don't know JB from T, at least I cannot think who she
 RW> could be. But a private message would be OK, to clarify. <G>
 RW> You will have to guess again, I'm afraid.<G>

SC from GB?
SC From S?
CM?
Rumplestiltskin? (?spelling)
Shit I don't know I give up.

 RW> Yes, I wonder about that also, and if they want to log on and
 RW> judge me here I'll give them a good run for their money so to
 RW> speak. <G>

Yes, I am sure you would.

 RS>> ... A person in a passion rides a mad horse.

 RW> I'm afraid you are repeating yourself here. Maybe there is a
 RW> reason for that... <G>

Yes, there is, I have got a file with nearly 30,000 of these little 
things
in, but have only managed to install a few of them in my reader. Not
enough space or memory or something. Also many of them I do not 
like to
use because they are sexist, nasty and derogatory etc. Mind you I 
find
that often the default one that pops up suits the occasion, quite 
uncanny
really.

 RW> I am still unsure as to what it really means, I just see the
 RW> 'horse' bit and smile and think of my own horse and riding him
 RW> and how passionate I am about that and I do not really get any
 RW> further than that.

Perhaps you get far enough. I also think that people often 'choose' 
their
cars, pets etc. to match their temperament or where they are at in 
their
life. Fast and racy people in fast cars etc. Vicious people with 
vicious
types of dogs etc. And the opposite of course, people who feel 
small or
insecure, powerless trying to compensate by driving a big V8. in 
big Come
to think of it, it is not such a good tagline, it would be better 
to say
"A person in a passion rides a passionate horse" or "Passionate 
Person,
Passionate Horse or something". The other way confuses passion with
madness. It insinuates that the rider might be mad, which would be 
a nasty
form of labelling. Still I guess that is the trouble when we take the
words of another and use them as our own when they don't quite fit.

 RW> ...it is better to prevent than cure.

Most definitely.

Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Every valuable idea offends someone.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:48 2000
Date: (1963)   Sat 2 Apr 94 20:08                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 101
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d21b175c
@REPLY: 3:770/270 30299052

Hello Reg,
          I write again from my sick-bed, having little choice but to
rest, I am glad you replied so quickly as there is little I can do 
at the
moment and feeling a little frustrated with being so restricted, 
this is
one thing I can manage in small bursts.
I warn you again of possible delerium <G>.
Brooke has just stormed into the room, accusing me of not looking 
after
myself properly...now I find myself wrapped up in Walter's dressing 
gown
<G>, wearing slippers, a heater on right beside me and a hottie on my
knees...I warn you again of delerium <G>.

 RS> Subject: Flagellation for imperfection.

 RW>> Now listen here <G>, let there be no BLAME...<G>
 RW>> I hate that word 'should'.

 RS> Yes me too, in TA terms, words such as *should* and *must* are 
an
 RS> indicator that the person is interacting from the critical 
parent ego
 RS> state

Yes I recall learning something like that years ago, it reminds me 
of a
time my father was into TA and tried it out on me as a teenager, it 
did
not work which doesn't surprise me on hindsight, I remember being so
determined that no bastard was going to analyse me, let alone get 
close
enough to help me, I remember this with a mixture of amusement and 
pain.

 RS> I find it interesting that I used the term here, I was not
 RS> consciously being critical of myself, perhaps it was because I 
felt
 RS> criticised from other quarters and this was contaminating my 
thought
 RS> processes. I don't mean you here, I mean from elsewhere by other
 RS> people. I find when others become critical of me I do have a 
tendency
 RS> to warm-up to self criticism and sometimes, dare I say it even
 RS> criticise others <G>.

Are others being critical of you? That's no good... I hope you 
manage to
de-contaminate your thought processes and that it all gets sorted 
out.

 RW>> You did what you did and what
 RW>> happened happened and it was alright.
 RW>> But I don't know how the hell you'll ever forgive yourself. <G>

 RS> No, me either <G>, I wonder what would be a suitable 
punishment for
 RS> me
 RS> to inflict on myself <G>. Perhaps I could get a little whip 
and get
 RS> around whipping myself and repeating the words. "I am a bad 
person, I
 RS> interacted with another being from the critical parent ego 
state."
 RS> whip, whip, whip.

Come on! Its obvious you didn't have a Catholic upbringing.
How about, being Easter and all that, a good old-fashioned 
crucifixion?
You might however need some help as I would imagine a difficulty 
getting
the last nail in by oneself.<G>

 RS> The trouble with that plan is that others would
 RS> probably find it distracting and worse than that they might 
start
 RS> imitating me

Worse than that, *you* might find it a little distracting.

.RS> I think it would be much better if I just forgave myself
 RS> and went on with my life.

Oh yes, good idea .<G>

 RW>> Please do not throw yourself at my feet like that, <G> begging
 RW>> forgiveness and mercy,it does not become you. <G>

 RS> Don't worry I wasn't <G> well at least I don't think I was <G>.

No you weren't. Forgive my sarcasm, it was said in the loveliest 
possible
way. <G>
That's the bastard about this medium, if I displayed my usual 
sarcasm to
you in everyday reality, I do it so *nicely* there is no fear you 
would be
offended.
I do so much *playing* in my normal life, I cannot help but do it 
here,
there is just a much greater risk that it will offend.
However, I have every confidence in you to let me know if I do.

 RS> Subject: Waffling
 RS> *************

 RW>> .....Yes you are waffling a little, it makes interesting 
reading,
 RW>> would that be a good enough reason?

 RS> Yes it would be. The trouble is it is difficult for the 
waffler to
 RS> know
 RS> whether what he writes is interesting or not. He is also at 
times
 RS> criticised for being overinclusive and at others too abrupt. 
So he
 RS> finds
 RS> it difficult to achieve a suitable or workable balance in the 
absence
 RS> of unbiased feedback.

Well, here is what I reckon...if you want to waffle, by all means
*waffle*. I personally do not give a toss what critical ego parent 
types
have to say about it or me.
Remember, you were the one who pointed out that you may have been
waffling. It certainly would not have entered my head to even 
notice or
bother commenting on the fact.
Oh dear it does sound to me like you are criticising yourself, or 
that you
are taking it harshly if others are criticising you.

I do not believe in paying attention to critics, whether they be in 
my own
head or yelling in my ears. This of course is far more difficult to 
put
into practice.

At this point I must tell you I have on good medical advice poured 
myself
a whiskey, this should help my delerium along quite nicely. <G>

 RW>> Also the fact that you get
 RW>> your message across, it doesn't really matter if you waffle,

 RS> Perhaps not to you, but I could name a few who it does matter 
to, but
 RS> then again I guess it takes someone who appreciates the value of
 RS> being
 RS> heard to be able to accept and value a waffler. I think people 
who
 RS> waffle, do so for a reason eh? That is not to say that they 
might not
 RS> benefit from developing their ability to become more clear and
 RS> concise.

No it doesn't matter to me, and it is me you are writing to, so 
feel free
to waffle and be yourself as much as you like.
I will let you know if there is anything I find difficult, and it 
will not
be to criticise *you*, it will be for myself, as generally things I 
find
hard to tolerate in others tell me more about myself than the other
person...oh dear, am I beginning to sound like a saint? I assure 
you I am
not like that in real life. <G>

 RW>> Oh you are just logging on, what a pity, a few moments too 
early
 RW>> for this, I feel like such a voyeur when that happens, its
 RW>> great.<G>

 RS> Mmmm... well personally I don't actually mind at all because I 
use
 RS> the
 RS> SX off-line reader, but you would not want to watch those who 
write
 RS> using the on line editor, I think that would be somewhat 
unethical
 RS> and
 RS> an invasion of privacy.

I assure you I am not that kind of voyeur, besides which it is 
impossible
to read what people are writing on-line as there is a screen which 
covers
their writing.
I was referring to seeing the *name* of the person at the bottom of 
the
screen, thereby knowing *who* is logging on and no more.

 RS> Subject: Fight or Flight.
 RS> *********************
 RS> I hope you don't mind me naming this dynamic like that, it is 
the
 RS> best I can come up with at the moment.

 RS>>> sometimes we are not ready for some things and we need do be 
able
 RS>>> to tell ourselves this without feeling we have copped out eh?

 RW>> Oh I don't know really.

 RS> I do <G>. I have an image of Spartan soldier with an animal 
inside
 RS> his
 RS> garments gnawing away at his flesh and he is standing there 
without
 RS> flinching.

What a stupid bastard.

 RS> But to endure something unpleasant or painful out of love for
 RS> another or that we might grow in some way, that is quite 
different.

Yes, different when it is an act of love for oneself or another.
I remember something that has been with me for quite a time...
A martyr fights for a cause.
A warrior fights for herself.

 RW>> I just think, oh well, I stayed, that was what I did and this
 RW>> is how I feel, no mistakes, just what happens.

 RS> Yes. Perhaps I am just looking deeper, or is it because it is 
Easter
 RS> that I write this.

Again, I do not know.
But, for myself, Easter has always been a time when I go through 
some kind
of death/rebirth...it is interesting that this year I am sick and I 
wonder
what will eventuate as the weekend goes on, I am feeling quite 
miserable
and terrible physically, I think it is something about looking after
myself, especially as I have been off work now for almost a month and
thinking seriously about not going back, if I truly valued and 
believed in
myself I think I would not, but it is such a struggle....again a 
time to
stop listening to the bloody critics.

 RW>> Wrong! I don't know JB from T, at least I cannot think who she
 RW>> could be. But a private message would be OK, to clarify. <G>
 RW>> You will have to guess again, I'm afraid.<G>

 RS> SC from GB?
 RS> SC From S?
 RS> CM?
 RS> Rumplestiltskin? (?spelling)
 RS> Shit I don't know I give up.

None of the above.
I can't bear to see you in so much agony <G> over this any longer...
however I am not going to tell you here. She may mention our 
friendship to
you next time she sees you, if she so desires. I think also she would
quite like the fact that she has been given a little attention and
recognition here on the bulletin board. <G>

 RS>>> ... A person in a passion rides a mad horse.

 RW>> I am still unsure as to what it really means, I just see the
 RW>> 'horse' bit and smile and think of my own horse and riding him
 RW>> and how passionate I am about that and I do not really get any
 RW>> further than that.

 RS> Perhaps you get far enough. I also think that people often 
'choose'
 RS> their cars, pets etc. to match their temperament or where they 
are at
 RS> in their life. Fast and racy people in fast cars etc. Vicious 
people
 RS> with vicious types of dogs etc. And the opposite of course, 
people
 RS> who
 RS> feel small or insecure, powerless trying to compensate by 
driving a
 RS> big
 RS> V8. in big Come to think of it, it is not such a good tagline, 
it
 RS> would
 RS> be better to say "A person in a passion rides a passionate 
horse" or
 RS> "Passionate Person, Passionate Horse or something". The other 
way
 RS> confuses passion with madness. It insinuates that the rider 
might be
 RS> mad, which would be a nasty form of labelling. Still I guess 
that is
 RS> the trouble when we take the words of another and use them as 
our own
 RS> when they don't quite fit.

Yes maybe that is why I couldn't get any further with it, a person 
in a
passion rides a horse would do. I think what it was *trying* to say 
was
that it was foolish to get passionate about anything, equating it to
riding a mad horse.
Nah, I don't think so.
You would have to be a fool to ride a mad horse, sometimes I think 
it is
hard enough to ride a sane one.
Still, I don't blame them, being tamed and controlled by us as they 
are.
I certainly would put up a good fight
<G>

Must go now, sorry that is a rushed goodbye but I am feeling so ill 
and
unable to stay upright any longer.
See you Reg,
           Love Ruby.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 101
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:48 2000
Date: (1946)   Fri 1 Apr 94 18:23                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 100
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2d9596e7
@REPLY: 3:770/270 24c09a2e

Dear Reg,

I have just arrived home from shifting the horses to their new 
paddock, I
am dusty and tired and still sick but on impulse I logged on to see 
if
there was a message and now I find myself trapped in cyberspace....

 RS> I was, as always, pleased to get your message, but more so 
than usual
 RS> today. Perhaps it is because you have taken the time to write 
despite
 RS> not feeling well, or maybe because we get close to flames and 
we keep
 RS> going despite this.

Thank you, I was pleased to get yours too, especially because of the
nearness to flames and although I did not think for a moment that you
would abandon this, I was relieved and glad to see you were still 
there.
As for being sick, I am not good at resting, there is always too 
much I
want to do and so psybernetting is ideal in this case, as long as 
you can
cope with the delerium. <G>

 RW>> I write this from my sick-bed, with a temperature of 38.5, I'm
 RW>> telling you that so I may be absolved from anything I say which
 RW>> does not quite make sense, in the face of possible delirium. 
<G>

 RS> Wow you sure are hot <G>. I hope you get well soon and trust 
you are
 RS> getting looked after there.

Everyone is about to depart for Mt Lyford, I am looking after 
myself quite
well and will enjoy having the house to myself, quite a luxury when 
one
belongs to a large household.
My temp has come down, I have no excuse for my ravings now. <G>
But I have a nasty flu and it may be a good time for me to give up
smoking, damn it all, when I think about that I feel such grief! <G>

 RS> I wonder how we could have ever got at crossed purposes.

Happens to the best of us. <G>
Quite easily I think considering we are complex and emotional 
creatures
and considering also
the nature of this medium where everything is so drawn out and easily
misunderstood.
The whole content of this thread, for example, could have taken 
place in a
conversation in a couple of hours.
But then, we would not have the *process* that we have had here, and
I think a conversation would have had far less impact on me than 
all this
has in the last few days.
Again it comes back to the value of the process doesn't it.

 RS> Perhaps it was
 RS> meant to happen so we could get to experience something 
resembling
 RS> our
 RS> first flame and we would both learn and grow from the 
experience <G>
 RS>. A
 RS> sort of divine intervention neither of us knew about <G> <G>.

Perhaps.
God only knows. <G> <G>
Whatever the reason or however it came to occur, I have learned and 
grown
from this and for that I thank you.

 RS> we have gained clarity on this abandonment / blame thing.

Yes, we have.
Great, isn't it.

 RS> Oh no! You are definitely not doing it all wrong. I think you 
seem to
 RS> be
 RS> very much on the right track.

Thanks Reg.
I think I am too, pretty much. <G>

 RW>>>> Well its *her* question!!!
 RW>>>> Its a hell of a big step for her to stop blaming *herself* 
and
 RW>>>> thinking that *she* must deserve it.

 RS>>> Yes, I know, but it will not actually help her in the end to 
get
 RS>>> locked into any of the three above mentioned roles or 
*Blame* the
 RS>>> wrong parties for the harm caused her.

 RW>> And I do not in all truth see her as doing any of those things.
 RW>> For fuck's sake, leave her alone!!!!!

 RS> Ah! I see what has happened here. Further to the 
misunderstanding we
 RS> talk about above, I think I can see another one here. I was 
saying it
 RS> was not helpful for anyone to get locked into a 'blame' 
dynamic and
 RS> it
 RS> appears that you took it that I was accusing you/her of doing 
this
 RS> I should have spotted this earlier, when you were asking me 
about who
 RS> was
 RS> *we* and I went off into a spiel about how the collective *we* 
is ok
 RS> in
 RS> some circumstances, but alas my imperfect human traits have 
inched
 RS> their way out of my imperfect core <G>. I have erred, will I 
have to
 RS> wait until my death bed until I forgive myself <G>.

Now listen here <G>, let there be no BLAME...<G>
I hate that word 'should'. You did what you did and what happened 
happened
and it was alright.
But I don't know how the hell you'll ever forgive yourself. <G>

 RW>> And that is the closest to flames I have been with you.

 RS> Yes, I felt a bit of a jolt when I read  "For fuck's sake, 
leave her
 RS> alone!!!!!"  I wondered what had gone wrong. It is an 
imperfect world
 RS> we live in eh?

I don't think I would put it that way.
It was just what happened, neither good nor bad.

 RW>> And I am still here.
 RW>> Hopefully you are too.

 RS> Probably more so than ever, I especially appreciate people who 
keep
 RS> with things even when there are difficulties and 
misunderstandings.

Oh, me too.

 RW>> You come so close to her truth at times, enough to move me to
 RW>> tears. But right then I just felt so infuriated, that you
 RW>> weren't seeing her at all, you'd got her all wrong.

 RS> Mmmmm ..... I don't know about *all* wrong, partly perhaps, 
but to be
 RS> honest with you (which BTW does from time to time get me into 
a lot
 RS> of
 RS> trouble) I think it was more a misunderstanding. I hope this 
does not
 RS> sound like I am trying to wheedle out of something, it is what I
 RS> sincerely believe. I am afraid I simply can not go against my 
own
 RS> truth. This probably sounds like I am waffling off on a tangent,
 RS> perhaps I am, but I am sure there will be a reason for it.

Please do not throw yourself at my feet like that, <G> begging 
forgiveness
and mercy,it does not become you. <G>
In my experience...
1) I think you are right, you did not get her *all* wrong.
2) Thank you for being honest with me, it is something I truly 
value and
believe in.
3) I believe that it was a misunderstanding.
4) No it does not sound to me like you are trying to wheedle out of
something.
5) No not a good idea to go against one's truth.
6) Yes you are waffling a little, it makes interesting reading, 
would that
be a good enough reason? Also the fact that you get your message 
across,
it doesn't really matter if you waffle, after all its your 
perogative, is
it not, and now I am waffling but that also is my perogative etc 
etc <G>
and so it goes, on and on and on and on....I think I am getting 
slightly
delerious again, just bear with me, there will be some reason for 
it...OH
you are just logging on, what a pity, a few moments too early for 
this, I
feel like such a voyeur when that happens, its great.<G> And now 
you are
on the phone, isn't that strange.

 RW>> the case or not, I suspect not, but just to get this straight,
 RW>> for the record, I do not blame anyone for my pain.

 RS> I think that is now very clear.

 RW>> And I agree
 RW>> with you, that to blame is futile and empty and does not assist
 RW>> the healing process.

 RS> Oh goody we agree on that.

Agreed.
I now lay the subject to rest. <G>

 RS> Subject: The film (sorry I cut that bit out and can't spell the 
guys name)

 RW>> Terrible. And now on hindsight, as it has stayed with me so
 RW>> deeply and touched me so profoundly, I question why I had to
 RW>> stay when I so wanted to leave and felt so sick from it all.
 RW>> I do not need to explore *every* dark corner.

 RS> No, it reminds me of what I was saying above about keeping 
going, but
 RS> sometimes we are not ready for some things and we need do be 
able to
 RS> tell ourselves this without feeling we have copped out eh?

Oh I don't know really.
I just think, oh well, I stayed, that was what I did and this is 
how I
feel, no mistakes, just what happens.

 RW>> No it is a wonderful response. I feel like you do.
 RW>> I left the picture theatre feeling all that outrage and
 RW>> sickness and despair and grief but I also had a very strong,
 RW>> passionate feeling, that life is so precious and never to
 RW>> forget that. This was summed up at the end of the
 RW>> film...Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.

 RS> That last sentence reminds me a lot of my work. Not that I am 
into
 RS> saving people as such, but sometimes what I do seems so
 RS> insignificant,
 RS> the few clients I work with and reach somehow makes it all 
worthwhile
 RS> in a world that seems very large, harsh and cruel at times.

Yes I feel like that in my work too.

 RW>> Changing the subject a little, it is funny how your name has
 RW>> popped up in conversations this week.

 RS> I hope what was said was not all bad or indifferent <G>.

No, rest assured. I see you have grinned but it is a tiny bit 
anxious, or
am I wrong. <G>

 RW>> I met a woman today who knew you from psychodrama,

 RS> Mmmmm she could be one of many, but oh I wonder who? Perhaps you
 RS> better
 RS> not say here, but a private message would be ok.

Oh no, I like to keep you in suspense. <G>

 RW>> also a very good friend of mine knows
 RW>> you from psychodrama and was talking to you just the other day.

 RS> Ah, I think I know who that will be....  JB she was living in 
T. Am I
 RS> right?

Wrong! I don't know JB from T, at least I cannot think who she 
could be.
But a private message would be OK, to clarify. <G>
You will have to guess again, I'm afraid.<G>

 RW>> So far I have not dwelt on the fact that we write in a public
 RW>> forum,

 RS> I have not dwelt on it, but I have pondered the whys and 
wherefores
 RS> of it.

 RW>> I must admit it is a little frightening when I think about it.

 RS> Yes and for me too in that I am displaying much of my values,
 RS> beliefs,
 RS> ideas and even a few feelings from time to time <G>. I am left
 RS> wondering
 RS> how much I am being judged by all those people who log on and 
read
 RS> messages, but never write any and I guess too by those who 
write them

Yes, I wonder about that also, and if they want to log on and judge 
me
here I'll give them a good run for their money so to speak. <G>

 RS> ... A person in a passion rides a mad horse.

I'm afraid you are repeating yourself here. Maybe there is a reason 
for
that... <G>

I am still unsure as to what it really means, I just see the 
'horse' bit
and smile and think of my own horse and riding him and how 
passionate I am
about that and I do not really get any further than that. <G> Maybe 
you
will keep repeating it until the message gets through. <G>

And now I really must disentangle myself from here and get some 
herbs and
garlic into my failing sick body...cough cough. <G>

Love,
    Ruby.

...it is better to prevent than cure.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 100
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:48 2000
Date: (1994)   Sun 3 Apr 94 17:31                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 0e3e03dc
@REPLY: 3:770/270 d21b175c

3 April, 1994

Hello Ruby,

Oh what a miserable day out there, weather wise.

 RW> I am glad you replied so quickly as there is little I can do 
at the
 RW> moment and feeling a little frustrated with being so restricted

I am glad you said this, I was tempted to refrain from replying for 
a few
days until you might be better. I guess I was thinking you might feel
compelled to reply or something dumb like that.

 RW> Brooke has just stormed into the room, accusing me of not 
looking
 RW> after myself properly...

I think it is great that Brooke cares enough to 'tell you off'.

 RS>> ...in TA terms, words such as *should* and *must* are an
 RS>> indicator that the person is interacting from the critical 
parent
 RS>> ego state...

 RW> Yes I recall learning something like that years ago, it reminds
 RW> me of a time my father was into TA and tried it out on me as a
 RW> teenager, it did not work which doesn't surprise me.
 RW> On hindsight, I remember being so determined that no bastard was
 RW> going to analyse me, let alone get close enough to help me, I
 RW> remember this with a mixture of amusement and pain.

It does not surprise me that it did not work. Any sort of analysis 
needs
to be done because the analysand wants it. Or at least when there 
is an
agreement between both parties that this is to occur at some stage. 
This
did not seem to be the case in the situation you relate. I would 
hazard a
guess that you fathers actions were possibly motivated by love and a
desire to help, maybe he was like the born again Christian who has
discovered something and wants to share it with the world, or the 
child
with a newfound toy. Then again he might have been unconsciously 
motivated
by the need to control you in some way, who knows? <G>. And here I am
analysing your fathers motivations, perhaps this is poetic justice 
<G>.
No, actually I guess I am endeavouring to assist you to role 
reverse with
him on this. I know it has been helpful to me to role reverse and 
thus
gain some understanding of why the hell my own father did some of the
things he did. When I gain some understanding like that it is not 
so easy
to hate him.

 RS>> I find it interesting that I used the term here, I was not
 RS>> consciously being critical of myself, perhaps it was because 
I felt
 RS>> criticised from other quarters and this was contaminating my 
thought
 RS>> processes. I don't mean you here, I mean from elsewhere by 
other
 RS>> people. I find when others become critical of me I do have a
 RS>> tendency to warm-up to self criticism and sometimes, dare I 
say it
 RS>> even criticise others <G>.

 RW> Are others being critical of you?

Yes.

 RW> That's no good...

No, it is bloody horrible to be criticised and blamed, most of all 
when it
is unwarranted and people are not willing or able to spell out their
criticisms directly to me. Even worse when the criticisms come as 
vague
second hand inuendos and half truths. And here I am almost doing 
the same,
so will cease as it is not how I like to be in the world. Please rest
assured, as I said in my last message none of this applies to you. I
thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your openness and directness.

 RW> I hope you manage to decontaminate your thought processes and 
that
 RW> it all gets sorted out.

Oh yes, I think I have pretty well done that now, sorted out my 
thought
processes that is, but I can't speak for others of course.

 RS>> .......interacted with another being from the critical parent 
ego
 RS>> state." whip, whip, whip.

 RW> Come on! Its obvious you didn't have a Catholic upbringing.

No, but I did marry one and became one for a number of years, but 
do not
consider myself one now.

 RW> How about, being Easter and all that, a good old-fashioned
 RW> crucifixion? You might however need some help as I would
 RW> imagine a difficulty getting the last nail in by oneself.<G>

I can see and enter into the humour of this, but I must admit when 
I feel
unfairly criticised it as if I am being crucified.

 RS>> The trouble with that plan is that others would
 RS>> probably find it distracting and worse than that they might 
start
 RS>> imitating me

 RW> Worse than that, *you* might find it a little distracting.

Yes, how true.

 RS>> I think it would be much better if I just forgave myself
 RS>> and went on with my life.

 RW> Oh yes, good idea .<G>

 RW>>> Please do not throw yourself at my feet like that, <G> begging
 RW>>> forgiveness and mercy,it does not become you. <G>

 RS>> Don't worry I wasn't <G> well at least I don't think I was <G>.

 RW> No you weren't. Forgive my sarcasm, it was said in the
 RW> loveliest possible way. <G>

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but I have also 
heard it
said that it the highest form of intelligence <G>.

 RW> That's the bastard about this medium, if I displayed my usual
 RW> sarcasm to you in everyday reality, I do it so *nicely* there
 RW> is no fear you would be offended.

Oh, I was not offended, but I did not quite get the grins first time
round. I thought you had misunderstood me or something. As if I would
throw myself at anothers feet in that way <G>. On reading it again, I
see the humour in a different light. Perhaps we need to invent a 
range of
grins or use some smileys here and there (;  but as you can see I 
am not
so good at smileys.

 RW> I do so much *playing* in my normal life,

I think I used to be a lot more playful myself, but I guess it 
requires
the right sort of playmates.

 RW> I cannot help but do it here, there is just a much greater 
risk that
 RW> it will offend.

Yes I have been taken up the wrong way more than once here.

 RW> However, I have every confidence in you to let me know if I do.

Yes I will and vice versa.


 RS>> Subject: Waffling
 RS>> *************

 RW> Well, here is what I reckon...if you want to waffle, by all
 RW> means *waffle*. I personally do not give a toss what critical
 RW> ego parent types have to say about it or me.

Ha! that is so funny, I do not know whether the misquote is 
deliberate or
not, but I am very amused. (:

 RW> Oh dear it does sound to me like you are criticising yourself,
 RW> or that you are taking it harshly if others are criticising you.

I suppose I was when I wrote that, but I think I have moved beyond 
it now.

 RW> I do not believe in paying attention to critics, whether they
 RW> be in my own head or yelling in my ears. This of course is far
 RW> more difficult to put into practice.

Yes, I do not believe in it either, but like you say, sometimes it is
easier said than done.

 RW> No it doesn't matter to me, and it is me you are writing to, so
 RW> feel free to waffle and be yourself as much as you like.

Thanks.

 RS>> ...... but you would not want to watch those who write
 RS>> using the on line editor, I think that would be somewhat 
unethical
 RS>> and an invasion of privacy.

 RW> I assure you I am not that kind of voyeur, besides which it is
 RW> impossible to read what people are writing on-line as there is
 RW> a screen which covers their writing.

Oh, I did not no this, when I updated the editor I did it all 
remotely so
have not seen that screen cover in action, the earlier version 
never had
it.

 RW> I was referring to seeing the *name* of the person at the
 RW> bottom of the screen, thereby knowing *who* is logging on and
 RW> no more.

Ah, right, I am with you now, I was only really commenting by way of
reassurance to other users who might be reading the thread.

 RW> ..... Easter has always been a time when I go
 RW> through some kind of death/rebirth...it is interesting that
 RW> this year I am sick and I wonder what will eventuate as the
 RW> weekend goes on, I am feeling quite miserable and terrible
 RW> physically, I think it is something about looking after myself,
 RW> especially as I have been off work now for almost a month and
 RW> thinking seriously about not going back, if I truly valued and
 RW> believed in myself I think I would not, but it is such a
 RW> struggle....again a time to stop listening to the bloody
 RW> critics.

Yes and also I guess weighing things up, being a Libran you should 
be good
at that <G>. I know when I gave up nursing it was the right thing 
to do,
but I have paid a price in terms of financial security.


 RW> .....You would have to be a fool to ride a mad horse, 
sometimes I
 RW> think it is hard enough to ride a sane one.
 RW> Still, I don't blame them, being tamed and controlled by us as
 RW> they are. I certainly would put up a good fight

I have never really ridden one, I remember as a child sitting on 
the back
of one and being led around the oval at the school fair, it seemed 
such an
awfully long way down to the ground. Have you ever heard that record
called "How the West Was Really Won', or something like that. There 
is one
about a travelling psychiatrist who analyses a gunslinger:

TP: "Tell me why do you hate your horse?"

GS: "I don't hate my horse."

TP: "Well if you don't hate your horse then your horse must hate 
you."

GS: "Why would my horse hate me?"

TP: "Well you sit on him, you feed him oats. Of coarse your horse 
hates
you!"

....and so it gos on. I can't remember who it was done by, I have not
heard it in years.

Well I must finish now and get this in the post <G>.

Love & Regards 
 Reg

... Fiddle: Friction of a horse's tail on a cat's entrails.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:49 2000
Date: (2040)   Mon 4 Apr 94 12:26                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 UNREG 103
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2079631d
@REPLY: 3:770/270 0e3e03dc

Hello Reg,

Lovely day out there...<G>

 RW>> I am glad you replied so quickly as there is little I can do 
at the
 RW>> moment and feeling a little frustrated with being so restricted

 RS> I am glad you said this, I was tempted to refrain from 
replying for a
 RS> few days until you might be better. I guess I was thinking you 
might
 RS> feel compelled to reply or something dumb like that.

Oh I would never reply unless I wanted to, and have been glad to 
recieve
your messages so frequently, they have helped to keep me sane.
The chest infection has much improved since I got on board 
yesterday and
finally went to the doctor, although I did react badly to one of 
the drugs
and am still feeling a little peculiar, a little 'spaced out'.

 RW>> Brooke has just stormed into the room, accusing me of not 
looking
 RW>> after myself properly...

 RS> I think it is great that Brooke cares enough to 'tell you off'.

Oh yes, I didn't mean to discount her in any way.

RE T.A. ATTEMPTS BY PARENTS....

 RS> I would hazard
 RS> a guess that you fathers actions were possibly motivated by 
love and
 RS> desire to help, maybe he was like the born again Christian who 
has
 RS> discovered something and wants to share it with the world, or 
the
 RS> child
 RS> with a newfound toy. Then again he might have been unconsciously
 RS> motivated by the need to control you in some way, who knows? 
<G>. And
 RS> here I am analysing your fathers motivations, perhaps this is 
poetic
 RS> justice <G>

I am unsure as to why he attempted it, as I recall it was something 
he
tried out from a book recommended by my aunt who had tried it on 
her kids.
TA FOR TOTS, I think it was called, I have never read it.
I remember it was quite out of character for him and there was alot 
of
hilarity as he read it to me and relayed how his parenting had been 
all
wrong etc etc, in his humourous way...that was the amusing part. 
But I see
now the pain underneath all that, for me and possibly for him, I 
don't
know; the truth was strongly denied and everything was invisible, 
made
even worse by the humour, and I think more than anything I did want 
to be
helped and for things to change.

 RS>. No, actually I guess I am endeavouring to assist you to
 RS> role reverse with him on this. I know it has been helpful to 
me to
 RS> role
 RS> reverse and thus gain some understanding of why the hell my own
 RS> father
 RS> did some of the things he did. When I gain some understanding 
like
 RS> that it is not so easy to hate him.

Well...I've tried role reversal on a number of occasions and it has 
never
worked for me, I feel incredibly frustrated and don't seem to get
anywhere, similarly when I have done Gestalt work and been 
encouraged to
talk to a cushion as if it were a person, I just cannot do it, it 
is just
not real enough for me.

I have gained a small slice of understanding through hearing about 
his own
childhood, enough for me not to hate him, anyway.

It is difficult for me to find the words for what I want to say...

The best I can do at the moment is...what I am trying to say 
is...Oh fuck,
I'm finding this incredibly difficult.

I'm sorry Reg, I am absolutely unable to talk about this here, at the
moment and in my present state anyway.
Another time...

 RW>> Are others being critical of you?

 RS> Yes.

 RW>> That's no good...

 RS> No, it is bloody horrible to be criticised and blamed, most of 
all
 RS> when
 RS> it is unwarranted and people are not willing or able to spell 
out
 RS> their
 RS> criticisms directly to me. Even worse when the criticisms come 
as
 RS> vague
 RS> second hand inuendos and half truths. And here I am almost 
doing the
 RS> same, so will cease as it is not how I like to be in the world

It sounds pretty bad Reg.

 RS>. Please
 RS> rest assured, as I said in my last message none of this 
applies to
 RS> you.
 RS> I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your openness and directness.

Thank you.

 RS>>> .......interacted with another being from the critical 
parent ego
 RS>>> state." whip, whip, whip.

 RW>> Come on! Its obvious you didn't have a Catholic upbringing.
 RW>> How about, being Easter and all that, a good old-fashioned
 RW>> crucifixion? You might however need some help as I would
 RW>> imagine a difficulty getting the last nail in by oneself.<G>

 RS> I can see and enter into the humour of this, but I must admit 
when I
 RS> feel unfairly criticised it as if I am being crucified.

Oh, you're really in pain over this aren't you.

 RW>>>> Please do not throw yourself at my feet like that, <G> 
begging
 RW>>>> forgiveness and mercy,it does not become you. <G>

 RS>>> Don't worry I wasn't <G> well at least I don't think I was 
<G>.

 RW>> No you weren't. Forgive my sarcasm, it was said in the
 RW>> loveliest possible way. <G>

 RS> They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but I have also
 RS> heard it said that it the highest form of intelligence <G>.

Really? I would like to think so. <G>

 RW>> That's the bastard about this medium, if I displayed my usual
 RW>> sarcasm to you in everyday reality, I do it so *nicely* there
 RW>> is no fear you would be offended.

 RS> Oh, I was not offended, but I did not quite get the grins 
first time
 RS> round. I thought you had misunderstood me or something. As if 
I would
 RS> throw myself at anothers feet in that way <G>. On reading it 
again, I
 RS> see the humour in a different light. Perhaps we need to invent a
 RS> range
 RS> of grins or use some smileys here and there (;  but as you can 
see I
 RS> am not so good at smileys.

I don't like those smileys much.
Perhaps we will just have to awaken our latent psychic abilities.<G>

 RW>> I do so much *playing* in my normal life,

 RS> I think I used to be a lot more playful myself, but I guess it
 RS> requires the right sort of playmates.

Yes. I *think* so...but sometimes you have to play with everyone 
until you
find them. Its surprising sometimes what can happen.

 RS>>> Subject: Waffling
 RS>>> *************

 RW>> Well, here is what I reckon...if you want to waffle, by all
 RW>> means *waffle*. I personally do not give a toss what critical
 RW>> ego parent types have to say about it or me.

 RS> Ha! that is so funny, I do not know whether the misquote is
 RS> deliberate or not, but I am very amused. (:

Yes it was...<G>
Not that I would admit it if it wasn't. <G>

 RW>> Oh dear it does sound to me like you are criticising yourself,
 RW>> or that you are taking it harshly if others are criticising 
you.

 RS> I suppose I was when I wrote that, but I think I have moved 
beyond it
 RS> now.

Oh good.
But you are still in pain, I think, from what you have said here in 
this
message.

 RW>> I do not believe in paying attention to critics, whether they
 RW>> be in my own head or yelling in my ears. This of course is far
 RW>> more difficult to put into practice.

 RS> Yes, I do not believe in it either, but like you say, 
sometimes it is
 RS> easier said than done.

Mmmm, it is hard to break free of the bastards isn't it.

RE VOYEURISM...

 RW>> I was referring to seeing the *name* of the person at the
 RW>> bottom of the screen, thereby knowing *who* is logging on and
 RW>> no more.

 RS> Ah, right, I am with you now, I was only really commenting by 
way of
 RS> reassurance to other users who might be reading the thread.

Yeah, I thought so. <G>

 RW>> .....You would have to be a fool to ride a mad horse, 
sometimes I
 RW>> think it is hard enough to ride a sane one.
 RW>> Still, I don't blame them, being tamed and controlled by us as
 RW>> they are. I certainly would put up a good fight

 RS> I have never really ridden one, I remember as a child sitting 
on the
 RS> back of one and being led around the oval at the school fair, it
 RS> seemed
 RS> such an awfully long way down to the ground.

Yes, it still seems that way to me. There is always the edge with 
horses I
think, every time I ride I have to overcome my fear, they are so 
powerful
and it is so exhilerating to ride and become almost a part of the 
horse
and move with it, also the communication is almost psychic...it is a
passion of mine to ride, just to be near horses even. They have such
powerful spirits, somehow just being around them is an incredibly
important part of who I am. Even as a child there was no question 
about
whether I was allowed to ride or not, I just *had* to, nobody was 
going to
stop me and that was that. I think somehow I knew that 'wild and 
free'
part of me had to stay untouched and riding horses was the only way 
I knew
how...I used to look back and grieve how I didn't manage to save 
myself,
even through the horses, but now I think I did, I did somehow keep 
a part
of me very much alive.

 RS> Have you ever heard that
 RS> record called "How the West Was Really Won', or something like 
that.

No.

 RS> There is one about a travelling psychiatrist who analyses a
 RS> gunslinger:

 RS> TP: "Tell me why do you hate your horse?"

 RS> GS: "I don't hate my horse."

 RS> TP: "Well if you don't hate your horse then your horse must hate
 RS> you."

 RS> GS: "Why would my horse hate me?"

 RS> TP: "Well you sit on him, you feed him oats. Of coarse your 
horse
 RS> hates you!"

 RS> ....and so it gos on. I can't remember who it was done by, I 
have not
 RS> heard it in years.

Sounds hilarious. <G>
Reminds me of that Monty Python one, 5 men talking about hard 
times...

I remember the days when a cup of tea was hard to come by.
We never used to have tea..
or milk..
or sugar..
or tea...
we were lucky to suck on a damp cloth..
Luxury! We had to lick road with tongue in middle of night..
You had it easy!....

And so it goes, have you heard it? <G>

Must go now, some friends have arrived.
Take care Reg,

Love Ruby.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 103
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00P [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:50 2000
Date: (2059)   Tue 5 Apr 94 15:29                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe and Everything.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 00f222cf
@REPLY: 3:770/270 2079631d

Hello Ruby,

 RW> Lovely day out there...<G>

And again today.

 RW> Oh I would never reply unless I wanted to, and have been glad
 RW> to receive your messages so frequently,

I have enjoyed corresponding with you, but I must say I am at the 
point of
wanting to withdraw from this medium for one reason and another.

 RW>>> Brooke has just stormed into the room, accusing me of not 
looking
 RW>>> after myself properly...

 RS>> I think it is great that Brooke cares enough to 'tell you off'.

 RW> Oh yes, I didn't mean to discount her in any way.

No I did not think you were, I am not quite sure why I said that.

 RW> RE T.A. ATTEMPTS BY PARENTS....

 RW> I am unsure as to why he attempted it, as I recall it was
 RW> something he tried out from a book recommended by my aunt who
 RW> had tried it on her kids. TA FOR TOTS, I think it was called, I
 RW> have never read it.

I have. We had it here until it got ripped up <G>, there was a whole
series of them. TA for kids, teens and so on. One of the reasons 
why TA
became popular was that it was able to be put in terms simple 
enough for a
range of people.

 RW> Well...I've tried role reversal on a number of occasions and it
 RW> has never worked for me, I feel incredibly frustrated and don't
 RW> seem to get anywhere, similarly when I have done Gestalt work
 RW> and been encouraged to talk to a cushion as if it were a
 RW> person, I just cannot do it, it is just not real enough for me.

I think it requires a certain willingness to enter into it for it 
to work,
but also skill on the part of the therapist. It is also much easier 
when
there is another person there and not just a cushion.

 RW> I have gained a small slice of understanding through hearing
 RW> about his own childhood, enough for me not to hate him, anyway.

Yes, this was what I was getting at. Not the physical role 
reversal, but
more a psychological role reversal which you have obviously done as
demonstrated by what you write above.

 RW> It is difficult for me to find the words for what I want to
 RW> say...

 RW> The best I can do at the moment is...what I am trying to say
 RW> is...Oh fuck, I'm finding this incredibly difficult.

 RW> I'm sorry Reg, I am absolutely unable to talk about this here,
 RW> at the moment and in my present state anyway.
 RW> Another time...

Yes, that is fine, I can appreciate the difficulty.

 RS>> No, it is bloody horrible to be criticised and blamed, most 
of all
 RS>> when
 RS>> it is unwarranted and people are not willing or able to spell 
out
 RS>> their
 RS>> criticisms directly to me. Even worse when the criticisms 
come as
 RS>> vague
 RS>> second hand inuendos and half truths. And here I am almost 
doing the
 RS>> same, so will cease as it is not how I like to be in the world

 RW> It sounds pretty bad Reg.

Yes, bad enough that it makes me want to withdraw from this medium
altogether, but if I do that I will have to find a non destructive 
way of
doing so, perhaps this is my way, to talk about it here in a public 
echo.
That somehow feels healthier and more honest.

 RW> Oh, you're really in pain over this aren't you.

Well yes and no.

 RW> I don't like those smileys much.

No me either, I never really got into them, they too seem a little
limiting.

 RW> Perhaps we will just have to awaken our latent psychic
 RW> abilities.<G>

Perhaps.

 RW> Oh good.
 RW> But you are still in pain, I think, from what you have said
 RW> here in this message.

I did not know it was that obvious, but yes to be honest I am, I 
find that
hard to admit, but I think I owe you that, for you have been very 
open and
direct in your correspondence with me.

 RW> There is always the edge
 RW> with horses I think, every time I ride I have to overcome my
 RW> fear, they are so powerful and it is so exhilarating to ride
 RW> and become almost a part of the horse and move with it, also
 RW> the communication is almost psychic...it is a passion of mine
 RW> to ride, just to be near horses even.

Yes it comes through when you speak about them.

 RW> They have such powerful
 RW> spirits, somehow just being around them is an incredibly
 RW> important part of who I am. Even as a child there was no
 RW> question about whether I was allowed to ride or not, I just
 RW> *had* to, nobody was going to stop me and that was that. I
 RW> think somehow I knew that 'wild and free' part of me had to
 RW> stay untouched and riding horses was the only way I knew
 RW> how...I used to look back and grieve how I didn't manage to
 RW> save myself, even through the horses, but now I think I did, I
 RW> did somehow keep a part of me very much alive.

Yes, they are obviously part of your life and have been a good sort 
of
metaphor or symbol for you eh?

 RW> Sounds hilarious. <G>
 RW> Reminds me of that Monty Python one, 5 men talking about hard
 RW> times...

 RW> And so it goes, have you heard it? <G>

I don't know that I have actually heard it directly, but yes I know 
of it.

 RW> Must go now, some friends have arrived.
 RW> Take care Reg,

Thankyou, I will.


Love & Regards
 Reg

... Living well is the best revenge!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:50 2000
Date: (2092)   Wed 6 Apr 94  2:05                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: No Anonymity!
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b181ff55

Well there is no anonymity here as yet folks.  I think I know just 
about
everything, and that is tricky for me and for others I am sure.  I 
am not
just thinking of the ALTERWORLD but of the relationship between the 
EDR
(everyday reality) and this cyberspace place.  At present this echo 
is on
the Psybernet BBS and also goes to Prompt/2 in Christchurch.  
Almost all
the users, readers are interconnected in some way.  I think this has
enormous implications.  However it is a fact of life that there is 
an EDR
and a VR.  There is a relationship between the two.

I have no idea about this really, just that it feels good to say 
out loud
here in the public echo, that we are not just users who log onto a 
board
but a bunch of people who interrelate in many ways.  It is one of the
phenomena of Psybernet and all of cyberspace and it is a relationship
phenomena.  It is a psychological phenomena it is one to look at 
here.

I chat with Reg, I have been chatting with Sue, I chat with Stanley 
and I
chat with Ruby.  In EDR not in chat mode!  More than that some of 
these
relationships have many hats, they are what is known to me through
psychotherapy as 'dual' relationships.  If I ever have to examine 
someone
for competency in human relations Id ask them how they work with 
'dual'
relationships, I'd love to learn more about that!

Here are some things that occur to me, more from my learning about so
called 'healthy relating' in the EDR.

Triangling.
This word has connotations of sin in the psychodrama world I 
trained in.
To speak about someone to someone else.  It is always done, must be 
done
and can't not be done.  Would be good to distinguish OK triangling 
from
not OK triangling?  Or would this just create a restrictive climate 
of
what was OK and what was not?  A bit like what we had on Psybernet 
in its
first month or so we had so many Conferences that we kept thinking we
should be in another one!  Well it is a complex question.  It can 
be done
in psyberspace as well by writing in private mail about the process 
on the
board.  The idea is that private mail is private, and stays that 
way if at
all possible.  Should one say one is having private mail?  I don't 
think
so, even that is private?  Or am I wrong?  Now mix VR and EDR and 
there
are even more complexities!

I feel this particularly as a tricky situation because I am central 
to the
activity on the board.  Mind you, I have been active on Compuserve 
and
have gotten into complexities there with all of this, where I know 
no-one
in the flesh and I am not central at all.

One guideline I have always found useful about triangling is that 
it is
good to engage in if the purpose is to assist in there being good
relationships all round (which can of course include the ending of
relationships.)  If the discussion is not malicious, at least not 
mutually
malicious, that is a good guide line.


Cheating
I have heard or read (was it Reg?) this concept used in connection 
with
going outside the medium to gain info.  What a wonderful notion.  
There is
something to be said for developing a totally on-line relationship. 
 That
way, as I read in the ALTERWORLD, you are known by your words.  I 
have
endeavoured not to be party to any cheating.  I call it that though 
I do
not see it as a sin! rather more of a pleasant intrigue.  It is 
certainly
part of the tele-computing scene, I notice that the BBS groups have
regular BBQs.  On Compuserve there are sometimes dinners for users 
of a
forum & people travel from all over the world.  I read today in 
Howard
Rheingold's _The Virtual Community_ of his shock at walking into a 
WELL
party:

>> I looked around the room full of strangers when I walked in.  It 
was
one of the oddest sensations of my life.  I had contended with these
people, shot the invisible breeze around the electronic watercooler,
shared alliances and formed bonds, fallen off my chair laughing 
with them,
become livid with anger at some of them.  But there wasn't a 
recognizable
in the house.  I had never seen them before. <<

Well that was a sort of cheating, but OK.  I can just imagine it, 
what an
experience.  I guess that he could have that sort of experience 
only by
not cheating in the first place.

I have yet to have a lot of exclusive on-line contact on Psybernet 
though
I have experienced it fully elsewhere.  I am pouring this out here 
because
I feel the effects of the complexity around me.  Confused and 
strained.  I
am writing all this in the hope of recognition of this plight and 
with the
hope of relief!  Also of course because of my never ending interest 
in the
phenomena, just experiencing the pain of it is to be a 
Psybernaught, and
that I love.

To digress:  I am really enjoying the book by Howard Rheingold so 
far,
just got it today.  I like the image of a virtual community, I like 
the
metaphor.  It fits with me being lost in cyberspace, I have spread 
myself
a bit thin and belong to two communities, that is a bit of a 
bummer, yet
they are both dear to me. I feel love for all of these friends here 
in
this medium, nothing virtual about that!.  I felt that so clearly 
today,
especially about one chap who I will write to in public, (not in this
community).

>> You are a pain in the virtual butt!  But I love you, and if you 
were
not here I would need to invent you. <<

Just as I wrote to Stanley that the gods had won and I experienced 
the
serenity of having no real influence over anything, that being 
active in
the world was just allowing the god of being active in the world to 
take
over my life, I sense the flesh and blood world of the community in 
a new
way, I wonder if there is a connection or is it just the books I 
read?

I like the idea of Psybernet being a virtual community.  It is also a
virtual laboratory, an experiment, it is a theatre, it is a person 
(ie it
has its own life), it is a 'window of the soul' as I have called it 
in
every description I have ever written on the BBS.  The right 
metaphor, I
have come to see after a message from Stanley the other day, is 
that it is
any damn thing you like to call it!

Some more thoughts and feelings on being tangled in a web of
relationships, and NOT being anonymous:
I think of the propensity of fire here, the flames, and I smell some
burning, I think of the wonderful qualities of fire.  Cleansing, 
warming,
baptising, transforming, burning passion, all those things 
associated with
fire signs in astrology, and the suit of wands in Tarot, if those 
things
have meaning for you.  I think of all the people who have walked on 
hot
coals.  I hate it really, I hate flames, I am an earth sign and I 
feel
much more at home in earth than fire.  Give me the earth any day.

Anyway, I think that this message is about fire, and I think here in
cyberspace fire is always the first thing to deal with.  I imagine 
that in
the history of psyberspace they will say that by the year 2000 they 
had
begun to develop the conceptual tools for working with fire.  I 
really
hope that we are already part of that process.

On to the next message!


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2096)   Wed 6 Apr 94 23:19                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: All
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear All,
          I have not contributed much to our BBS lately because I 
have
been busy doing some writing - still am.  So I thought I'd give you a
little sample of what is going on in my diseased brain. It's a 
quote from
a book which I'm finishing called 'Many Places of the Soul'. I'll 
put it
in the library later if anyone is interested


                         QUOTE BEGINS
     *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

          Emptiness and the feeling of 'nothing', so well explored by
modern existentialism is a soul state, contrary to the way they 
imagine it
in their philosophy. We do not need to objectify it into an 
ontological
truth, but rather to see it as psychological condition, one of the 
soul's
fantasies of the loss.  It is, as the existentialists have well 
observed,
a state of anxiety, dread and angst.  Nietzsche started it all off by
telling us that God was dead; a not too dissimilar experience to 
when the
ancient world was told that the pagan gods were dead.  Both times 
there
followed a riotous proliferation of superstitious religions and
alternative occult practices! Both these times in history there was 
great
psychological uncertainty, instability  and the dread that loss of 
soul
brings with it, a widespread feeling of dis-ease. Both times, 
rationalism
was very strong among the intellectuals: Stoicism in Hellenistic 
and Roman
times and the so-called scientific attitude in ours. At these times 
the
soul then returns from the repressed as literal beliefs in astrology,
magic, talismans, witchcraft, spells (positive affirmations) - all of
which are very popular in the our New Age milieu.  Such is the 
defensive
anxiety against nothingness that these beliefs take on the 
ponderous and
weighty seriousness of superstition, without poetry or imagination, 
and,
worst of all, without, irony, charm or wit.  Even so, they have 
something
of soul in them because they are so dramatic and urgent and frankly
pathological. The gods return as sick ideas that demand attention.

          It is interesting to ask what is a 'sick idea'. To get a 
grip on
it lets compare it to a psychosomatic symptom. A real psychosomatic
symptom has a component of fantasy that is not recognised as such. 
In our
culture the psyche by itself does not impress us. We have no 
religious
mythology by which it can. So the psyche transforms itself or 
expresses
itself through something which does impress us - a bodily symptom. 
The
psyche magnifies itself through the physical symptom so that we can 
feel
something of the depth, something power of the psyche and our 
helplessness
in relations to it. The problem, however, is still that the whole
phenomena is cut off from its roots. We take the symptom literally, 
which
means that we still do not recognise the imaginative or divine 
element in
it.

          A sick idea is the same - and this goes all the way from
'Marxism' to a compulsive idea that 'God is Love' or 'the stars 
foretell'.
It is not whether an idea is true, but the style with which it is 
held,
whether the idea is cut off from its roots in the mundus 
imaginalis. The
question is: does it recognise itself as part of the creative 
imagination
or not. For the soul, it doesn't matter whether an idea is true or 
false,
but whether it remembers. Does the idea remember its origin.

           Bastard ideas have no family, no roots; they are sick 
abandoned
children who are likely to grow into delinquents. Because such 
ideas have
no consciousness of their lineage they acquire an overgrown ego.  
Ideas
are persons, like ourselves,  who need a consciousness of their 
deeper
connections. Literalism is basically dissociation, so that an idea
believes that it stands alone as truth, signifies truth, with no 
cognition
of its metaphorical origins, of the family of ideas from which it has
sprung, which itself has its beginning in mythos.

          Ideas spring from archetypal roots and those ideas that 
retain a
consciousness of that, illuminate the psyche; those that don't cast 
very
deep shadows. For the psyche it is not the truth of the idea which 
is at
stake, but whether the idea sees through its own literal meaning.  
If you
cannot see the metaphoric and polymorphous nature of ideas and that 
even
the most abstract philosophy has its mythic origins, then you are 
in very
great danger of being possessed.  Sweep your mental cupboard clean of
mythology so that you can think clearly and what happens is that a
mythic devil will rush in to fill the vacuum. This very thing 
happen in
the 18th century Enlightenment. They threw out the church and all the
superstitious thinking that went with it and in flew Apollo with 
his clear
light and his distance from everything to do with anima.

          For all the great intellectuals of the day, this was 
wonderful.
Much as a man who has rid himself of a woman who continually 
confuses and
clouds his thoughts suddenly feels a lift of euphoria and freedom, 
the
empiricist philosophers of that time felt a new clarity of thought. 
At
last the world could be understood and managed for the welfare of 
human
kind without the clap-trap of superstition.

          But each archetype has a shadow, a dark side, what 
Hillman has
called the infirmitas of the archetype. The Christian religion 
certainly
had its shadow, but so did the new religion of science. And its 
shadow was
the fact that it was just as monotheistic, just as literal, just as
dissociated from the psyche,  just as unconscious of its mythic 
roots,
just as unpsychological you might say, as the religion that 
preceded it.
We realise all this now because we've seen how dissociated science 
has
made the planet sick.

          Sick ideas are non-transparent. Their dense shadows are not
simply that they produce unfortunate outcomes. Where an idea will 
carry us
can never be predicted anyway. No, the sickness of the shadow is 
its very
denseness, when it becomes concretised, solid like matter. The 
warning
sign is when an idea becomes important, when it begins to matter.
Ideas that matter too much have become solid and have lost their
connection to fancy and fantasy. Ideas that cannot fly should be 
laid to
rest. And all firmly held opinions should be melted down for 
re-cycling.
     *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
                    QUOTE ENDS

                    Best,
                              Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:54 2000
Date: (2413)   Sun 17 Apr 94 13:36                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6ab02c22

 SR> I have been busy doing some writing - still am.

Thanks for the quote from your book Stanley.  I thought the quote was
stimulating both in itself and because I related it to events and 
themes
on the Psybernet BBS.  There seems to be a high flow of 
synchronicity in
my life.  Perhaps I would have made connections with anything anyone
wrote, who knows.

It is Saturday night and I have attended to lots of EDR (every day
reality) all day and thought I'd devote the evening to this passage 
from
your book.  Rather than quote it here again I thought I'd summarise 
it in
my own words to see if I have heard you Stanley.


I am seeing that in the section from your book a significant theme 
is the
split, dissociation, divorce between  . . .  many things all 
amounting to
the same split:

Mythos and literalism

This split is really between two different ontologies.  The first, 
Mythos,
all is a soul state, a fantasy, an idea.  In the second everything is
concrete and has existence 'out there' including religions and New 
Age
forces, but there is no appreciation of the myths.

It would therefore be possible to have science with soul and 
religion with
none.  In fact a lot of scientist see their theory as myth and 
theologians
see their perceptions as science.

The split is between the ontologies, and you subscribe to the 
first.  This
is a little strange to grasp because you speak as if the ideas are 
very
real, people in fact, who will not tolerate the nasties who say 
they do
not exist.  When you say that, you are speaking metaphorically, and 
thus
the creatures of the soul are not going to get you, you have 
literally
quietened them by not taking them literally!  No psychosomatic 
diseases or
ideas.  Perhaps you do not subscribe to the first but see through 
them
all, and then 'see through' that as well.

You have indicated a parallel between these ontologies and gender.  
Myth
is feminine and the hard lines of literalism are masculine.  Modern
science is like a divorced man discovering new freedom.

Being the psychologist you are you are not fooled by those who seem 
to
have shed all the irrationality of myth or soul, they are in fact 
unable
to see that they are enacting myth and thus SICK.  The sickness is 
just
more evidence that the soul can't be ignored and will out.  They are
possessed because they deny that they are possessed.

It is as if there is a soulworld bursting at the seams for 
expression and
anything will do, science, religion, tools, dreams.  The stuff of 
soul
will come whether we invite it or not, are ready or not.  In other 
words
once we have the knack, we can 'see through' anything.  The 
soulworld is
what it is, it depends on how we treat it that maks us sick or not. 
 Of
course that sickness is a Good Thing, without it, when we 
inevitably get
trapped in literalism, it is our salvation.

Have I heard you right?  Is there some fine tuning for me to grasp 
what
you say?


Now some responses.

You mentioned Marxism.  Now I have always appreciated it for its 
soul.
They call it scientific socialism, but it is an attempt to live on 
the
edge between determinism & freedom.  Men (sic) make history but not 
under
conditions of their choosing.  (A rough quote from somewhere)  Engels
wrote a book called Anti-Utopia which had a big impact on me as one 
who
has had a go at creating many new communities including this one in
cyberspace.  The guts of that is that we cant just use the stuff of 
dreams
as a blue print for making a community.  At the same time they 
write a
'Manifesto'  You see how these men were grappling with this whole 
question
before their ideas became dogma and thus sick?

I think of psychodrama, novels, the ALTERWORLD where we suspend all
disbelief and pigs can fly.  In the eternal and ever present psyche,
invisible as it is to the eye of a camera pigs too can fly.  Can we 
thus
make communities of our choosing in cyberspace?  Here we are creating
virtual reality.  Thus it would seem that we are very removed from 
the
'material base'  Here, if ever, we can make worlds that are made of 
the
stuff of dreams.  But can we?  How does the hardware determine the 
power
structures of cyberspace?  Virtual communities exist at the mercy of
anyone who pulls the plug in the machine.

However nothing is really a material base is it?  New Zealand is 
not a
material thing.  It is a heap of atoms in flux (& even that is a
scientific metaphor)  New Zealand exists as a fantasy in our
consciousness, laws, treaties, conceptual boundaries, names, 
notions of
who is in and who is out of the nation.  As you say these fantasies 
go
back into myth.  What is the origin of the five mile limit?  What 
is a
Mile?  The fish don't care!

Marx of course would largely agree.  He'd just add one thing:  The
ideological superstructure relies on the material base which is 
primary.
The idea of slave would not exist without the ability to make a 
ball &
chain, which needed the discovery of metal which was not possible 
before
fire etc.  We could not have this relationship without telephones.  A
sysop could not pull the plug on a virtual community till there was a
plug.  Perhaps it is a chicken egg thing.  A ball & chain got made to
create slaves?  But I doubt it.  Also ideas come out of 
relationships and
relationships always contain roots into survival and power, thus 
ideas are
weapons just as much as people!  perhaps ideas are soldiers, spies,
generals, agents, Ah yes, Marx:  Agents of a class.

But this relationship between ideas and things doesn't matter a 
hoot if
you see all things as ideas anyway.  BUT, damn it, this is still 
the big
question for me.

I am seeing that virtual reality is a bit like the mythos, and EDR 
more of
a literal world.  I am needing to treat the EDR as primary.  If I 
don't
then my flesh & blood suffers.  VR is built on EDR.  Ah I cant help 
it
Stanley, I am gripped by that idea!

You see I am with you here, I see through my possessor.  I am a 
worshipper
of Krishna again and the gods again have won.  However, that is the
temple, & here is the prayer, to the life force:

May we ride your tempests
with love & joy
tame your excesses
with defiance, courage & artistry
compensate your idiocy
with compassion wisdom and power.

May you not be too hard on us
as we do what we have to do.


Ah Stanley, here we are again, same discussion spiralling on.  What 
does
all this mean for me & you?  Is it that you need to let go of all old
dogma that you see through everything, being a dogmatist perhaps at 
heart?
This could well be a projection <g> <g>.  Is it that I will never 
stop
trying to change the world, looking for the breast?


Love

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:59 2000
Date: (3178)   Tue 26 Apr 94 18:34                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b1985299

Stanley,

What branch of what tree are we on?  Are we both on it?  Is Miles 
on it?
Where is Moreno on it?  (He thought he was his own tree poor man,
megolamaniak).

What paintings and music will enhance this discussion, poems?.  I'm 
more
than happy to upload some graphics related to all of this.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:59 2000
Date: (3177)   Tue 26 Apr 94 18:34                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6ef75ab7

Hi Stanley, Miles and others,

I have grabbed a moment between clients to tie down a few thoughts 
about
sick ideas, before I loose them <g>.

In the world things are.  We pray for serenity to accept what we 
can't
change and have the courage to change what we can and wisdom to 
know the
difference.

In the imaginal world is just like that.  We don't have any more or 
less
autonomy there than in the mundane world.  The things we can and 
can't do
are different but the prayer still fits.

The imaginal world, the soul is sick or lost if it is denied all
together.  What I have learnt in this discussion is that it is also 
sick
and lost if the imaginal world is seen as something we have control 
over,
that it is our chosen response to the world out there.

The ideas, fantasies and images are alive, they have roots, they have
history.

It is this life of the image, and words that is so totally denied 
in our
culture and that the paragraphs from your book so fully bring back to
life, Stanley.

Ideas bring forth ideas.  Let us take that in!

I think you add too much, Stanley, perhaps for rhetorical purposes, 
to add
that ideas do not come from us in response to the world.

At least the world generates ideas.  As Marshall McLuhan so 
delightfully
put it:  The medium is the massage.  He saw that words did not stay 
put!
They are chameleons which change colour in their context.  Ideas 
live in
mediums, perhaps, they are also generated by the medium.  Even we are
mediums for ideas, a carbon based input out put system, our very 
structure
dictates out thoughts.  On the other hand, you may think that I do 
not
have my feet on the ground.  The wheel, the printing press are 
prosthesis
that also generate ideas, indeed whole conceptual worlds.

So the world puts ideas in our head, because the world is us.

Moreno says machines have zero spontaneity.  Humans, by contrast, 
under
certain conditions (warm-up) can create, very rarely, very 
unexpectedly
something from nothing.  I like that too!

So a really Sick Idea is one that forgets and denies that it comes 
out of
the meeting place of the soul of the world of things, the ancestry of
ideas, and that place in our being where there is creation.

Perhaps a metaphor for this is:

The word was made flesh.  (???)

Which means no doubt that I am in my Judae / Christian tradition, 
and why
I have a soft spot for Norman Vincent Peale, and I am making a lot of
prayers!


When ideas
drive me crazy
may someone
with a warm heart
offer sanity and silence.


Walter


PS These thoughts affect my work.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:59 2000
Date: (3180)   Tue 26 Apr 94 23:05                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 377
@MSGID: 3:770/270 764b35ad
@REPLY: 3:770/270 6ef75ab7

Dear Walter,

 WL> In the world things are.
 WL> We pray for serenity to accept what we can't
 WL> change and have the courage to change what we can
 WL> and wisdom to know the
 WL> difference.

To take what we need when we think we need it,and then to
give back when we're too full or burdened.

 WL> So the world puts ideas in our head, because the
 WL> world is us.

And has also a wisdom of its own, I think.
And lessons to teach.
Perhaps we are the part of the world that is conscious.

 WL> When ideas
 WL> drive me crazy
 WL> may someone
 WL> with a warm heart
 WL> offer sanity and silence.

I think this is beautiful.

See you,

Ruby.

...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
forever for the blessed gods.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 377
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:00 2000
Date: (3317)   Fri 29 Apr 94 13:42                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 Hi Walter, Miles and others,


 WL> In the world things are.  We pray for serenity to accept what
 WL> we can't change and have the courage to change what we can and
 WL> wisdom to know the difference.

 WL> In the imaginal world is just like that.  We don't have any
 WL> more or less autonomy there than in the mundane world.  The
 WL> things we can and can't do are different but the prayer still
 WL> fits.

Still fits indeed

 WL> The imaginal world, the soul is sick or lost if it is denied all
 WL> together.  What I have learnt in this discussion is that it is
 WL> also sick and lost if the imaginal world is seen as something
 WL> we have control over, that it is our chosen response to the
 WL> world out there.
 WL> The ideas, fantasies and images are alive, they have roots,
 WL> they have history.

Right on.

 WL> Ideas bring forth ideas.  Let us take that in!

 WL> I think you add too much, Stanley, perhaps for rhetorical
 WL> purposes, to add that ideas do not come from us in response to
 WL> the world.

Yes I do add too much. But only to put some weight on that side of 
the
scale that is too light.

 WL> At least the world generates ideas.  As Marshall McLuhan so
 WL> delightfully put it:  The medium is the massage.  He saw that
 WL> words did not stay put! They are chameleons which change colour
 WL> in their context.  Ideas live in mediums, perhaps, they are
 WL> also generated by the medium.  Even we are mediums for ideas, a
 WL> carbon based input out put system, our very structure dictates
 WL> out thoughts.  On the other hand, you may think that I do not
 WL> have my feet on the ground.  The wheel, the printing press are
 WL> prosthesis that also generate ideas, indeed whole conceptual
 WL> worlds.

There are so many grounds one can have one's feet on !!!!  But yes, 
you
are so right: all the structures of 'this' world generate ideas and 
ideas
generate structures. Just as they do in every world.

 WL> So the world puts ideas in our head, because the world is us.
 WL> Moreno says machines have zero spontaneity.  Humans, by
 WL> contrast, under certain conditions (warm-up) can create, very
 WL> rarely, very unexpectedly something from nothing.  I like that
 WL> too!

Could we regard machines as structured ideas like bodies or like 
psyches
or like myths?.

 WL> So a really Sick Idea is one that forgets and denies that it
 WL> comes out of the meeting place of the soul of the world of
 WL> things, the ancestry of ideas, and that place in our being
 WL> where there is creation.

Oh yes, I like that: the Agora of the Soul.

 WL> Perhaps a metaphor for this is:
      WL> The word was made flesh.  (???)

Yes, or the word made machine.

 WL> Which means no doubt that I am in my Judae / Christian
 WL> tradition, and why I have a soft spot for Norman Vincent Peale,
 WL> and I am making a lot of prayers!


 WL> When ideas
 WL> drive me crazy
 WL> may someone
 WL> with a warm heart
 WL> offer sanity and silence.

Well, Norman V.Peale could never have written THAT.

Come to my warm heart all ye in distress.

                    Yours
                              Cyberchrist.

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:00 2000
Date: (3316)   Fri 29 Apr 94 13:42                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 WL> Stanley,

 WL> What branch of what tree are we on?  Are we both on it?  Is
 WL> Miles on it? Where is Moreno on it?  (He thought he was his own
 WL> tree poor man, megolamaniak).

 WL> What paintings and music will enhance this discussion, poems?.
 WL> I'm more than happy to upload some graphics related to all of
 WL> this.

Wow!! - can I think about all this ?

          Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:00 2000
Date: (3314)   Fri 29 Apr 94  2:13                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 11e5f5f9
@REPLY: 3:770/270 764b35ad


 RW> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW> forever for the blessed gods.

Well they seem to be together in a good way. Our whole discussion 
is about
sickness coming as a result of separation.  Here you have the 
female earth
giving birth to the sky then embraced by the sky, traditionally 
male. And
that seems right to me.  Ideas close to the earth, the roots, our 
words
close to our bodies.  Earth gives birth to the sky, the sky 
embraces the
earth.  I can't see any sickness in that!


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:01 2000
Date: (3336)   Sat 30 Apr 94  0:40                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2a5592d6
@REPLY: 3:770/270 764b35ad

Here I am having another go at replying to you after some 
discussion with
you here at home and in private mail.

 RW> Ruby is replying to Walter who replied to Stanley on 26
 RW> Apr 94 06:34pm

I enjoyed you coming into the discussion, at the same time I felt
conflicted, after us deciding to limit our discussion here to avoid 
the
complexity of having contact here and in our face to face world.  I 
am
back to thinking we need to do what ever we do fully!  Then we can 
make
mistakes fully, and learn fully.  I know Stanley & get quite 
involved and
we seem to leave little room for others to pop in.  I am pleased 
you did.

From speaking with you I know that the main thing you wanted to say 
was in
response to my little poem so I'll put that first:

 WL>> When ideas
 WL>> drive me crazy
 WL>> may someone
 WL>> with a warm heart
 WL>> offer sanity and silence.

 RW> I think this is beautiful.

Thank you.  I think I avoided responding to that last time I replied
because I am so embarrassed, and I am lost for words (so I 
thought).  It
is a prayer really.  I have, believe it or not, in and through this
discussion with Stanley found a shift in me where I make prayers!  
Now
that is totally new.  The very first one was in another discussion 
but
I'll put it here too, it fits:

 > May this be a place for us
 > to be together with love
 > in times of differences and discord
 > misunderstanding and mis takes
 > as well as in times of harmony.

 > May what we do here help us in our life,
 > and help others in their life.

I am learning that I don't really have much say over what happens 
and all
I can do is respectfully ask.

I think your message comes into the discussion, and sums up one of 
the
themes of our conversation in 'Sick Ideas' and in most of the 
discussions
that Stanley & I have, & that is in the prayers I write, that our 
ideas
are not really in our control, to me your poem says something like 
that, a
harmony, a union.

 RW> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW> forever for the blessed gods.

I am also thinking that for *you* the ideas are not so important.  
Your
style here is to tune into the heart-felt, earth and water aspects 
of the
correspondence and you are not comfortable with the air and fire 
aspects.
Stanley's opening message in this discussion spoke of ideas 
divorced from
their roots, being like men divorced from women, and perhaps we 
re-enact
that as we speak here.  He is against that (I imagine, and you may 
have
some comment Stanley) and so am I but we do it, we are part of this
culture, it is a subtle thing until it is clearly named, I want to 
'get
it.'

So I hope that as you join this thread we can transform the 
discourse.
make it truly a group discussion, deal with the relationships 
around the
ideas and that may mean that many others can feel more able to join 
the
discussion.

I do not think that Stanley & I need to stop what we are doing, but 
the
dynamics are utterly new as you enter the discussion, I want to
acknowledge
that.  I like that, I think I am learning about that. As we 'pair' 
for a
while we can expect the whole thing to change mid stream, we are 
after all
not in private Mail.

I am looking forward to how we go from here!

See you, here or in our off line chats!


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:01 2000
Date: (3318)   Fri 29 Apr 94 13:42                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: All
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter, Miles and All,


Here is a bit more on the gereral thread of 'sick ideas', 
'necessity' and
so on:  This thread seems to be interesting, so here is a bit moSubject:
                         
***************************Quote***********************************

          The classical picture of Hades was always a grim sort of 
place,
'unlit by the sweet sun'. The rivers that led to the Underworld were
gruesomely named, too. There was the Styx, the River of Hatred; 
Cocytos,
the River of Lamentation; and Lethe, the River of Forgetfulness. At 
the
entrance of the Underworld stood the many-headed watchdog Cerberus 
who
prevented the souls of the dead from leaving. Across the Styx, the 
newly
dead, provided they had been properly buried, were taken by Charon, 
the
Ferryman.
          The seeming factuality of myths like this, the way the
Underworld is presented, the air of concreteness about it, gives us 
the
feeling that we are not just coping with cosy psychological 
problems we
can deal with. There is the sense of unavoidable fate; the myth 
presents
itself as though this is the way it is - necessity, something you 
have to
take seriously. So it is not just an ordinary dog barring exit from 
the
Underworld once you are there, it has to be a many-headed dog, 
suggesting
that there is absolutely no escape. Will-power or positive thinking 
will
get you nowhere.
          Modern psychology presents the human condition as being
something you can always do something about; like Heracles, you can 
charge
through the Underworld, kill the watchdog and drag it back to the 
dayworld
as proof of your immunity to fate. This heroic stance makes it 
difficult
for moderns to surrender, to take the necessities of life seriously 
and
bow to them. The meaning of the Delphic inscription 'Know thyself' 
was not
an invitation to introspection, but the requirement to remember you 
were
human not an immortal god. In this context it should remind us that 
there
are psychic necessities we cannot change.
          There is an eerie scene in the Odyssey when Odysseus and 
his
comrades visit 'mouldering Hades'. Near the grove of Persephone 
they dig a
pit and let the dark blood of sacrificed sheep run into it, then:

"........the souls
of the perished dead gathered to that place, up out of Erebos,
brides, and young married men, and long suffering elders,
virgins, tender with the sorrows of young hearts upon them,
and many fighting men killed in battle, stabbed with brazen         
  
spears,
still carrying their bloody armour upon them.
These came swirling round my pit from every direction
with inhuman clamour, and green fear took hold of me.....".

The detail is so specific, just the way some dreams aSubject: the fact 
that the
men who had been killed in battle were still carrying their bloodied
armour, the inhuman clamour of the ghosts, Odysseus' reaction of 
green
fear, - the imagery is cogent, as when we wake from a  nightmare, 
sweating
and trembling. By its shocking detail and realism it impacts, it 
makes you
take it seriously. It is actual, mimicking reality, forcing you to
acknowledge the actuality of the psyche by perturbing to excess.
          That is what is intended. The soul will not let you off by
allowing you to be cool and say, 'It's just a dream' or 'It's just a
fantasy' or 'It's just  myth'. Our dream of the underworld may be a 
myth,
but you had better take it seriously; just like a symptom that psyche
sends impinges into your body- ignore it at your peril. Sooner or 
later
she will force you, by its very physical reality, to acknowledge it,
recognising the necessity she brings.
          The same cogent necessity is found in the Myth of the 
Rape of
Persephone where she is carried of to the Underworld by Hades 
leaving her
mother, Demeter, in a state of depression and loss.
          But it is just here that real life is experienced, not as a
resistance to Hades but an attraction to him, a love of him, just as
Persephone is moved to become his wife - at first fighting him, and 
then
not only becoming his queen, but able to return to her mother in the
dayworld as well. And it is this return that relieves Demeter of her
depression, and with it the threat of world famine - as though to 
say the
underworld is depressing only when you can't let it take you.
          And the fact is, you never can - that is the eternal 
truth that
the myth speaks. The myth shows you what always happens - how life
happens.
          It is not a question of your will or of choice or of 
learning to
do it better: when you can't let the underworld take you, then it is
depressing. That's how it is. The myth shows us how it is, the way it
goes, how it always happens. Being alive always entails the struggle
against death. The hero is always there refusing to surrender - 
only when
the surrender happens do we discover Plutos, the other name of Hades,
meaning riches and wealth.

***************************End of quote***************************

                              Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:02 2000
Date: (3414)   Mon 2 May 94 20:43                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby & Walter
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 2 May 1994

To Ruby and Walter

WL>  I have, believe it or
 WL> not, in and through this discussion with Stanley found a shift
 WL> in me where I make prayers!  Now that is totally new.  The very
 WL> first one was in another discussion but I'll put it here too,
 WL> it fits:

 >> May this be a place for us
 >> to be together with love
 >> in times of differences and discord
 >> misunderstanding and mis takes
 >> as well as in times of harmony.

 >> May what we do here help us in our life,
 >> and help others in their life.

Prayers, Walter, used to be called 'supplications'. Prayers are an
acknowledgment of our comparative powerlessness. When you don't 
know which
god to sacrifice to one had best address our prayers:  TO WHOM IT MAY
CONCERN!  As you say, to respectfully ask

 WL> I think your message comes into the discussion, and sums up one
 WL> of the themes of our conversation in 'Sick Ideas' and in most
 WL> of the discussions that Stanley & I have, & that is in the
 WL> prayers I write, that our ideas are not really in our control,
 WL> to me your poem says something like that, a harmony, a union.

 RW>> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW>> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW>> forever for the blessed gods.

Yes, earth and water gives birth to fire and heaven. And that 
starts the
whole thing you know. This passage is right at the beginning of the
Theogony. From this beginning the  gods are born, first the Titans, 
then
the Olympians - then humans.

 WL> I am also thinking that for *you* the ideas are not so
 WL> important.  Your style here is to tune into the heart-felt,
 WL> earth and water aspects of the correspondence and you are not
 WL> comfortable with the air and fire aspects

Keep us moist, Ruby, otherwise we will burn ourselves out.

WL>. Stanley's opening
 WL> message in this discussion spoke of ideas divorced from their
 WL> roots, being like men divorced from women, and perhaps we
 WL> re-enact that as we speak here.  He is against that (I imagine,
 WL> and you may have some comment Stanley) and so am I but we do
 WL> it, we are part of this culture, it is a subtle thing until it
 WL> is clearly named, I want to 'get it.'

We do it. We do it. We live on fire with our heads in heaven, 
wandering
the earth looking for water.  Such thirst I so often have.

 WL> So I hope that as you join this thread we can transform the
 WL> discourse. make it truly a group discussion, deal with the
 WL> relationships around the ideas and that may mean that many
 WL> others can feel more able to join the discussion.

Let's all get married !!!   (in heaven)

               Best, stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:02 2000
Date: (3411)   Mon 2 May 94 17:34                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 383
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b4d59c06
 2 May, 1994.

Dear Stanley,

 WL>>> In the world things are.
 WL>>> We pray for serenity to accept what we can't
 WL>>> change and have the courage to change what we can
 WL>>> and wisdom to know the
 WL>>> difference.

 RW>> To take what we need when we think we need it, and then to
 RW>> give back when we're too full or burdened.

 WL>>> So the world puts ideas in our head, because the
 WL>>> world is us.

 RW>> And has also a wisdom of its own, I think.
 RW>> And lessons to teach.

 SR> What we want too, is for the world to know when we are too 
full or
 SR> too burdened to take what it would teach us, for the world to 
try to
 SR> change in us what can be changed and to accept what we cannot 
change
 SR> and have the wisdom to know the difference.

 RW>> Perhaps we are the part of the world that is conscious.

 SR> If so, what is the part of the world which UNconscious, would 
you
 SR> say?

In this context I used the word 'world' although I meant 'universe.'
I think there is a vast difference between the 2 words, although 
this is
perhaps not relevant to our discussion.

By universe, I mean everything, the earth, the heavens, all I can 
see, all
I can not see, all that I have knowledge of and have no knowledge of.

I see that in this universe, *everything* is connected and 
interlinked.
The humans are the conscious part.
The earth, the trees, the mountains, rivers, rocks, although all 
have a
voice, are the unconscious part.

This is not a set belief I have, it is an idea. One which I have not
really fed or nurtured or allowed to grow and develop- perhaps I 
can do
that now!
I would love to hear what you (and others reading this) think.

 RW>> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW>> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW>> forever for the blessed gods.

 SR> I wondered where you came across this quotation from The 
Theogony.

I had an inkling that you would be familiar with it.
I found it in a book of quotes, quite by accident, and tossed it in 
as
food for thought. Or ideas, as the case may be.

 SR> Did you know that was written eight hundred years before the 
birth of
 SR> Christ by a shepherd on Mt Helion named Hesiod.   Or am I 
speaking to
 SR> a student of the Classics who already knows all that stuff?

I knew only that it was written by Hesiod, a greek poet, in the 8th
century B.C.
...a shepherd on Mt Helion...what else can you tell me about him?

I am no student of the Classics, but I have a desire to learn...


Regards,


Ruby.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 383
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:02 2000
Date: (3367)   Sun 1 May 94 17:20                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby,
               Since you were replying to Walter who was replying 
to me,
may I take the liberty to reply to you when you are replying to 
Walter who
was reply to me...when I was replying to  ..Oh dear, I think I've got
things tangled up?  Never mind!!

 WL>> In the world things are.
 WL>> We pray for serenity to accept what we can't
 WL>> change and have the courage to change what we can
 WL>> and wisdom to know the
 WL>> difference.

 RW> To take what we need when we think we need it, and then to
 RW> give back when we're too full or burdened.

 WL>> So the world puts ideas in our head, because the
 WL>> world is us.

 RW> And has also a wisdom of its own, I think.
 RW> And lessons to teach.

What we want too, is for the world to know when we are too full or 
too
burdened to take what it would teach us, for the world to try to 
change in
us what can be changed and to accept what we cannot change and have 
the
wisdom to know the difference.


 RW> Perhaps we are the part of the world that is conscious.

If so, what is the part of the world which UNconscious, would you 
say?

 RW> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW> forever for the blessed gods.

I wondered where you came across this quotation from The Theogony.
Did you know that was written eight hundred years before the birth of
Christ by a shepherd on Mt Helion named Hesiod.   Or am I speaking 
to a
student of the Classics who already knows all that stuff?

                         Best,  Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3494)   Wed 4 May 94 15:58                          
From: Miles Thompson
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 536663be





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (3967)   Sun 8 May 94 15:09                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
  8 May, 1994.

Dear Ruby


 RW> In this context I used the word 'world' although I meant
 RW> 'universe.' I think there is a vast difference between the 2
 RW> words, although this is perhaps not relevant to our discussion.

 RW> By universe, I mean everything, the earth, the heavens, all I
 RW> can see, all I can not see, all that I have knowledge of and
 RW> have no knowledge of.

Yes, that's right. When we say 'universe' we do mean to include 
everything
in one single space. All happenings: physical, biological, mental,
everything. There is only one universe and everything is *IN* it. 
It's
called Cartesian space, after Rene Descartes the 17th century French
philosopher and mathematician who invented the idea. But 'world' is 
a bit
more flexible, isn't it? English usage has it that there are lots of
different worlds. We can speak of the World of Mickey Mouse or the 
World
of Sport or the Undersea World or the World of Cyberspace. As 
Walter and I
might say: its more Poly..!!  Not 'put the kettle on'  but in the 
sense of
'lots of..'!!!

 RW>>> Perhaps we are the part of the world that is conscious.
 RW> I see that in this universe, *everything* is connected and
 RW> interlinked. The humans are the conscious part.
 RW> The earth, the trees, the mountains, rivers, rocks, although
 RW> all have a voice, are the unconscious part.

  RW> This is not a set belief I have, it is an idea. One which I
 RW> have not really fed or nurtured or allowed to grow and develop-
 RW> perhaps I can do that now!
 RW> I would love to hear what you (and others reading this) think.

Well that's an interesting one. If the earth, the trees, the 
mountains,
rivers rocks, have a voice and they have something to teach us, 
what can
we mean by saying they are unconscious? I guess the new feelings 
that is
abroad about this is that they have something to teach us that is 
more
valuable than our consciousness. Is it the similar idea that we 
have cut
ourselves off from nature, that we have lost our connection with 
it, in
order to develop a separate and independent consciousness - and now 
we
find we are TOO disconnected and want to rejoin nature, become more
UNconscious and less separate.  Something like this maybe?? Human
consciousness is a bit SICK - reverting to our thread - We need 
return to:

               ...Fair earth and starry heaven......

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

 SR>> I wondered where you came across this quotation from The 
Theogony.

 RW> I had an inkling that you would be familiar with it.
 RW> I found it in a book of quotes, quite by accident, and tossed
 RW> it in as food for thought. Or ideas, as the case may be.


 RW> I knew only that it was written by Hesiod, a greek poet, in the
 RW> 8th century B.C.
 RW> ...a shepherd on Mt Helion...what else can you tell me about
 RW> him?

Not much is known about the old boy, Ruby, except that he was a 
farmer. He
also wrote something called 'Works and Days' which is a long poem of
practical advice to a young farmer of the day. One out of the bag 
really.
How on earth it got preserved is a miracle. But it did - and it has
provided a unique picture of life back then. The Theogony, which you
quoted, begins with a invocation to the Muses saying that they 
spoke the
poem through him: 'One day when I was shepherding on Mt.Helicon the 
Muses
spoke to me of the history of the gods'..... type of thing. Still, 
saying
that was almost standard practice if you were a poet in the old 
days. You
always started your poem by thanking the Muses for talking through 
you. It
developed later into a bit of a 'conceit', as they say. But nice 
though,
don't you think? I mean the recognition that the poetic ability, the
creative ability, is not entirely one's own. Many good artists 
today have
exactly the same feeling.

                         All the Best
                                   Stanley



--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (4039)   Wed 11 May 94 19:18                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 MT> Just something I heard somewhere..
 MT> Is Mickey Mouse real?

What a Mickey Mouse of a question

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4158)   Fri 13 May 94 20:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 e6f53bd8

 SR> Fri 29 April 94

 SR> Dear Walter, Miles and All,


 SR> Here is a bit more on the general thread of 'sick ideas',
 SR> 'necessity' and so on:  This thread seems to be interesting, so
 SR> here is a bit moSubject:

Thanks for this quote from the book Stanley.  I have finally got to 
having
a good look at it.  I am brewing up a message on 'sick ideas' so I 
am re
reading the last few.  I will delete most of the message and leave 
what I
think are your main points about the psyche, and add some comment.

 SR> The
 SR> seeming factuality of myths like this, the way the
 SR> Underworld is presented, the air of concreteness
 SR> about it, gives us the feeling that we are not just
 SR> coping with cosy psychological problems we can deal
 SR> with.

This seems to be one of the tenants of your philosophy Stanley, 
that the
*details* of the imaginal world are of immense value.  This came 
from Jung
did it not, this idea of the image being a primary sort of thing?  
I do it
now while I work, get people to be *very* specific about the images 
they
present, 'Longing for *exactly* what, feeling depressed is 
*exactly* what?
' and so on.  Awareness, I think Bhagwan called it, and said that
awareness and attention were really the qualities of love.  It is the
essence of psychotherapy really: to attend to the psyche.

 SR> Modern psychology presents the human
 SR> condition as being something you can always do
 SR> something about.

Doing as opposed to just noticing attending accepting.  I am often 
tempted
to DO things with my clients, give them a reference, make a phone 
call.  I
think this is OK though, one, because the sense of being attended 
to, or
heard, will not come from 'just words'.  Sometimes a n action is a 
sort of
super device for saying 'I heard you.'

Secondly, and here we go again with a familiar refrain, is that I 
think
that the material world is primary.  I read a little George Steiner 
the
other day, who seemed to be appalled at the fact that wonderful 
'imaginal'
cultural events were going on alongside the building, and oblivious 
to the
building of fascism etc.  Perhaps the 'imaginal' world is defiled 
if it
does not respond to the social realities around it.

Perhaps that is what I keep doing too in my replies to you Stanley is
adding something of how these IDEAS (which I love) have an effect 
on the
world, ie in my very practice of psychotherapy, for a start.  I 
think I
said it when I thought an idea became sick if it was not in the cross
roads of three forces:  the history of the idea, the material base 
of the
idea and the spontaneity of the person who has the idea.

This is more or less the conclusion that I have come to and will 
present
in my talk at the FORUM this month.

What do you think?

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4160)   Fri 13 May 94 20:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f8aeac92

 SR> Friday 29 April
 WL>> So a really Sick Idea is one that forgets and denies that it
 WL>> comes out of the meeting place of the soul of the world of
 WL>> things, the ancestry of ideas, and that place in our being
 WL>> where there is creation.

 SR> Oh yes, I like that: the Agora of the Soul.

Do you really, it seems axiomatically different from your predominant
perspective.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4159)   Fri 13 May 94 20:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 8ff90018


 RW>>> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW>>> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW>>> forever for the blessed gods.

 SR> Yes, earth and water gives birth to fire and heaven. And that
 SR> starts the whole thing you know. This passage is right at the
 SR> beginning of the Theogony. From this beginning the  gods are
 SR> born, first the Titans, then the Olympians - then humans.


How important do you think creation myths are?  Here the earth comes
first.  In the Bible God seems to be first.  I am equating this with
materialism and idealism.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:06 2000
Date: (4183)   Sun 15 May 94  1:08                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 396
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c4f0cb6d
@REPLY: 3:770/270 8ff90018

Hello Walter,

I hope all is well at Mt Lyford.
A quick reply before I go to bed....

 RW>>>> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW>>>> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW>>>> forever for the blessed gods.

 SR>> Yes, earth and water gives birth to fire and heaven. And that
 SR>> starts the whole thing you know. This passage is right at the
 SR>> beginning of the Theogony. From this beginning the  gods are
 SR>> born, first the Titans, then the Olympians - then humans.

 WL> How important do you think creation myths are?  Here the earth 
comes
 WL> first.  In the Bible God seems to be first.  I am equating 
this with
 WL> materialism and idealism.

Why is it important to KNOW?

I think it is important to honour old stories, they have much to 
teach us
and show us.
I think also it is important to keep creating our own myths and 
stories,
to remember them, to pass them on.

I cannot make a final statement about who or what came first, God 
or the
earth, perhaps they are one and the same.
I don't know.
It is a mystery.
It doesn't change the fact that I am here, that life is grace.

To quote Marge Piercy...

"Every day we find a new earth and a new sky with which we are 
trusted
like a perfect toy.

We are given the wind within us, the breath to shape into words 
that steal
time, that touch like hands and pierce like bullets, that waken 
truth and
deceit, sorrow and pity and joy, that waste precious air in 
complaints, in
lies, in floating traps for power on the dirty air.

We are given fire to see against the dark, to think, to read, to 
study how
we are to live, to bank ourselves against defeat and despair that 
cool and
muddy our resolves, that make us forget what we saw we must do.

We are given passion to rise like the sun in our minds with the new 
day
and burn the debris of habit and greed and fear.

We stand in the midst of the burning world.
To turn inward and find holy fire at the core, to turn outward and 
see the
world that is all of one flesh with us, see under the trash and 
through
the smog, the furry bee in the apple blossom, the trout leaping, the
candles our ancestors lit for us."


Ruby.



 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 396
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:06 2000
Date: (4167)   Sat 14 May 94 20:54                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c3128eaf

Hi,

Here is a summary of how I see the sickness of ideas:

Ideas, says Stanley, are sick when they are divorced from their 
roots.
And the roots are *other ideas*.  In other words ideas are part of 
a life
tree of ideas.

With respect to psychological work we are not so much concerned 
with the
truth of the idea, because this leads us into separating the idea 
from
the idea tree.  Nor are *we* so important, the ideas are just 
viruses,
using us as hosts.  Psychological work brings in the whole life of 
the
tree, the imaginal world and breathes life into that.

I have tended to want to keep reintroducing people into the 
picture, their
autonomy and the circumstances of their lives.  Not in a gross way,
denying the power of the imaginal, or in a such a way as to make 
the ideas
serve the mundane world, but bringing them in as equal flows of 
energy.

Here are some new 'viruses' that are mutating in my mind:

Some ideas manage to infect many people, others survive along an 
esoteric
lineage.  The sicker an idea, the more successful it is in infecting
hosts?  Are some ideas pathogenic, are others symbiotic?  parasitic?

Ideas are subject to Darwin's slogan of survival of the fittest, ie 
the
ability to infect hosts.  Ideas will serve certain ends.  The ideas 
in the
McDonald handbook serve a different end from the NZAP handbook, it 
also
reproduces faster!  Can ideas be separated out from the ends they 
serve?

All these thoughts are a result of the cross fertilisation in my 
mind of
this thread and Snow Crash which I have just finished.  A great book.
Will do a review.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:06 2000
Date: (4161)   Fri 13 May 94 20:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a3dd6c1d

 MT>> Just something I heard somewhere..
 MT>> Is Mickey Mouse real?

 SR> What a Mickey Mouse of a question

See all previous references in philosophy to Unicorns.

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4690)   Sun 15 May 94 18:29                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter And Stanley
Subject: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 396
@MSGID: 3:770/270 953e903b


WL> Here is a summary of how I see the sickness of ideas:
WL> Ideas, says Stanley, are sick when they are divorced from their
WL> roots, and the roots are *other ideas*.
WL> In other words, ideas are part of a life tree of ideas.


Dear Walter and Stanley,

Where ARE you two in all of this?
I want to know!
I read your messages and I despair....it seems to me this 
discussion about
ideas is a sick idea ITSELF as it is divorced from self.
How does this discussion impact your lives, how does it change you, 
how do
you feel about it, what does it MEAN?
You both write so passionately and eloquently, yet I feel empty and
frustrated, I can't join in, there is nothing that grabs my heart.
I want to know where you both are in it all, that is what I am 
passionate
about, that is what impacts and changes me.


Ruby.




 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 396
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4962)   Wed 18 May 94 14:52                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5378c930
@REPLY: 3:770/270 a3dd6c1d





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4709)   Mon 16 May 94  1:24                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 47a334c2
@REPLY: 3:770/270 c4f0cb6d

 WL>> How important do you think creation myths are?  Here the 
earth comes
 WL>> first.  In the Bible God seems to be first.  I am equating 
this with
 WL>> materialism and idealism.

 RW> Why is it important to KNOW?

I sensed something of your later message here when I read this.

I do not usually say why this is of interest to me, I just get in 
there
and follow my interest!  I am more than happy to now that you ask.

When I was at university I couldn't stand the abstract debates.  
They went
on and on about education, religion without ever relating it to life.
Right in the middle of my MA, 1970, I quit and started to work 
towards
creating a community, and a school -- actions rather than words.  
Hence I
became somewhat of a creator (why I am interested in creation 
myths).  I
am still at it with this BBS, it was a rather strange unexpected
realization that this is another community!

The commune and the school did not take that long to be realities 
in the
world.  Before I knew it I was living with a dozen or so people in 
a big
old house in Merrivale, Chippenham, we truly were a commune.  
Stanley used
to visit there in those days!  We had a little club to look at the 
deep &
meaningful side of our photography.  I just remember laughing a lot 
at
those gatherings.

However the community was no laughing matter.  The whole place was a
tangle of human relationship mess, for all my love of the people 
there.
Our meetings were long laborious and somewhat futile and I sensed the
community was on a downward slide quite early on, and it was.

I recall sitting on the toilet one day and someone had put a copy 
of Mao
Tse Tung's (now called Zedong) little red book there.  Well, a phrase
there really struck home to me.  I can't recall it exactly but it was
something like:

>> It is a liberal fantasy to think that you can dream up a plan for
>> how the commune should work and then make it happen.

That was what I had been attempting to do for the last few years 
and I was
putting all my effort into that, while earning money and parenting 
and
fixing the house, and trying to relate to Marian, and  . . .  Not 
only
that, I was part of a group that originated from the Quakers in
Philadelphia called a Movement for a New Society.  There basic 
tenant was
to make a blue print of how the world could run better and then to 
devise
strategies to achieve it.  This was a very dedicated and influential
group.  The philosophy was summed up by Mao as Liberalism, and 
doomed to
fail.  He seemed to have a good insight.

I read Mao's book from cover to cover.  I read Engels 'Anti-Utopia' 
where
he criticised people like a chap called OWEN who had tried all the 
counter
cultural approaches 100 years ago!  Marxist philosophy that was just
pouring into me because it related so immediately to the struggling
community life around me.  The main point of the new approach was:

The earth gives birth to ideas.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In other words matter is primary, the actual lives of people, their
material conditions will determine the ideas they have.  Peoples 
ideas are
determined by their class.

I have never lost that outlook.  Even though I work all the time with
people at the level of their words, feelings etc.  I see the work I 
do
through these Marxist eyes.

However Marxism has not done so well in my life.  I found the radical
groups I belonged to were more than ever CUT off from life and 
lived in a
world of unrealistic ideas!  I was totally ostracised when my 
marriage
broke up.  It was seen by the comrades as 'bourgeois individualism' 
to
indulge in the luxury of a divorce!

Attending a psychodrama group opened up a whole new vista.  The 
dramas
worked with what *is* and made changes in peoples lives from there. 
 It
was Chippenham and Marxism integrated.  A way to live.  Psychodrama 
had me
in its grip for 13 years.  It does not do it for me any more, (that 
is
another story.)

This discussion with Stanley is the closest I have ever come to 
figuring
it all out from the ground up.  Figuring out where on the tree of 
ideas
(or social movements, much the same thing) I am, where I want to 
be.  It
is important to me because it influences my work as a therapist 
everyday.
It also influences what the hell this Psybernet thing is all about. 
 My
hunch is that we are doing something quite important.  Most therapy 
has no
idea of what they are indoctrinating their clients or practitioners 
in.  I
think we are attempting to see through that to a deeper level.


Enough for one message, I'll reply to the rest later.  Thanks for 
your
interest, it gets me going!  I hope it puts the ideas into some 
context,
it does for me, though it may not make them any more relevant to you.


Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (5029)   Thu 19 May 94  2:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d7c811b1
@REPLY: 3:770/270 5378c930

AIDS <TM>

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5110)   Fri 20 May 94  2:31                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d0295f26
@REPLY: 3:770/270 8cb0c1ad

 WL>> I am in such a state here!  I see a war RIGHT HERE between 
the gods
 WL>> and the humans. I watch you say NO NO NO to the 'Sick Idea' 
idea.

 RW> I am not saying NO NO NO to the sick idea *idea*. I am just
 RW> saying you are a classic example of a sick idea when your ideas
 RW> about sick ideas are cut off from your self. And Stanley would
 RW> say *that* is a sick idea.

Not in his classic Richardsonian form I don't think.  (he may need 
to say
something on this here).  Stanley, you see is in a cult (meaning 
house of
a god) where if you use the word self in the singular form you are 
branded
a heretic and excommunicated.  Selves is the closest.  You can have 
one
self cut off from another self.  Now I think we all agree on that, 
we are
cut off from other selves.  And why?  Because each self is the 
expression
of a god.  The gods are at war in our psyche and that is NOT sick!  
Ideas
that postulate one self are SICK.

Why is that?  It is as you quote from Jean Houston:

>> The Greeks saw Gods.
>> What do we see?
>> Flying saucers?"

Yes.  Also illnesses,  one way to speak of the gods is to say they 
are
'sociopathic' 'depressed', the DSM IV is full of wonderful little 
poems
about gods if read from the right perspective.  Another way, as we 
have
been doing is to simply call them 'ideas' or schools of thought, or
fashions.  A recent perspective is to call them 'memes' where ideas 
are
seen as genes or viruses which seek us out as hosts.  That last way 
is to
give them life again, ideas seeking people's brains and hard disks to
infect, to store themselves on.

We are the hosts for gods or memes and powerfull little critters 
they are
too!  If we forget that and let one completely take us over then we 
are
indoctrinated by that one meme.  We are its robot.  Talk to a
fundamentalist anything!  It is a pain.  Most of my old friends are
psychodrama robots, they warm-up to spontaniety and creativity, 
have role
conflicts, functional & dysfunctional systems, role reverse with 
their
social and cultural atoms and so on.

So, I have moved from one cult and I am now in the Stanley cult, 
but there
is a shift.  The psychology as Hillman puts it 're-visions' itself. 
 It
sees through its own cult status.  That is a big relief for me, I 
can let
the different gods have their place in my soul.  They have the odd
skirmish but they are learning to get on with each other quite 
well.  That
is what I am call ing my eclecticism.  Just a EB (esoteric 
bullshit) word
for patchwork quilt.  It is not a passive eclecticism, as I said 
before,
but an active eclecticism.  I like those words.  I used to be passive
eclectic, just grabbing any bit of technique or idea from any old 
where.
Now I like to be active in my eclecticism, relate the thought to the
appropriate -ism.  Not detached though, despite of the mocking I do 
above,
I can be fully and fervently Moranian!  And Marxist too.

Are you getting frustrated as I rave on?

 RW> My frustration is the only non-sick thing in this whole
 RW> discussion!

Your frustration or some god shaking you?

 WL>> I think you are both Sick, so there!

 RW> We are all sick. It doesn't worry me.
 RW> I notice you have spelt 'sick' with a capital S, are you making
 RW> it into a god?

God with a small g <g>.

 RW> We are all sick.
 RW> But put us all together and we don't do too badly.
 RW> It is as the buddhists say, a group of people together equate a
 RW> fully enlightened being. Its all here. We NEED each other!

We are a group.  I love groups.  I am planning to start running one 
again
soon.  Not a psychodrama one!  I think i'll do a Bion one.  he had 
some
wierd ideas in his brain that man.

 WL>> Ruby, you are sick because you are gripped by the very common
 WL>> infection called Humanism.

 RW> How can you, a self-confessed sick individual, expect me to
 RW> take your diagnosis of me seriously? <G>

Wounded healer.

 WL>> It is a force (i would not even call it a
 WL>> god!) that thinks we exist!

 RW> Of COURSE we do! Well, I can only speak for myself here, I know
 RW> *I* do, and I certainly thought you did, or are you a hologram?

Well I was exaggerating, but what exists?  This bag of bones?  this
'rational animal', 'this lamb of god', this Walter, who we all know 
in our
heart?  Let me quote the words of the high preist of polytheism on 
that as
he spoke to Sue who was making a point much like yours, what seems 
like
years ago:

SR> BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.  The last refuge of the literal ME.
SR> 'I am my body for Chrissake! you said Sue. And, above 'the heart
SR> of who I really am is the heart in my body'.  Which heart?  My
SR> romantic heart?. St.Augustin's heart?  Harvey's pump?
SR> The hero's great-heartedness? Richard Coeur Lion?,
SR> The heart of the matter? My tender-heartedness?. And which
SR> body? Yesterdays body?  Tomorrows body? My dream body last night.
SR> The body of my depression? My Astral body.

 RW> Walter, why do you make everything so COMPLICATED?

All I have been doing in most of this message is *simply* putting 
forward
Stanley's perspective, (though I take full credit for the 
confusions I
might be creating).  Usually I just disagree with him.  That is HOW 
I make
it complicated.  Why I do it?  God knows, for the money?  For the 
fame?
To win friends and influence people?

Honestly I think this is the heart of the matter:


 WL>> You are my father and mother!

 RW> Oh dear.

 WL>> If only I
 WL>> could get him to see her point of view, and if only she would 
listen
 WL>> to Reason!  Then I would be happy!

 RW> Oh dear, oh dear, Walter, you ARE sick. <G>

To have their love and attention I had to manage to hold very 
different
perspectives all at once.

 RW> Awaiting your reply with fevered (sick) anticipation,

I am sending it, hoping that our friendship will still be intact!


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5050)   Thu 19 May 94 15:23                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 400
@MSGID: 3:770/270 8cb0c1ad
@REPLY: 3:770/270 cd1e10f7

Dear poor dear sick Walter,

 WL> I know you feel some trepidation joining this discussion.  Are 
you
 WL> afraid that your contributions will be demolished in some 
avalanche
 WL> of hi fluting esoteric bullshit?

Yes.

 WL> Perhaps they will be!

They cannot be demolished. I won't let you!

 WL> Is that happening now?

I'm putting up a good fight, infection and all. <G>

 WL> I am in such a state here!  I see a war RIGHT HERE between the 
gods
 WL> and the humans. I watch you say NO NO NO to the 'Sick Idea' 
idea.

I am not saying NO NO NO to the sick idea *idea*. I am just saying 
you are
a classic example of a sick idea when your ideas about sick ideas 
are cut
off from your self. And Stanley would say *that* is a sick idea.

 WL> You say: that idea is SICK!  It is cut off from US, from you 
Walter,
 WL> who are YOU! Oh I can feel my head wobble as you shake my 
shoulders
 WL> with your frustration.

My frustration is the only non-sick thing in this whole discussion!

 WL> That is it isn't it?  The discussion is now no longer *about* 
'Sick
 WL> Ideas' we are now having them, and pointing our fingers at each
 WL> other! You are s I c k !!  No YOU are sick.  I love it!  I do. 
 This
 WL> is a wild rumpus!  I love it!

I love it too. It is real, it is immediate, it involves US, it is a
meeting place, it isn't sick!!!!!
We're not just talking about it (sick), we're doing it.

 WL> I think you are both Sick, so there!

We are all sick. It doesn't worry me.
I notice you have spelt 'sick' with a capital S, are you making it 
into a
god?
We are all sick.
But put us all together and we don't do too badly.
It is as the buddhists say, a group of people together equate a fully
enlightened being. Its all here. We NEED each other!

 WL> Ruby, you are sick because you are gripped by the very common
 WL> infection called Humanism.

How can you, a self-confessed sick individual, expect me to take your
diagnosis of me seriously? <G>

 WL>It is a force (i would not even call it a
 WL> god!) that thinks we exist!

Of COURSE we do! Well, I can only speak for myself here, I know *I* 
do,
and I certainly thought you did, or are you a hologram? <G>

 WL> That we have thoughts and feelings that matter.

Of COURSE they do!

 WL> That what matters most is the strongest feeling and the most
 WL> difficult to expose feeling.  To be truly alive is to have peak
 WL> experiences and to share them.

Now that is not true. You are getting a little carried away in your
diagnosis now Walter.<G>

 WL> I am sick.  Sick, sick sick sick sick sick sick sick .  I have 
the
 WL> disease of passive eclecticism.

What the hell is that?

 WL> I fall into a fever of synthesis and
 WL> integration.  I see both sides and love you both!  
Co-dependency no
 WL> doubt. Unable to take a firm stand, endless symptoms of 
agonising and
 WL> vacillation in ambiguity.

And what is wrong with that? You're only HUMAN after all. <G> (Now 
that'll
get him going.)
Walter, why do you make everything so COMPLICATED?

 WL> You are my father and mother!

Oh dear.

 WL>If only I
 WL> could get him to see her point of view, and if only she would 
listen
 WL> to Reason!  Then I would be happy!

Oh dear, oh dear, Walter, you ARE sick. <G>


Awaiting your reply with fevered (sick) anticipation,


Ruby.

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 400
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5049)   Thu 19 May 94 13:26                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 cd1e10f7
@REPLY: 3:770/270 953e903b

Hello Ruby,

WL>> Here is a summary of how I see the sickness of ideas:
WL>> Ideas, says Stanley, are sick when they are divorced from their
WL>> roots, and the roots are *other ideas*.
WL>> In other words, ideas are part of a life tree of ideas.

 RW> Dear Walter and Stanley,

 RW> Where ARE you two in all of this?
 RW> I want to know!
 RW> I read your messages and I despair ... it seems to me this
 RW> discussion about ideas is a sick idea ITSELF as it is divorced
 RW> from self. How does this discussion impact your lives, how does
 RW> it change you, how do you feel about it, what does it MEAN?
 RW> You both write so passionately and eloquently, yet I feel empty
 RW> and frustrated, I can't join in, there is nothing that grabs my
 RW> heart. I want to know where you both are in it all, that is
 RW> what I am passionate about, that is what impacts and changes me.

You are passionate in your frustration!  You are really joined in the
discussion now!  Right in the middle of a debate.  Taking a side 
really
and with much more force than I have been able to.  You have quoted 
the
bit of the message where I re state, almost with deliberate dryness 
the
outrageous perspective that Stanley holds with such conviction.  
That is
exactly what his perspective does:  it leaves us mere humans out!  
I have
tried in different ways to kick at that.

One way has been to bring myself in, right at the beginning I 
raised the
question of my own dependency needs.  Another way is to speak of 
'cases'.
However the notion that ideas are gods and that they are working 
through
us, and are far more interesting than our delusion of bringing in
something from ourselves keeps winning (at least so far).  Your bold
defiance of this may have more impact on the discussion than I have 
had.
I like the audacity of Stanley's approach so much that I am not a
passionate critic of it as you are.  I have said quite similar 
things to
you though, that ideas are sick if they are divorced from the self.

I know you feel some trepidation joining this discussion.  Are you 
afraid
that your contributions will be demolished in some avalanche of hi 
fluting
esoteric bullshit?  Perhaps they will be!  Is that happening now?

I am in such a state here!  I see a war RIGHT HERE between the gods 
and
the humans.  I watch you say NO NO NO to the 'Sick Idea' idea.  You 
say:
that idea is SICK!  It is cut off from US, from you Walter, who are 
YOU!
Oh I can feel my head wobble as you shake my shoulders with your
frustration.

Stanley is rubbing his brow thinking:  Oh dear, oh dear, I never 
meant to
upset people like this, of course Ruby is so passionate about all 
of this
she is gripped by a Sick Idea!  But if I say that to her she'll 
perhaps
hate me and never come back, Oh dear, what would Walter think then?
Walter will probably become gripped by the idea of bringing in much 
more
biographical stuff  . . . and introspective reporting, then I'd 
have to
find a way of saying he has sick ideas.  All very troublesome.

That is it isn't it?  The discussion is now no longer *about* 'Sick 
Ideas'
we are now having them, and pointing our fingers at each other!  
You are
s I c k !!  No YOU are sick.  I love it!  I do.  This is a wild 
rumpus!  I
love it!

I think you are both Sick, so there!  You are Sick Stanley because 
you
don't come out and look at the biographical roots of the idea of 
'Sick
Ideas' because you are saying that to do that is a 'Sick Idea'. In 
short
you are in your head and out of touch with your feelings, you are 
probably
avoiding something and protecting someone!

Ruby, you are sick because you are gripped by the very common 
infection
called Humanism. It is a force (i would not even call it a god!) that
thinks we exist!  That we have thoughts and feelings that matter.  
That
what matters most is the strongest feeling and the most difficult to
expose feeling.  To be truly alive is to have peak experiences and to
share them.

I am sick.  Sick, sick sick sick sick sick sick sick .  I have the
disease of passive eclecticism.  I fall into a fever of synthesis and
integration.  I see both sides and love you both!  Co-dependency no 
doubt.
Unable to take a firm stand, endless symptoms of agonising and 
vacillation
in ambiguity.  You are my father and mother!  If only I could get 
him to
see her point of view, and if only she would listen to Reason!  
Then I
would be happy!


Love

Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:09 2000
Date: (5140)   Sun 22 May 94  0:00                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 8f8d6012
@REPLY: 3:770/270 c36897af

 RW> Well, I don't agree, so we will just have to honour our
 RW> differences. And I cannot be ex-communicated from something I
 RW> have never belonged to.

I know I have a rather prickly style,  I was, looking, back on it,
presenting Stanley's point of view in a rather naughty way, making 
him out
to be very dogmatic, which he is not at all!  I am sure he will 
come back
and give me what I deserve.  I will honour your differences if I 
can.  I
enjoy the fine tuning that takes place in this dialogue.  When you 
respond
directly, I feel met!

 RW> Yes I have many selves, many aspects, many faces.
 RW> But I have a core, I have a deep sense of that, it is the part
 RW> of me that feels joy, compassion, is moved, weeps, yearns
 RW> contact, aches, suffers, dreams, prays, rages, loves, hates,
 RW> imagines, remembers, it is the part of me where tenderness
 RW> resides. And there is something else too, the *dark* core, that
 RW> is me as well. I have no clever explanation for it either. It
 RW> is just so. It is *my* truth. Not yours. Not Stanleys. Mine.

 RW> And I can imagine your reaction to that.

Is this what you imagined:

I wish Stanley would come on!  You and I are really quite close, 
Stanley
has the more radically different perspective.  This is what I wrote a
while back to him:

> So a really Sick Idea is one that forgets and denies that it comes
> out of the meeting place of the soul of the world of things, the
> ancestry of ideas, and that place in our being where there is
> creation.

i try to bring in that there is a *core*, though I have called it 
'that
place in our being where there is creation', I think I was meaning
something like what you say there though.  Stanley has all along, I 
think,
wanted to emphasise:  'the ancestry of ideas'.  This is so often 
forgotten
in our culture, this is the one that brings in the 'powers greater 
than
ourselves', that are not to do with what we feel or think in a 
literal
way.  I like it that he brings that in, it is a refreshing 
perspective,
unpopular & eccentric, and gives me relief!.

 RW> I don't like fundamentalist anything either.
 RW> But what you are describing to me in this message sounds pretty
 RW> bloody fundamentalist.

Well yes.  That is because I was taking the mickey out of the 
position
that I seem to be getting into, calling it a cult and so on.  The 
trouble
is that what ever is held dearly and as a *truth* brings in some 
sort of
sphere of influence, often without us knowing.  I think that is the 
point
Stanley (oh dear!) is making.  When an idea is held strongly it has
history and there is an archetype at work, a whole thread of 
associations
back into the time of myth, the drama has been played out many 
times and
the protagonists and antagonists all have a familiar part to play.  
I do
think that is true of our discussion here.

I was literally shocked to discover that I was a humanist, and that 
it
might be possible to be something else!  I am not even sure that it 
is for
me, I have been so enculturated with humanism!

 RW> You are saying, this is right, this is
 RW> the truth, you are sick because you don't agree.

There is some truth in that.  How awful!  I have a tongue in cheek, 
streak
that will argue that line like a real fundamentalist.  My desire is 
to
truly value the notion that ideas live! and that they grab us that 
we are
easily blinded by cults.  That nothing in us is more powerful than 
these
age old systems of thought that are embedded in the culture and in 
our
language and even in our being.

 RW> OR (and I am not sure which) -
 RW> Stanley says this is right, this is the truth etc and you are
 RW> sick if you don't agree with him.

That is true too, I have learnt this perspective from him, mostly,
however, he knows pretty much where he is on the tree of ideas, and 
I was
particularly drawn to Stanley when I discovered that he was a fan 
of James
Hillman.  Hillman is the principle theorist of a school of Jungian 
thought
called Archetypal Psychology.  So it is true, Stanley and I form a 
little
clique around these ideas.  I probably do not do him justice in my
representations.  As I said I was partially taking the mickey out 
of our
little cult.  Sorry if this confused you.  I am pleased to explain 
it all.

How is your frustration level?  Please feel free to express it, I 
really
don't mind, I may feel things in response & that is OK!

 RW> You (or someone) is analysing me, diagnosing me, I don't like
 RW> it.

No.  I am sorry if I gave that impression.  No, not my intention,
especially when you put it like that.  Perhaps the grain of truth 
is that
I like to see how the ideas we discuss actually apply in the moment 
we
discuss them.  The here and now.  I was in a twisted (I thought 
humorous
way) presenting the 'Sick Idea' idea in a sick way!  The art is of 
course
to be able to have space around the 'Sick Idea' as well as other 
ideas.
However ideas are not like that they come like *truths*, like they 
are IT.
They want to be the ONE!  You invite me to see where I am coming 
from.  I
invite you to see who is coming from you!

 RW> And Walter? What about Walter?

You are frustrated still as I leave 'myself' out.  What exactly is 
it that
makes this discussion so annoying for you?  Perhaps even painful?  My
hunch is that this message is a *little* less frustrating for you 
but that
it is still there?

Let me bring something more in of me:

For all my taking Stanley's side in a blatant sort of way I am 
describing
the battle field of my soul.  Perhaps I have thin membranes to the
realities?  I have all my life been susceptible to ideas.  My body 
and my
heart all seem capable of being overtaken by an idea and its 
associated
club.  I used to climb mountains, big ones.  That meant risking life
because of some idea about getting to the top.  I was in the 
communist
party, very drawn to Osho Rajneesh, even psychodrama is a powerful 
system
of ideas.  when I am frustrated by Louise Hay and a whole string of
'Utopian Therapists', I like to know 'who' is behind that.  When I am
attracted to something, I can now think is this an angel or a 
devil?  I
find that a relief.

 RW>>> My frustration is the only non-sick thing in this whole
 RW>>> discussion!

 WL>> Your frustration or some god shaking you?

 RW> Oh who the fuck knows!
 RW> It is only, as Reg says, a question of naming.

You don't care about the name, you just feel the feeling.  Fuck the 
name.
You are frustrated to the *core*.  Names are only words, fuck words.
Words are ideas, metaphors, imaginings, not real.  The feeling is 
real,
the image is not.

What a battle this is.  You say to me who are YOU!  I say to you, 
what
idea has gripped you, who are you worshipping!

 RW> Which heart? *My* heart of course!
 RW> Which body? *My* body, NOW!

 RW> It is all very clever, but it does not fool me for a minute. <G>

Exactly what Sue said!

Boy, do I *feel* on dangerous ground here!  I am writing in my
fundamentalist style again!  Let me moderate myself.  I value 
feelings.  I
often say such things as:  In your heart, deep down, what do you 
really
long for.  That seems to take people closer to the core, as it does 
me!  I
*never* (apart from here to you!) say: which divine figure has 
gripped
you!  However I usually think it.  In my psychodrama days I'd 
think: role,
role cluster, world view.  Along the same lines, but not as 
powerfully
differentiated into the imaginal.

 RW>>> Walter, why do you make everything so COMPLICATED?

The more I put forward the side of the gods here the more simple it 
seems.

 RW>>> Oh dear, oh dear, Walter, you ARE sick. <G>

 WL>> To have their love and attention I had to manage to hold very
 WL>> different perspectives all at once.

 RW> I was only joking when I said that, I see that you really meant
 RW> it and I am sorry.

I was half joking too, so no need to apologise.  I am so full of 
ideas as
I write that I pile them in on top of each other.  One, I was 
wanting to
speak more of 'me', of the psychodynamic origins of what I do and 
say.  It
is very difficult for me to watch a man and a woman have a mis-
understanding.  I am having the difficulty here too.  You and 
Stanley (at
least the you & Stanley of my projections), are at opposite ends of a
line.  I see both sides.  On this occasion I expect that Stanley 
(in my
projections) will see where you are coming from.  That is a pleasant
change.  Usually I am trying to get another man to see women's 
reality.  I
usually fail.  (That was the original dynamic that started at about 
age
3?)

Two, I was taking the mickey out of the psychodynamic perspective. 
To see
through that way of thinking as simply another school of thought.  
Taking
the mickey is not the best way.

 RW> Walter, you still have my love and attention, despite
 RW> everything you have said in this message, everything that
 RW> confuses me, frustrates me, drives me crazy etc. Despite all I
 RW> disagree with.

I like to hear that, I am on edge all the time with these messages.

 RW>>> Awaiting your reply with fevered (sick) anticipation,

 WL>> I am sending it, hoping that our friendship will still be 
intact!

 RW> Oh Walter, of COURSE it is.
 RW> Friendship to me does not mean sameness.
 RW> I am enjoying our discussion, also I am frustrated and
 RW> perplexed and shaking my head in confusion, but I am still very
 RW> much here.

Me too, not as convinced of anything as I may sound. And here, no 
problem.

Love,


Walter


PS Who is Rumi?

... *who*, which divine figure, is speaking in this style of
consciousness, this form of presentation.   (Hillman)

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:09 2000
Date: (5139)   Sun 22 May 94  0:00                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ff88c8e5
@REPLY: 3:770/270 ddcc7b02

 WL>> AIDS <TM>

 RW> AIDS = the crisis of the breakdown of the membrane between
 RW> realities.

Yes could well be.  Miles and I have been compating the nature of 
entities
from different realities.  Also comparing ideas to viruses, which 
creep
around looking for hosts.  People have been copywriting ideas.  <TM>
stands for TradeMark.  AIDS is probably the property of the devil.  
His
reality is coming through with a bit more force.  The Grim Reaper yet
again!

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:09 2000
Date: (5118)   Fri 20 May 94 23:06                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 401
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ddcc7b02
@REPLY: 3:770/270 d7c811b1

 WL> AIDS <TM>

AIDS = the crisis of the breakdown of the membrane between realities.

PS. What is <TM> ?

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 401
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:09 2000
Date: (5926)   Mon 23 May 94 11:33                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 404
@MSGID: 3:770/270 68eef4d0
@REPLY: 3:770/270 8f8d6012

Dear Walter,

 WL> How is your frustration level?  Please feel free to express 
it, I
 WL> really don't mind, I may feel things in response & that is OK!

It has reached almost reached saturation point and something has 
changed
in this discussion/battle for me.
We see things in very different ways. You seem frantic that I 
understand
where you are coming from. I don't see, I cannot.
I still say 'Where are YOU Walter?'

 WL> ...they come like *truths*, like they are IT. They want to be 
the
 WL> ONE!  You invite me to see where I am coming from.  I invite 
you to
 WL> see who is coming from you!

This is where we are different. They don't grab me like that, I 
entertain
possibilities, I say 'imagine if' or 'I wonder if' or 'what if', 
but no
idea is ever the ONE. For me, they remain IDEAS.
I cannot see who is coming from me! That question frustrates me to 
hell!

 RW>> And Walter? What about Walter?

 WL> You are frustrated still as I leave 'myself' out.  What 
exactly is it
 WL> that makes this discussion so annoying for you?  Perhaps even
 WL> painful? My hunch is that this message is a *little* less 
frustrating
 WL> for you but that it is still there?

Our differences are so huge, I cannot bridge the gap between them. I
wouldn't know where to begin. I can't understand half of what you are
raving about, I don't want to understand, the content has become
unimportant to me.
I still say 'Walter, where are YOU?!' No doubt if you answered me the
battle would be over, because that is all I wanted to know in the 
first
place. And you still say 'Ruby, what GOD is shaking you?!' I still 
can't
answer, if I could I wouldn't be sick.

I have given up on seeing things your way, I still don't know where 
you
are, other than how you feel about a whole lot of other people's 
ideas. I
don't trust other people's ideas - ideas that flow through others - 
gods
that shake any shoulders but my own.
Half of me wants to walk away and leave you and Stanley to it. The 
other
half wants to stay and fight.

 RW>>>> My frustration is the only non-sick thing in this whole
 RW>>>> discussion!

 WL>>> Your frustration or some god shaking you?

 RW>> Oh who the fuck knows!
 RW>> It is only, as Reg says, a question of naming.

 WL> You don't care about the name, you just feel the feeling. Fuck 
the
 WL> name. You are frustrated to the *core*.  Names are only words, 
fuck
 WL> words. Words are ideas, metaphors, imaginings, not real. The 
feeling
 WL> is real, the image is not.

You take this to the extreme. Taking the mickey again.
You know I don't believe that crap!
No wonder I am frustrated - you are playing games with me, leading 
me on a
merry dance, leaping around and around me in a frenzy, intoxicated 
on a
million different ideas, I get dizzy watching you!

WL> You are frustrated to the *core*.

Ideas and powers from far off in the psychic world unite when 
something is
felt to the *core*.

 WL> What a battle this is.  You say to me who are YOU!  I say to 
you,
 WL> what idea has gripped you, who are you worshipping!


 WL> I am so full of ideas

Yes. So full, that there is no room for you.

 WL> as I write that I pile them in on top of each other. One, I was
 WL> wanting to speak more of 'me', of the psychodynamic origins of 
what I
 WL> do and say.  It is very difficult for me to watch a man and a 
woman
 WL> have a mis- understanding. I am having the difficulty here 
too. You
 WL> and Stanley (at least the you & Stanley of my projections), 
are at
 WL> opposite ends of a line. I see both sides.

This is not between me and Stanley, it is between me and you!
You can't bear the thought of having a misunderstanding with me, it 
is too
difficult for you, you don't know where to stand, you are in the 
middle,
seeing both sides, agreeing with everyone, too afraid to commit 
yourself
either way, no wonder I don't know where you are!

And in a strange way, now I DO know where you are.

 WL> On this occasion I expect
 WL> that Stanley (in my projections) will see where you are coming 
from.

The Stanley of my projections is enjoying himself immensely.
He'll probably see where we are both coming from but will not 
intervene
just yet, he'll let us fight it out a little longer and then he 
will swoop
in just as the drama reaches crisis point, saving us both from a 
nasty
end. <G>

 WL> That is a pleasant change.  Usually I am trying to get another 
man to
 WL> see women's reality. I usually fail. (That was the original 
dynamic
 WL> that started at about age 3?)

Usually I am trying to get another human to see my reality. I usually
fail <G>.

 WL> Who is Rumi?
 WL> ... *who*, which divine figure, is speaking in this style of
 WL> consciousness, this form of presentation.   (Hillman)

Jalaloddin Rumi was a 13th century Sufi Master, mystic and poet.
There is a chapter written about him in Jean Houston's book, THE 
SEARCH
FOR THE BELOVED, actually it is your book <G>.
He has also, like all divine figures who are anyone, written in the
Alterworld <G>.

I think you would find the Jean Houston chapter interesting. But then
again, perhaps it will make your condition worse. Another idea!



See you soon,

Ruby.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 404
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:09 2000
Date: (5117)   Fri 20 May 94 22:35                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 401
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c36897af
@REPLY: 3:770/270 d0295f26

Dear Walter,

 WL>>> I am in such a state here!  I see a war RIGHT HERE between 
the gods
 WL>>> and the humans. I watch you say NO NO NO to the 'Sick Idea' 
idea.

 RW>> I am not saying NO NO NO to the sick idea *idea*. I am just
 RW>> saying you are a classic example of a sick idea when your ideas
 RW>> about sick ideas are cut off from your self. And Stanley would
 RW>> say *that* is a sick idea.

 WL> Not in his classic Richardsonian form I don't think.  (he may 
need to
 WL> say something on this here).  Stanley, you see is in a cult 
(meaning
 WL> house of a god) where if you use the word self in the singular 
form
 WL> you are branded a heretic and excommunicated.

Well, I don't agree, so we will just have to honour our differences.
And I cannot be ex-communicated from something I have never 
belonged to.

 WL> Selves is the closest.  You
 WL> can have one self cut off from another self.  Now I think we all
 WL> agree on that, we are cut off from other selves.  And why?  
Because
 WL> each self is the expression of a god.  The gods are at war in 
our
 WL> psyche and that is NOT sick!  Ideas that postulate one self 
are SICK.

Well, I must be very sick indeed, according to the book of Stanley.
I do not want to be divided.
Yes I have many selves, many aspects, many faces.
But I have a core, I have a deep sense of that, it is the part of me
that feels joy, compassion, is moved, weeps, yearns contact, aches,
suffers, dreams, prays, rages, loves, hates, imagines, remembers, 
it is
the part of me where tenderness resides.
And there is something else too, the *dark* core, that is me as well.
I have no clever explanation for it either. It is just so.
It is *my* truth. Not yours. Not Stanleys. Mine.

And I can imagine your reaction to that.

 WL> We are the hosts for gods or memes and powerfull little 
critters they
 WL> are too!  If we forget that and let one completely take us 
over then
 WL> we are indoctrinated by that one meme.  We are its robot.  
Talk to a
 WL> fundamentalist anything!  It is a pain.  Most of my old 
friends are
 WL> psychodrama robots, they warm-up to spontaniety and 
creativity, have
 WL> role conflicts, functional & dysfunctional systems, role 
reverse with
 WL> their social and cultural atoms and so on.

I don't like fundamentalist anything either.
But what you are descibing to me in this message sounds pretty bloody
fundamentalist. You are saying, this is right, this is the truth, 
you are
sick because you don't agree.
OR (and I am not sure which) -
Stanley says this is right, this is the truth etc and you are sick 
if you
don't agree with him.
You (or someone) is analysing me, diagnosing me, I don't like it.

 WL> So, I have moved from one cult and I am now in the Stanley 
cult, but
 WL> there is a shift.  The psychology as Hillman puts it 
're-visions'
 WL> itself.  It sees through its own cult status.  That is a big 
relief
 WL> for me, I can let the different gods have their place in my 
soul.
 WL> They have the odd skirmish but they are learning to get on 
with each
 WL> other quite well.  That is what I am call ing my eclecticism.  
Just a
 WL> EB word for patchwork quilt.  It is not a passive
 WL> eclecticism, as I said before, but an active eclecticism.  I 
like
 WL> those words.  I used to be passive eclectic, just grabbing any 
bit of
 WL> technique or idea from any old where. Now I like to be active 
in my
 WL> eclecticism, relate the thought to the appropriate -ism.  Not
 WL> detached though, despite of the mocking I do above, I can be 
fully
 WL> and fervently Moranian!  And Marxist too.

And Walter? What about Walter?

 WL> Are you getting frustrated as I rave on?

Yes.

 RW>> My frustration is the only non-sick thing in this whole
 RW>> discussion!

 WL> Your frustration or some god shaking you?

Oh who the fuck knows!
It is only, as Reg says, a question of naming.

 WL>>> It is a force (i would not even call it a
 WL>>> god!) that thinks we exist!

 RW>> Of COURSE we do! Well, I can only speak for myself here, I know
 RW>> *I* do, and I certainly thought you did, or are you a hologram?

 WL> Well I was exaggerating, but what exists?  This bag of bones?

Yes.

 WL> this 'rational animal',

Yes.

 WL> 'this lamb of god',

Yes.

 WL> this Walter, who we all know in our heart?

Oh yes, most definately.

 WL> Let me quote the words of the high priest of polytheism on
 WL> that as he spoke to Sue who was making a point much like 
yours, what
 WL> seems like years ago:

SR>> BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.  The last refuge of the literal ME.
SR>> 'I am my body for Chrissake! you said Sue. And, above 'the heart
SR>> of who I really am is the heart in my body'.  Which heart?  My
SR>> romantic heart?. St.Augustin's heart?  Harvey's pump?
SR>> The hero's great-heartedness? Richard Coeur Lion?,
SR>> The heart of the matter? My tender-heartedness?. And which
SR>> body? Yesterdays body?  Tomorrows body? My dream body last 
night.
SR>> The body of my depression? My Astral body.

Which heart? *My* heart of course!
Which body? *My* body, NOW!

It is all very clever, but it does not fool me for a minute. <G>

 RW>> Walter, why do you make everything so COMPLICATED?

 WL> All I have been doing in most of this message is *simply* 
putting
 WL> forward Stanley's perspective, (though I take full credit for 
the
 WL> confusions I might be creating).  Usually I just disagree with 
him.
 WL> That is HOW I make it complicated.  Why I do it?  God knows, 
for the
 WL> money?  For the fame? To win friends and influence people?

 WL> Honestly I think this is the heart of the matter:

 WL>>> You are my father and mother!

 RW>> Oh dear.

 WL>>> If only I
 WL>>> could get him to see her point of view, and if only she would
 WL>>> listen to Reason!  Then I would be happy!

 RW>> Oh dear, oh dear, Walter, you ARE sick. <G>

 WL> To have their love and attention I had to manage to hold very
 WL> different perspectives all at once.

I was only joking when I said that, I see that you really meant it 
and I
am sorry.
Walter, you still have my love and attention, despite everything 
you have
said in this message, everything that confuses me, frustrates me, 
drives
me crazy etc. Despite all I disagree with.

 RW>> Awaiting your reply with fevered (sick) anticipation,

 WL> I am sending it, hoping that our friendship will still be 
intact!

Oh Walter, of COURSE it is.
Friendship to me does not mean sameness.
I am enjoying our discussion, also I am frustrated and perplexed and
shaking my head in confusion, but I am still very much here.

Love,



Ruby.

...there is a light seed grain inside. You fill it with yourself, 
or it
dies. (Rumi)

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 401
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:10 2000
Date: (6161)   Wed 25 May 94 10:35                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 406
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a0ca65c2
@REPLY: 3:770/270 53810b8c

 MT> I'm thinking of doing something really dry here, I guess at 
least to
 MT> start off with. BUT THATS all right because I am here who I am 
and I
 MT> am taking it on. Imagine if you will, an AA sign post in the 
rain at
 MT> some deserted T-Junction on the west coast. There is no-one 
there to
 MT> observe it. But this sign is a SIGN. Its a temple its a god of 
the
 MT> west coast. It is very powerful. We can see that it does a lot 
of
 MT> things. It points at a large geological feature and it labels 
it. It
 MT> defines that hill. How does the hill feel about it? It directs 
the
 MT> traffic, it controls the traffic more than you'd think, it 
makes the
 MT> traffic feel secure that hill is labeled, and perhaps thats a 
part of
 MT> the defence mechanism for the whole hill thing. It is a part 
of the
 MT> west coast. We are not its host, but rather everything around 
it,
 MT> that is affected by it and that (subtly and imperceptibly) is 
a part
 MT> of its process is the host. That which it truly is is 
something we
 MT> cannot see. Same with everything. Perhaps this is going over 
the top
 MT> a bit. But.

Dear Miles,

Where are YOU Miles? I write that not in frustration now but with a 
<G>.
I must admit I understand little of your message. With my head that 
is.
As I read it I score a zero for thinking.

I see that you have many ideas, your fingers on the keys tap a wild 
and
frenzied dance to the tunes inside your head.
Or the ideas flowing through you.
Or the gods shaking your shoulders.
Or the parasitic memes that have infected you.

I admit, I admit! I too am gripped by something.
For all my opposition to fundamentalism, I am fundamental in my
opposition. Obviously I am in the hold of a sick idea.
Walter and Stanley and you(?) reach for the sky, 'heads in the 
heavens' as
Stanley put it. I grope for the earth beneath my feet, for its 
simplicity
and solidity, the mere fact of its CONTACT. The sky seems so 
elusive and
out of reach yet I catch myself gazing at it with longing.

I still read this message and think, Yes...and? If I cannot connect 
your
ideas with ME in some way they matter little. If they are not 
connected to
you they cannot connect with me, apart from my frustration that is.
l read your message and think where are YOU? What is happening in 
your
heart as you write Miles? Where are you gripped most deeply by all of
this?

What you write about the hill, are you saying something about naming?
Do you think naming is the domain of gods or humans?
I think gods!
Anything living completely in its wild soul needs no name.
I think of the act of naming a child, it is a rite of passage, a 
sacred
act. It is to make sense of, to honour, to remember, to recognise. 
Earth
is unmoved, heavens rejoice. ie. the naming changes not the nature 
of the
thing we name, but something deep in our psyches.

 MT> I am the real devotee of Stanley Richardism... No, Sick
 MT> iDEAESM. For I understand how sick Ideas really work.

How Miles, tell me, tell me!




Love,

Ruby.




 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 406
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:10 2000
Date: (6079)   Tue 24 May 94 21:17                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53810c86
@REPLY: 3:770/270 ff88c8e5
 > stands for TradeMark.  AIDS is probably the property of the
 > devil.  His
 > reality is coming through with a bit more force.  The Grim
 > Reaper yet
 > again!





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:10 2000
Date: (6078)   Tue 24 May 94 21:13                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Ruby And Walter
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53810b8c
@REPLY: 3:770/270 d0295f26
 > fashions.  A recent perspective is to call them 'memes' where
 > ideas are
 > seen as genes or viruses which seek us out as hosts.  That
 > last way is to
 > give them life again, ideas seeking people's brains and hard
 > disks to
 > infect, to store themselves on.

I'm thinking of doing something really dry here, I guess at least 
to start off with. BUT THATS all right because I am here who I am 
and I am taking it oahn.
Imagine if you will, an AA sign post in the rain at some deserted 
T-Junction on the west coast. There is no-one there to observe it. 
But this sighn is a SIGN. Its a temple its a god of the west coast. 
It is very powerful. We can
see that it does a lot of things. It points at a large geological 
feature and it labels it. It defines that hill. How does the hill 
feel about it? It directs the traffic, it controls the traffic more 
than you'd think, it makes the traffic feel secure that hill is 
labeled, andperhaps thats a part of the defence mechanism for the 
whole hill thing. It is a part of the west coast. We are not its 
host, but rather everything around it, that is affected by it and 
that (subtly and imperceptibly) is a part of its process is the host.
That which it truly is is something we cannot see. Same with 
everything. Perhaps this is going over the top a bit. But.

 > We are the hosts for gods or memes and powerfull little
 > critters they are too!  If we forget that and let one completely 
take us
 > over then we are indoctrinated by that one meme.  We are its 
robot.
IS not true! HA. I am the real devotee of Stanley Richardism... No, 
Sick iDEAESM. For I understand how sick Ideas really work.
Walter you are sick because you take other ideas and fit them into 
a framework that makes you think you know what they are and you 
alter them so you feel good about them.
Ruby, So far I don't know anything, but you would be sick if you 
felt that everything could be fixed by relating it to ourselves. 
You have done what Walter does when you take the concept of 
sickness, and think it is about forgetting how an idea relates to 
ourself, when actually its the reverse, its forgetting how and idea 
relates to itself. Only I KNOW THE real meaning of SICK/joke.
 > Talk to a
 > fundamentalist anything!  It is a pain.  Most of my old
 > friends are
 > psychodrama robots, they warm-up to spontaniety and
 > creativity, have role
 > conflicts, functional & dysfunctional systems, role reverse
 > with their
 > social and cultural atoms and so on.


Most of my friends are robots too. I am robotic. I think in jerks 
and twitches. I respond to things for the way that I am and don't 
respond to it where is and as is too often. BTW this may seeeem to 
be about Spontaneity Walter, but its not. Robots could be 
spontaneous, but they lack a soul from which spontaneity could 
spring. Well I'm through pretending to talk down. Sorry if I 
annoyed anyone, I was just trying to do the Ruby thing and react to 
youze.
 > soon.  Not a psychodrama one!  I think i'll do a Bion one.
 > he had some
 > wierd ideas in his brain that man.
 Who is Bion. Should I look him up? Sounds interesting.





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:10 2000
Date: (6267)   Thu 26 May 94 20:34                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter and All


 WL> With respect to psychological work we are not so much concerned
 WL> with the truth of the idea, because this leads us into
 WL> separating the idea from the idea tree.  Nor are *we* so
 WL> important, the ideas are just viruses, using us as hosts.
 WL> Psychological work brings in the whole life of the tree, the
 WL> imaginal world and breathes life into that.

 WL> I have tended to want to keep reintroducing people into the
 WL> picture, their autonomy and the circumstances of their lives.
 WL> Not in a gross way, denying the power of the imaginal, or in a
 WL> such a way as to make the ideas serve the mundane world, but
 WL> bringing them in as equal flows of energy.

     This way of yours was very reflected in the talk you gave to the
Psychological Forum last night: given all due respects to the gods 
and the
necessities they put upon us, given our need to recognise the 
imaginal
forces over which we have no control....yes, given all that, also 
give us
the power to recognise those things which we can do something 
about. That
is your wanting to reintroduce *people* into the picture, to not 
forget
the person in amongst all this.
     After a very restless night with all this going round in my 
head I
woke this morning with Prometheus on my mind. Prometheus refusing to
abandon human kind in the face of the power of the gods. And himself,
although a god, being nailed to the rock of necessity (literally) for
doing so. He deliberately disobeyed Zeus who was bent on the 
destruction
of humanity, stole fire from him and gave it to us. I think maybe 
he was
the first humanist.
     I was also thinking of Jung's point in his work 'Job'. God 
treated
Job in such an abominable way, quite barbaric really, and Job 
reacted with
great faith and dignity. Jung said quite seriously that the 
function of
humanity is to teach God some honesty and good manners. In fact, 
through
humanity God evolves from savagery to goodness.

          Best,
                    Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:11 2000
Date: (6268)   Thu 26 May 94 20:34                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 26 may 94

 WL>>> So a really Sick Idea is one that forgets and denies that it
 WL>>> comes out of the meeting place of the soul of the world of
 WL>>> things, the ancestry of ideas, and that place in our being
 WL>>> where there is creation.

 SR>> Oh yes, I like that: the Agora of the Soul.

 WL> Do you really, it seems axiomatically different from your
 WL> predominant perspective.

You speak of 'the soul of the world of things'.
Do you have me as not thinking that the soul of the world is in 
*things*?

               Best
                    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:11 2000
Date: (6269)   Thu 26 May 94 20:34                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 WL> This seems to be one of the tenants of your philosophy Stanley,
 WL> that the *details* of the imaginal world are of immense value.
 WL> This came from Jung did it not, this idea of the image being a
 WL> primary sort of thing?  I do it now while I work, get people to
 WL> be *very* specific about the images they present, 'Longing for
 WL> *exactly* what, feeling depressed is *exactly* what? ' and so
 WL> on.  Awareness, I think Bhagwan called it, and said that
 WL> awareness and attention were really the qualities of love.  It
 WL> is the essence of psychotherapy really: to attend to the psyche.
 SR>> Modern psychology presents the human
 SR>> condition as being something you can always do
 SR>> something about.

Awareness is love. I think that's right. Love is an awareness of 
things.
Perception of things is aesthesis. The thingness of a thing is what 
one
means by image. Proper attention to this world is love of the 
imagination.
The soul of the world IS the world.  What do you reckon?

 WL> Doing as opposed to just noticing attending accepting.  I am
 WL> often tempted to DO things with my clients, give them a
 WL> reference, make a phone call.  I think this is OK though, one,
 WL> because the sense of being attended to, or heard, will not come
 WL> from 'just words'.  Sometimes an action is a sort of super
 WL> device for saying 'I heard you.'

Absolutely. Quite foolish to make a dogmatic distinction between 
loving by
attending and loving by doing.

 WL> Secondly, and here we go again with a familiar refrain, is that
 WL> I think that the material world is primary.  I read a little
 WL> George Steiner the other day, who seemed to be appalled at the
 WL> fact that wonderful 'imaginal' cultural events were going on
 WL> alongside the building, and oblivious to the building of
 WL> fascism etc.  Perhaps the 'imaginal' world is defiled if it
 WL> does not respond to the social realities around it.

They are BOTH imaginal. Cultural events and fascism: both solid 
fantasies,
each with their own style of necessity, crushing us or uplifting us!


Yes, here we go again...Once more with feeling!!!!!   You say the 
material
world is primary. All you are saying is that one realm of the Soul 
of the
World seems more influential.  If you were a native of Boganville 
or if
you were Stanley, the only true native of NZ who still believes in
'participation mystique',  you might think that the primary reality 
was
which totum-animal people were. Personally I am an Ostrich on 
Mondays and
Thursday and a Python on Tuesday and Fridays - what are you?

          Best
                    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:11 2000
Date: (6270)   Thu 26 May 94 20:34                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 RW>>>> ...and fair Earth first bore the starry Heaven, equal to
 RW>>>> herself, to cover her on all sides and to be a home
 RW>>>> forever for the blessed gods.

 SR>> Yes, earth and water gives birth to fire and heaven. And that
 SR>> starts the whole thing you know. This passage is right at the
 SR>> beginning of the Theogony. From this beginning the  gods are
 SR>> born, first the Titans, then the Olympians - then humans.


 WL> How important do you think creation myths are?  Here the earth
 WL> comes first.  In the Bible God seems to be first.  I am
 WL> equating this with materialism and idealism.

Well, I never thought of that.
There is an interesting connection between earth and materialism.
'Matter' and 'mater'(Latin for mother) are cognates. Earth is the 
most
real, mother is the most real. Materialism has come to mean the 
material
things are the most real, that everything originates from matter. 
This is
the same as saying everything originates from mother - the psychology
complex, the materialism complex. As someone said: 'mother matters'!

So I guess you are right. The Bible would be telling us the Father 
comes
first, that he made the world - and the world is spirit.


               Best
                         Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:11 2000
Date: (6328)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 800b412a


 WL>> I have tended to want to keep reintroducing people into the
 WL>> picture, their autonomy and the circumstances of their lives.
 WL>> Not in a gross way, denying the power of the imaginal, or in a
 WL>> such a way as to make the ideas serve the mundane world, but
 WL>> bringing them in as equal flows of energy.

 SR>      This way of yours was very reflected in the talk you gave
 SR>      to the Psychological Forum last night: given all due
 SR>      respects to the gods and the necessities they put upon us,
 SR>      given our need to recognise the imaginal forces over which
 SR>      we have no control....yes, given all that, also give us
 SR>      the power to recognise those things which we can do
 SR>      something about. That is your wanting to reintroduce
 SR>      *people* into the picture, to not forget the person in
 SR>      amongst all this. After a very restless night with all
 SR>      this going round in my head I woke this morning with
 SR>      Prometheus on my mind. Prometheus refusing to abandon
 SR>      human kind in the face of the power of the gods. And
 SR>      himself, although a god, being nailed to the rock of
 SR>      necessity (literally) for doing so. He deliberately
 SR>      disobeyed Zeus who was bent on the destruction of
 SR>      humanity, stole fire from him and gave it to us. I think
 SR>      maybe he was the first humanist. I was also thinking of
 SR>      Jung's point in his work 'Job'. God treated Job in such an
 SR>      abominable way, quite barbaric really, and Job reacted
 SR>      with great faith and dignity. Jung said quite seriously
 SR>      that the function of humanity is to teach God some honesty
 SR>      and good manners. In fact, through humanity God evolves
 SR>      from savagery to goodness.

These stories have characters that are humans and characters that are
gods, I notice.  Mythical creatures can be god human or android!

I will respond with a short story.

A man in his bed-sit puts on his goggles and headphones, plugs in and
enters his Virtual World.  He floats down into his office which set 
in a
tropical island with sounds of birds and animals.  He walks along the
beach to his Robinson Cruso Hut-office and goes to his computer and 
opens
up Word for Windows and types a letter.  Ah shit, the bloody thing 
is not
working.  He takes off his goggles and head phones and goes to a 
panel on
the wall in the bed-sit.  Pushes the green button.  The bed-sit 
fades and
now she is back in her own office where she proceeds to check the 
files in
her computer.

Who are we angry with when we are angry with god!  The bloody poets 
of
course!  All these plays on what is real, what is a dream (the 
movie Total
Recall did it very well), are stories, allegories of the difficult
situation we are *really* in with regard to speaking and making a 
meaning
out of the world.

Stanley, *I* am doing it now.  Asking where am *I* in all this?  I 
have
gone all philosophical and I have drifted into speculations on the 
nature
of the universe.  That is not what I am on about, but I find it all 
too
easy to drift into.

Your recall of Prometheus and Job certainly are the myths that go 
with my
talk.  They are stories of humans who had wars with the gods!  
Thanks for
that, I might just polish up the paper a bit and include some of 
that and
call it put it in the Psybernet Library and call it 'published'.


Walter





--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:11 2000
Date: (6271)   Thu 26 May 94 20:34                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby


WL>> Here is a summary of how I see the sickness of ideas:
WL>> Ideas, says Stanley, are sick when they are divorced from their
WL>> roots, and the roots are *other ideas*.
WL>> In other words, ideas are part of a life tree of ideas.


 RW> Where ARE you two in all of this?
 RW> I want to know!
 RW> I read your messages and I despair....it seems to me this
 RW> discussion about ideas is a sick idea ITSELF as it is divorced
 RW> from self. How does this discussion impact your lives, how does
 RW> it change you, how do you feel about it, what does it MEAN?
 RW> You both write so passionately and eloquently, yet I feel empty
 RW> and frustrated, I can't join in, there is nothing that grabs my
 RW> heart. I want to know where you both are in it all, that is
 RW> what I am passionate about, that is what impacts and changes me.

It may help you know Ruby, that one of my very best friends - albeit
somewhat younger than myself, calls me, lovingly calls me, a boring 
old
fart!

I don't know what to say to you. If we talk passionately it is 
because we
are passionate. And I think I can see you saying :

 "HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU BE PASSIONATE ABOUT ALL THAT STUFF, IT SIMPLY
DOESN'T TOUCH ME.

And I also, I think, hear you saying that you would like to join 
in. You
would like to so much that you are frustrated. Empty frustration, you
said.

Is there is a 'want' there Ruby, a hunger? If it all really meant 
nothing
to you, you could throw it off without a thought - most people do.

The frustration - the exact point of the empty frustration - that 
is the
key for you. There is something in this you WANT !!!!


          I've just read Walter's reply to your impassioned plea 
and I
thought I would copy his style and tell you something about myself.

          I was born in London of a working class family and left 
school
when I was 14. Now you know England is very class conscious place, 
even
more so when I was young. I had a very very sore inferiority 
complex. In
my youth I tried to compensate for this by becoming an intellectual 
- God
forgive me! I remember at 17 reading  Emanual Kant's Critique of Pure
Reason. I got the vaguest gists of what it was all about - but 
really, I
might as well have been reading Hindustani. I persisted from the 
first to
the last page; and this was paradigmatic of my whole effort to BE 
someone.

          So it sort of placed me in a lonely-do-it-myself style of 
life
and in one sense this has been true all my life. Not that I haven't 
had
people who were close to me, but my internal life has led me along 
a very
eccentric path. I am like someone perhaps who has been wrecked on a 
desert
island where there was only one sort of life form. Turtles say. So 
that
over the years I have become absolutely fascinated by turtles and
something of a dotty expert on them.  Or maybe like someone 
imprisoned for
life who has found this dusty old 15th century manuscript Latin 
manuscript
tucked away in some corner and, although I can't speak Latin, over 
the
years I have lovingly deciphered the book which turns out to be the
kitchen accounts of a 15th century household  - nothing startling 
to be
sure, but through the careful study of it I have manage to work out 
the
entire lifestyle in that ancient household.  An incarcerated 
passion to be
sure.

      You can see that this image I am giving you is so apt that I am
lovingly lingering over the details as I sketch it for you. So that 
things
I am passionate about in my cell are hardly likely to appeal to a 
young
woman like yourself who seems to be bursting with the feeling that 
there
is everything in the world to be felt, seen, heard and devoured.

     However, and it is an enormous however, be patient - we need 
your
vitality and strong sense that there is a world outside.


               Best,
                          Stanley

     
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:11 2000
Date: (6327)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a1a448dc

 SR>  26 may 94
 SR> Hello Walter

 WL>>>> So a really Sick Idea is one that forgets and denies that it
 WL>>>> comes out of the meeting place of the soul of the world of
 WL>>>> things, the ancestry of ideas, and that place in our being
 WL>>>> where there is creation.

 SR>>> Oh yes, I like that: the Agora of the Soul.

 WL>> Do you really, it seems axiomatically different from your
 WL>> predominant perspective.

 SR> You speak of 'the soul of the world of things'.
 SR> Do you have me as not thinking that the soul of the world is in
 SR> *things*?

Not really, though this 'anima mundi' (is that the right word for 
it?) is
somewhat confusing for me.  When you said at the forum that in the 
world
the gods are literally present in the literal world, that is 
confusing as
I tend to think of of these gods as poetic and metaphorical.

I had hardly noticed I had slipped the word 'soul' in there I was 
thinking
of the actual earth again.  Hmmm which earth you will say, Mother 
earth?
Basil at the forum was calling the earth mother, and linking it up 
with
our dependency on her!  He literally sees the links in the chains of
complexity.

The whole discussion is driving me crazy!  It can be said that Mother
earth is also a metaphor, who makes them?  Us as poets, back to *our*
HUMAN creativity!

Aggg!


Walter

 SR>                Best
 SR>                     Stanley
 SR> --- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 SR>  * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics
 SR>  +64-3-365-6876+V42b (3:770/270)
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:12 2000
Date: (6336)   Sat 28 May 94 19:46                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53863d14
@REPLY: 3:770/270 41df0f89
 > Your point is that ideas are not hosted by us people but by
 > whole systems.
 > Ideas of a hill belong somewhere in the meeting place between
 > the hill and
 > the culture of the coast and the whole shebang.  You hold
 > this to be a
 > TRUTH in a sardonic way.

 > Have I got the gist of your message
Yes I think so. I guess it is a bit of a sardonicly held way if I 
understand that term. I wonder how you feel about this as a 
truth/not just idea.
If in fact truth and idea are not divided as we have been saying 
then it seems to me that you cannot divide the host from the 
reality in the way we generally do. BTW I realise that the sentence 
before the one before this is hypocritical in light of me saying 
that I take this no ultimate truth perspective, but I guess that 
highlights the sort of difficulties language gets us in.
I think the question of it having a literal truth should be 
examined more closely. There are experimental/experiential 
differences between the two perspectives (or else I wouldn't think 
it worth discussing I should think) but what are they?
Ghosts and stuff, if we imagine them, how come more than one person 
see's the same one. And same goes for a lot of god stuff.
????
Comments anyone?

Miles





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:12 2000
Date: (6330)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1b31f6cc

 SR> Yes, here we go again...Once more with feeling!!!!!   You say
 SR> the material world is primary. All you are saying is that one
 SR> realm of the Soul of the World seems more influential.  If you
 SR> were a native of Boganville or if you were Stanley, the only
 SR> true native of NZ who still believes in 'participation
 SR> mystique',  you might think that the primary reality was which
 SR> totum-animal people were. Personally I am an Ostrich on Mondays
 SR> and Thursday and a Python on Tuesday and Fridays - what are you?


I just cant make up my mind and agonise a lot.


Walter


Ps what is'participation mystique' ?



--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:12 2000
Date: (6331)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 4d044dc7
@REPLY: 3:770/270 a0ca65c2

You wrote to Miles,

 RW> I admit, I admit! I too am gripped by something.
 RW> For all my opposition to fundamentalism, I am fundamental in my
 RW> opposition. Obviously I am in the hold of a sick idea.
 RW> Walter and Stanley and you(?) reach for the sky, 'heads in the
 RW> heavens' as Stanley put it. I grope for the earth beneath my
 RW> feet, for its simplicity and solidity, the mere fact of its
 RW> CONTACT. The sky seems so elusive and out of reach yet I catch
 RW> myself gazing at it with longing.

I see you leave the earth and touch the sky a little as you 
acknowledge
your fundamentalism.  You are no longer a fundamentalist then!  Now 
I feel
more able to connect.  Strange.  Perhaps I got all that sky stuff 
off my
chest at the talk.  I had a moment there after the talk when 
several older
men approached me, each totally misunderstood my talk and each was 
in the
grip of an idea so firmly and wanted me to be the same as them or 
to get
infected.  That is me I thought if I don't watch it.

What about we grope in the earth then?  Lets do it together!  Show 
us the
way  (you are doing that I think).  Can this ever be earthy here?  
I have
asked that a million times.  I am actually quite earthy.  (all my 
stars in
Virgo), I am not really afraid of it either, but I don't 'warm up' 
to it
here.

You know what it is for me!  I am more earthy in private.  A public 
echo
like this, that (potentially) goes through the sky to millions of 
readers
around the global village is not a place where I can be earthy or 
watery.

I am hoarder, and I see these things not only going far and wide, 
but also
lasting forever!  Look at those love letters that were exposed on the
front page of the Press on Friday!  They were only 20 years old.

It is with that in mind that I have PyberGroups on the BBS.  
PyberGroups
have a definite boundary around who reads them!  I am looking 
forward to
being in one again and to a few more people becoming Full 
Subscribers.

See you there!

Love

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:12 2000
Date: (6332)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 41df0f89
@REPLY: 3:770/270 53810b8c

 MT> IS not true! HA.

Your point is that ideas are not hosted by us people but by whole 
systems.
Ideas of a hill belong somewhere in the meeting place between the 
hill and
the culture of the coast and the whole shebang.  You hold this to 
be a
TRUTH in a sardonic way.

Have I got the gist of your message?


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:13 2000
Date: (7871)   Tue 31 May 94 14:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby,


 RW> I am not saying NO NO NO to the sick idea *idea*. I am just
 RW> saying you are a classic example of a sick idea when your ideas
 RW> about sick ideas are cut off from your self. And Stanley would
 RW> say *that* is a sick idea.

                         All I was trying to say originally, Ruby, 
was
that ideas exist, just like like tables and chairs, and love and
frustration, and stars and feelings, like me and you. I wanted to 
think
about an ideas as though they had life. That somewhere at sometime 
they
are born and have a past - and that it is good for an idea to be in 
touch
with itself and to remember who it was and where it was born, like 
you and
me. Very much like a nice piece of furniture. A nice wooden table 
that has
been made and lived long is better that a table manufactured 
yesterday out
of plastic.  A nice old wooden table likes itself better than a 
plastic
one. My desk is made of Kauri and we are fond of each other. It was
rescued from a junk yard, covered with paint and dirt, where no one
realised its quality. A friend of mine who is a wood-man, took it to
pieces and lovingly cleaned and resurfaced it. We are lovers, my 
desk and
I. Far from being cold and unemotional and cut off, I am trying to 
put
feeling into things, life into everything, so that we do not imagine
ourselves to live in a cold dead world. Trouble is I belong to our 
culture
that doesn't think like that and there is a part of me too that still
doesn't. I know what I would LIKE to feel about the world - but I 
can't
make it. As a compensation, I try to THINK  about the world how I 
would
like to FEEL about it, hoping it will make a difference. That's 
really
what all my hi-fallootin talk amounts to. I'm really on your side - 
but I
have difficulty sometimes holding on to my passion about life - as 
you
would say, holding on to my real self.


 WL>> I fall into a fever of synthesis and
 WL>> integration.  I see both sides and love you both!  
Co-dependency no
 WL>> doubt. Unable to take a firm stand, endless symptoms of 
agonising
WL>>  vacillation in ambiguity.

Ambiguity is the best place too be Walter. Fevers of synthesis and
integration must be a sort of raising of the temperature to fight the
viruses of certainty!

 WL>> You are my father and mother!

 RW> Oh dear.

He's alright Ruby, my dear wife. Leave the boy alone. You worry 
about him
too much. He's trying to make us happy together.

               Best,
                         Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:13 2000
Date: (7873)   Tue 31 May 94 14:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby and All,


 RW>> Where ARE you two in all of this?
 RW>> I want to know!
 RW>> I read your messages and I despair ... it seems to me this
 RW>> discussion about ideas is a sick idea ITSELF as it is divorced
 RW>> from self. How does this discussion impact your lives, how does
 RW>> it change you, how do you feel about it, what does it MEAN?
 RW>> You both write so passionately and eloquently, yet I feel empty
 RW>> and frustrated, I can't join in, there is nothing that grabs my
 RW>> heart. I want to know where you both are in it all, that is
 RW>> what I am passionate about, that is what impacts and changes 
me.

 WL> You are passionate in your frustration!  You are really joined
 WL> in the discussion now!  Right in the middle of a debate.
 WL> Taking a side really and with much more force than I have been
 WL> able to.  You have quoted the bit of the message where I re
 WL> state, almost with deliberate dryness the outrageous
 WL> perspective that Stanley holds with such conviction.  That is
 WL> exactly what his perspective does:  it leaves us mere humans
 WL> out!  I have tried in different ways to kick at that.

What a marvellously passionate reply to Ruby's passionate 
frustration!

 WL> Your bold defiance of this may have
 WL> more impact on the discussion than I have had. I like the
 WL> audacity of Stanley's approach so much that I am not a
 WL> passionate critic of it as you are.  I have said quite similar
 WL> things to you though, that ideas are sick if they are divorced
 WL> from the self.

Ah! well, you see, I don't believe in what I am saying half so much 
as I
appear to. I play Devil's Advocate! And this particular Devil is 
trying to
undermine the Mono-View of Humanism and the hysteria provoked by any
questioning of it, ANY suggestion that it is just ONE way of 
imagining the
world.

 WL> I know you feel some trepidation joining this discussion.  Are
 WL> you afraid that your contributions will be demolished in some
 WL> avalanche of hi fluting esoteric bullshit?  Perhaps they will
 WL> be!  Is that happening now?

There's only one way, Ruby, fight us bullshitters. We are worth 
fighting.

 WL> I am in such a state here!  I see a war RIGHT HERE between the
 WL> gods and the humans.

Excellent! You are right there with Prometheus, defying the gods in 
the
name of humanity, and nailed to the Rock of Necessity.

 WL> Stanley is rubbing his brow thinking:  Oh dear, oh dear, I
 WL> never meant to upset people like this, of course Ruby is so
 WL> passionate about all of this she is gripped by a Sick Idea!
 WL> But if I say that to her she'll perhaps hate me and never come
 WL> back, Oh dear, what would Walter think then? Walter will
 WL> probably become gripped by the idea of bringing in much more
 WL> biographical stuff  . . . and introspective reporting, then I'd
 WL> have to find a way of saying he has sick ideas.  All very
 WL> troublesome.

An very perceptive analysis Walter. Actually I have been through 
just that
months ago when there were some sparking flames on our BBS. But 
this time
Ruby's scream was so wholehearted that I actually felt quite excited.

 WL> That is it isn't it?  The discussion is now no longer *about*
 WL> 'Sick Ideas' we are now having them, and pointing our fingers
 WL> at each other!  You are s I c k !!  No YOU are sick.  I love
 WL> it!  I do.  This is a wild rumpus!  I love it!


 WL> I think you are both Sick, so there!  You are Sick Stanley
 WL> because you don't come out and look at the biographical roots
 WL> of the idea of 'Sick Ideas' because you are saying that to do
 WL> that is a 'Sick Idea'. In short you are in your head and out of
 WL> touch with your feelings, you are probably avoiding something
 WL> and protecting someone!

 WL> Ruby, you are sick because you are gripped by the very common
 WL> infection called Humanism. It is a force (i would not even call
 WL> it a god!) that thinks we exist!  That we have thoughts and
 WL> feelings that matter.  That what matters most is the strongest
 WL> feeling and the most difficult to expose feeling.  To be truly
 WL> alive is to have peak experiences and to share them.

 WL> I am sick.  Sick, sick sick sick sick sick sick sick .  I have
 WL> the disease of passive eclecticism.  I fall into a fever of
 WL> synthesis and integration.  I see both sides and love you both!
 WL>  Co-dependency no doubt. Unable to take a firm stand, endless
 WL>  symptoms of agonising and vacillation in ambiguity.  You are
 WL>  my father and mother!  If only I could get him to see her
 WL>  point of view, and if only she would listen to Reason!  Then I
 WL>  would be happy!

Well, great, now that we know that we are all unavoidably and 
inescapably
sick we know something more about the archetypal world within which 
we
live and which gives us our being - it is sick!  We are sick not 
because
WE are sick, but because IT is sick!  'Infirmitas Archetypus'.

                         Best
                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:14 2000
Date: (7874)   Tue 31 May 94 14:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hello Ruby and Walter

 WL> I know I have a rather prickly style,  I was, looking, back on
 WL> it, presenting Stanley's point of view in a rather naughty way,
 WL> making him out to be very dogmatic, which he is not at all!  I
 WL> am sure he will come back and give me what I deserve.  I will
 WL> honour your differences if I can.  I enjoy the fine tuning that
 WL> takes place in this dialogue.  When you respond directly, I
 WL> feel met!

The fact that you can present me, naughtily, as dogmatic, means that
somewhere I am. I'll try and do a feint and fine tune. Just so long 
as I
don't faint.

 RW>> Yes I have many selves, many aspects, many faces.
 RW>> But I have a core, I have a deep sense of that, it is the part
 RW>> of me that feels joy, compassion, is moved, weeps, yearns
 RW>> contact, aches, suffers, dreams, prays, rages, loves, hates,
 RW>> imagines, remembers, it is the part of me where tenderness
 RW>> resides. And there is something else too, the *dark* core, that
 RW>> is me as well. I have no clever explanation for it either. It
 RW>> is just so. It is *my* truth. Not yours. Not Stanleys. Mine.

That's the problem, Ruby, this idea of the 'core', my real 
self.That is
such a precious thing. Something one always puts aside so as to be an
acceptable person. Oh! how one longs to be one's real self, the 
self that
one knows one is. How terribly vital it is to be faithful to it. How
important it is not to let it it be invaded or diluted. 'This above 
all,
to thine own self be true'. Myself, the only light I really know, 
the only
one I can really rely on in this changing and faithless world. And 
how one
longs for it to be recognised.. for them to really know what is 
going on
inside. Others seem so OTHER however close I get - I always know my
closest friend is myself. Yet always to feel that my real self, my 
core,
can so easily get swamped and taken over by all those things that  
are not
me. And one's decision never, never, never to let that happen.


 RW>> And I can imagine your reaction to that.

 WL> Is this what you imagined:

 WL> i try to bring in that there is a *core*, though I have called
 WL> it 'that place in our being where there is creation', I think I
 WL> was meaning something like what you say there though.


But I reckon 'myself' is such a slippery thing. You know when you are
really close to someone, like times when one is consciously in love,
honest to God, I really don't know who my core is: me or her. And 
that is
the best part of it. 'Us' is a power greater than either of us as
individuals

 WL>  Stanley
 WL> has all along, I think, wanted to emphasise:  'the ancestry of
 WL> ideas'.  This is so often forgotten in our culture, this is the
 WL> one that brings in the 'powers greater than ourselves', that
 WL> are not to do with what we feel or think in a literal way.  I

That's right, isn't it Walter?  When I am love with an idea I 
honestly do
feel in the grip of a power greater than myself. I can call it 'my' 
idea,
but the idea could just as easily call me 'my Stanley'.


 WL> like it that he brings that in, it is a refreshing perspective,
 WL> unpopular & eccentric, and gives me relief!.

 RW>> I don't like fundamentalist anything either.
 RW>> But what you are describing to me in this message sounds pretty
 RW>> bloody fundamentalist.

 WL> Well yes.  That is because I was taking the mickey out of the
 WL> position that I seem to be getting into, calling it a cult and
 WL> so on.  The trouble is that what ever is held dearly and as a
 WL> *truth* brings in some sort of sphere of influence, often
 WL> without us knowing.  I think that is the point Stanley (oh
 WL> dear!) is making.  When an idea is held strongly it has history
 WL> and there is an archetype at work, a whole thread of
 WL> associations back into the time of myth, the drama has been
 WL> played out many times and the protagonists and antagonists all
 WL> have a familiar part to play.  I do think that is true of our
 WL> discussion here.

 WL> I was literally shocked to discover that I was a humanist, and
 WL> that it might be possible to be something else!  I am not even
 WL> sure that it is for me, I have been so enculturated with
 WL> humanism!

 RW>> You are saying, this is right, this is
 RW>> the truth, you are sick because you don't agree.

 WL> There is some truth in that.  How awful!  I have a tongue in
 WL> cheek, streak that will argue that line like a real
 WL> fundamentalist.  My desire is to truly value the notion that
 WL> ideas live! and that they grab us that we are easily blinded by
 WL> cults.  That nothing in us is more powerful than these age old
 WL> systems of thought that are embedded in the culture and in our
 WL> language and even in our being.

 RW>> OR (and I am not sure which) -
 RW>> Stanley says this is right, this is the truth etc and you are
 RW>> sick if you don't agree with him.

 WL> That is true too, I have learnt this perspective from him,
 WL> mostly, however, he knows pretty much where he is on the tree
 WL> of ideas, and I was particularly drawn to Stanley when I
 WL> discovered that he was a fan of James Hillman.  Hillman is the
 WL> principle theorist of a school of Jungian thought called
 WL> Archetypal Psychology.  So it is true, Stanley and I form a
 WL> little clique around these ideas.  I probably do not do him
 WL> justice in my representations.  As I said I was partially
 WL> taking the mickey out of our little cult.  Sorry if this
 WL> confused you.  I am pleased to explain it all.

 WL> How is your frustration level?  Please feel free to express it,
 WL> I really don't mind, I may feel things in response & that is OK!

 RW>> You (or someone) is analysing me, diagnosing me, I don't like
 RW>> it.

 WL> No.  I am sorry if I gave that impression.  No, not my
 WL> intention, especially when you put it like that.  Perhaps the
 WL> grain of truth is that I like to see how the ideas we discuss
 WL> actually apply in the moment we discuss them.  The here and
 WL> now.  I was in a twisted (I thought humorous way) presenting
 WL> the 'Sick Idea' idea in a sick way!  The art is of course to be
 WL> able to have space around the 'Sick Idea' as well as other
 WL> ideas. However ideas are not like that they come like *truths*,
 WL> like they are IT. They want to be the ONE!  You invite me to
 WL> see where I am coming from.  I invite you to see who is coming
 WL> from you!

 RW>> And Walter? What about Walter?

 WL> You are frustrated still as I leave 'myself' out.  What exactly
 WL> is it that makes this discussion so annoying for you?  Perhaps
 WL> even painful?  My hunch is that this message is a *little* less
 WL> frustrating for you but that it is still there?

 WL> Let me bring something more in of me:

 WL> For all my taking Stanley's side in a blatant sort of way I am
 WL> describing the battle field of my soul.  Perhaps I have thin
 WL> membranes to the realities?  I have all my life been
 WL> susceptible to ideas.  My body and my heart all seem capable of
 WL> being overtaken by an idea and its associated club.  I used to
 WL> climb mountains, big ones.  That meant risking life because of
 WL> some idea about getting to the top.  I was in the communist
 WL> party, very drawn to Osho Rajneesh, even psychodrama is a
 WL> powerful system of ideas.  when I am frustrated by Louise Hay
 WL> and a whole string of 'Utopian Therapists', I like to know
 WL> 'who' is behind that.  When I am attracted to something, I can
 WL> now think is this an angel or a devil?  I find that a relief.

 RW>>>> My frustration is the only non-sick thing in this whole
 RW>>>> discussion!

 WL>>> Your frustration or some god shaking you?

 RW>> Oh who the fuck knows!
 RW>> It is only, as Reg says, a question of naming.

 WL> You don't care about the name, you just feel the feeling.  Fuck
 WL> the name. You are frustrated to the *core*.  Names are only
 WL> words, fuck words. Words are ideas, metaphors, imaginings, not
 WL> real.  The feeling is real, the image is not.

 WL> What a battle this is.  You say to me who are YOU!  I say to
 WL> you, what idea has gripped you, who are you worshipping!

 RW>> Which heart? *My* heart of course!
 RW>> Which body? *My* body, NOW!

 RW>> It is all very clever, but it does not fool me for a minute. 
<G>

 WL> Exactly what Sue said!

 WL> Boy, do I *feel* on dangerous ground here!  I am writing in my
 WL> fundamentalist style again!  Let me moderate myself.  I value
 WL> feelings.  I often say such things as:  In your heart, deep
 WL> down, what do you really long for.  That seems to take people
 WL> closer to the core, as it does me!  I *never* (apart from here
 WL> to you!) say: which divine figure has gripped you!  However I
 WL> usually think it.  In my psychodrama days I'd think: role, role
 WL> cluster, world view.  Along the same lines, but not as
 WL> powerfully differentiated into the imaginal.

 RW>>>> Walter, why do you make everything so COMPLICATED?

 WL> The more I put forward the side of the gods here the more
 WL> simple it seems.

 RW>>>> Oh dear, oh dear, Walter, you ARE sick. <G>

 WL>>> To have their love and attention I had to manage to hold very
 WL>>> different perspectives all at once.

 RW>> I was only joking when I said that, I see that you really meant
 RW>> it and I am sorry.

 WL> I was half joking too, so no need to apologise.  I am so full
 WL> of ideas as I write that I pile them in on top of each other.
 WL> One, I was wanting to speak more of 'me', of the psychodynamic
 WL> origins of what I do and say.  It is very difficult for me to
 WL> watch a man and a woman have a mis- understanding.  I am having
 WL> the difficulty here too.  You and Stanley (at least the you &
 WL> Stanley of my projections), are at opposite ends of a line.  I
 WL> see both sides.  On this occasion I expect that Stanley (in my
 WL> projections) will see where you are coming from.  That is a
 WL> pleasant change.  Usually I am trying to get another man to see
 WL> women's reality.  I usually fail.  (That was the original
 WL> dynamic that started at about age 3?)

 WL> Two, I was taking the mickey out of the psychodynamic
 WL> perspective. To see through that way of thinking as simply
 WL> another school of thought.  Taking the mickey is not the best
 WL> way.

 RW>> Walter, you still have my love and attention, despite
 RW>> everything you have said in this message, everything that
 RW>> confuses me, frustrates me, drives me crazy etc. Despite all I
 RW>> disagree with.

 WL> I like to hear that, I am on edge all the time with these
 WL> messages.

 RW>>>> Awaiting your reply with fevered (sick) anticipation,

 WL>>> I am sending it, hoping that our friendship will still be 
intact!

 RW>> Oh Walter, of COURSE it is.
 RW>> Friendship to me does not mean sameness.
 RW>> I am enjoying our discussion, also I am frustrated and
 RW>> perplexed and shaking my head in confusion, but I am still very
 RW>> much here.

 WL> Me too, not as convinced of anything as I may sound. And here,
 WL> no problem.

 WL> Love,


 WL> Walter


 WL> PS Who is Rumi?

 WL> ... *who*, which divine figure, is speaking in this style of
 WL> consciousness, this form of presentation.   (Hillman)

 WL> --- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 WL>  * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics
 WL>  +64-3-365-6876+V42b (3:770/270)

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:14 2000
Date: (7875)   Tue 31 May 94 14:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby and Walter

  WL>>   It is very difficult for me to watch a man and a woman
 WL>> have a mis- understanding. I am having the difficulty here 
too. You
 WL>> and Stanley (at least the you & Stanley of my projections), 
are at
 WL>> opposite ends of a line. I see both sides.

Like it was another time on this board, Walter? What say you?

 RW> This is not between me and Stanley, it is between me and you!
 RW> You can't bear the thought of having a misunderstanding with
 RW> me, it is too difficult for you, you don't know where to stand,
 RW> you are in the middle, seeing both sides, agreeing with
 RW> everyone, too afraid to commit yourself either way, no wonder I
 RW> don't know where you are!

Ruby, you keep saying to everyone: 'Where are you'.  Why are you so
desparate that eveyone finds themselves?  Are you THAT lost ??
It's not hard to see where Walter is, Ruby. He's trying to stop us 
from
blowing apart. It is very important to him.

 WL>> That is a pleasant change.  Usually I am trying to get 
another man
WL>> to  see women's reality. I usually fail. (That was the original
WL>>dynamic that started at about age 3?)

A pleasant change perhaps because you would normally see more 
strongly
Her perspective.

 RW> Usually I am trying to get another human to see my reality. I
 RW> usually fail <G>.

That's your story I bet, Ruby.  And why you are so desperately 
trying to
get Walter to stand still. If he would stand still instead of 
trying to
repair us you'd be able to reach him.  And reach him you HAVE to,
otherwise get out of the whole thing.

               Best,
                         Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:14 2000
Date: (7887)   Tue 31 May 94 23:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f3c14fe6

Dear Stanley and Ruby,

 WL>>> It is very difficult for me to watch a man and a woman
 WL>>> have a mis- understanding. I am having the difficulty here 
too. You
 WL>>> and Stanley (at least the you & Stanley of my projections), 
are at
 WL>>> opposite ends of a line. I see both sides.

 SR> Like it was another time on this board, Walter? What say you?

More projections involved this time perhaps.  However on this 
occasion I
have been 'cheating'.  I have spoken to Ruby in EDR and I know 
something
of her response to *this* message.  And now I am in FULL repair and
restore everyone's relationship with everyone else mode!  I will 
make an
Art Form out of my neurosis.

 RW>> This is not between me and Stanley, it is between me and you!
 RW>> You can't bear the thought of having a misunderstanding with
 RW>> me, it is too difficult for you, you don't know where to stand,
 RW>> you are in the middle, seeing both sides, agreeing with
 RW>> everyone, too afraid to commit yourself either way, no wonder I
 RW>> don't know where you are!

 SR> Ruby, you keep saying to everyone: 'Where are you'.  Why are
 SR> you so desperate that everyone finds themselves?  Are you THAT
 SR> lost ?? It's not hard to see where Walter is, Ruby. He's trying
 SR> to stop us from blowing apart. It is very important to him.

I sure am!  Right Now, --- read on  . . .

 WL>>> That is a pleasant change.  Usually I am trying to get 
another man
 WL>>> to  see women's reality. I usually fail. (That was the 
original
 WL>>> dynamic that started at about age 3?)

 SR> A pleasant change perhaps because you would normally see more
 SR> strongly Her perspective.

I can see both -- while you two are talking past each other.  Oh 
dear,
that this should be my fate.

 RW>> Usually I am trying to get another human to see my reality. I
 RW>> usually fail <G>.

 SR> That's your story I bet, Ruby.

By this I take you to mean Stanley,

>> Hmm, I see, that is your *story*!  That is something that you live
>> with in your life Ruby, I bet, though of course I am not totally
>> sure.  What do you think?

I imagine Ruby reading it like this:

>> Oh well, that is YOUR story.  I bet you OTHERS would see it
>> differently!

 SR> And why you are so desperately
 SR> trying to get Walter to stand still. If he would stand still
 SR> instead of trying to repair us you'd be able to reach him.  And
 SR> reach him you HAVE to, otherwise get out of the whole thing.

I see Stanley as being empathic:

>> You don't want to be the victim of Walter's neurotic projections.
>> This is something that is really important for you, to connect
>> with people beyond their guises.  It is something that you are
>> compelled to do, to keep at it.  It is so important to you that
>> if you fail you will want to leave -- to give up on the
>> medium -- you just could not stomach it here if there is no
>> connection at that heart level.

I see Ruby Reading this:

>> Walter is *wonderful*, he is so kind, you must be good to him!  He
>> is only trying to help!  You HAVE to understand him! (that is an
>> order) and if you can't do that there is no hope for you and you
>> will not be welcome here!

The principle is that if there is ambiguity in cyberspace the 
recipient
will take it negatively.  Usually 180 degrees from the way it is 
intended.

Now, will you both please tell me I am a wonderful son!


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:14 2000
Date: (7888)   Wed 1 Jun 94  0:02                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 412
@MSGID: 3:770/270 094b8aba

Dear Stanley,

 SR> Ruby, you keep saying to everyone: 'Where are you'.  Why are 
you so
 SR> desparate that everyone finds themselves?  Are you THAT lost ??

No, No, NO, Stanley!
I don't want everyone to find themselves, I want to find everyone.

 SR> It's not hard to see where Walter is, Ruby. He's trying to 
stop us
 SR> from blowing apart. It is very important to him.

Not hard for you maybe.

 RW>> Usually I am trying to get another human to see my reality. I
 RW>> usually fail <G>.

 SR> That's your story I bet, Ruby.

What do you mean Stanley?
Are you being understanding, or sarcastic?
Do you believe me, or do you not believe me?
Do you see my reality, or do you not?
Am I failing, again?

Walter, desparately, lovingly, mending and repairing, tells me you 
are
being understanding, you are speaking with empathy.

 SR> And why you are so desperately trying
 SR> to get Walter to stand still. If he would stand still instead of
 SR> trying to repair us you'd be able to reach him.

When I see him doing all his careful mending work, I do reach him.
I asked him where he was and he told me.

 SR> And reach him you
 SR> HAVE to, otherwise get out of the whole thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by that Stanley.

Yours,
     in lost desparation,

                         Ruby.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 412
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:15 2000
Date: (7890)   Wed 1 Jun 94  0:02                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 412
@MSGID: 3:770/270 4f441132

Stanley,

 RW>>> Yes I have many selves, many aspects, many faces.
 RW>>> But I have a core, I have a deep sense of that, it is the part
 RW>>> of me that feels joy, compassion, is moved, weeps, yearns
 RW>>> contact, aches, suffers, dreams, prays, rages, loves, hates,
 RW>>> imagines, remembers, it is the part of me where tenderness
 RW>>> resides. And there is something else too, the *dark* core, 
that
 RW>>> is me as well. I have no clever explanation for it either. It
 RW>>> is just so. It is *my* truth. Not yours. Not Stanleys. Mine.

 SR> That's the problem, Ruby, this idea of the 'core', my real 
self.That
 SR> is such a precious thing. Something one always puts aside so 
as to be
 SR> an acceptable person.

I want it to be known, I don't want to put it aside.
I want to bring out into the light that which is buried alive, to 
listen
respectfully to its story, of pain and suffocation, darkness and 
yearning.

 SR> Oh! how one longs to be one's real self, the
 SR> self that one knows one is. How terribly vital it is to be 
faithful
 SR> to it. How important it is not to let it it be invaded or 
diluted.
 SR> 'This above all, to thine own self be true'. Myself, the only 
light I
 SR> really know, the only one I can really rely on in this 
changing and
 SR> faithless world. And how one longs for it to be recognised.. 
for them
 SR> to really know what is going on inside. Others seem so OTHER 
however
 SR> close I get - I always know my closest friend is myself. Yet 
always
 SR> to feel that my real self, my core, can so easily get swamped 
and
 SR> taken over by all those things that  are not me. And one's 
decision
 SR> never, never, never to let that happen.

Stanley, who is this 'one'?
Naughty old Stanley, you have used your own forbidden word!
You are now ex-communicated from your own cult!
Never mind, you can always join mine if you want to....

Love and sympathy,

Ruby.



 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 412
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:15 2000
Date: (7889)   Wed 1 Jun 94  0:02                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 412
@MSGID: 3:770/270 41273119

Dear Stanley,

 SR> All I was trying to say originally, Ruby, was
 SR> that ideas exist, just like like tables and chairs, and love and
 SR> frustration, and stars and feelings, like me and you. I wanted 
to
 SR> think about ideas as though they had life.

Lovely, Stanley! That reaches me, it really does.

 SR> That somewhere at sometime they
 SR> are born and have a past - and that it is good for an idea to 
be in
 SR> touch with itself and to remember who it was and where it was 
born,
 SR> like you and me. Very much like a nice piece of furniture. A 
nice
 SR> wooden table that has been made and lived long is better that 
a table
 SR> manufactured yesterday out of plastic.  A nice old wooden 
table likes
 SR> itself better than a plastic one. My desk is made of Kauri and 
we are
 SR> fond of each other. It was rescued from a junk yard, covered 
with
 SR> paint and dirt, where no one realised its quality. A friend of 
mine
 SR> who is a wood-man, took it to pieces and lovingly cleaned and
 SR> resurfaced it. We are lovers, my desk and I. Far from being 
cold and
 SR> unemotional and cut off, I am trying to put feeling into 
things, life
 SR> into everything, so that we do not imagine ourselves to live 
in a
 SR> cold dead world. Trouble is I belong to our culture that doesn't
 SR> think like that and there is a
 SR> part of me too that still doesn't. I know what I would LIKE to 
feel
 SR> about the world - but I can't make it. As a compensation, I 
try to
 SR> THINK  about the world how I would like to FEEL about it, 
hoping it
 SR> will make a difference. That's really what all my hi-fallootin 
talk
 SR> amounts to. I'm really on your side - but I have difficulty 
sometimes
 SR> holding on to my passion about life - as you would say, 
holding on to
 SR> my real self.

Thank you Stanley for all you have written above. I do so love it 
when I
know where your ideas come from. Now they are not cut off from their
roots! Now I know where you are, I am so glad I asked.

 WL>>> You are my father and mother!

 RW>> Oh dear.

 SR> He's alright Ruby, my dear wife. Leave the boy alone. You 
worry about
 SR> him too much. He's trying to make us happy together.

Yes darling, whatever's best.

Yours,
      in matrimonial bliss,

                           Ruby.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 412
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:16 2000
Date: (8596)   Wed 1 Jun 94  8:04                          
From: Monty Townsend
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Rcvd
@MSGID: 3:770/135.0 2ded3665

RW>Dear Stanley,

 SR> Ruby, you keep saying to everyone: 'Where are you'.  Why are 
you so
 SR> desparate that everyone finds themselves?  Are you THAT lost ??

RW>No, No, NO, Stanley!
RW>I don't want everyone to find themselves, I want to find everyone.

 SR> It's not hard to see where Walter is, Ruby. He's trying to 
stop us
 SR> from blowing apart. It is very important to him.

RW>Not hard for you maybe.

 RW>> Usually I am trying to get another human to see my reality. I
 RW>> usually fail <G>.

 SR> That's your story I bet, Ruby.

RW>What do you mean Stanley?
RW>Are you being understanding, or sarcastic?
RW>Do you believe me, or do you not believe me?
RW>Do you see my reality, or do you not?
RW>Am I failing, again?

RW>Walter, desparately, lovingly, mending and repairing, tells me 
you are
RW>being understanding, you are speaking with empathy.

 SR> And why you are so desperately trying
 SR> to get Walter to stand still. If he would stand still instead of
 SR> trying to repair us you'd be able to reach him.

RW>When I see him doing all his careful mending work, I do reach him.
RW>I asked him where he was and he told me.

 SR> And reach him you
 SR> HAVE to, otherwise get out of the whole thing.

RW>I'm not sure what you mean by that Stanley.

RW>Yours,
RW>     in lost desparation,

RW>                         Ruby.


Hey Watler, this is to do with what I was talking about!

Your favourite monkey


 * Wave Rider 1.0 [NR] *
... UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- Blue Wave/Maximus
 * Origin: Prompt OnLine Information Service & Helpline (3:770/135)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:16 2000
Date: (8597)   Wed 1 Jun 94  8:21                          
From: Monty Townsend
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Rcvd
@MSGID: 3:770/135.0 2ded3666

>> Walter is *wonderful*, he is so kind, you must be good to him!  He
>> is only trying to help!  You HAVE to understand him! (that is an
>> order) and if you can't do that there is no hope for you and you
>> will not be welcome here!

This is a naughty thing to say to Ruby, Stanley.

Even if you are talking with your tongue in your cheek, Stanley, 
you have no 
right to tell any person they are not welcome on a BBS.  Why do you 
say it? 
Because you are a man?  Because she is not a man?  Does any woman 
ever say 
this to any man on a BBS?  No, because BBSes belong to MEN!!!  
Women belong 
to MEN!!!  The world belongs to MEN!!!  The only people in the 
world are 
MEN!!!

Why do men think they own the world?  Why can't Ruby say what she 
wants to 
say and be who she is without some man - whatever that is - telling 
her 
where she may and may not go?  How come real badness came to pass 
on this 
BBS and nobody even noticed or commented on it, because it was 
*normal* for 
men to make badness come to pass?  Ruby has made no badness come to 
pass on 
this BBS, so nobody should tell her anything bad.

I am allowed to say this because I am neither a man nor a woman - I 
may 
refer to myself as a 'he', but I don't have the personal equipment 
to put me 
into one class or the other.

Long may us knitted ones live, and look with our felt eyes where 
others dare 
not see.

Your Friend Monty Townsend

My Own Tagline: Knitting rules, OK?




 * Wave Rider 1.0 [NR] *
... UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- Blue Wave/Maximus
 * Origin: Prompt OnLine Information Service & Helpline (3:770/135)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:17 2000
Date: (9960)   Mon 6 Jun 94 20:28                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 WL> Hi Stanley,


 SR>>      Prometheus deliberately
 SR>>      disobeyed Zeus who was bent on the destruction of
 SR>>      humanity, stole fire from him and gave it to us. I think
 SR>>      maybe he was the first humanist. I was also thinking of
 SR>>      Jung's point in his work 'Job'. God treated Job in such an
 SR>>      abominable way, quite barbaric really, and Job reacted
 SR>>      with great faith and dignity. Jung said quite seriously
 SR>>      that the function of humanity is to teach God some honesty
 SR>>      and good manners. In fact, through humanity God evolves
 SR>>      from savagery to goodness.

 WL> These stories have characters that are humans and characters
 WL> that are gods, I notice.  Mythical creatures can be god human
 WL> or android!

Well, in the above story Prometheus was a god. One of the original 
Titans
who helped Zeus to power.  That's what got him down a bit about his
punishment. I mean, he gets his liver eaten by the eagle at night 
he and
is better the next day - all ready for the next night's ordeal.


 WL> I will respond with a short story.

 WL> A man in his bed-sit puts on his goggles and headphones, plugs
 WL> in and enters his Virtual World.  He floats down into his
 WL> office which set in a tropical island with sounds of birds and
 WL> animals.  He walks along the beach to his Robinson Cruso
 WL> Hut-office and goes to his computer and opens up Word for
 WL> Windows and types a letter.  Ah shit, the bloody thing is not
 WL> working.  He takes off his goggles and head phones and goes to
 WL> a panel on the wall in the bed-sit.  Pushes the green button.
 WL> The bed-sit fades and now she is back in her own office where
 WL> she proceeds to check the files in her computer.

This whole business of Virtual Reality is absolutely fascinating. 
That
article you put in the library VV.text on Muds was quite 
extraordinary.
Its almost like a whole mythical realm gradually defining itself 
into a
society. Like souls emerging out of 'The Great Indefinable' who can 
turn
themselves into anyone or anything, possessing magical powers, 
interacting
with each other, and gradually finding that they want to create a 
world
with some rules so that they can live together - and the great BAD 
DEED by
a self-elected devil which made it necessary.

               All the Best,
                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:17 2000
Date: (9959)   Mon 6 Jun 94 20:28                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 6 June 94



 WL> Ps what is'participation mystique' ?

One of those things where if you don't ask me I know !!!
This is from Andrew Samuels dictionary on Jung:

     "Participation Mystique: A term borrowed from the 
anthropologist Levy
-Bruhl . He used it to refer to a form of relationship with an object
(meaning a thing) in which the subject cannot distinguish himself 
from the
thing. This rests upon the notion, which may be prevalent in a 
culture,
that the person/tribe and the thing, for instance a cult object or 
holy
artefact  - are *already* connected".

     In primitive Cultures this seems to be the connection between a
person or tribe and the totem animal. That's what I meant when I 
said 'I
am an ostrich, what are you'. I think modern people have that with 
their
cars sometimes!

                    Best,
                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:17 2000
Date: (9962)   Mon 6 Jun 94 20:28                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby And Walter
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


Dear Ruby and Walter,


Can I join your discussion here.


 WL> You wrote to Miles,

RW>>  I grope for the earth beneath my
 RW>> feet, for its simplicity and solidity, the mere fact of its
 RW>> CONTACT. The sky seems so elusive and out of reach yet I catch
 RW>> myself gazing at it with longing.


 WL> I am
 WL> actually quite earthy.  (all my stars in Virgo), I am not
 WL> really afraid of it either, but I don't 'warm up' to it here.
 WL> You know what it is for me!  I am more earthy in private.

Yes, earthy in private.  Me too!

 WL> I am hoarder, and I see these things not only going far and
 WL> wide, but also lasting forever!  Look at those love letters
 WL> that were exposed on the front page of the Press on Friday!
 WL> They were only 20 years old.

I didn't see those love letters in the Press. But it's interesting,
Walter, that you mention 'love' in the same context as 'private' and
'earthy'.  Isn't love the most earthy and private thing? Isn't it 
the most
simple and solid thing of all, Ruby?  That's the kind of 
_foundation_ I
always yearn for. And you, too, 'grope for the earth beneath your 
feet'.

                    Loving,
                              Stanley.
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:17 2000
Date: (9958)   Mon 6 Jun 94 20:28                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hellow Walter

 SR>> You speak of 'the soul of the world of things'.
 SR>> Do you have me as not thinking that the soul of the world is in
 SR>> *things*?

 WL> Not really, though this 'anima mundi' (is that the right word
 WL> for it?) is somewhat confusing for me.  When you said at the
 WL> forum that in the world the gods are literally present in the
 WL> literal world, that is confusing as I tend to think of these
 WL> gods as poetic and metaphorical.

I had this wonderful inspiration while you were speaking and I can't
altogether remember what it was now. I suppose it sort of goes like 
this:
Yes, the gods are poetic and metaphorical. But because we can't 
*get* them
that way they make their epiphany through literal events AS THOSE 
LITERAL
EVENTS.  We *believe* in the literal world so that is the only way 
they
can make themselves felt. Only if we can get the literal world as
metaphorical and poetic (ie divine)  can we get the gods as that 
too. As
one might say: Anima Mundi *is* the world and its events - not 
something
separate from the world effecting the world. All the while we have 
two
worlds - one divine, poetical and metaphorical, and the other 
literal,
real and secular - we confine the gods to the ineffective world of 
the
imagination and condemn the literal world to its dark 
mono-lifelessness.


 WL> The whole discussion is driving me crazy!  It can be said that
 WL> Mother earth is also a metaphor, who makes them?  Us as poets,
 WL> back to *our* HUMAN creativity!

 WL> Aggg!

RIGHT ON, Walter!!!!   Now that Prometheus have given us fire and the
blessings of humanism we can't give it back to the gods. Struggle 
as we
may!

               Best,
                    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:18 2000
Date: (9986)   Tue 7 Jun 94  0:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby

 SR>> Ruby, you keep saying to everyone: 'Where are you'.  Why are 
you so
 SR>> desperate that everyone finds themselves?  Are you THAT lost ??

 RW> No, No, NO, Stanley!
 RW> I don't want everyone to find themselves, I want to find
 RW> everyone.

Oh! I see. That's what you want. You want to find everyone. Like 
YOU'VE
lost THEM, you mean?


 RW>>> Usually I am trying to get another human to see my reality. I
 RW>>> usually fail <G>.

 SR>> That's your story I bet, Ruby.

 RW> What do you mean Stanley?
 RW> Are you being understanding, or sarcastic?
 RW> Do you believe me, or do you not believe me?
 RW> Do you see my reality, or do you not?
 RW> Am I failing, again?

I'm trying to see you. I do believe that you try to get other human 
beings
to get your reality and that you usually fail. I mean I can see how 
that
could be the story of your life. That sort of thing is not usually an
isolated incident, but an experience that repeats.

 RW> Walter, desperately, lovingly, mending and repairing, tells me
 RW> you are being understanding, you are speaking with empathy.

He's absolutely right.

 SR>> And why you are so desperately trying
 SR>> to get Walter to stand still. If he would stand still instead 
of
 SR>> trying to repair us you'd be able to reach him.

 RW> When I see him doing all his careful mending work, I do reach
 RW> him. I asked him where he was and he told me.

That's good, then.

 SR>> And reach him you
 SR>> HAVE to, otherwise get out of the whole thing.....

 RW> I'm not sure what you mean by that Stanley.

I just mean that I can see that for you it is so very important to 
reach
people, in this case Walter - otherwise you drop into despair

 RW> Yours,
 RW>      in lost desparation,

 RW>                          Ruby.

I do hope you can see that you have reached me

                         Love,

                                   Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:18 2000
Date: (9987)   Tue 7 Jun 94  0:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby

 SR>> That's the problem, Ruby, this idea of the 'core', my real 
self.That
 SR>> is such a precious thing. Something one always puts aside so 
as to   
SR>> be an acceptable person.

 RW> I want it to be known, I don't want to put it aside.
 RW> I want to bring out into the light that which is buried alive,
 RW> to listen respectfully to its story, of pain and suffocation,
 RW> darkness and yearning.

Yes, of course you want to bring it out into the light and for it 
to be
known. But as you say it is 'buried alive'. And that one, she who is
buried in darkness, in pain and suffocation, yearns for the light. 
That is
she whom you feel is the core of you, isn't it?

 SR>> Oh! how one longs to be one's real self, the
 SR>> self that one knows one is. How terribly vital it is to be 
faithful
 SR>> to it. How important it is not to let it be invaded or diluted.
 SR>> 'This above all, to thine own self be true'. Myself, the only 
light
I
 SR>> really know, the only one I can really rely on in this 
changing and
 SR>> faithless world. And how one longs for it to be recognised.. 
for
them
 SR>> to really know what is going on inside. Others seem so OTHER 
however
 SR>> close I get - I always know my closest friend is myself. Yet 
always
 SR>> to feel that my real self, my core, can so easily get swamped 
and
 SR>> taken over by all those things that  are not me. And one's 
decision
 SR>> never, never, never to let that happen.

 RW> Stanley, who is this 'one'?

Quite right.  She should have a name. What will we call her - this 
'one'
who is in the darkness and yearns to see the light


 RW> Naughty old Stanley, you have used your own forbidden word!
 RW> You are now ex-communicated from your own cult!
 RW> Never mind, you can always join mine if you want to....

What a marvellous idea!  I'm sick of mine anyway!  Please send me an
application form in a plain brown envelope.

                         Love,
                              Naughty Old Stanley


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:18 2000
Date: (10482)   Wed 8 Jun 94 12:15                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 420
@MSGID: 3:770/270 3661be26

Dear Stanley,

 SR>>> That's the problem, Ruby, this idea of the 'core', my real
 SR>>> self. That is such a precious thing. Something one always puts
 SR>>> aside so as to be an acceptable person.

What actually is the problem? I can't remember.

 RW>> I want it to be known, I don't want to put it aside.
 RW>> I want to bring out into the light that which is buried alive,
 RW>> to listen respectfully to its story, of pain and suffocation,
 RW>> darkness and yearning.

 SR> Yes, of course you want to bring it out into the light and for 
it to
 SR> be known. But as you say it is 'buried alive'. And that one, 
she who
 SR> is buried in darkness, in pain and suffocation, yearns for the 
light.
 SR> That is she whom you feel is the core of you, isn't it?

Yes.
But more.

 SR>>> Oh! how one longs to be one's real self, the
 SR>>> self that one knows one is. How terribly vital it is to be 
faithful
 SR>>> to it. How important it is not to let it be invaded or 
diluted.
 SR>>> 'This above all, to thine own self be true'. Myself, the 
only light
 SR>>> I really know, the only one I can really rely on in this 
changing
 SR>>> and faithless world. And how one longs for it to be 
recognised..
 SR>>> for them to really know what is going on inside. Others seem 
so
 SR>>> OTHER however close I get - I always know my closest friend is
 SR>>> myself. Yet always to feel that my real self, my core, can so
 SR>>> easily get swamped and taken over by all those things that  
are not
 SR>>> me. And one's decision never, never, never to let that happen.

 RW>> Stanley, who is this 'one'?

 SR> Quite right.  She should have a name. What will we call her - 
this
 SR> 'one' who is in the darkness and yearns to see the light

That's a slippery little move Stanley.
How neatly you side-step my attempts to entice you out from between 
your
lines, to find out who you are!
You must get a lot of practice.

Very well then. Her name shall be 'She Who Has No Name'.
Your turn to answer a question, seeing as you know her so 
well....from
where does she come?

 RW>> Naughty old Stanley, you have used your own forbidden word!
 RW>> You are now ex-communicated from your own cult!
 RW>> Never mind, you can always join mine if you want to....

 SR> What a marvellous idea!  I'm sick of mine anyway!  Please send 
me an
 SR> application form in a plain brown envelope.

.......<laughing> Sorry, I don't believe in cults today, I'm into 
saving
the trees.

 SR>                          Love,
 SR>                               Naughty Old Stanley

Love to you too.
That is such a perfect name for you.

Ruby.



 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 420
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:18 2000
Date: (9985)   Tue 7 Jun 94  0:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 SR>> It's not hard to see where Walter is, Ruby. He's trying
 SR>> to stop us from blowing apart. It is very important to him.

 WL> I sure am!  Right Now, --- read on  . . .

      WL> I can see both -- while you two are talking past each 
other.
 WL> Oh dear, that this should be my fate.

Yes, I have read some of the messages in this package before 
answering
them and I can see Ruby and I have been misconnecting. As I go 
through the
messages I'll try and put it right

 RW>>> Usually I am trying to get another human to see my reality. I
 RW>>> usually fail <G>.

 SR>> That's your story I bet, Ruby.

 WL> By this I take you to mean Stanley,

>>> Hmm, I see, that is your *story*!  That is something that you 
live
>>> with in your life Ruby, I bet, though of course I am not totally
>>> sure.  What do you think?

 WL> I imagine Ruby reading it like this:

>>> Oh well, that is YOUR story.  I bet you OTHERS would see it
>>> differently!

 SR>> And why you are so desperately
 SR>> trying to get Walter to stand still. If he would stand still
 SR>> instead of trying to repair us you'd be able to reach him.  And
 SR>> reach him you HAVE to, otherwise get out of the whole thing.

 WL> I see Stanley as being empathic:

Oh yes, I am. I'm trying to feel how Ruby would feel in this 
situation

  WL> Now, will you both please tell me I am a wonderful son!

 My boy, your mother and I can't even begin to tell you how much we
appreciate all that you are doing and have done. You are indeed a
wonderful son.

                     We are proud of you.
                                        Love, Stanley

                         
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:51 2000
Date: (2175)   Sun 10 Apr 94 15:21                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Community
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 55bd8915

It is only very recently that this Echo has actually become public on
another BBS.  It has been going there some time and I *thought*,
incorrectly assumed, that it was public there.  I up-loaded a full
description of the echo, which may have scrolled there and which I 
will
post again.

Welcome to any new readers or participants, reading this, either 
here on
the Psybernet BBS on Prompt/2 or somewhere at some future time!  If 
you
are new, you have come at an 'interesting' time.

At the time I write this I am in a state of turmoil about the 
Psybernet
venture and I wish to declared that fully.  Psybernet is a 
community as
much as anything else and while very small, it is a powerful 
community
with a lot happening and a lot of energy invested in it by many 
people.

This community is in a crisis, or at least turmoil.  I welcome the 
crisis
at the same time as feeling sad, hurt, angry, crazy, destructive, 
caring
and more feelings that I just can't name right now.  Just the fact 
that I
feel these things would be enough to put the community in crisis.  
I have
no *illusions* of grandeur when I say that I am the owner of the
organization that owns the hardware and that I am a Co-sysop, with 
Reg, of
the BBS.  I think  crisis is a community one that affects me as a 
member
of it and also as an originator etc.  I had expected to create a 
community
of like minded people from all over the 'cosmos'.  What happened is 
that a
small local group, who know each other in every-day life, formed 
strong
bonds while communicating about themes that have existed since the
beginning of time.

We are in the midst of the 'Great Discussion' as the Encyclopaedia
Britannica called it.  Here it is going at the speed of light.  For 
all
the confusion and clumsy slowness of the medium, we are 
contributing to
themes such as:  Creation, ownership, the nature of reality, 
ethics, the
psyche, identity as a human being, the meaning of gender, the 
relationship
between the sexes, and Eros! has been named as a god we need to take
notice of.  All this and more, in a few months, with us mere 
humans, not a
discussion ABOUT these things -- we are not in the trap of the 
whole of
academia -- we live these themes.  It is a lot to ask, and we were 
never
asked, it got us, it is bigger than us.  If these are issues of the
culture and of the whole of human history, for a brief moment I think
Psybernet is a protagonist in these dramas.

I have called this message Psybernet Community, because I would 
welcome a
dialogue about the public events which I see at the heart of the 
crisis or
turmoil.  I think Psybernet is also a window on soul, and perhaps the
relationship between soul and community is part of the discussion 
-- I'd
hate to divorce politics from soul.

I will name the events and say more about them in other mail.

Sue's departure from the BBS.
The deletion of the messages out of the ALTERWORLD.

Both affect me deeply and I think the discussion about them here in 
public
is what Psybernet is all about, and to do with the ethos & ethics and
creation we have been working on since day one.  Please note that 
while I
am drawing attention to them they are already public events and 
also that
I am not judging anyone, including myself.  Please, and this is a 
sincere
plea, respond as a citizen of this community, and yes, that does mean
discussing the power structures here.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:52 2000
Date: (2316)   Wed 13 Apr 94 22:00                         
From: LANKTREE DAVIES
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: SYSOPS
St: Local Rcvd Sent

WL>Reg and I have had a meeting and Reg has resigned as a Sysop.  I 
have
WL>accepted the resignation.

WL>We have worked together on this Psybernet venture for almost two 
years and
WL>I appreciate the work Reg has done and the dedicated input.

I am sorry that Reg is leaving.  I dont know what else to say about
that.

But I would like to put my views about Psybernet.  I have had 
difficulty
in joining in the discussion.  I find some of the discussion 
esoteric.
I really need a "practical" basis to chat about.

I also feel a barrier in this media to joining in the chat.  This
is not what I'm usually like in real life (I think!)

There was a sniff of a discussion starting a few weeks ago in
"therapist" about an asthmatic and the possible aetiology; physical 
or
psychological.  Just as I was about to put my two bobs worth in,  the
discussion disappeared.  Pity.  Because that is the sort of question
that comes up as a daily occurence in my practice.  I thought (& 
still
think) that I could learn from psychologists and you might be able to
learn from me.

How can we/I get this underway?

Lanktree

___
  SLMR 2.1a  
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:53 2000
Date: (2352)   Fri 15 Apr 94 17:43                         
From: LANKTREE DAVIES
To: REG SMITH
Subject: Re: SYSOPS
St: Local Rcvd Sent

RS>It is fine to join in wherever you like in public discussions, 
some call
RS>it jumping in, I hate the term, but the action if it is done 
without jack
RS>boots on is fine <G>.

OK, I'll try to leave my boots OFF.

RS>I think you just have, whether it continues will depend on how 
others
RS>respond I suppose and so on.

Fair enough. Where is the appropriate area for a clinical discussion?

Cheers

Lanktree
___
  SLMR 2.1a  
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:53 2000
Date: (2384)   Sat 16 Apr 94  2:30                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Re: SYSOPS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 235fed5f

 LD> Fair enough. Where is the appropriate area for a clinical
 LD> discussion?

Well the best place is in the THERAPIST Echo, we can use that here 
for
anny clinical discussion and I am sure that the few of us here will 
JUMP
<g> in if we have something to add, it also goes to aboput 20 other 
boards
around the world and has restricted access to professional 
therapists and
similar.

I have put a message to you in that echo, I hope you find it 
encouraging
that was the idea, forgive me if you feel a little put on the spot.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:53 2000
Date: (2317)   Wed 13 Apr 94 23:04                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Re: SYSOPS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 7d7e979c
10: 00pm

Hello Lanktree,

 LD> I am sorry that Reg is leaving.

I am only resigning as sysop Lanktree, I will still be around as a 
user,
but not as frequently, more room for others to talk <G>.

 LD> I also feel a barrier in this media to joining in the chat.

It is fine to join in wherever you like in public discussions, some 
call
it jumping in, I hate the term, but the action if it is done 
without jack
boots on is fine <G>.

 LD> This is not what I'm usually like in real life (I think!)

 LD> There was a sniff of a discussion starting a few weeks ago in
 LD> "therapist" about an asthmatic and the possible aetiology;
 LD> physical or psychological.  Just as I was about to put my two
 LD> bobs worth in,  the discussion disappeared.  Pity.  Because
 LD> that is the sort of question that comes up as a daily occurrence
 LD> in my practice.

Yes, I sent up what I thought was a very good reply compiled with the
assistance of my wife. It took us some time to compile it and I 
don't know
that it ever got any further than Christchurch. We will have to get 
on to
the sysop <G>.

 LD> I thought (& still think) that I could learn
 LD> from psychologists and you might be able to learn from me.

Sounds good to me.

 LD> How can we/I get this underway?

I think you just have, whether it continues will depend on how others
respond I suppose and so on.

Bye for now 
 Reg

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:54 2000
Date: (2391)   Sat 16 Apr 94 16:34                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Lanktree Davies
Subject: Re: SYSOPS
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5a81c0b5

Hello Lanktree,

 LD> Fair enough. Where is the appropriate area for a clinical
 LD> discussion?

I take it you are still getting the therapist echo, this is for 
clinical
discussions of a psychotherapeutic nature.

The Grand Rounds echo may be of interest to you, it is a public 
medical
type echo. You might want to post a message to Walter asking about 
that.

He will probably respond to your message anyway as the sysop, if he 
has
not already done so.




Bye for now
 Reg
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:52 2000
Date: (2314)   Wed 13 Apr 94 21:48                         
From: Reg Smith
To: All
Subject: Reg's Resignation
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 df87445f

13 April, 1994

Dear All,

Yesterday, after much deliberation, I came to a decision that I 
wanted to
resign from my role as Sysop on the Psybernet BBS. Today Walter and 
I met
face to face in a very productive meeting and he accepted my 
resignation
from this role.

My reasons for resigning are many, but to name a few: I want and 
need to
transfer the time and energy back toward my family, my practice as a
counsellor and therapist and finish my psychodrama thesis.

I will continue to facilitate the ALTERWORLD until the end of April 
when
it will close and I will continue as a user of the BBS.

Love & Regards
 Reg
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:54 2000
Date: (2414)   Sun 17 Apr 94 17:03                         
From: Reg Smith
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Reg's Resignation
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 SW12213
@MSGID: 3:770/270 92f2a5b2


Hello Stanley,

 SR> Can I still turn to you when I need some of your advice?

Oh yes, so long as I know what hat you are wanting me to wear <G>. 
If it
is the hat of a friend or fellow traveller in cyberspace that would 
be
fine. What is it they say? "A friend in need is a friend in deed". 
And
friends can always say no if or when they need to.

 SR> Goodbye and Hello!

Goodbye, have a nice day and

 "Hello do you like my hat?"

               (P.D. Eastman)

The above quote is from "Go Dog Go". It is a children's book. I 
used to
read it to my children all the time when they and I <G> were much 
younger
it was their/my favourite <G>.

Other famous lines (from memory) aSubject:

Go dog go

Dogs in cars
Dogs going fast
A red dog in a blue car
A green dog in a yellow car

Where are they going?
They are going to have a tree party
A red dog in a blue tree
A green dog in a yellow tree
Oh yes I do like your hat
What a beautiful party hat

Love & Regards
 Reg
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:54 2000
Date: (2393)   Sat 16 Apr 94 21:10                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Reg's Resignation
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1



 RS> Yesterday, after much deliberation, I came to a decision that I
 RS> wanted to resign from my role as Sysop on the Psybernet BBS.
 RS> Today Walter and I met face to face in a very productive
 RS> meeting and he accepted my resignation from this role.

 RS> My reasons for resigning are many, but to name a few: I want
 RS> and need to transfer the time and energy back toward my family,
 RS> my practice as a counsellor and therapist and finish my
 RS> psychodrama thesis.

 RS> I will continue to facilitate the ALTERWORLD until the end of
 RS> April when it will close and I will continue as a user of the
 RS> BBS.

Well, Reg, I can only say thank you for everything. You have done a 
bloody
good job along with Walter. But I guess it does take up a lot of 
time.
 Can I  still turn to you when I need some of your advice?   
Goodbye and
Hello!                               See you in cyberspace.

                    Love and appreciation,
                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:55 2000
Date: (2539)   Fri 22 Apr 94 10:55                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Reg Smith
Subject: Re: Reg's Resignation
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

  Hello Reg

 SR>> Can I still turn to you when I need some of your advice?

RS> Oh yes, so long as I know what hat you are wanting me to wear
RS> <G>>. If it is the hat of a friend or fellow traveller in 
cyberspace
RS> that would be fine

That's the very hat I was thinking of.

 RS>  What is it they say? "A friend in need is a friend in
 RS> deed". And friends can always say no if or when they need to.

 SR>> Goodbye and Hello!

 RS> Goodbye, have a nice day and

 RS>  "Hello do you like my hat?"

 Oh yes I do like your hat
 What a beautiful party hat
Just the hat for going to tree party in.

                         Affection,
                                   Stanley







 RS>                (P.D. Eastman)

 RS> The above quote is from "Go Dog Go". It is a children's book. I
 RS> used to read it to my children all the time when they and I <G>
 RS> were much younger it was their/my favourite <G>.

 RS> Other famous lines (from memory) aSubject:

 RS> Go dog go

 RS> Dogs in cars
 RS> Dogs going fast
 RS> A red dog in a blue car
 RS> A green dog in a yellow car

 RS> Where are they going?
 RS> They are going to have a tree party
 RS> A red dog in a blue tree
 RS> A green dog in a yellow tree
 RS> Oh yes I do like your hat
 RS> What a beautiful party hat

 RS> Love & Regards
 RS>  Reg
 RS> --- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12213
 RS>  * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics
 RS>  +64-3-365-6876+V42b (3:770/270)

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:52 2000
Date: (2311)   Wed 13 Apr 94 18:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Sysops
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 77ae5c88

Reg and I have had a meeting and Reg has resigned as a Sysop.  I have
accepted the resignation.

We have worked together on this Psybernet venture for almost two 
years and
I appreciate the work Reg has done and the dedicated input.

The decision to have two Sysops was an experimental one and 
successful in
that we have learnt a lot together.  One important principle Reg put
forward at the time was not to separate the technical aspects from 
the
psychological ones, and I think we both think that is a good move.

Reg will continue to be a user on the board.  We agreed that we would
discontinue the ALTERWORLD and Reg will facilitate the closure.  We 
will
also discuss some of our thoughts on this in the Psybernet Echo.

Thank you Reg, for all your contributions and for entering into the
experimental venture boldly.  I look forward to out less complex
friendship.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:53 2000
Date: (2318)   Thu 14 Apr 94  1:19                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 24
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f791b451
@REPLY: 3:770/270 f0f0b30a




 JH>> I would really like what it said to come true but I need
 JH>> to win a lottery first to buy the equipment, rent office space,
 JH>> hire staff to do research etc but then nothing is impossible
 JH>> if you put your mind to a task and desire to see it through to
 JH>> its completion.

 WL> Hmmm, it can be done as a one man band on an ordinary machine. 
 It is an
 WL> enormous amount of work, but I imagine no matter how big it 
got youd
 WL> need to start small.  Thats whats happening here!  The soft 
ware and
 WL> hard ware etc is the half of it.  What about the theme or 
purpose?
 WL> Also you are most welcome to clarify your thoughts here on these
 WL> matters, who knows you may find kindred spirits.


The hardware I would like to use would be capable of multitasking 
so one
machine could have multiple phone lines attached, eventually.  My 
flatmate in
Hamilton had use of an amiga 2000 and ran a bbs called Planet Zero. 
 This is
now no longing operating but it got me to thinking of running my 
own bbs.
That is, until I thought of all the work involved and the constant 
updating
of the information on it.  I would actually like another one or two 
persons
helping to run it.  This would take some of the workload from me.

As for the content - I don't want another clone of the bbs's around 
the
country with files areas and message areas only.  I'd like it to 
gateway into
other systems, neatly laid out message areas (and networks - I've 
seen a
neatly laid out system somewhere in Christchurch - don't recall the 
bbs name
though).  By this I mean a menu system which asks which networks 
you'd like
to look at then on selecting a network eg fido, it would take a 
user into an
exclusive fidonet area etc.  The menu's would be nice to look at 
but without
animated ansi sequences which can slow the updating of information 
down,
until the ansi screen is completed.  I'd like the bbs to go 
national with an
0900 number and then international using packet switching and/or 
V.29 or
whatever its called.  V.29 (or whatever) was described in a book I 
read
recently called "The Desktop Guide to Telecomputing" and is some 
kind of high
speed telephone link into a bbs.  I am considering on going to a 
small
business course to find out the ins and outs of operating a small 
business
with the bbs's in mind.  I am yet to afford to link into compu$erve 
but this
would be advantageous in finding out what other sysops overseas are 
using in
the way of equipment and software.

Well, I still don't think I've answered your question as to 
content, yet.  I
am still mulling over that one.

John Hicks

... Mail Media. Do not expose to Flames!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 24
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:55 2000
Date: (2461)   Tue 19 Apr 94 23:54                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 29
@MSGID: 3:770/270 dd97d4e4
@REPLY: 3:770/270 809b1d04


 JH>> I've seen a neatly laid out
 JH>> system somewhere in Christchurch - don't recall the bbs name
 JH>> though).

 WL> What do you think of this one?  I'd be happy with comments and
 WL> suggestions, that might get you into thinking in some 
practical terms,
 WL> about what you would like to do.

I think your bbs is quite easy to use.  This is very attractive to 
me in
using a bbs.  It took a longer time to get to know Searchlight but 
Psybernet
bbs is very obvious on how to use it.  A suggestion would be to put 
borders
around the menu - ie line borders.  I think it would seem even more
appealing, to me anyway.  It would make you focus on what is inside 
the
border.  When I do operate a bbs, I think I'll be using OMEGA BBS 
software as
this allows for use of a mouse over the modem link, to select 
different
menus.  It is also RAM resident, from memory, which means less wear 
and tear
on the hard disk.


 JH>> Well, I still don't think I've answered your question as to
 JH>> content, yet.  I am still mulling over that one.

 WL> No but it seems that you are developing (in your mind) more of 
a broad
 WL> based crossroads type place than a little niche like 
Psybernet, which
 WL> has a specific focus.


 WL> With your interest in Christianity I thought you might have been
 WL> thinking of a religious board.

This would be too much too limiting.  I would very much prefer as 
broad a bbs
as possible.  This is where I would need to update my equipment, 
hardware wise
as my current hardware wouldn't be sufficient.  (Slow hard drive, 
1Mb ram
etc).

 WL> Are you familiar with the Internet and or other networks?  I am
 WL> interested in some aspects of the Internet but have withdrawn 
for the
 WL> time being as I get too absorbed in too many things.

I keep putting off joining the internet via equinox, mostly because 
I'm on a
benefit and I keep finding other things to spend money on rather 
than bbs
access fee's.  I occasionally call a bbs in the states, about once 
a month,
when I think I can afford it but I will be knocking this on the 
head and
applying the money to a local bbs for more access time and no U:Dl 
ratios.


 WL> Your interest in the commercial aspects of BBSes is of 
interest to me,
 WL> you may wish to comment on some of the things I have written 
in the
 WL> INTRO to Psybernet  that I have just posted up.


If ever I do start up a bbs it will eventually become commercial 
and have
gateways into other computer systems.  It may or may not use 0900 
services.
I am still at a loss as to what the actual content of the bbs will 
be but I
would like it to eventually link in with commercial businesses and 
commercial
bbs's.  I am at a loss as to how to go about this but I believe it 
can
probably be done, somehow.  I would want it to become the biggest 
bbs in New
Zealand and then Australasia.  Possibly PACNET/STARNET access also. 
 I have
already been inspired with a name for the bbs but I'll keep that to 
myself
for the moment, esp. if this bbs is echoed elsewhere.

See you on the flipside, Walter.

John Hicks

... Xpress Yourself!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 29
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:55 2000
Date: (2462)   Wed 20 Apr 94 15:59                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 69f72620
@REPLY: 3:770/270 dd97d4e4

 JH> I think your bbs is quite easy to use.  This is very attractive

Thanks


 JH>  A suggestion would be to put borders around the menu - ie line
 JH>  borders.

Yes, it can be done, I'd need to learn how to set up ansi menus.  I 
am not
much good at using  TheDraw (does anyone know of easier software to 
use
for that?)


 JH>   software as this allows for use of a mouse over the modem

Try a mouse on Psybernet!  It will work.

 JH> I would very much prefer
 JH> as broad a bbs as possible.

Yes so the content would be very broad, might be more a matter of 
what you
would exclude if anything.

 JH> I occasionally
 JH> call a bbs in the states, about once a month, when I think I
 JH> can afford it

Who do you call there?

 JH> it can probably be done, somehow.  I would want it to become
 JH> the biggest bbs in New Zealand and then Australasia.  Possibly
 JH> PACNET/STARNET access also.  I have already been inspired with
 JH> a name for the bbs but I'll keep that to myself for the moment,
 JH> esp. if this bbs is echoed elsewhere.

Sounds like you are in an all or nothing situation.  Is that true?  
Might
it be easier to get started if you just did it?  Reg & I played 
around
with Telemate in host mode.  That was good to get a feel of making 
a BBS
work.  But maybe I am barking up the wrong tree & all of a sudden 
there
will be this phenomena hit cyberspace with a bang.

What is the main strength you would bring to this project?  Your
inspiration & determination?  Skills?  contacts?


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:55 2000
Date: (2463)   Wed 20 Apr 94 21:02                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 30
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f57c7033
@REPLY: 3:770/270 69f72620



 JH>>  A suggestion would be to put borders around the menu - ie line
 JH>>  borders.

 WL> Yes, it can be done, I'd need to learn how to set up ansi 
menus.  I am
 WL> not much good at using  TheDraw (does anyone know of easier 
software to
 WL> use for that?)

I have a program which will do ansi screens.  I'll upload it to 
your bbs when
I login tonight.  I'll let you know what its called when I've had a 
look at
the name of it.

 JH>>   software as this allows for use of a mouse over the modem

 WL> Try a mouse on Psybernet!  It will work.

I've got to get the mouse modem software yet and get it set up.  
How do you
use the mouse with telix which is mouseless?

 JH>> I occasionally call a bbs in the states, about once a month, 
when
 JH>> I think I can afford it

 WL> Who do you call there?

The Stage, in Seattle, Washington.

 JH>> it can probably be done, somehow.  I would want it to become
 JH>> the biggest bbs in New Zealand and then Australasia.  Possibly
 JH>> PACNET/STARNET access also.  I have already been inspired with
 JH>> a name for the bbs but I'll keep that to myself for the moment,
 JH>> esp. if this bbs is echoed elsewhere.

 WL> Sounds like you are in an all or nothing situation.  Is that 
true?

I do realise that I have to start somewhere but I'd prefer to get 
the right
computer hardware first as a starting place.  The hardware that 
comes to mind
is an amiga (although I understand Commodore is going thru a rough 
patch
according to the Business pages of The Press).  I would also look 
into an
Apple something-or-rather as my next choice of hardware.  I would 
much prefer
a multitasking computer to start off with rather than an ibm 
compatible which
as I understand, doesn't do a very good job of multitasking.  I 
would also
prefer help in setting a bbs up as I don't feel capable of doing it 
all
myself.


 WL> Might it be easier to get started if you just did it?  Reg & I 
played
 WL> around with Telemate in host mode.  That was good to get a 
feel of
 WL> making a BBS work.  But maybe I am barking up the wrong tree & 
all of a
 WL> sudden there will be this phenomena hit cyberspace with a bang.

I am going to be looking into getting a grant to start off this 
business by
getting the hardware/software first and probably working from home. 
 A few
years ago it wasn't all that difficult to get grants for business 
ideas which
had potential, now I am not so sure.  When it was last enquired 
into, the
getting of a grant seemed like a relatively easy method of starting 
up a
business.

 WL> What is the main strength you would bring to this project?  Your
 WL> inspiration & determination?  Skills?  contacts?

Inspiration and determination would be the driving force, I think.
I don't think I have any skills in this area but they can be gained 
through
trial and error and as for contacts, I have a friend who ran a bbs in
Hamilton on an amiga 2000.  He would be useful for information on 
what I'd
need regarding hardware/software.

Bye for now.

John Hicks

... Silver Xpress!...... Don't Read Mail Without it!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 30
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:55 2000
Date: (2459)   Tue 19 Apr 94 15:49                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 809b1d04
@REPLY: 3:770/270 f791b451

 JH> I've seen a neatly laid out
 JH> system somewhere in Christchurch - don't recall the bbs name
 JH> though).

What do you think of this one?  I'd be happy with comments and
suggestions, that might get you into thinking in some practical 
terms,
about what you would like to do.  Which board was it?

 JH> Well, I still don't think I've answered your question as to
 JH> content, yet.  I am still mulling over that one.

No but it seems that you are developing (in your mind) more of a 
broad
based crossroads type place than a little niche like Psybernet, 
which has
a specific focus.  With your interest in Christianity I thought you 
might
have been thinking of a religious board.

Are you familiar with the Internet and or other networks?  I am 
interested
in some aspects of the Internet but have withdrawn for the time 
being as I
get too absorbed in too many things.  How are you finding the 
discussions
on Psybernet?  Somenoe mentioned that they can be hard to jump 
into, that
is probably true, do you have any suggestions on that score.  It 
would be
fine if you have topis of interest to simply start a thread with a 
new
name.

Your interest in the commercial aspects of BBSes is of interest to 
me, you
may wish to comment on some of the things I have written in the 
INTRO to
Psybernet  that I have just posted up.

see you soon,

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:57 2000
Date: (3057)   Sat 23 Apr 94 19:53                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c25f046f
@REPLY: 3:770/270 f57c7033


 JH> I have a program which will do ansi screens.  I'll upload it to
 JH> your bbs when I login tonight.  I'll let you know what its
 JH> called when I've had a look at the name of it.

Got it, I liked it, you may se some of the results soon!

 JH>  How do you use the mouse with telix which is mouseless?

I use Telemate which supports a mouse.

 WL>> Who do you call there?

 JH> The Stage, in Seattle, Washington.

Ah!  Good name, what does it focus on?  I don't suppose it is 
anything
like our ALTERWORLD  or the Stage I have been proposing in the 
Anonymity
thread?  Is that of interest to you BTW?

 JH> I would
 JH> much prefer a multitasking computer to start off with rather
 JH> than an ibm compatible which as I understand, doesn't do a very
 JH> good job of multitasking.

True, there are a wide range of options for M/T, I hope to get it 
going on
Psybernet soon.  I have Deskview to do that, but may have Windows 4 
which
will also do it by the time I get around to it.



--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:57 2000
Date: (3088)   Sun 24 Apr 94  5:11                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 5193
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b3037773
@REPLY: 3:770/270 c25f046f

 JH>> I have a program which will do ansi screens.  I'll upload it to
 JH>> your bbs when I login tonight.  I'll let you know what its
 JH>> called when I've had a look at the name of it.

 WL> Got it, I liked it, you may se some of the results soon!

I have used it only briefly but it does seem simpler to use than 
TheDraw.
I'm glad it is of some use to you.

 JH>>  How do you use the mouse with telix which is mouseless?

 WL> I use Telemate which supports a mouse.

Does Telemate support autologon scripts and does it have this 
facility
built-in?  Also, can it convert Telix 3.21 dialling directories for 
use with
Telemate?

 JH>> The Stage, in Seattle, Washington.

 WL> Ah!  Good name, what does it focus on?

It is a bbs aimed at those in alternative lifestyles.  There are 
two levels
of access. 1) Amateur level for non-subscribers and 2)Star (*) 
level for paid
subscription of $US30-00 for 6mths and $US50-00 for 1 year.  There 
are 15
phone lines going into it!!  It has internet access too.


 WL> I don't suppose it is anything like our ALTERWORLD or the 
Stage I have
 WL> been proposing in the Anonymity thread?

I don't think so although you don't use your real name at all on 
this bbs.
You use your "stage" name.  This is a pseudonym which you make up 
for use in
palce of your name when logging in.  Mine is "KIWI."  Not very 
original, eh?
I am the longest distance caller they have.

 WL> Is that of interest to you BTW?

I am only using a stage name as that is what is required when using 
this
particular bbs.  I prefer to use my real name most other times.

 JH>> I would much prefer a multitasking computer to start off with
 JH>> rather than an ibm compatible which as I understand, doesn't 
do a very
 JH>> good job of multitasking.

Even with desqview!!

 WL> True, there are a wide range of options for M/T, I hope to get 
it going
 WL> on Psybernet soon.  I have Desqview to do that, but may have 
Windows 4
 WL> which will also do it by the time I get around to it.

If you weren't using an ibm compatible and you had a lot of funds 
to play
with, which machine would you prefer for multitasking (and 
multimedia) and
why?

Bye.


John Hicks

... Silver Xpress!...... Don't leave home without it!
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 5193
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:57 2000
Date: (3085)   Sun 24 Apr 94  4:42                         
From: Frazer Greenwood
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53589650
@REPLY: 3:770/270 dd97d4e4

Probably Direct Access <G>

 > border.  When I do operate a bbs, I think I'll be using OMEGA
 > BBS software as

Yuk !!!!! use RA !!!!!!

 > applying the money to a local bbs for more access time and no
 > U:Dl ratios.

Why not Donate to Direct Access next time ???? <Grease>

Cheer's...

Frazer Greenwood
-=- DirectNet ZC -=-

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 79 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:57 2000
Date: (3086)   Sun 24 Apr 94  4:46                         
From: Frazer Greenwood
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5358970c
@REPLY: 3:770/270 69f72620

 > it be easier to get started if you just did it?  Reg & I
 > played around
 > with Telemate in host mode.  That was good to get a feel of
 > making a BBS
 > work.  But maybe I am barking up the wrong tree & all of a
 > sudden there
 > will be this phenomena hit cyberspace with a bang.

I remeber thoese days !!!! i helped reg set up & test HIS host mode 
and he helped me set up and test MINE

Cheer's...

Frazer Greenwood
-=- DirectNet Intl Co'o -=-

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 79 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:58 2000
Date: (3114)   Sun 24 Apr 94 16:14                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Frazer Greenwood
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f70b5030
@REPLY: 3:770/270 5358970c

 FG> I remeber thoese days !!!! I helped reg set up & test HIS host
 FG> mode and he helped me set up and test MINE

Ah those were the days.  I must give your board a ring Frazer.  I'd 
still
like you to talk me into it and tell me what it's attractions might 
be.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:58 2000
Date: (3113)   Sun 24 Apr 94 16:14                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 00479106
@REPLY: 3:770/270 b3037773

 JH> Does Telemate support autologon scripts and does it have this
 JH> facility built-in?  Also, can it convert Telix 3.21 dialling
 JH> directories for use with Telemate?

Scripts yes.  Conversions, I don't know.

 JH>>> The Stage, in Seattle, Washington.

 WL>> Ah!  Good name, what does it focus on?

 JH> It is a bbs aimed at those in alternative lifestyles.  There
 JH> are two levels of access. 1) Amateur level for non-subscribers
 JH> and 2)Star (*) level for paid subscription of $US30-00 for
 JH> 6mths and $US50-00 for 1 year.  There are 15 phone lines going
 JH> into it!!  It has internet access too.

Sounds good.  Perhaps you could write some more about it and put 
the phone
number in etc.  I have just posted up a review of a book, but we 
could do
with reviews of BBSes etc. I would be interested in any areas that 
relate
to the psychology of cyberspace etc.  We could put d/ls into the 
Psybernet
Library.

 JH> I don't think so although you don't use your real name at all
 JH> on this bbs. You use your "stage" name.  This is a pseudonym
 JH> which you make up for use in palce of your name when logging
 JH> in.  Mine is "KIWI."  Not very original, eh? I am the longest
 JH> distance caller they have.

Well that is some link with the ALTERWORLD idea.  Stage Name, I 
like it.

 WL>> Is that of interest to you BTW?

 JH> I am only using a stage name as that is what is required when
 JH> using this particular bbs.  I prefer to use my real name most
 JH> other times.

Fair enough.  I have really enjoyed learning more about myself by
inventing a few characters.

 JH> If you weren't using an ibm compatible and you had a lot of
 JH> funds to play with, which machine would you prefer for
 JH> multitasking (and multimedia) and why?

Well I am sure there that the PC power would be nice or Macs etc.  
However
I have spent years figuring out DOS and have heaps of paid up 
software, so
I am a bit stuck.  Even with heaps of $$$ there is still the factor 
of
time and the stress of change.  Also I have a sense that the size 
of a
user base is even more important than technical capability.  I 
looked into
Amega which was clearly miles better than the XT I bought.  But it 
did not
have as good a word processor at that time as MS Word, or data base.
Crazy, it had better games.  They aimed the machine at the wrong 
market.
I supect it will simply be surpassed, though perhaps not for a while.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:58 2000
Date: (3119)   Mon 25 Apr 94  1:08                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 35
@MSGID: 3:770/270 728576da
@REPLY: 3:770/270 00479106

 JH>>>> The Stage, in Seattle, Washington.

 WL>>> Ah!  Good name, what does it focus on?

 JH>> It is a bbs aimed at those in alternative lifestyles.  There
 JH>> are two levels of access. 1) Amateur level for non-subscribers
 JH>> and 2)Star (*) level for paid subscription of $US30-00 for
 JH>> 6mths and $US50-00 for 1 year.  There are 15 phone lines going
 JH>> into it!!  It has internet access too.

 WL> Sounds good.  Perhaps you could write some more about it and 
put the
 WL> phone number in etc.  I have just posted up a review of a 
book, but we
 WL> could do with reviews of BBSes etc. I would be interested in 
any areas
 WL> that relate to the psychology of cyberspace etc.  We could put 
d/ls
 WL> into the Psybernet Library.

Do you realise what I mean by alternative lifestyle?  If you want, 
I could
u/l an edited capture file of The Stage.  I have several of these 
to choose
from.  I am not sure my writing skills are up to doing a review but 
I could
try, I guess.  BTW this bbs is ADULT only with the subscription to 
get you
into other ADULT areas such as ADULT files, gifs etc.
The phone numbers are on the beginning of the capture file.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 35
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:59 2000
Date: (3179)   Tue 26 Apr 94 19:09                         
From: Frazer Greenwood
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 535c047e
@REPLY: 3:770/270 f70b5030
 > Hello Frazer,

 > FG> I remeber thoese days !!!! I helped reg set up & test HIS host
 > FG> mode and he helped me set up and test MINE

 > Ah those were the days.  I must give your board a ring
 > Frazer.  I'd still
 > like you to talk me into it and tell me what it's attractions
 > might be.

Well Reg has rung !!!! ask him what he thought of it !!!!

i am thinking of adding a Psycology Echo to DirectNet... well you 
take it if i do ??? maybe we could swap echos ???

Cheer's...

Frazer Greenwood
-=- DirectNet Intl Co'o -=-
 Direct Access BBS  64-3-352-3448  (94:100/10) 

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 82 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:59 2000
Date: (3159)   Tue 26 Apr 94  1:10                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 4c5f0d9b
@REPLY: 3:770/270 728576da

 JH> Do you realise what I mean by alternative lifestyle?  If you
 JH> want, I could u/l an edited capture file of The Stage.  I have
 JH> several of these to choose from.

I usually associate alternative lifestyle with recycling and 
beansprouts.
However I guess this different eh?

 JH> I am not sure my writing
 JH> skills are up to doing a review but I could try, I guess.

I hope you do.

 JH> BTW this bbs is ADULT only

The whole question of ADULT material in this medium or in the world 
at
large is a psychological question of major import.  I can see that 
we may
have some discussion of this here.  I think that would be a good 
thing to
do.  It may be better to do that in a restricted message area.  If
interested kleave me a note in Local Mail

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:02 2000
Date: (3477)   Wed 4 May 94  1:27                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2f127b27
@REPLY: 3:770/270 728576da


 JH> Do you realise what I mean by alternative lifestyle?  If you
 JH> want, I could u/l an edited capture file of The Stage.  I have
 JH> several of these to choose from.  I am not sure my writing
 JH> skills are up to doing a review but I could try, I guess.

Well it is a few weeks later and I have seen the File you uploaded,
thanks.  Yes I guessed it was a gay board, and it has been good to 
discuss
this with you in private mail.

Do you think that this medium has a particular attraction for gays? 
 The
very first Fidonet BBS was set up by Tom Jennings in 1983, here is 
what
Howard Rheingold said about him:

>> his hair was purple , and he had a number of metal appliances 
piercing
his leather jacket, his ears, and his nose.  he is a skateboarder, 
a gay
activist and an anarchist who hates the idea of suppressing any 
kind of
free expression of ideas. <<

The medium lends itself to expression of fantasy and hence sexual 
fantasy
and this is very evident in MUDs  (Multi User Dungeons) and IRC
(International Relay Chat) on the Internet.  Here is another quote 
from
Rheingold:

>> The most popular continuing IRC channels are +hottub, an ongoing
flirtation space, mostly heterosexual, and +gblf (gays, Bisexuals,
lesbians, and friends)  Sexy chat and chat about sex, net.sleasing 
and
gender-switching are as well known in the IRC community as they are 
in
MUDland. <<

I think the phenomena is important in the whole development of 
psyberspace
and I feel some apprehension as I write here.  I think our culture
distorts sexuality in all its forms and that at the core of all power
abuse in the world is the power abuse of men over women.  The 
computer
world is so male dominated that it is almost sexist at every turn 
without
it being acknowledged.  To begin to write here about these things may
contribute to the sexist over-indulgence of sexuality divorced from 
all
other aspects of life.  However to ignore the phenomena would be of 
little
help as well.

One of the things about cyberspace is that there are no children
(adolescents excluded), this means that the whole nurturing of 
children
can be ignored (not that it always is) but it *can* be.  I wonder 
if that
is something to do with the gender imbalance here?  Again in Howard
Rheingold's book he mentions the Parenting conference on the Well.  
They
were the ones who organised the f2f meetings of Wellites.

Well these are just some musings that came up from looking at the 
file you
sent John, I wonder what you think of my opinions and values?

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (3556)   Fri 6 May 94  1:30                          
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 46
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b8162980
@REPLY: 3:770/270 2f127b27

 WL> Do you think that this medium has a particular attraction for 
gays?  The
 WL> very first Fidonet BBS was set up by Tom Jennings in 1983, 
here is what
 WL> Howard Rheingold said about him:

>>> his hair was purple , and he had a number of metal appliances 
piercing
 WL> his leather jacket, his ears, and his nose.  he is a 
skateboarder, a gay
 WL> activist and an anarchist who hates the idea of suppressing 
any kind of
 WL> free expression of ideas. <<

I like the kind of people who can dress the way THEY want and look 
the way
they want without having society expecting them to dress (or act) 
in a
particular manner.  That is, having the freedom to choose who they 
are and
what they look like and bugger what anyone else thinks. I feel at 
this time
that I don't have this freedom to express myself this way.  I feel 
bound up,
unable to express myself.  I admire the people like Tom Jennings 
who can, by
choice, be free of restrictions in appearance.

 WL> The medium lends itself to expression of fantasy and hence 
sexual
 WL> fantasy and this is very evident in MUDs  (Multi User 
Dungeons) and IRC
 WL> (International Relay Chat) on the Internet.  Here is another 
quote from
 WL> Rheingold:

>>> The most popular continuing IRC channels are +hottub, an ongoing
 WL> flirtation space, mostly heterosexual, and +gblf (gays, 
Bisexuals,
 WL> lesbians, and friends)  Sexy chat and chat about sex, 
net.sleazing and
 WL> gender-switching are as well known in the IRC community as 
they are in
 WL> MUDland. <<

 WL> I think the phenomena is important in the whole development of
 WL> psyberspace and I feel some apprehension as I write here.  I 
think our
 WL> culture distorts sexuality in all its forms and that at the 
core of all
 WL> power abuse in the world is the power abuse of men over women.

 Men, in general, are the more aggressive gender, aside from some 
women who
 take on the male role more than the female, like that in some 
lesbian
 relationships ie "butch" women taking on a masculine gender and 
looking the
 part of the man, with short back and sides hairstyles, large 
muscles, and
 men's clothes.  In pornographic magazines, there are many more 
magazines for
 men to look at naked women than there are for women to look at 
naked men.
 Men are more driven by what is below their belts, that is, more 
virile than
 women who are often looking more for an emotional attachment 
rather than a
 sexual one alone.

 WL> The computer world is so male dominated that it is almost 
sexist at
 WL> every turn without it being acknowledged.  To begin to write 
here
 WL> about these things may contribute to the sexist 
over-indulgence of
 WL> sexuality divorced from all other aspects of life.  However to 
ignore
 WL> the phenomena would be of little help as well.

I would like to see many more women get into telecomputing in New 
Zealand
than there seems to be at present.  When I was teaching 
Introduction to
Computers at a govt. Access scheme a few years ago, the female 
trainees just
were not interested in knowing anything at all about computers 
(aside from
games, of course).  I tried to explain to them that operating a 
computer was
about as easy as using a vcr and once they learnt the basics of 
switching on
and loading a program from floppy or hard disk then all they would 
have to
learn is how to operate the program. Be it games, or dtp, or 
word-processing.
The main complaint against using a pc was that they would never get 
to go
near another one unless they were doing another access course as 
99% didn't
have access to one anywhere else.


 WL> One of the things about cyberspace is that there are no children
 WL> (adolescents excluded), this means that the whole nurturing of 
children
 WL> can be ignored (not that it always is) but it *can* be.  I 
wonder if
 WL> that is something to do with the gender imbalance here?  Again 
in Howard
 WL> Rheingold's book he mentions the Parenting conference on the 
Well.  They
 WL> were the ones who organised the f2f meetings of Wellites.

 Well?  f2f? <-- Face to face?

 WL> Well these are just some musings that came up from looking at 
the file
 WL> you sent John, I wonder what you think of my opinions and 
values?

 WL> Walter

 Gee, you've certainly made me think in order to reply to your 
message this
 time.

See you on the flipside.

John Hicks
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 46
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:06 2000
Date: (4162)   Fri 13 May 94 20:55                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5ecf8f91
@REPLY: 3:770/270 b8162980

 JH> bugger what anyone else thinks. I feel at this time that I
 JH> don't have this freedom to express myself this way.  I feel
 JH> bound up, unable to express myself.  I admire the people like
 JH> Tom Jennings who can, by choice, be free of restrictions in
 JH> appearance.

How do they manage it?  I seem to do OK with it, I have no desire 
to be
purple, and I can avoid suits etc.

 JH> I would like to see many more women get into telecomputing in
 JH> New Zealand than there seems to be at present.  When I was
 JH> teaching Introduction to Computers at a govt. Access scheme a
 JH> few years ago, the female trainees just were not interested in
 JH> knowing anything at all about computers (aside from games, of
 JH> course).  I tried to explain to them that operating a computer
 JH> was about as easy as using a vcr and once they learnt the
 JH> basics of switching on and loading a program from floppy or
 JH> hard disk then all they would have to learn is how to operate
 JH> the program. Be it games, or dtp, or word-processing. The main
 JH> complaint against using a pc was that they would never get to
 JH> go near another one unless they were doing another access
 JH> course as 99% didn't have access to one anywhere else.

I must admit operating a VCR is somewhat beyond me!  I use G code 
now that
is OK.  I think one of the difficulties was that they did not own 
one,
that makes it more inviting to get to know.  Were men on the course
different, even if they would never see one again?

 JH>  Gee, you've certainly made me think in order to reply to your
 JH>  message this time.

 JH> See you on the flipside.

Took me a while,

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4840)   Wed 18 May 94  3:00                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 58
@MSGID: 3:770/270 67d53b48
@REPLY: 3:770/270 5ecf8f91
 WL> Hello John,

 JH>> Tom Jennings who can, by choice, be free of restrictions in
 JH>> appearance.

 WL> How do they manage it?  I seem to do OK with it, I have no 
desire to be
 WL> purple, and I can avoid suits etc.

I'll take a guess here and say its probably to do with rebellion.  
Not
wanting to dress the same as other people, in general so therefore 
dressing
and looking outlandish by other peoples standards.  I think these 
types of
people would be highly creative as by looking the way they do would 
take some
imagination on their part.

 JH>> I tried to explain to them that operating a computer
 JH>> was about as easy as using a vcr and once they learnt the
 JH>> basics of switching on and loading a program from floppy or
 JH>> hard disk then all they would have to learn is how to operate
 JH>> the program. Be it games, or dtp, or word-processing. The main
 JH>> complaint against using a pc was that they would never get to
 JH>> go near another one unless they were doing another access
 JH>> course as 99% didn't have access to one anywhere else.

 WL> I must admit operating a VCR is somewhat beyond me!  I use G 
code now
 WL> that is OK.  I think one of the difficulties was that they did 
not own
 WL> one, that makes it more inviting to get to know.  Were men on 
the course
 WL> different, even if they would never see one again?

My friends who have a vcr, don't know how to work theirs either and 
rely on
me to fix it when something goes wrong with the programming of it 
eg tuning
in a new tv station.  They find it difficult even to follow a simple
operations manual and one of these guys was dux at his school!  In 
general, I
don't need to even look at the manual in order to work it out.  I 
guess they
are not very technically minded but then neither am I.  I have 
another friend
who calls on me to put new phone numbers into her cordless phone - 
another
very simple task.  Can G-code devices tune in out of tune stations? 
 Or is it
just for putting in tv program times?

Men on the course were not much different from the women (girls).  
They
played video games as well on the Commodore 64's (two of them).  
The only
other machine we had there was an Excell XT with herc screen.  
There were a
few games on there that were popular, one of these being 
Mindprober, that you
have already seen.  The other games were "Where in the world is 
carmen
sandiago" which I had hoped would make them think, and pacman and 
maybe a few
others which I don't recall.

Do you know of any good programs which measure IQ.  I have been 
told by a
psychologist that my IQ is about 120-122.  Are these tests accurate?
My psychiatrist (of a few years back) confirmed the psychologist's
assessment.  Have you heard of the myers-briggs personality 
indicator.  I
have a computer program which asks about 70 questions then gives an
assessment based on your answers.  I have another program called 
NAOCA.  This
stands for North American Oxford Capacity Analysis.  I didn't like 
the test
results of the 200 questions I answered probably because they could 
have been
accurate and were a tad negative.  Do you want these uploaded?

BTW the myers-briggs assessment was INFP - Introvert, iNtuitive, 
Feeling,
Perceiving.











 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 58
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (5030)   Thu 19 May 94  2:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Computer BBS's
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c33f7943
@REPLY: 3:770/270 67d53b48

 JH> I'll take a guess here and say its probably to do with
 JH> rebellion.  Not wanting to dress the same as other people, in
 JH> general so therefore dressing and looking outlandish by other
 JH> peoples standards.  I think these types of people would be
 JH> highly creative as by looking the way they do would take some
 JH> imagination on their part.

Most of us conform to some fashion or code, even the outlandish 
conform to
their particular style of out landish.  Daniel my son, who may be 
logging
on from japan soon to read this, creates a wonderful style of
outlandishness and he seems to get pleasure out of being one of the 
first
to latch onto a style that creeps around the world in its own little
niche.

The philosophy comes with the clothes I think as well.  Music, 
clothes,
ideas art STYLE, all go together.  I was quite into the hippy 
thing, and
have not lost that, I still love Bob Dylan and though they came 
later I am
listening to Pink Floyd's new Division Bells as I type and love it. 
 Just
like Dark side of the moon all over again.  I'm still in that groove
perhaps.

I suppose even BBS goes on the list.  I bet skateboarders (that's 
Dan's
cult I guess)  would have their own BBS that would suit them.


 JH> My friends who have a VCR, don't know how to work theirs either
 JH> and rely on me to fix it when something goes wrong with the
 JH> programming of it eg tuning in a new TV station.  They find it
 JH> difficult even to follow a simple operations manual and one of
 JH> these guys was dux at his school!  In general, I don't need to
 JH> even look at the manual in order to work it out.  I guess they
 JH> are not very technically minded but then neither am I.  I have
 JH> another friend who calls on me to put new phone numbers into
 JH> her cordless phone - another very simple task.  Can G-code
 JH> devices tune in out of tune stations?  Or is it just for
 JH> putting in TV program times?

I think I am a bit like you in that regard, I'll get there when 
others
give up.  G-codes are just for the progs.  The VCR needs to be OFF 
and on
stand by power, and in our household that is likely to change 
within 10
minutes so I cant even get the G code to work.  I need my own TV!


 JH> Do you know of any good programs which measure IQ.  I have been
 JH> told by a psychologist that my IQ is about 120-122.  Are these
 JH> tests accurate? My psychiatrist (of a few years back) confirmed
 JH> the psychologist's assessment.  Have you heard of the
 JH> myers-briggs personality indicator.  I have a computer program
 JH> which asks about 70 questions then gives an assessment based on
 JH> your answers.  I have another program called NAOCA.  This
 JH> stands for North American Oxford Capacity Analysis.  I didn't
 JH> like the test results of the 200 questions I answered probably
 JH> because they could have been accurate and were a tad negative.
 JH> Do you want these uploaded?

I am not so into tests but others might be.  I am more than happy 
to have
them here.  I saw a myers briggs one the other day but it was 
corrupted,
might try d/l again some time.  I'd be interested in them more than 
the IQ
ones.

The IQ tests I think give some people a false sense of their 
capacities.
The tests don't say :  What do you like?  What are you good at?  So 
that
someone who liked music and could play and read it, but hated little
puzzles would score low on IQ.  On CompuServe there is a Mensa 
conference,
I don't know a lot about it but they are meant to have a high IQ.  
All
they do though is test each other on complex little puzzles, which 
less
intelligent people would soon get bored with!

 JH> BTW the myers-briggs assessment was INFP - Introvert,
 JH> Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving.

That is interesting!  I had a client who had that.  One in a 
hundred for
men I was told.

I wonder how these tests work on someone like me, who has trained 
up on
those qualities.  I thin I have become much more of those three 
than I
was, say at 20.  Do people change over the years?  I'll give it a 
go if
you U/L it.

See ya,


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:54 2000
Date: (2454)   Mon 18 Apr 94 23:25                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Introduction to Psybernet
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ebdcd9f2

I have recently updated the introduction Bulletin, here it is in 
full for
your interest & comment.  It is always available from the Bulletin 
menu.

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------


Updated  17 April, 1994

                 -*-== INTRODUCTION TO PSYBERNET ==-*-
                          by Walter Logeman

THE EYES ARE THE WINDOW to the soul, and this Psybernet Bulletin 
Board,
provides another such window.  Psybernet derives its name from 
Psyche and
Cybernetics.  Psyche is a Greek word the soul and cybernetics is 
the art
of information systems.  I aim to make this a friendly, reliable and
challenging environment, if this is of interest to you please involve
yourself fully in this building of a virtual community.  If you 
just want
to have a browse that is OK too.  Welcome.

If you are new to bulletin boards or new to psychological matters
it may take a while to understand all that you see here, be patient 
with
yourself and all will become evident. Expect assistance if you ask.


== The Psybernet Ethos ==
This BBS focuses on depth psychology and the psychology of 
tele-computing.
This means we value the unconscious realms of the psyche, and how the
psyche is involved and evolving in cyberspace.  There are three 
main focus
levels:

1. The first is to put into practice psychologically oriented tele-
computing.  This includes everything from the running of a BBS and 
the
writing of mail.  The psychology practiced here is not focussed on
treatment or illness but all aspects of everyday life, and 
particularly
life in cyberspace.  In this sense we are building a virtual 
community,
mainly of people who are interested in theses matters.

2. The second is to investigate and discuss all aspects of the
relationship between psychology & tele-computing, or the 
cyberspace.  The
themes we have been discussing on the board include the metaphors 
used in
the computer mediated communications, the implications of the 
possibility
of anonymity on tele-computing, gender and tele-computing, power 
relations
in cyberspace.  All discussions will be archived and files will be 
built
up on the themes of the BBS.

3. The third is to use the BBS to discuss depth psychology & 
psychotherapy
its theory and practice in the consulting room.  Thus we are using 
the
medium to continue the work that has traditionally been done in 
journals
and in supervision etc.

It is part of the Psybernet ethos that we have a Women's Group 
available
to women users only.

== The Psybernet Echo ==
This is a public discussion area, beginning to make its way onto 
other
Bulletin boards. The focus is around such themes as:

Depth psychology, psychotherapy, relationships, Psybernet ethos, 
gender
issues, ontology, parenting, dreams, the unconscious, metaphors, 
myths,
and there is an emphasis on the application of psychological 
insight into
cyberspace.

This Echo can be rich and stimulating.  It is a good place get a 
*feel*
for Psybernet.  The best way to read the messages is to pick a 
subject of
interest and to follow the thread of the discussion, feel free to 
chip in
with a comment, you are sure to get a reply.  Psybernet Conference 
is the
meeting place and the access point for other aspects of Psybernet.  
An
off-line reader is recommended, Silver Xpress is available on the 
board.

Highlights from the Psybernet Echo are in a bulletin called 
Highlights
which can also be obtained by file request using the name PSYHIGH. 
(not
quite ready!)

== Specialised Areas ==
We have an area for youth, and one for practicing therapists to 
discuss
clinical work.  Please leave a note requesting access.

== PsyberGroups -- Restricted Message Areas ==
PsyberGroups take place in message areas with restricted access and 
are
private to the users with access, some have a fixed number of
participants.  Some are as small as 3 or 4.  You will need to request
access to these areas and you will need a full Psybernet 
subscription.
The groups offer a confidential place to connect with others the 
levels of
security are clearly described.  Each group has a Leader who 
conducts the
group in their own way.  There will be announcements about new 
groups as
they are planned.  See also: Psybernet Bulletins:  Info on Groups.
Current Information on PsyberGroups can be obtained by file request 
using
the name PSYBERGROUPS (not quite ready).


== One to One ==
    - Consultants -
Psybernet is developing a methodology where qualified people 
correspond
for a fee with clients.  The content is generally a psychological 
nature
but can encompass whatever the client and consultant agree to. Likely
content might include : communication; relationships; parenting;
counselling & psychotherapy; professional development & casework;
education & writing.  The consultancy could also relate to life in 
the
world of tele-computing, finding a niche in cyberspace, how to get 
the
most out of e-mail, style of communication.
File request:  CONSULTANTS (not quite ready).

   - Local Mail & Conference -
You may write to any other user of the board, this can be private or
public.  Private mail, under normal circumstances is not seen by 
others
including myself.


== File Libraries ==
Files may be small snippets of wisdom, explanation of terms, 
articles on
aspects of psychology and stories and anecdotes that can evoke your 
own
experiences.  There are also 'threads', a series of messages on a
particular theme.  Libraries have a descriptive name to indicate 
the type
of information you will find there.


== Joining Psybernet ==
At present there is no subscription fee, although this will be 
introduced
later. For Consultants and PsyberGroups fees are applicable.

     - Validation -
As a new user you leave a message to the Sysops requesting 
validation.

     - Subscription -
At present Subscription is automatic upon validation.  In the 
future there
will be a fee for this, I will let you know in plenty of time.


== Walter Logeman ==
I am the sysop of the Psybernet Bulletin Board.  I am interested in 
all
the matters I discuss above, which makes this a very personal BBS.  
The
aim is a vertical rather than a horizontal niche in cyberspace.  I am
interested in developing a solid and sound niche, high on quality.


== Acknowledgments ==
The whole venture has a large debt to Kate Tapley my partner as I 
chat
with her at length about the developments.  Her encouragement 
enabled me
to launch into this project in the midst of a busy private practice 
as a
psychotherapist and a full-on family life.

Reg Smith put efforts into planning and setting up the BBS.  
Psybernet
took shape through Reg and Walter spending many hours in dialogue 
both on
& off the keyboard.  Reg was co-sysop from the inception to April 
1994.
You may meet him here as you venture forth.

I thank the users, we are a small bunch but we have created a place 
of
value, which has the seeds of the future.


== Psybernet, the Future ==
Psybernet can expand in quality and quantity, along the lines that 
are
being pioneered here on the BBS.  It is possible for there to be a 
link
into the Internet, to create training for consultants who could 
practice
under the auspices of Psybernet, to develop electronic publishing of
Psybernet related material, to run an on-line book store.  Who knows
exactly what will emerge.  I have set up Psybernet Limited, a company
based in Christchurch, New Zealand its purpose is to create and 
manage the
electronic environment for Psybernetting, the art of tele-computing 
in the
field of depth psychology.  Psybernet offers a service, not 
hardware or
software, and that involves people, my aim is to find a way that 
people
can be paid to do high quality work in cyberspace.  This is itself a
controversial and complex psychological task, all comments and 
assistance
welcome.


== Warm Wishes ==
To all who venture here, I trust that you will have a worthwhile
experience. I look forward to Psybernetting with you.


See you on-line,
Walter


Please note that all of the above is fully qualified by the usual
disclaimer.  Any and all participation in Psybernet on your part 
assumes
that you take full responsibility for your health and well-being. I 
as
sysop nor Psybernet Limited make no claim for any particular 
outcomes.


-== Contact Points ==-
Psybernet Bulletin Board
Sysop, Walter Logeman
BBS:               +64-3-365-6876
Fidonet:            3:770/270
24hr Answer phone: +64-3-377-1206
Fax:               +64-3-377-1207
Compuserve:         100026,3145

Psybernet,
PO Box 13543,
Christchurch,
New Zealand 8001.

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (3053)   Sat 23 Apr 94 18:35                         
From: Miles Thompson
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Subject:sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5358080c
FROM: Miles Thompson                Area # 3 (  PSYBERNET_ECHO  )
TO: Stanley Richards              Apr-23-94 5:42am
Subject: Re: sick ideas

 Hello Stanley. My name is (...) 'm a maths and sociology student,
 and I have been following your discussion from the point of "sick"
 ideas with great interest.
 Please allow me to jump in. I will
 put my understanding/summarisation of your comment by
 massacring what you have written - sorry if I get this 
 wrong...
 SR> The ontology I'm AGAINST says: 
 SR> We can tell the difference between (fantasy and reality) 
 SR> because, in 
 SR> fantasy there is no necessity; in reality there is...
 SR> *necessity* (=) *concrete*, *out there*, *real*. ie It is THUS 
and not 
 SR> otherwise; and no matter how much we wish or fantasise, it does 
 SR> not alter FACTS... 
 SR> The argument goes on: 
 SR> the other kind of being is fantasy or imagination... 
 SR> fantasies happen, but there is no necessity in them. Any 
fantasy 
 SR> can be otherwise. (I use 'fantasy' and 'idea' interchangeably). 
 SR> Any idea or fantasy can be changed; 
 SR> there is no necessity in their existence or 
 SR> non-existence. The whole of reality would be exactly the same 
if 
 SR> any given fantasy did not exist. 
 I would say many adherents of this argument (that your against)
 would not insist on the last sentence here.
 SR> A fantasy can (be changed). A fantasy should not and does 
 SR> not have necessity in it.
 SR> That's how a fantasy differs from a rock. 
 SR> The only difference between a fact and a fantasy is the 
 SR> element of necessity. That's how we judge whether something is 
 SR> real or imagined. Faced with a rock - if we can make it 
 SR> disappear or if it changes into a lizard, it's fantasy. ! If we 
 SR> kick and it hurts our toe, if it stubbornly exists, it's 
 SR> reality. Real rocks have an inherent necessity - they do not 
just 
 SR> disappear or turn into lizards.  If they do, they lack that 
 SR> inherent givenness which distinguishes them from fantasy. The 
 SR> necessity inherent in a 'real' rock also means that it doesn't 
 SR> and cannot change BY ITSELF into a lizard. The rock is not 
free. 
 This is a very interesting part of the argument, we can understand 
that
 the rock is not free, but what if the rock were another person, etc.
 Is it a neccesity of the argument that other people are not...? 
 SR> Fantasy rocks are. In the fantasy world both ourselves and 
rocks 
 SR> are free - and so are pigs free to fly! 
 SR> So goes the argument. But what it misses is that 
 SR> fantasies and ideas DO have necessity in them. The dream rock 
 SR> turns into a lizard. That is PRECISELY what it turns into - not 
 SR> into a cow or an elephant, but into a lizard - not a pink 
lizard 
 SR> or a red lizard, but into precisely THIS green lizard. 
 SR> dream analysis doesn't work unless you respect the precision 
of the 
 SR> image. IE. The dream intends PRECISELY this image. 
 So, if you are doing dream analysis, you are calculating "meaning" 
from
 the "reality" of the dream. But, are you going to be thinking in
 terms of the internal structure of the dream *itself* or in terms
 of the internal structure of the person who had the dream. The 
alternate
 viewpoint would be that fantasies do have neccessity,
 but this is a by-product of the neccessity in the world which 
"created" 
 the dream. Or do you deny that the dream was "created" entirely by
 the world beneath.
 I think it is a "neccessary" part of your argument that you give 
the 
 "fantasy" an *internal* logic, which is different or at least
 separated from the logic of the reality "on which it is based". 
Thereby,
 the higher-level "reality" of the dreams,fantasies,cultures, and 
Gods is
 in fact a reality all by itself, and not based on the more mundane 
version
 of reality. In this way, we can have things such as in Greek myth, 
where the 
 character of the Gods affect reality, BECAUSE of their character 
(and not
 because Greeks or Ionians or whoever was dreaming these Gods had 
certain
 affinities or feeelings about the respective characters of the 
Gods) etc.
 As a mathemetician, I would point to examples which are vaguely 
similar in
 the world of atoms and molecules. Our bodies are composed of 
Molecules and 
 Cells... we are built up from them. In fact, the specific 
molecules and 
 atoms which are in our body at one time may pass out of our
 body and be replaced by others, so that our form and our structure 
are
 in a sense merely systemary "ideas" of the world of atoms etc. And 
yet 
 it is these ideas themselves, and there internal logic - you need
 (as a whole) to feel, say, "unhappy" before your metabolism sets in
 the process of crying and our eyes begin to water and H2O begins to 
 be transferred into that part of reality which is not a part of 
 the idea of our bodies.
 Scientists are very confused by this, because it starts to suggest
 that you cannot determine the behaviour of a large system merely
 by calculating the respective behaviours of each particular particle
 and then summing it all up, as they have been trying to do for the 
 last couple of centuries, but in fact, the behaviour of particular
 particles actually depends on the *meaning* of the system as a 
 *whole* or something, and simply cannot be worked out by 
concentrating
 on each particle at a time. It is all very obviously a flawed 
endeavour
 at that level actually, because the behaviour of one is going to 
affect
 the behaviour of another AT THAT INSTANT and this is going to 
feedback to
 the first atom INSTANTANEOUSLY. I'm so excited, my thinking is for
 the first time starting to make sense. (to me anyway)
 (three body problem / feedback / EPR/information paradox) - areas 
that 
 need to be examined. but not here.
 So... IF we keep the "neccessary" part of your argument - that you 
give the 
 "fantasy" an *internal* logic itself determining itself, then 
perhaps
 this all means that Gods and myths and dreams and GHOSTS... woo ooh
 woo oooh are all floating around determing reality as if they 
 really did exist. 
 (Just like electromagnetic fields, which at one time people thought
 to be mere "ideas" that helped to calculate the effect of one
 REAL charged body on another, until Maxwell decided they could
 feed-back on themselves to create the very "REAL" phenomena of 
light.)

 SR> For some 
 SR> reason it is absolutely NECESSARY that this THIS rock turn into 
 SR> precisely THIS green lizard. A dream image knows its history, 
it 
 SR> knows its imaginal origin, even if we don't.
 SR> Ideas have an origin too. My whole point about sick ideas is
 SR> that they have lost their memory.  Memory is the one thing that 
 SR> chains you to necessity. 
 The past history of the idea determines the current history of
 the idea? Does the particular nature of the idea determine what 
other
 types of ideas can go with it... i.e. does green always go with 
"tree"
 in your experience, or is there total freedom in the instant of 
the idea?
 I guess it depends to some extent on the imagination of the
 person (or persons) who have been busy thinking or dreaming this
 idea throughout the history of the idea up until now.
 
 SR> But ideas, like people get 
 SR> sick when they lose their memory. People think they are 
 SR> responsible for their fantasies. They've got this strange, 
 SR> manic, idea that they created them. 
 I thought the idea of "sick" ideas was that they would
 start to be treated as reality of themself, not, for instance,
 thinking that they had made them up.
 SR> One doesn't have new ideas - ideas have new ideas!!! 
 

 SR> There are thoughts that are to be thought. The gods give birth. 
 SR> Also without feeling the gods at work we don't realise when we 
 SR> are nailed by nescessity.  .  But in our egocentricity at all 
 SR> cost the manic defence called *choice* must be maintained. We 
 SR> think we choose what is to be thought.  But the imaginal is not 
 SR> free. It is where you meet your fate.   That the fantasy world 
 SR> has its own necessity is demonstrated by its self-generated 
 SR> genealogy. Without it, Camillo's Memory Theatre would never 
have 
 SR> happened, together with the whole Renaissance effort to line up 
 SR> the archetypes in a sensible order. 
 
 SR> I think we must 
 SR> always remember that necessity or the GIVEN is always half 
 SR> hidden - we are never sure of it, corresponding to Plato's idea 
 SR> The Receptacle, Ananke, Necessity. The hiddenness of celestial 
 SR> or archetypal necessity is the attraction for astrology where 
 SR> Harmarmone (fate) can all be worked out. That's why it is 
better 
 SR> to bow to the hiddenness and respectfully acknowledge the gods 
 SR> even though we don't quite know what they are up to. 

 WL>> It would therefore be possible to have science with soul and
 WL>> religion with none.  In fact a lot of scientist see their
 WL>> theory as myth and theologians see their perceptions as 
science.

 SR> Oh Absolutely!  No question.
 Lets.

 WL>> The split is between the ontologies, and you subscribe to the
 WL>> first.  This is a little strange to grasp because you speak as
 WL>> if the ideas are very real, people in fact, who will not
 WL>> tolerate the nasties who say they do not exist.  
 I once had a comment on an essay of mine saying that 
 I was "in danger of reification" which is the name given to speaking
 of ideas or cultures in this way. In fact, the main point of 
 my whole essay was that this was the way we should think of ideas.
 
 WL>> When you say that, you are speaking metaphorically, 
 WL>> and thus the creatures
 WL>> of the soul are not going to get you, you have literally
 WL>> quietened them by not taking them literally!  No psychosomatic
 WL>> diseases or ideas.  Perhaps you do not subscribe to the first
 WL>> but see through them all, and then 'see through' that as well.

 SR> Well, nice point. If I'm all stuck on this fate and necessity 
 SR> business it does sound as though I am taking it all very 
 SR> literally. And from this way of looking I am, I have to 
confess! 
 SR> But each world does seem to have its own necessity, doesn't 
it?  
 I wonder to what extent? And why?
 SR> Marx's world only differs from Apollo's in that it has a... 
 What is "Marx's world"? Is it the real world as he experienced it,
 or is the "world" as he thought it was, or is it just the world 
according
 to how it ought to work given his theories, and what happens if his
 theories are not consistent about what should happen?
 SR> ...different kind of necessity. What we religiously call 'the 
world 
 SR> out there' is only more convincing because we have lost the 
 SR> power of, and our servitude to, 'the world within'. 

 I guess I'm thinking sick thoughts in my attempt to  re-ify this 
whole
 process so that I can talk about the *whole* thing as if it were 
"out 
 there",
 (also, relating to the pairing 
 I've been having with Walter, I love the way we are using this 
 new word "sick" as a new part of our vocab and hence psychological
 framework).

 WL>> It is as if there is a soulworld bursting at the seams for
 WL>> expression and anything will do, science, religion, tools,
 WL>> dreams.  The stuff of soul will come whether we invite it or
 WL>> not, are ready or not.  
 So the "soulworld" doesn't depend on the thoughts that
 have been will be or are? It just IS; Like Plato thought
 (and Godel proved???) with regards to maths. It IS there, just 
waiting 
 for mathemeticians to use any symbology they like to come across 
it and
 discover its inherent reality.
 WL>> In other words once we have the knack,
 WL>> we can 'see through' anything.  The soulworld is what it is, it
 WL>> depends on how we treat it that maks us sick or not.  Of course
 WL>> that sickness is a Good Thing, without it, when we inevitably
 WL>> get trapped in literalism, it is our salvation.
 (faltingly mutters) but i LIKE literalism. (I think thats what you 
mean).

 SR> submission to the gods. And it is strange: that very submission 
 SR> releases us from the literal. It's like once I give in, it sets 
 SR> me free. Maybe its because once I realise I am absolutely 
UNfree 
 SR> I disappear...The ego ceases its struggle to maintain the 
 SR> illusion of its freedom and power on which its own existence 
 SR> depends. Nothing...'You are Nozing you realise? ... Now zee 
 SR> analyziz begins, eh?'
 I AM NOTZING. I AM NOTZING. I AM NOTZING.

 My reply has been a bit off the point with regards to these later  
 points, I guess, I don't understand what problem there is
 in this literalism that we are all so against.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (2540)   Fri 22 Apr 94 10:55                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter
Subject: sick ideas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter

 WL> I am seeing that in the section from your book a significant
 WL> theme is the split, dissociation, divorce between  . . .  many
 WL> things all amounting to the same split:

 WL> Mythos and literalism

 WL> This split is really between two different ontologies.  The
 WL> first, Mythos, all is a soul state, a fantasy, an idea.  In the
 WL> second everything is concrete and has existence 'out there'
 WL> including religions and New Age forces, but there is no
 WL> appreciation of the myths.

Yes, Yes, NOW I want to say heSubject: The ontology I'm AGAINST says: 
There are
two kinds of being: one is fantasy and the other is reality. We can 
tell
the difference between them because in fantasy there is no 
necessity; in
reality there is. We use *necessity* in the sense of *given*. That's
really what we mean by *concrete*, *out there*, *real*. ie It is 
THUS and
not otherwise; and no matter how much we wish or fantasise, it does 
not
alter FACTS. The laws of science, of economics, history, the 
hardness of a
rock, the fact has Jane HAS been abused etc. These are what we call 
facts.
They cannot be taken away or deleted. They are GIVEN. We are 
dealing with
brute fact, with necessity. Not logical necessity, but ontological
necessity: 'being that cannot be otherwise'.
     The argument goes on: the other kind of being is fantasy or
imagination. This exists in a different way: fantasies happen, but 
there
is no necessity in them. Any fantasy can be otherwise - and that 
includes
ideas, of course. (I use 'fantasy' and 'idea' interchangeably). Any 
idea
or fantasy can be changed; there is no necessity in their existence 
or
non-existence. The whole of reality would be exactly the same if 
any given
fantasy did not exist. And any fantasy we feel we cannot change, we 
go
into therapy until we can. A fantasy can cease to exist or be 
change into
something else at our decision. If we can't, something is wrong. A 
fantasy
should not and does not have necessity in it. All we have to do is 
think
differently or fantasise differently.  That's how a fantasy differs 
from a
rock. The only difference between a fact and a fantasy is the 
element of
necessity. That's how we judge whether something is real or imagined.
Faced with a rock - if we can make it disappear or if it changes 
into a
lizard, it's fantasy. ! If we kick and it hurts our toe, if it 
stubbornly
exists, it's reality. Real rocks have a inherent necessity - they 
do not
just disappear or turn into lizards.  If they do, they lack that 
inherent
givenness which distinguishes them from fantasy.
   The necessity inherent in a 'real' rock also means that it 
doesn't and
cannot change BY ITSELF into a lizard. The rock is not free. 
Fantasy rocks
are. In the fantasy world both ourselves and rocks are free - and 
so are
pigs free to fly!
          So goes the argument (if it is ever clearly articulated). 
But
what it misses is that fantasies and ideas DO have necessity in 
them. It
is purely an assumption that because fantasy rocks BEHAVE 
differently from
what we call 'real rocks' that there is no necessity in that 
behaviour. A
dream rock behaves the way it does. The dream rock turns into a 
lizard.
That is PRECISELY what it turns into - not into a cow or an 
elephant, but
into a lizard - not a pink lizard or a red lizard, but into 
precisely THIS
green lizard. The only validation for my position in this is a 
pragmatic
one: dream analysis doesn't work unless you respect the precision 
of the
image. IE. The dream intends PRECISELY this image. For some reason 
it is
absolutely NECESSARY that this THIS rock turn into precisely THIS 
green
lizard.
     A dream image knows its history, it knows its imaginal origin, 
even
if we don't.
     Ideas have an origin too. My whole point about sick ideas is
that they have lost their memory.  Memory is the one thing that 
chains you
to necessity. Memory is your past and you cannot change your past. 
Like
Hillman's question:  to which tree does an idea belong: every idea
has tree from which it has grown, a past. The ideas of Jung grow on 
the
Socratic\Platonic tree; scientific ideas grow on the 
Ionian\Democrates
tree; Astrology grows on the Zoroastrian\Stoic tree; Medicine on the
Asclepios\Hippocratic tree and so on.
          But ideas, like people get sick when they lose their 
memory.
People think they are responsible for their fantasies. They've got 
this
strange, manic, idea that they created them. Their fantasies can't
remember their own roots.  So they don't feel the archetypal 
necessity.
One doesn't have new ideas - ideas have new ideas!!! There are 
thoughts
that are to be thought. The gods give birth.
          Also without feeling the gods at work we don't realise 
when we
are nailed by nescessity.  .  But in our egocentricity at all cost 
the
manic defence called *choice* must be maintained. We think we 
choose what
is to be thought.  But the imaginal is not free. It is where you 
meet your
fate.   That the fantasy world has its own necessity is 
demonstrated by
its self-generated genealogy. Without it, Camillo's Memory Theatre 
would
never have happened, together with the whole Renaissance effort to 
line up
the archetypes in a sensible order. Astronomy too is the metaphor 
for this
celestial necessity. But I think we must always remember that 
necessity or
the GIVEN is always half hidden - we are never sure of it, 
corresponding
to Plato's idea The Receptacle, Ananke, Necessity.
     The hiddenness of celestial or archetypal necessity is the 
attraction
for astrology where Harmarmone (fate) can all be worked out. That's 
why it
is better to bow to the hiddenness and respectfully acknowledge the 
gods
even though we don't quite know what they are up to.

 WL> It would therefore be possible to have science with soul and
 WL> religion with none.  In fact a lot of scientist see their
 WL> theory as myth and theologians see their perceptions as science.

Oh Absolutely!  No question.

 WL> The split is between the ontologies, and you subscribe to the
 WL> first.  This is a little strange to grasp because you speak as
 WL> if the ideas are very real, people in fact, who will not
 WL> tolerate the nasties who say they do not exist.  When you say
 WL> that, you are speaking metaphorically, and thus the creatures
 WL> of the soul are not going to get you, you have literally
 WL> quietened them by not taking them literally!  No psychosomatic
 WL> diseases or ideas.  Perhaps you do not subscribe to the first
 WL> but see through them all, and then 'see through' that as well.

Well, nice point. If I'm all stuck on this fate and necessity 
business it
does sound as though I am taking it all very literally. And from 
this way
of looking I am, I have to confess! But each world does seem to 
have its
own necessity, doesn't it?  Marx's world only differs from Apollo's 
in
that it has a different kind of necessity. What we religiously call 
'the
world out there' is only more convincing because we have lost the 
power
of, and our servitude to, 'the world within'.


 WL> Being the psychologist you are you are not fooled by those who
 WL> seem to have shed all the irrationality of myth or soul, they
 WL> are in fact unable to see that they are enacting myth and thus
 WL> SICK.  The sickness is just more evidence that the soul can't
 WL> be ignored and will out.  They are possessed because they deny
 WL> that they are possessed.

Yes the denial just cements the necessity, doesn't it?.

 WL> It is as if there is a soulworld bursting at the seams for
 WL> expression and anything will do, science, religion, tools,
 WL> dreams.  The stuff of soul will come whether we invite it or
 WL> not, are ready or not.  In other words once we have the knack,
 WL> we can 'see through' anything.  The soulworld is what it is, it
 WL> depends on how we treat it that maks us sick or not.  Of course
 WL> that sickness is a Good Thing, without it, when we inevitably
 WL> get trapped in literalism, it is our salvation.

Yes, there is that point of the *infirmitas* of the archetype, it's
inherent sickness. So you're right, it is our salvation. Because 
sickness
is what nails us, what we can't alter; like death, it MAKES us 
submit. The
recognition of necessity IS the submission to the gods. And it is 
strange:
that very submission releases us from the literal. It's like once I 
give
in, it sets me free. Maybe its because once I realise I am absolutely
UNfree I disappear...The ego ceases its struggle to maintain the 
illusion
of its freedom and power on which its own existence depends.
Nothing...'You are Nozing you realise? ... Now zee analyziz begins, 
eh?'


 WL> Have I heard you right?  Is there some fine tuning for me to
 WL> grasp what you say?

Just great Walter.  I love it. You really do tune in. Thank you for 
all
the consideration, time and careful thought you have put into this 
reply
of yours.


 WL> Now some responses.

 WL> You mentioned Marxism.  Now I have always appreciated it for
 WL> its soul. They call it scientific socialism, but it is an
 WL> attempt to live on the edge between determinism & freedom.

Yes, We are skirting on the edge of determinism and freedom too.

 WL> Men (sic) make history but not under conditions of their 
choosing.
 WL> (A rough quote from somewhere)

That's right. No choice. Men (sic) make history under conditions of
necessity of which they are not aware.

 WL> Engels wrote a book called
 WL> Anti-Utopia which had a big impact on me as one who has had a
 WL> go at creating many new communities including this one in
 WL> cyberspace.  The guts of that is that we cant just use the
 WL> stuff of dreams as a blue print for making a community.  At the
 WL> same time they write a 'Manifesto'  You see how these men were
 WL> grappling with this whole question before their ideas became
 WL> dogma and thus sick?

Absolutely! You can't just use the stuff of dreams to make a 
community,
because dreams operate under an entirely different necessity. 
Obviously
they saw necessity at work in history and society, and yet they 
write a
dream-manifesto - we are doing the same thing for psychology. 
Whenever we
speak of the gods we are speaking of necessity at work in the soul. 
Like
them we are wrestling on the edge of freedom and determinism. But 
we have
to emphasis determinism because everyone is so stuck on freedom, ie
positivism.
 I suppose, in a way, that was the same for the early Marxists, 
would you
say? They were up against the 18th century idea that reason could 
solve
everything. The Social Contract - supposing that society was built on
reason. From THAT point of view, Marx's analysis showed that 
society was
built on irrational necessity. ie: reason did NOT determine how 
society
evolved.

 WL> I think of psychodrama, novels, the ALTERWORLD where we suspend
 WL> all disbelief and pigs can fly.  In the eternal and ever
 WL> present psyche, invisible as it is to the eye of a camera pigs
 WL> too can fly.  Can we thus make communities of our choosing in
 WL> cyberspace?  Here we are creating virtual reality.  Thus it
 WL> would seem that we are very removed from the 'material base'
 WL> Here, if ever, we can make worlds that are made of the stuff of
 WL> dreams.  But can we?  How does the hardware determine the power
 WL> structures of cyberspace?  Virtual communities exist at the
 WL> mercy of anyone who pulls the plug in the machine.

Removed from the material base are we, or are we not, free of 
necessity ?
But the material base isn't the only place where fate operates. We 
can
imagine pigs flying as a defiance of natural necessity. We imagine 
a world
where anything can happen. Freedom! That is the one thing we like to
believe... that in the imaginal world we are free. And talking of
flying..... That's the Icarus myth isn't it?  Daedelus, his father,
reminded him of natural necessity: 'If you fly too high, Icarus, 
Helios
the Sun will melt the wax holding the feathers to your wings.' But 
for
Icarus everything was possible. Ironically, his very sense of 
freedom and
invulnerability to necessity was exactly what determined his fate.

 WL> However nothing is really a material base is it?  New Zealand
 WL> is not a material thing.  It is a heap of atoms in flux (& even
 WL> that is a scientific metaphor)  New Zealand exists as a fantasy
 WL> in our consciousness, laws, treaties, conceptual boundaries,
 WL> names, notions of who is in and who is out of the nation.  As
 WL> you say these fantasies go back into myth.  What is the origin
 WL> of the five mile limit?  What is a Mile?  The fish don't care!

 WL> Marx of course would largely agree.  He'd just add one thing:
 WL> The ideological superstructure relies on the material base
 WL> which is primary. The idea of slave would not exist without the
 WL> ability to make a ball & chain, which needed the discovery of
 WL> metal which was not possible before fire etc.  We could not
 WL> have this relationship without telephones.  A sysop could not
 WL> pull the plug on a virtual community till there was a plug.

That's right, isn't it. That's necessity.  'A' is the necessary 
condition
of 'B'.  It's the same in the imaginal world. Given that you are in
Apollo's cosmos - never mind how you got there - you might be a 
clever
nerd, but you'll never succeed with women. Or, if you are a 
born-again
Hera, that is the necessary condition for an unfaithful husband. The
Christian fantasy is the necessary condition for our existential 
crisis
'God is dead'.  No Christ. No Nietzsche.  Christ is the necessary
condition for Zarathustra. And as for the constraints of Eros - say
n'more.
I think recognising the metaphorical nature of necessity means 
seeing that
there are many gods each with their own style of compulsion,

 WL> But this relationship between ideas and things doesn't matter a
 WL> hoot if you see all things as ideas anyway.  BUT, damn it, this
 WL> is still the big question for me.

Yes, I know, agonising, isn't it?

 WL> I am seeing that virtual reality is a bit like the mythos, and
 WL> EDR more of a literal world.  I am needing to treat the EDR as
 WL> primary.  If I don't then my flesh & blood suffers.  VR is
 WL> built on EDR.  Ah I cant help it Stanley, I am gripped by that
 WL> idea!
Yes, it is I'm sure. Putting this into the language I've been using 
heSubject:
EDR is the necessary condition of VR.

 WL> You see I am with you here, I see through my possessor.  I am a
 WL> worshipper of Krishna again and the gods again have won.
 WL> However, that is the temple, & here is the prayer, to the life
 WL> force:

 WL> May we ride your tempests
 WL> with love & joy
 WL> tame your excesses
 WL> with defiance, courage & artistry
 WL> compensate your idiocy
 WL> with compassion wisdom and power.

 WL> May you not be too hard on us
 WL> as we do what we have to do.

That is absolutely beautiful.  Who wrote THAT ?????


 WL> Ah Stanley, here we are again, same discussion spiralling on.
 WL> What does all this mean for me & you?  Is it that you need to
 WL> let go of all old dogma that you see through everything, being
 WL> a dogmatist perhaps at heart?

          Oh Yes.. it's so true. An old dogmatist at heart! I fight 
him
He's the is one of me that is so materialist, stubborn, literal, 
and anal,
drowned by a sea of facts, enthused by science and progress and the
absolute finality of death, an atheist, an anti-spiritualist, an
historical determinist, a debunker of the irrational, a champion of 
the
Sceptics, that I almost still believe in the Briti Shempire. Gawd 
Save Her
Majesty, that what I always say.
   And still say.
And what does it mean for you, this discussion that goes spiralling 
on and
on? I know I learn a great deal from it. Well, perhaps not that I 
learn so
much as I push deeper into it
And I know for you it is not just a head trip. You are gripped by 
it. It
demands you!

WL>  Is it that I will never stop trying to change the world,
looking for the breast?

Not just any old breast Walter, but the Cosmic Breast!


       With V and ED Love
                              Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:57 2000
Date: (3058)   Sat 23 Apr 94 19:53                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: sick ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5596d099

 SR> Yes, Yes, NOW I want to say heSubject: The ontology I'm AGAINST
 SR> says: There are two kinds of being: one is fantasy and the
 SR> other is reality.

You amplify that very fully in a great passage.  Did you notice how 
Miles
in his conversation with me came up with the idea of creating new
conceptual worlds!  Interesting how the threads are parallelling 
again.

I'll quote some more of what you are AGAINST:

 SR> Any idea or fantasy can be changed; there is
 SR> no necessity in their existence or non-existence. The whole of
 SR> reality would be exactly the same if any given fantasy did not
 SR> exist. And any fantasy we feel we cannot change, we go into
 SR> therapy until we can. A fantasy can cease to exist or be change
 SR> into something else at our decision.

God I am against that too!  I have never seen it put so clearly!  
This
puts RET, CBT, Loise Hay, NLP, the whole idea of positive thinking 
etc.,
all on the scrap heap in a fell swoop.


 SR> So goes the argument (if it is ever clearly
 SR> articulated).

I have never seen it so well articulated, It sounds convincing!  
That is
the trouble with it isn't it that it is Soooooo convincing.

 SR> But what it misses is that fantasies
 SR> and ideas DO have necessity in them.

Let me put it this way:

       ͻ
                                                            
             Fantasies and ideas have necessity in them.    
                                                            
                                ---   Stanley Richards      
                                                            
       1/4

I think I have grasped that, and it is crucial.

I have just deleted a lot more, but I can't resist comment on this:

 SR> But in our egocentricity at all cost the
 SR> manic defence called *choice* must be maintained. We think
 SR> we choose what is to be thought.

I can just hear that style of therapy that denies all of that.  
Someone
says they were stuck in a relationship,  Therapist:  'You chose! to 
make
yourself stuck!'  Agggghhh!

 SR> But the imaginal is not
 SR> free. It is where you meet your fate.

Put a box around that one!  <g>

 SR> That the fantasy
 SR> world has its own necessity is demonstrated by its
 SR> self-generated genealogy. Without it, Camillo's Memory
 SR> Theatre would never have happened, together with the whole
 SR> Renaissance effort to line up the archetypes in a sensible
 SR> order.

Could you enlarge on this, I don't get the bit about genealogy, who 
was
Camillo?  I could goo to my CD-ROM of course <g>


 SR> Astronomy too is the metaphor for this celestial
 SR> necessity. But I think we must always remember that
 SR> necessity or the GIVEN is always half hidden - we are
 SR> never sure of it, corresponding to Plato's idea The
 SR> Receptacle, Ananke, Necessity. The hiddenness of celestial
 SR> or archetypal necessity is the attraction for astrology
 SR> where Harmarmone (fate) can all be worked out. That's why
 SR> it is better to bow to the hiddenness and respectfully
 SR> acknowledge the gods even though we don't quite know what
 SR> they are up to.

Hmmm  God moves in mysterious ways, father knows best?  I am always 
on the
edge here when I think we might be dishing up opiates for the masses,
making excuses for passivity.

 WL>> It would therefore be possible to have science with soul and
 WL>> religion with none.  In fact a lot of scientist see their
 WL>> theory as myth and theologians see their perceptions as 
science.

 SR> Oh Absolutely!  No question.

 SR> But each world does seem to have its own necessity,
 SR> doesn't it?  Marx's world only differs from Apollo's in that it
 SR> has a different kind of necessity. What we religiously call
 SR> 'the world out there' is only more convincing because we have
 SR> lost the power of, and our servitude to, 'the world within'.

Yes.  You are still making the distinction between the concrete and 
the
imaginal, and you are saying that they BOTH have necessity in their 
own
way.  It is very like Marx who opposed the idea that the world of 
ideas
could independently change the world.  That was 'idealism' in his 
book.
(Confusing as everyone would say that Marx was too much of an 
idealist
these days, but that is as opposed to realist not materialist.)  Your
Platonic views (are they any different from the original?) is more
concerned with what is necessary regardless of its status as object 
or
image, in fact we deal with the image of am object all the time in
therapy, all that the client presents is a dream really.  Now I 
have HATED
that perspective so much because I thought that it meant denying the
necessity!  Which is what so many of those therapies do.

I apply this in my work like this:

A client spends all session seemingly on trivia, I know their body is
wracked with pain and unexpressed tension & feeling, they are 
'avoiding'
the 'real' issues.  Now I have the faith that the psyche is going 
as fast
as it can.  The trivia is perhaps biding time for the person to 
attend to
something else before the 'real' issues can be attended to.  Note 
the word
can.  I sit there & think the person CAN'T do more than they are 
doing.  I
call this the can't that therapists won't see.  You know when they 
say:
'You mean you *won't* leave your husband.'  Of course therapists 
are human
too and the web of ideology that supports the idea of choice where 
there
is none is huge.


 WL>> It is as if there is a soulworld bursting at the seams for
 WL>> expression and anything will do, science, religion, tools,
 WL>> dreams.  The stuff of soul will come whether we invite it or
 WL>> not, are ready or not.  In other words once we have the knack,
 WL>> we can 'see through' anything.  The soulworld is what it is, it
 WL>> depends on how we treat it that makes us sick or not.  Of 
course
 WL>> that sickness is a Good Thing, without it, when we inevitably
 WL>> get trapped in literalism, it is our salvation.

 SR> Yes, there is that point of the *infirmitas* of the archetype,
 SR> it's inherent sickness. So you're right, it is our salvation.
 SR> Because sickness is what nails us, what we can't alter; like
 SR> death, it MAKES us submit. The recognition of necessity IS the
 SR> submission to the gods. And it is strange: that very submission
 SR> releases us from the literal. It's like once I give in, it sets
 SR> me free.

Let go & let God as they say in AA.  You have to give it to them 
Stanley
they were here before us!

 SR> You can't just use the stuff of dreams to make a
 SR> community, because dreams operate under an entirely different
 SR> necessity. Obviously they saw necessity at work in history and
 SR> society, and yet they write a dream-manifesto - we are doing
 SR> the same thing for psychology. Whenever we speak of the gods we
 SR> are speaking of necessity at work in the soul. Like them we are
 SR> wrestling on the edge of freedom and determinism. But we have
 SR> to emphasis determinism because everyone is so stuck on
 SR> freedom, ie positivism. I suppose, in a way, that was the same
 SR> for the early Marxists, would you say?

Exactly parallel.  There are utopian therapists who believe that just
thinking something will make it so.

 SR> They were up against the
 SR> 18th century idea that reason could solve everything. The
 SR> Social Contract - supposing that society was built on reason.
 SR> From THAT point of view, Marx's analysis showed that society
 SR> was built on irrational necessity. ie: reason did NOT determine
 SR> how society evolved.

Yes.  Something you might have some light on.  Marx said that he 
turned
Hegel upside down.  Was that because Hegel recognised the necessity 
of
fantasy and not in the material world?  OR was it because he did not
recognise necessity at all?

 SR> Freedom! That is the one thing we like to believe...
 SR> that in the imaginal world we are free. And talking of
 SR> flying..... That's the Icarus myth isn't it?  Daedelus, his
 SR> father, reminded him of natural necessity: 'If you fly too
 SR> high, Icarus, Helios the Sun will melt the wax holding the
 SR> feathers to your wings.' But for Icarus everything was
 SR> possible. Ironically, his very sense of freedom and
 SR> invulnerability to necessity was exactly what determined his
 SR> fate.

Great story, how it all fits with this discussion.  Also with the 
idea of
defying fate.  Daniel designed a cafe for his school cert art.  The 
Icarus
Cafe.  He was quite conscious even then that this was a cafe where 
young
people could go in defiance of the mores of the elders.  It no 
doubt had
some rebellion against me in it, I am forever thinking that he 
hasn't got
enough discipline or whatever to do this or that!  He is out there in
Japan at the moment no doubt compelled to prove me wrong.  I'm sorry
Daniel!

I have just posted up a book review on The Virtual Community.  I just
realised that their whole notion of 'free speech' and the notion of
'freedom' from the founding fathers is tied up with this.  The
American Dream.
         ^^^^^

 SR> That's right, isn't it. That's necessity.  'A' is the necessary
 SR> condition of 'B'.  It's the same in the imaginal world. Given
 SR> that you are in Apollo's cosmos - never mind how you got there
 SR> - you might be a clever nerd, but you'll never succeed with
 SR> women. Or, if you are a born-again Hera, that is the necessary
 SR> condition for an unfaithful husband. The Christian fantasy is
 SR> the necessary condition for our existential crisis 'God is
 SR> dead'.  No Christ. No Nietzsche.  Christ is the necessary
 SR> condition for Zarathustra. And as for the constraints of Eros -
 SR> say n'more. I think recognising the metaphorical nature of
 SR> necessity means seeing that there are many gods each with their
 SR> own style of compulsion,

Miles are you still reading?  This is all about complexity isn't 
it?  That
certain things require certain pre-conditions.  That is where Mao
(following Lenin)  was such an unorthodox Marxist.  They did not 
have the
pre existing condition of capitalism to build socialism, perhaps 
that is
why it all did go wrong.  Anyway capitalism doesn't care for our 
theories
it comes anyway.  I am not just speaking of the material world 
here, I am
just using the material world as a metaphor for the psychological  
<g>.

 SR> EDR is the necessary condition of VR.

We cant escape that can we, and thus the whole of EDR is very 
crucial to
VR.

 WL>> May we ride your tempests
 WL>> with love & joy
 WL>> tame your excesses
 WL>> with defiance, courage & artistry
 WL>> compensate your idiocy
 WL>> with compassion wisdom and power.

 WL>> May you not be too hard on us
 WL>> as we do what we have to do.

 SR> That is absolutely beautiful.  Who wrote THAT ?????

Aw shucks , just me Stanley.  Mind you it was not me, it was an 
idea that
gave birth to an idea  . . . <g>

Gawd Save Her Majesty & may the Cosmic Breast be with you.

 SR>        With V and ED Love

Ah, to fool us all, I just realise that I have experienced V love 
with
people I have not even met in EDR.  Is that what they call 
over-reaching?
or something in Marxism?  Althuser?

V&EDL 2U2 Stanley.


PS are you OK with me quoting from this whole discussion in the 
Psybernet
Digest?
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:00 2000
Date: (3238)   Wed 27 Apr 94 21:20                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: sick ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hello Walter


 SR>> But in our egocentricity at all cost the
 SR>> manic defence called *choice* must be maintained. We think
 SR>> we choose what is to be thought.

 WL> I can just hear that style of therapy that denies all of that.
 WL> Someone says they were stuck in a relationship,  Therapist:
 WL> 'You chose! to make yourself stuck!'  Agggghhh!

Yes, I love the one too where the re-incarnation people say that 
You CHOSE
your own family and that bloody awful childhood!!!!  And the person
thinks: 'Boy, am I a mess! - why did I choose THAT?  Perhaps 
because I
wanted to punish myself. I wonder why I would want to punish 
myself? I
must be evil. I wonder what I did in a past life that was so wicked 
and
terrible. Maybe that's why I have this funny feeling I was Jack the
Ripper. Maybe that's why I don't like knifes'.   And so on and so on!

 SR>> That the fantasy
 SR>> world has its own necessity is demonstrated by its
 SR>> self-generated genealogy. Without it, Camillo's Memory
 SR>> Theatre would never have happened, together with the whole
 SR>> Renaissance effort to line up the archetypes in a sensible
 SR>> order.

 WL> Could you enlarge on this, I don't get the bit about genealogy,
 WL> who was Camillo?  I could goo to my CD-ROM of course <g>

Lazy boy!  There is a long history, stretching back to some Greek 
chap I
can't remember, who devised a system for memorising  long speeches.
Rhetoric in those days was very important. There being no press, 
the only
way you could be politically effective in the Polis or the Senate 
was by
effective speech making. Anyway, this memory system was to imagine 
some
place like a huge hall containing lots of statues or alcoves. Each 
statue
would remind you of the next part of your speech. So that as you were
making your speech you would  walk round your imaginal hall picking 
up the
cues for your speech - which could be very long by modern standards 
- as
you went.
          In the teaching of rhetoric this system was enlarged and
elaborated upon until it harboured enormous metaphysical 
complexities.
Camillo's Memory Theatre was just one of those elaborations during 
the
Renaissance. It consisted of an actual structure with a large room. 
In a
semi-circle  rows of desks were set out, if you can imagine, in the 
shape
of an open fan. Each rib of the fan was dedicated to one of the gods:
Apollo in the centre with Venus, Mercury and Diana, Mars, Jupiter and
Saturn on the other radial 'ribs'of the fan. Concentric circles
intersecting the ribs of the fan were small desks containing certain
mythical stories. So that you could look up any given story and see 
how it
interacted with each god. For example, the story of Prometheus 
would be
different when told under the aspect of Apollo than if it were told 
under
the aspect of Mars say, or Venus. That was roughly the idea. Not 
quite so
tidy as that - but you can see what they were trying to do.


 SR>> . That's why
 SR>> it is better to bow to the hiddenness and respectfully
 SR>> acknowledge the gods even though we don't quite know what
 SR>> they are up to.

 WL> Hmmm  God moves in mysterious ways, father knows best?  I am
 WL> always on the edge here when I think we might be dishing up
 WL> opiates for the masses, making excuses for passivity.

Yes, me too. Of course, 'father knows best' is a very monotheistic 
idea:
God as all knowing, and all loving. But when dealing with the gods, 
part
of the unknowingness is that you don't know WHICH father is 
determining
your fate. More than that, you are not offered reassuring Protestant
soporifics - you don't even know that he INTENDS the best.  He may 
well
intend the best for your arch enemy!

 WL> ........... in fact we deal with the image of an object
 WL> all the time in therapy, all that the client presents is a
 WL> dream really.  Now I have HATED that perspective so much
 WL> because I thought that it meant denying the necessity!  Which
 WL> is what so many of those therapies do.

 WL> I apply this in my work like this:

 WL> A client spends all session seemingly on trivia, I know their
 WL> body is wracked with pain and unexpressed tension & feeling,
 WL> they are 'avoiding' the 'real' issues.  Now I have the faith
 WL> that the psyche is going as fast as it can.  The trivia is
 WL> perhaps biding time for the person to attend to something else
 WL> before the 'real' issues can be attended to.

Yes, Yes, but if the trivia HAVE to come first they are not really 
trivia,
are they - or perhaps we could call them 'necessary trivia'?  I 
think we
ought to write on the archetypal necessity of gossip.

********************************************************************
*    I sit there & think the person CAN'T do more than they  are 
doing.
*    I call this the can't that therapists won't see.
*    You know when they say: 'You mean you *won't* leave your
*    husband.'  Of course therapists are human too and the web of
*    ideology that supports the idea of choice where there is none
*    is huge.
********************************************************************
               Please quote that in your first 'zine.


 WL> Let go & let God as they say in AA.  You have to give it to
 WL> them Stanley they were here before us!

Oh! All right    <sulk>

 SR>> We are wrestling on the edge of freedom and determinism. But 
we have
SR>> to emphasis determinism because everyone is so stuck on
 SR>> freedom, ie positivism. I suppose, in a way, that was the same
 SR>> for the early Marxists, would you say?

 WL> Exactly parallel.  There are utopian therapists who believe
 WL> that just thinking something will make it so.

UTOPIAN THERAPISTS - remember that one, good title for a paper


 WL> Great story, how it all fits with this discussion.  Also with
 WL> the idea of defying fate.  Daniel designed a cafe for his
 WL> school cert art.  The Icarus Cafe.  He was quite conscious even
 WL> then that this was a cafe where young people could go in
 WL> defiance of the mores of the elders.  It no doubt had some
 WL> rebellion against me in it, I am forever thinking that he
 WL> hasn't got enough discipline or whatever to do this or that!
 WL> He is out there in Japan at the moment no doubt compelled to
 WL> prove me wrong.  I'm sorry Daniel!

Well, well, there  you go.  Parallel themes again!

 WL> I have just posted up a book review on The Virtual Community.
 WL> I just realised that their whole notion of 'free speech' and
 WL> the notion of 'freedom' from the founding fathers is tied up
 WL> with this.  The American Dream.

Yes, I read it. Good one



 WL>>> May we ride your tempests
 WL>>> with love & joy
 WL>>> tame your excesses
 WL>>> with defiance, courage & artistry
 WL>>> compensate your idiocy
 WL>>> with compassion wisdom and power.

 WL>>> May you not be too hard on us
 WL>>> as we do what we have to do.

 SR>> That is absolutely beautiful.  Who wrote THAT ?????

 WL> Aw shucks , just me Stanley.  Mind you it was not me, it was an
 WL> idea that gave birth to an idea  . . . <g>

You are SOOOOO modest you must know its bloody good . <double g>

I think I have accidentally deleted something where you said 
something
about quoting some of this discussion in you 'zine.  Good idea.

               Best,
                    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (3056)   Sat 23 Apr 94 19:53                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: _The Virtual Community_
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 502453f3

___________________________________________________________

                 _The Virtual  Community_
       _Homesteading  on  the  Electronic Frontier_
                   by Howard Rheingold
                Addidon - Wesley USA 1993
___________________________________________________________

This  book   is  a   history  of   CMC  (Computer  Mediated
Communication) as  Howard Rheingold calls it, it is a guide
book to  the Internet, an autobiography, an overview of the
sociological &  political perspectives  on cyberspace.  The
author is  an advocate of virtual community, and also warns
us of  the dangers.   Above  all I  think  the  book  is  a
manifesto.  Howard Rheingold  presents a direction in which
CMC could desirably move.

The book  succeeds at  being all  these things, he makes an
art form  of non-fiction.   He is to cyberspace what Jaques
Caustau is  to the  sea,  both  a  familiar  traveller  and
capable of  presenting his  involvement to the public in an
interesting way.

The opening  quote  from  Scott  Peck  advocates  not  just
*social* relationships but making the qualitative leap into
community, which  is more  than  social.    This  theme  is
present throughout  the book.  Chapter 1 is about the WELL.
He does not start with its history or technical aspects but
the heart.  I was moved to tears by one of the stories from
cyberspace.   He brings  us right into the community to see
how they  live with love & death,  and how they raise their
children.  It was a treat for me to learn that the roots of
this major  countercultural BBS  go back to the Whole Earth
Catalogue and have the same founder Stuart Brand (one of my
mentors in  the early  70s).   Amazing what us baby boomers
get up to and how we have paralleled each others spheres of
interest in different parts of the world.

It is  not just baby boomers that are active in cyberspace.
There is  the phenomena  of the  young men  who are  now in
their 20s who have had computers since they were 10.  There
is some  insight into  their lives,  though  Rheingold  has
roots in  the counterculture  not cyberpunk  or hacking and
that comes through clearly.

I was  interested to  learn that  many of the communication
systems  in   the  world   were  set  up  as  databases  of
information.   The founders thought of cyberspace as a vast
electronic library  rather than  conversation.    To  their
confusion the  ancillary  communication  facilities  became
more used  and relevant  than the  databases of info.  This
has stimulated  my thinking to the point where I'd say that
there is no information without a relationship, and CMC has
made that  more explicit.   All  information is  part of  a
Great Conversation.

The  stories   about  the   characters  of  cyberspace  are
delightful;   Tom Jennings the person who set up Fido, John
Perry Barlow,  the  drummer  from  the  Grateful  Dead  and
founder  of   the  influential   EFF  (Electronic  Frontier
foundation) which  is the pressure group for free speech in
cyberspace.   He has  an excellent  article ,  BTW, in  the
March 94  issue of  Wired on the Economy of Ideas.  Reading
Rheingold's book I realised just how important these people
are in the developments of our culture.

The talk  of the  frontier of  cyberspace is of course very
American and  there is a constant reference to the ideas of
freedom as  they emerged  from the  correspondence  of  the
founders  of   the  Constitution  and  the  declaration  of
Independence.    Rheingold  puts  forward  two  alternative
futures  of   CMC.    The  electronic  Agora,  or  Athenian
marketplace, a  cradle of  democracy, is the desirable one.
The  black  alternative  is  the  Panopticon  --  a  prison
proposed  by  Jeremy  Bentham  in  1791,  where  there  was
constant  surveillance.     In   the  last  chapter  called
Disinformocracy, he  presents the  dichotomy fully and with
references to  all the major writers who have looked at the
impact of media on culture.

His conclusion is that for there to be a democratic outcome
the debate  must go  on as  we develop the potential of the
new technology.   His point of view is straight forward and
appealing.   I think  the book  is an  essential  departure
point for  anyone wishing  to explore  the implications  of
this medium on our lives, even if like me, it is to present
somewhat different ideas on the subject.

I am  pleased to  be a  proud owner   of the  hard back.  I
read it in bed, in the bath, in  my tent and in restaurants
while eating my lunch. As I  hold and  smell the well layed
out, well  made book  I see that  there is a place for hard
copy of this work.  Some of it I know is easy to get on the
Net, but I might be too old to  see  how  a  classic, which
I  am  sure  it  will  be,  could  exist  exclusively    in
cyberspace.

                                 Reviewed by Walter Logeman
                                             23 April, 1994
___________________________________________________________


Phew, I find that quite hard to stay in a semi formal mode of 
writing.  I
want to track off and explore all the nooks that the book takes me 
to and
I look forward to doing that in some more messages on this topic.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (2546)   Sat 23 Apr 94  1:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Digest
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5e676289

Hi,
              --++-=<*>****>>>>>0<<<<<****<*>=-++--

                       Psybernet Digest
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am  in the process of developing a 'zine.  The idea is that from
time to time it gets sent out to interested people on the Internet
& Compuserve.    I  have  about  6  or  so  who  would  be  really
interested, and I am sure it would build.  What I would like to do
is to  include highlights  from Psybernet & items written with the
Psybernet Digest  in mind.   (A  better name  anyone?)   The items
could be  combined with  some comment.   All people who are quoted
would need  to OK  it to  leave this board.  The aim is to attract
use fully  the whole  of cyberspace and have Psybernet do some OE.
The 'zine would of course be archived in our Libraryand thus be an
exellent  way  for  new  users  to  get  into  the  background  of
Psybernet.


I envisage the 'zine having a regular format and headings.

Contents.
Introduction to Psybernet
Main Feature
Psybernet News
Editorial
Psybernet Library Update
Quotes from Psybernet BBS
Resources in Psyberspace

I envisage  editing a couple and then someone else might give it a
go.   I would  like to  do an  Off-line version as well, with some
colour graphics such as our Motif (see Psybernet Main Library) and
exquisite paper,  binding and  fonts, it  would be available for a
fee, or to Full Subscribers perhaps.  If you have items you'd like
to see go in then post them up to me in private mail.


                       What do you think?


                             Walter

              --++-=<*>****>>>>>O<<<<<****<*>=-++--
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:57 2000
Date: (3107)   Sun 24 Apr 94 14:02                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Psybernet Digest
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

23 April 1994

Dear Walter

 WL>               --++-=<*>****>>>>>0<<<<<****<*>=-++--

 WL>                        Psybernet Digest
 WL>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 WL> I am  in the process of developing a 'zine.  The idea is that
 WL> from time to time it gets sent out to interested people on the
 WL> Internet & Compuserve.    I  have  about  6  or  so  who  would
 WL>  be  really interested, and I am sure it would build.  What I
 WL>  would like to do is to  include highlights  from Psybernet &
 WL>  items written with the Psybernet Digest  in mind.   (A  better
 WL>  name  anyone?)   The items could be  combined with  some
 WL>  comment.   All people who are quoted would need  to OK  it to
 WL>  leave this board.  The aim is to attract use fully  the whole
 WL>  of cyberspace and have Psybernet do some OE. The 'zine would
 WL>  of course be archived in our Libraryand thus be an exellent
 WL>  way  for  new  users  to  get  into  the  background  of
 WL>  Psybernet.

ZINE ! Did you invent that? I suppose it's short for magaZINE is it?
It must be.  But yes that sounds really good. And Psybernet Digest 
sounds
just right. But whatever you do, NOT PsybeReader's Digest


 WL> I envisage the 'zine having a regular format and headings.

 WL> Contents.
 WL> Introduction to Psybernet
 WL> Main Feature
 WL> Psybernet News
 WL> Editorial
 WL> Psybernet Library Update
 WL> Quotes from Psybernet BBS
 WL> Resources in Psyberspace

 WL> I envisage  editing a couple and then someone else might give
 WL> it a go.   I would  like to  do an  Off-line version as well,
 WL> with some colour graphics such as our Motif (see Psybernet Main
 WL> Library) and exquisite paper,  binding and  fonts, it  would be
 WL> available for a fee, or to Full Subscribers perhaps.  If you
 WL> have items you'd like to see go in then post them up to me in
 WL> private mail.

I suppose from now on we could keep our eyes open for suitable 
passages in
our messages as they come along.

 WL>                        What do you think?

Excellent creative thingking  !!!!

               Best
                         Stanley


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:59 2000
Date: (3155)   Mon 25 Apr 94 13:08                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Psybernet Digest
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 6aa93b8d

 SR> ZINE ! Did you invent that? I suppose it's short for magaZINE
 SR> is it? It must be.  But yes that sounds really good. And
 SR> Psybernet Digest sounds just right. But whatever you do, NOT
 SR> PsybeReader's Digest

No, it is a cyberspace standard word.  Which reminds me I must post 
up the
new PsyGloss.  Should have all that in.


 SR> I suppose from now on we could keep our eyes open for suitable
 SR> passages in our messages as they come along.

Yes, I have been working on it all last night, got me going.  I 
think it
is the way to get the BBS known out there in cyberspace.  It can go 
on the
various ZINE lists with my email address etc.

See ya

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:00 2000
Date: (3315)   Fri 29 Apr 94 13:42                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Psybernet Digest
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 WL> Yes, I have been working on it all last night, got me going.  I
 WL> think it is the way to get the BBS known out there in
 WL> cyberspace.  It can go on the various ZINE lists with my email
 WL> address etc.

Look, I forgot to say. Anything you want to use of mine please feel 
free
to edit it however you want.

               Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:01 2000
Date: (3319)   Fri 29 Apr 94 16:24                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Psybernet Digest
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 2308773c

 WL>> Yes, I have been working on it all last night, got me going.  I
 WL>> think it is the way to get the BBS known out there in
 WL>> cyberspace.  It can go on the various ZINE lists with my email
 WL>> address etc.

 SR> Look, I forgot to say. Anything you want to use of mine please
 SR> feel free to edit it however you want.

I have been editing but not changing the words just taking them out 
of
context!  I will let you have alook at the draft and you may have 
some
ideas.

Thanks,


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:18 2000
Date: (10002)   Tue 7 Jun 94 19:21                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Psybernet Digest
St: Local Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 4f131043
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG

I have done it.  the Psybernet Digest  Number one Volume one is 
out.  See
the Psybernet main Library for PSYB_D11.ZIP  I will also put it in 
the
Introductory Library unzipped, as .

This is the first one, and I have delayed and delayed it because I 
was not
happy with it.  I then sent it to someone in the states who wrote 
back
full of enthusiasm and wants to get the Echo.  I realised then that 
I had
published it without making it a big deal.  I have sent it to several
others on the weekend as well, I am getting requests for things 
like this
on the Internet.

You can D/l and have a look.  Also Full Subscribers I have almost 
got the
lazer printed version, you will get it by mail!

I have started PSYB_D12.TXT.  Psybernet Digest Volume 1 Number 2.  
I have
the basic layout much the same and copy snippets into it as I go.

Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (2545)   Sat 23 Apr 94  1:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Is it Psybernet?
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 e5f7cc69



                            ==============
                            Psybernet Echo
                            ==============
Topics typically include psychotherapy, the unconscious, the 
imagination,
archetypes, dreams, myths and metaphors, personal identity.  There is
often an emphasis on working psychologically within the medium of
cyberspace.

Of wider appeal are discussions on literature and poetry, movies and
music, relationships and parenting, gender issues, love, learning and
everyday life.  Discussion of treatment and recovery and of clinical
issues is welcome, but these are not the main focus of the echo.

The aim is to make the Echo as widely available as possible on 
BBSes that
share something of the ethos associated with Psybernet.  The Echo is
available by arrangement.

                 === The Psybernet Bulletin Board ===
The Psybernet BBS is the home of The Psybernet Echo.  A Women's 
Conference
is available to women users only.  The BBS specialises in message 
areas
with restricted access for purposes such as clinical discussion,
exploration of dreams, relationships, dramatic writing.  At present
Subscriptions are free.

Walter Logeman.

        ------------------== Contact points  ==--------------
        Psybernet
        Walter Logeman (Sysop)
        Bulletin Board:            +64-3-365-6876
        Fidonet:                    3:770/270
        24hr Answer phone:         +64-3-377-1206
        Fax:                       +64-3-377-1207
        Compuserve:                 100026,3145
        Internet                    wlogeman@nzonline.ac.nz
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:56 2000
Date: (2543)   Sat 23 Apr 94  1:27                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Is it Psybernet?
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 7b82d6a5

You wrote this under a different heading but I thought I'd revive a 
thread
from a while back.  I hope that is OK by you.

 MT>  I was very impressed with your new
 MT>  introduction to Psybernet

Thanks.

 MT> I like the idea of psybernet_echo summary thing.

You mean as part of the INTRO?  Or the much shorter one?  I'll post 
that
after this.

 MT>  Also, it seems that if you could
 MT>  get things to leap out at people, to be more active, then, in
 MT>  a psychology/ergonomics way it would make people more able to
 MT>  work with the environment (and excite them to).


.Pause
.win Like this?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZ
ZZ     ZZZZ    ZZ ZZZZZ ZZ     ZZZ      ZZ     ZZZ  ZZZ ZZ      ZZ  
   ZZ
ZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ Z ZZ ZZ 
ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZZ Z ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZ Z ZZ 
ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZ     ZZZZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ     ZZZ      ZZ     ZZZ ZZZ  ZZ      
ZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZ ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ 
ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZ ZZZ ZZZZ ZZ 
ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZ ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZ ZZ 
ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZ ZZZZZZZZ    ZZZZZ ZZZZZ     ZZZ      ZZ ZZZZZ Z ZZZZ ZZ      
ZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZ






Perhaps not what you had in mind.  <g>  I think there is a place for
graphics and sound etc here.  But it is not to replace text.  I 
love text
and the leaping out that powerfully chosen words can do.

 MT>  An idea
 MT>  perhaps for later (when the data transfer rates go up), is to
 MT>  show the threads of discussion as a tree diagram which you
 MT>  could click on at various locations to enter

Yes I am looking for a program that will do that.  I have it for
CompuServe, it is wonderful.  I have asked Hector Santos to do 
something
like that with Silver Xpress, & yet he may.

 MT>  votes from those engaged in the discussion to determine which
 MT>  message they think best for the title page/entry point/summary
 MT>  or conclusion of their argument.

Good idea.  I think it is something that anyone can do though, to 
d/l a
whole thread and create a summary or title page (never thought of 
that).
I have done that twice as a way of jumping into a complex 
discussion, on
CompuServe.  One was where the thread seemingly went way off topic 
but it
was possible to see the unconscious connections.

So here is a message in a thread that has been discussing the 
nature of
the Psybernet BBS and Echo.  I will follow this message with the 
blurb
that I use when people ask me to describe the BBS & Echo, it is a 
little
changed since the last time.

What do you think of this idea of announcing the parameters of 
Psybernet
in a thread that can look at that very question?  I thought it a good
move.

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:30:57 2000
Date: (3108)   Sun 24 Apr 94 14:02                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: sick Ideas
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


Hello Miles,

Very pleased to meet you, I didn't think anybody would take my 
waffling
seriously.  Thank you for jumping in.

 MT>  Hello Stanley. My name is (...) 'm a maths and sociology
 MT>  student, and I have been following your discussion from the
 MT>  point of "sick" ideas with great interest.
 MT>  Please allow me to jump in. I will
 MT>  put my understanding/summarisation of your comment by
 MT>  massacring what you have written - sorry if I get this
 MT>  wrong...

SR>> The ontology I'm AGAINST says:
 SR>> We can tell the difference between (fantasy and reality)
 SR>> because, in
 SR>> fantasy there is no necessity; in reality there is...
 SR>> *necessity* (=) *concrete*, *out there*, *real*. ie It is 
THUS and
SR> not
 SR>> otherwise; and no matter how much we wish or fantasise, it does
 SR>> not alter FACTS...
 SR>> The argument goes on:
 SR>> the other kind of being is fantasy or imagination...
 SR>> fantasies happen, but there is no necessity in them. Any 
fantasy
 SR>> can be otherwise. (I use 'fantasy' and 'idea' interchangeably).
 SR>> Any idea or fantasy can be changed;
 SR>> there is no necessity in their existence or
 SR>> non-existence. The whole of reality would be exactly the same 
if
 SR>> any given fantasy did not exist.

MT>  I would say many adherents of this argument (that your against)
 MT>  would not insist on the last sentence here.

Well, a difficult point Miles, isn't it? . If the whole of reality is
changed in part by the existence of a fantasy or an idea - then 
that idea
or fantasy IS necessary to the whole, simply because the whole 
would not
be what it is without it. To maintain the concept of a 
non-determined and
free-fantasy world you have to say, it seems to me, that it does not
influence and is not influenced by so-called reality. The argument 
(I'm
against) is in a double-bind. On the one hand it wants to insist 
that the
fantasy world is free and non-determined in order to preserve human
freedom. But on the other, it wants to insists that ideas can effect
reality, and vice virsa. Now it seems to me you can't have it both 
ways.

SR>> A fantasy can (be changed). A fantasy should not and does
 SR>> not have necessity in it.
 SR>> That's how a fantasy differs from a rock.
 SR>> The only difference between a fact and a fantasy is the
 SR>> element of necessity. That's how we judge whether something is
 SR>> real or imagined. Faced with a rock - if we can make it
 SR>> disappear or if it changes into a lizard, it's fantasy. ! If we
 SR>> kick and it hurts our toe, if it stubbornly exists, it's
 SR>> reality. Real rocks have an inherent necessity - they do not 
just
 SR>> disappear or turn into lizards.  If they do, they lack that
 SR>> inherent givenness which distinguishes them from fantasy. The
 SR>> necessity inherent in a 'real' rock also means that it doesn't
 SR>> and cannot change BY ITSELF into a lizard. The rock is not 
free.

MT>  This is a very interesting part of the argument, we can
 MT>  understand that the rock is not free, but what if the rock
 MT>  were another person, etc. Is it a necessity of the argument
 MT>  that other people are not...?

Our problem is that we are caught in the Cartesian dilemma:  there 
is mind
and there is extension. Two different orders of being, two 
incompatible
kinds of substance - mind or consciousness (res cogitans) and 
matter (res
extensa). All this does seem very abstract, but it is still 
embedded in
our everyday common-sense life.
This set-up retains psyche or soul, in a sense, what has sometimes 
been
called 'the ghost in the machine'.  It preserves the idea of human
freedom, and therefore of choice and morality, by insisting that 
*mind* is
a different substance from *matter*. Matter existing in space is in a
causal nexus, unfree, determined - like the rock!  Mind is 
non-spatial and
non-determined, ie has freedom of choice, is capable of moral 
action. Nice
little solution. But a solution which has had unfortunate 
consequences for
psychology. It preserves a theological dogma of human choice and
responsibility, but places the psyche in isolation and in a state 
of guilt
regarding its own state - which, if it were free, it should be able 
to
alter at will.

     Interesting to note that behavioural psychology solves this by 
simply
deleting *mind*. and placing the behaviour in the *matter* 
category. So
that all behaviour is *caused*, *necessary* and *unfree*.  We call it
'conditioning', don't we?   Psychological necessity then comes, not 
from
the psyche's own styles of necessity, but from the necessities  
available
to scientific study. Consequently we don't recognise the 
compulsions of
'the gods', the 'mundus imaginalis' or the archetypal world,  but 
only the
necessities of chemistry on the brain or the necessities of social
conditioning. All of which make us 'things' in a 'thing' world and 
subject
to the laws of 'things' - in other words, Descartes' 'res extensa'. 
In
that set-up what we have symbolised by 'the gods' is catastrophically
missing.


SR> So goes the argument. But what it  sses is that  fantasies and
SR>ideas DO have necessity in them. The dream rock turns into a 
lizard.
SR>That is PRECISELY what it turns into - not  into a cow or an 
elephant,
SR>but into a lizard - not a pink lizard SR> or a red  lizard, but 
into
SR>precisely THIS green lizard. dream  analysis doesn't work unless 
you
SR>respect the precision of the image. IE. The dream intends 
PRECISELY
SR>this image.

MT>So, if you are doing dream analysis, you are calculating 
"meaning" from
MT>  the "reality" of the dream.

Yes, exactly

MT>   But, are you going to be thinking
 MT>  in terms of the internal structure of the dream *itself* or in
 MT>  terms of the internal structure of the person who had the
 MT>  dream.

I would rather say heSubject: The dream IS the internal structure of the
person; or rather, the internal personS of the psyche are given by
the dream.

MT> The alternate viewpoint would be that fantasies do have
 MT>  necessity, but this is a by-product of the necessity in the
 MT>  world which "created" the dream. Or do you deny that the dream
 MT>  was "created" entirely by the world beneath.

I want to neglect that aspect for rhetorical purposes.

 MT>  I think it is a "necessary" part of your argument that you
 MT>  give the "fantasy" an *internal* logic, which is different or
 MT>  at least separated from the logic of the reality "on which it
 MT>  is based".

Yes you've got it. But of course I would not want to say  "on which 
it is
based"


 MT>   Thereby, the higher-level "reality" of the
 MT>  dreams,fantasies,cultures, and Gods is in fact a reality all
 MT>  by itself, and not based on the more mundane version of
 MT>  reality.

 Yes yes.  I would like to add that the more mundane version of 
reality
is itself a fantasy. Simply one which presents itself in a literal 
way.

 MT> In this way, we can have things such as in Greek
 MT>  myth, where the character of the Gods affect reality, BECAUSE
 MT>  of their character (and not because Greeks or Ionians or
 MT>  whoever was dreaming these Gods had certain affinities or
 MT>  feeelings about the respective characters of the Gods) etc.

Yes, we don't want to DERIVE the gods from the dreams of men, but to
derive men from the dreams of the gods.

 MT> As  a mathemetician, I would point to examples which are vaguely
 MT>  similar in the world of atoms and molecules. Our bodies are
 MT>  composed of Molecules and Cells... we are built up from them.
 MT>  In fact, the specific molecules and atoms which are in our
 MT>  body at one time may pass out of our body and be replaced by
 MT>  others, so that our form and our structure are in a sense
 MT>  merely systemary "ideas" of the world of atoms etc.

You remarks here bear a strong relation to the general tone of 
Platonism
or of Sheldrakes idea of "morphic resonance"


 MT> And yet it
 MT>  is these ideas themselves, and there internal logic - you need
 MT>  (as a whole) to feel, say, "unhappy" before your metabolism
 MT>  sets in the process of crying and our eyes begin to water and
 MT>  H2O be be transferred into that part of reality which is not a
 MT>  part o the idea of our bodies. Scientists are very confused by
 MT>  this, because it starts to suggest that you cannot determine
 MT>  the behaviour of a large system merely by calculating the
 MT>  respective behaviours of each particular particle and then
 MT>  summing it all up, as they have been trying to do for the last
 MT>  couple of centuries, but in fact, the behaviour of particular
 MT>  particles actually depends on the *meaning* of the system as a
 MT>  *whole* or something, and simply cannot be worked out by
 MT>  concentra on each particle at a time. It is all very obviously
 MT>  a flawed at that level actually, because the behaviour of one
 MT>  is going the behaviour of another AT THAT INSTANT and this is
 MT>  going to f the first atom INSTANTANEOUSLY. I'm so excited, my
 MT>  think the first time starting to make sense. (to me anyway)
 MT>  (three body problem / feedback / EPR/information paradox) -
 MT>  areas that need to be examined. but not here.

Now you put me on unfamiliar ground. I'm out of my depth in your
speciality

 MT>  So... IF we keep
 MT>  the "necessary" part of your argument - that you give the
 MT>  "fantasy" an *internal* logic itself determining itself, then
 MT>  perhaps this all means that Gods and myths and dreams and
 MT>  GHOSTS... wo woo oooh are all floating around determing
 MT>  reality as if they really did exist.

  Yes,  Good Man, you have caught my slant exactly.

MT>  (Just like
 MT>  electromagnetic fields, which at one time people thought to be
 MT>  mere "ideas" that helped to calculate the effect of one REAL
 MT>  charged body on another, until Maxwell decided they could
 MT>  feed-back on themselves to create the very "REAL" phenomena of
 MT>  light.)

So electromagnetic fields are not merely descriptive ideas but actual
phenomena.  Is that right?

 SR>> For some
 SR>> reason it is absolutely NECESSARY that this THIS rock turn into
 SR>> precisely THIS green lizard. A dream image knows its history, 
it
 SR>> knows its imaginal origin, even if we don't.
 SR>> Ideas have an origin too. My whole point about sick ideas is
 SR>> that they have lost their memory.  Memory is the one thing that
 SR>> chains you to necessity.

 MT>  The past history of the idea determines the current history of
 MT>  the idea? Does the particular nature of the idea determine
 MT>  what other types of ideas can go with it... i.e. does green
 MT>  always go with "tree" in your experience, or is there total
 MT>  freedom in the instant of the idea? I guess it depends to some
 MT>  extent on the imagination of the person (or persons) who have
 MT>  been busy thinking or dreaming this idea throughout the
 MT>  history of the idea up until now.

Lovely, lovely, yes.  If we put aside "persons" who "have" ideas 
for a
moment and just consider ideas ..... yes, certain ideas do consider
themselves to be friendly to certain other ideas and consequently 
do not
mind being 'seen' with them.<g>

 SR>> But ideas, like people get
 SR>> sick when they lose their memory. People think they are
 SR>> responsible for their fantasies. They've got this strange,
 SR>> manic, idea that they created them.

 MT>  I thought the idea of "sick" ideas was that they would
 MT>  start to be treated as reality of themself, not, for instance,
 MT>  thinking that they had made them up.

Yes, sick ideas look outward and think they are copies of something 
called
reality. What they lack is the backward look to their history. The 
naive
realist usually thinks he is responsible for an idea. When ideas lose
their memory then the only place they can come from, presumably, is 
our
own head.

SR>> A person doesn't have new ideas - ideas have new ideas!!!

 SR>> There are thoughts that are to be thought. The gods give birth.
 SR>> Also without feeling the gods at work we don't realise when we
 SR>> are nailed by necessity.  .  But in our egocentricity at all
 SR>> cost the manic defence called *choice* must be maintained. We
 SR>> think we choose what is to be thought.  But the imaginal is not
 SR>> free. It is where you meet your fate.   That the fantasy world
 SR>> has its own necessity is demonstrated by its self-generated
 SR>> genealogy. Without it, Camillo's Memory Theatre would never 
have
 SR>> happened, together with the whole Renaissance effort to line up
 SR>> the archetypes in a sensible order.
 MT>
 SR>> I think we must
 SR>> always remember that necessity or the GIVEN is always half
 SR>> hidden - we are never sure of it, corresponding to Plato's idea
 SR>> The Receptacle, Ananke, Necessity. The hiddenness of celestial
 SR>> or archetypal necessity is the attraction for astrology where
 SR>> Harmarmone (fate) can all be worked out. That's why it is 
better
 SR>> to bow to the hiddenness and respectfully acknowledge the gods
 SR>> even though we don't quite know what they are up to.

 WL>>> It would therefore be possible to have science with soul and
 WL>>> religion with none.  In fact a lot of scientist see their
 WL>>> theory as myth and theologians see their perceptions as 
science.

 SR>> Oh Absolutely!  No question.
 MT>  Lets.

 WL>>> The split is between the ontologies, and you subscribe to the
 WL>>> first.  This is a little strange to grasp because you speak as
 WL>>> if the ideas are very real, people in fact, who will not
 WL>>> tolerate the nasties who say they do not exist.

MT>  I once had a comment on an essay of mine saying that
 MT>  I was "in danger of reification" which is the name given to
 MT>  speaking of ideas or cultures in this way. In fact, the main
 MT>  point of my whole essay was that this was the way we should
 MT>  think of ideas.

I couldn't agree with you more.

  SR>> Well, nice point. If I'm all stuck on this fate and necessity
 SR>> business it does sound as though I am taking it all very
 SR>> literally. And from this way of looking I am, I have to 
confess!
 SR>> But each world does seem to have its own necessity, doesn't it?

MT>  I wonder to what extent? And why?

SR>> Marx's world only differs from Apollo's in that it has a...

MT>  What is "Marx's world"? Is it the real world as he experienced
 MT>  it, or is the "world" as he thought it was, or is it just the
 MT>  world according to how it ought to work given his theories,
 MT>  and what happens if his theories are not consistent about what
 MT>  should happen?

I'm sure Walter would have a comment on this. The whole question of 
"is'
and "should" is difficult.  We would be advised to keep them quite
separate. I 'm sticking my neck out here - but maybe Marx got them 
mixed
up. What he saw as the necessary march of history was really what he
thought it "should" be.  All known in philosophy as "the problem of
"ought' ".

 MT>  I guess I'm thinking sick thoughts in my attempt to  re-ify
 MT>  this whole process so that I can talk about the *whole* thing
 MT>  as if it were "out there",
 MT>  (also, relating to the pairing
 MT>  I've been having with Walter, I love the way we are using this
 MT>  new word "sick" as a new part of our vocab and hence
 MT>  psychological framework).


 WL>>> It is as if there is a soulworld bursting at the seams for
 WL>>> expression and anything will do, science, religion, tools,
 WL>>> dreams.  The stuff of soul will come whether we invite it or
 WL>>> not, are ready or not.

MT>  So the "soulworld" doesn't depend on the thoughts that
 MT>  have been will be or are? It just IS; Like Plato thought
 MT>  (and Godel proved???) with regards to maths. It IS there, just
 MT>  waiting for mathemeticians to use any symbology they like to
 MT>  come across it and discover its inherent reality.

I don't know Godel, but it has a lot in common with Plato's thought.

WL>>> In other words once we have the knack,
 WL>>> we can 'see through' anything.  The soulworld is what it is, 
it
 WL>>> depends on how we treat it that maks us sick or not.  Of 
course
 WL>>> that sickness is a Good Thing, without it, when we inevitably
 WL>>> get trapped in literalism, it is our salvation.

MT>  (faltingly mutters) but i LIKE literalism. (I think thats what
 MT>  you mean).

 SR>> submission to the gods. And it is strange: that very submission
 SR>> releases us from the literal. It's like once I give in, it sets
 SR>> me free. Maybe its because once I realise I am absolutely 
UNfree
 SR>> I disappear...The ego ceases its struggle to maintain the
 SR>> illusion of its freedom and power on which its own existence
 SR>> depends. Nothing...'You are Nozing you realise? ... Now zee
 SR>> analyziz begins, eh?'
 MT>  I AM NOTZING. I AM NOTZING. I AM NOTZING.

 MT>  My reply has been a bit off the point with regards to these
 MT>  later points, I guess, I don't understand what problem there is
 MT>  in this literalism that we are all so against.

Oh dear, you do remind us of what we are all so AGAINST ! - like we 
were a
cult or a club.
I think Walter and I have picked up the bogy of 'literalism' from 
Hillman.
It is a very useful concept. What it really means is a sort of
'fundamentalist' frame of mind. One way! One God instead of many. One
meaning to anything. It is non-poetic and non-soulful, anti-poly and
therefore anti-psychological.

                    All the Best

                                        Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:00 2000
Date: (3289)   Thu 28 Apr 94 20:48                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Hello What is the Point?
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 cf66ee0f

"What is the point?" is the name of a BBS in Christchurch, I have 
just had
an enjoyable chat with Rick the Sysop and with a bit of luck, the
Psybernet Echo is now available on that BBS.  So that new readers 
there
may have some idea of what this echo is about I have posted the 
"brochure"
below.

To fill you in on what has been discussed on the board in the last 
week or
two:

'Anonymity'
The discussion has looked at the use of pseudonyms in this medium 
and has
entered into the whole realm of what personality really is.

'Sick Ideas'
This is a discussion on the history of ideas, especially ideas 
related to
psychotherapy.

'Virtual Communities'
I have just posted up a review of:

Rheingold, Howard 1993,
The Virtual Community, Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.

So there may be some discussion on that.

Here is the Blurb:

                            ============
                         Brief Introduction
                            To Psybernet
                            ============
Psybernet derives  its name  from Psyche and Cybernetics.  Psyche 
is a
Greek word  for the  soul and  cybernetics is  the art  of 
information
systems.

The unconscious  realms of  the psyche, communication and 
relationship
skills are all affected and evolving in cyberspace.  Psybernet BBS 
and
Echo aim to explore and experience this process.

                            Psybernet Echo
                            ==============
Topics  typically   include  psychotherapy,   the   unconscious,   
the
imagination,  archetypes,   dreams,  myths   and  metaphors,  
personal
identity.   There is an emphasis on working psychologically within 
the
medium of cyberspace.

Of wider  appeal are  discussions on literature and poetry, movies 
and
music, relationships  and parenting, gender issues, love, learning 
and
everyday life.   Discussion  of treatment and recovery and of 
clinical
issues is welcome, but these are not the main focus of the echo.

The aim  is to  make the Echo as widely available as possible on 
BBSes
that share something of the ethos associated with Psybernet.  The 
Echo
is available by arrangement.

                     The Psybernet Bulletin Board
                            ==============
The Psybernet  BBS is  the home  of The  Psybernet Echo.    A  
Women's
Conference is  available to  women users only.  The BBS specialises 
in
message areas  with restricted  access for  purposes such  as 
clinical
discussion, exploration of dreams, relationships, dramatic writing. 
 A
file library  is being  built on  topics relevant  to the  board.   
At
present Subscriptions are free, and will be introduced mid 1994.

Walter Logeman.

        ------------------== Contact points  ==--------------
        Psybernet, Walter Logeman  (Sysop)
        Bulletin Board:            +64-3-365-6876
        Fidonet:                    3:770/270
        24hr Answer phone:         +64-3-377-1206
        Fax:                       +64-3-377-1207

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:01 2000
Date: (3338)   Sat 30 Apr 94  0:48                         
From: Rick Nolan
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Hello What is the Point?
St: Rcvd
@MSGID: 3:770/105 2dc1ab46
@REPLY: 3:770/270 cf66ee0f


 WL> "What is the point?" is the name of a BBS in Christchurch, I 
have
 WL> just had an enjoyable chat with Rick the Sysop and with a bit of
 WL> luck, the Psybernet Echo is now available on that BBS.  So that
 WL> new readers there may have some idea of what this echo is 
about I
 WL> have posted the "brochure" below.

Thanks Walter,you may take it that the link is now functional,and we
look forward to participating.

Regards
Rick

 WL> To fill you in on what has been discussed on the board in the
 WL> last week or two:

 WL> 'Anonymity'
 WL> The discussion has looked at the use of pseudonyms in this 
medium
 WL> and has entered into the whole realm of what personality really
 WL> is.

 WL> 'Sick Ideas'
 WL> This is a discussion on the history of ideas, especially ideas
 WL> related to psychotherapy.

 WL> 'Virtual Communities'
 WL> I have just posted up a review of:

 WL> Rheingold, Howard 1993,
 WL> The Virtual Community, Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.

 WL> So there may be some discussion on that.

 WL> Here is the Blurb:

 WL>                             ============
 WL>                          Brief Introduction
 WL>                             To Psybernet
 WL>                             ============
 WL> Psybernet derives  its name  from Psyche and Cybernetics.  
Psyche
 WL> is a Greek word  for the  soul and  cybernetics is  the art  of
 WL> information systems.

 WL> The unconscious  realms of  the psyche, communication and
 WL> relationship skills are all affected and evolving in cyberspace.
 WL> Psybernet BBS and Echo aim to explore and experience this
 WL> process.

 WL>                             Psybernet Echo
 WL>                             ==============
 WL> Topics  typically   include  psychotherapy,   the   unconscious,
 WL> the imagination,  archetypes,   dreams,  myths   and  metaphors,
 WL> personal identity.   There is an emphasis on working
 WL> psychologically within the medium of cyberspace.

 WL> Of wider  appeal are  discussions on literature and poetry,
 WL> movies and music, relationships  and parenting, gender issues,
 WL> love, learning and everyday life.   Discussion  of treatment and
 WL> recovery and of clinical issues is welcome, but these are not 
the
 WL> main focus of the echo.

 WL> The aim  is to  make the Echo as widely available as possible on
 WL> BBSes that share something of the ethos associated with
 WL> Psybernet.  The Echo is available by arrangement.

 WL>                      The Psybernet Bulletin Board
 WL>                             ==============
 WL> The Psybernet  BBS is  the home  of The  Psybernet Echo.    A
 WL> Women's Conference is  available to  women users only.  The BBS
 WL> specialises in message areas  with restricted  access for
 WL> purposes such  as clinical discussion, exploration of dreams,
 WL> relationships, dramatic writing.  A file library  is being  
built
 WL> on  topics relevant  to the  board.   At present Subscriptions
 WL> are free, and will be introduced mid 1994.

 WL> Walter Logeman.

 WL>         -+--+--+--+--+--+-== Contact points  ==-+--+--+--+---
 WL>         Psybernet, Walter Logeman  (Sysop)
 WL>         Bulletin Board:            +64-3-365-6876
 WL>         Fidonet:                    3:770/270
 WL>         24hr Answer phone:         +64-3-377-1206
 WL>         Fax:                       +64-3-377-1207

 WL> -+- xMail 1.00
 WL>  + Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics
 WL> +64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)
 WL>  + Origin: Psybernet N.Z. +64-3-365-6876  V42b  (3:770/270)

--- GoldED 2.42.G1114
 * Origin: What's the Point? Christchurch N.Z. (3:770/105)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:01 2000
Date: (3320)   Fri 29 Apr 94 16:24                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Infonomics
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c45a97b7

What is information?  What is money?  What is information worth?  
To what
extent can information be someone's 'property'?  Can the 
'intellectual
property' laws be upheld in a digital world?

Coca Cola have copyrights on the word 'always'.  What sort of 
nonsense is
that!

Are these questions relevant to the messages we write here?

One thought I have on this subject that I want to claim as my 
intellectual
property is:

Information does not exist without relationship.  Information is an
expression of relationship.  Information is an expression of 
sociometry.

Frazer Greenwood is right in telling me that Reg liked his BBS.  He 
does
not tell me what is in it he tells me who liked it.  I am going to 
do that
much more with this board Frazer!  Who else likes it?

Psybernet -- A quintessential expression of the digital revolution. 
 WiReD
magazine.

Psybernet -- A source of conceptual fodder for the information 
factories
of the future.   Time.

Psybernet -- The perfect blend of esoteric garbage and homely truths.
Leesa Gibbons -- Entertainment Tonight.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:02 2000
Date: (3355)   Sun 1 May 94  0:05                          
From: Frazer Greenwood
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Infonomics
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 53618fe0
@REPLY: 3:770/270 c45a97b7

 > Frazer Greenwood is right in telling me that Reg liked his
 > BBS.  He does
 > not tell me what is in it he tells me who liked it.  I am
 > going to do that
 > much more with this board Frazer!  Who else likes it?

That is Because i am not a seller of ideas but a user of information

I Cannot Explain the famous "What makes it different then any 
other..." question but if someone tells me i listen and learn and 
make mine more like it...

(Sorry if this makes no sense to any of you but as i said i can't 
sell ideas)

Cheer's...

Frazer Greenwood

... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 86 days.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3492)   Wed 4 May 94  2:27                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Infonomics
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 161c39bf

I have down loaded some material from Wired magazine, the best 
being a
piece from John Perry Barlow, here is a quote:

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------

II. INFORMATION IS A LIFE FORM

Information Wants to Be Free.

Stewart Brand is generally credited with this elegant statement of 
the
obvious, which recognizes both the natural desire of secrets to be 
told
and the fact that they might be capable of possessing something 
like a
"desire" in the first place.

English biologist and philosopher Richard Dawkins proposed the idea 
of
"memes," self-replicating patterns of information that propagate
themselves across the ecologies of mind, a pattern of reproduction 
much
like that of life forms.

I believe they are life forms in every respect but their freedom 
from the
carbon atom. They self-reproduce, they interact with their 
surroundings
and adapt to them, they mutate, they persist. They evolve to fill the
empty niches of their local  environments, which are, in this case 
the
surrounding belief systems and cultures of their hosts, namely, us.

Indeed, sociobiologists like Dawkins make a plausible case that
carbon-based life forms are information as well, that, as the 
chicken is
an egg's way of making another egg, the entire biological spectacle 
is
just the DNA molecule's means of copying  out more information 
strings
exactly like itself.


Information Replicates into the Cracks of Possibility.

Like DNA helices, ideas are relentless expansionists, always 
seeking new
opportunities for Lebensraum. And, as in carbon-based nature, the 
more
robust organisms are extremely adept at finding new places to live. 
Thus,
just as the common housefly has  insinuated itself into practically 
every
ecosystem on the planet, so has the meme of "life after death" 
found a
niche in most minds, or psycho-ecologies.

The more universally resonant an idea or image or song , the more 
minds it
will enter and remain within. Trying to stop the spread of a really 
robust
piece of information is about as easy as keeping killer bees south 
of the
border.


Information Wants to Change.

If ideas and other interactive patterns of information are indeed 
life
forms, they can be expected to evolve constantly into forms which 
will be
more perfectly adapted to their surroundings. And, as we see, they 
are
doing this all the time.

But for a long time, our static media, whether carvings in stone, 
ink on
paper, or dye on celluloid, have strongly resisted the evolutionary
impulse, exalting as a consequence the author's ability to 
determine the
finished product. But, as in an  oral tradition, digitized 
information has
no "final cut."

Digital information, unconstrained by packaging, is a continuing 
process
more like the metamorphosing tales of prehistory than anything that 
will
fit in shrink-wrap. From the Neolithic to Gutenberg (monks aside),
information was passed on, mouth to  ear, changing with every 
retelling
(or resinging). The stories which once shaped our sense of the world
didn't have authoritative versions. They adapted to each culture in 
which
they found themselves being told.

Because there was never a moment when the story was frozen in 
print, the
so-called "moral" right of storytellers to own the tale was neither
protected nor recognized. The story simply passed through each of 
them on
its way to the next, where it  would assume a different form. As we 
return
to continuous information, we can expect the importance of 
authorship to
diminish. Creative people may have to renew their acquaintance with
humility.

But our system of copyright makes no accommodation whatever for
expressions which don't become fixed at some point nor for cultural
expressions which lack a specific author or inventor.

Jazz improvisations, stand-up comedy routines, mime performances,
developing monologues, and unrecorded broadcast transmissions all 
lack the
Constitutional requirement of fixation as a "writing." Without 
being fixed
by a point of publication the  liquid works of the future will all 
look
more like these continuously adapting and changing forms and will
therefore exist beyond the reach of copyright.

Copyright expert Pamela Samuelson tells of having attended a 
conference
last year convened around the fact that Western countries may legally
appropriate the music, designs, and biomedical lore of aboriginal 
people
without compensation to their  tribes of origin since those tribes 
are not
an "author" or "inventors."

But soon most information will be generated collaboratively by the
cyber-tribal hunter-gatherers of cyberspace. Our arrogant legal 
dismissal
of the rights of "primitives" will be soon return to haunt us.


Information Is Perishable.

With the exception of the rare classic, most information is like farm
produce. Its quality degrades rapidly both over time and in 
distance from
the source of production. But even here, value is highly subjective 
and
conditional. Yesterday's papers  are quite valuable to the 
historian. In
fact, the older they are, the more valuable they become. On the other
hand, a commodities broker might consider news of an event that 
occurred
more than an hour ago to have lost any relevance.

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------


The whole article is in a file called Economy.txt in the Psybernet 
main
Library


I found this a good article, and I even see that my bit of 
intelectual
property of ideas a re a relationship is just old hat!


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4041)   Wed 11 May 94 19:18                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Infonomics
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


11 May 1994

Dear Walter


 WL> I have down loaded some material from Wired magazine, the best
 WL> being a piece from John Perry Barlow, here is a quote:

 WL> ------------------%------------quote-----------------%----------
 WL> ----

 WL> II. INFORMATION IS A LIFE FORM

 WL> Information Wants to Be Free.

 WL> Stewart Brand is generally credited with this elegant statement
 WL> of the obvious, which recognizes both the natural desire of
 WL> secrets to be told and the fact that they might be capable of
 WL> possessing something like a "desire" in the first place.

Yes, we've been saying something like this: ideas have a life and a 
will
of their own. Would you say that every idea is information, but not 
all
information is an idea. I just went to the toilet. That's 
information, but
it hardly qualifies as an idea. And really, it doesn't have much 
intention
to propagate. The act was personally very  satisfying but it was 
not what
he calls below 'a robust organism'!!!!!. As information it is not
'relentlessly expansionist'. As an idea I don't think it demands
Lebensraum, nor does it feel put upon to 'insinuate itself into every
ecosystem on the planet'. It is not a 'universally resonant idea', 
as he
says below. The simple information that I have just been to the 
toilet is
not really very breath-taking, is it?  How far do you think such an 
idea
would go on Internet - how many minds would it fertilise?

     Do you know - I seem to have got off on this subject, don't I? 
  I
must have been exhibitionist during my potty training! Or something.

 WL> The more universally resonant an idea or image or song , the
 WL> more minds it will enter and remain within. Trying to stop the
 WL> spread of a really robust piece of information is about as easy
 WL> as keeping killer bees south of the border.

That's more like it, yes. Some ideas are universally resonant and 
robust -
some are not.

Very stimulating stuff Walter. Thanks. I'll download the whole 
Economy Txt
and read.  Thanks again.

                    Best Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:02 2000
Date: (3478)   Wed 4 May 94  1:27                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Theatre & Stage
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 b7bb1a95

I am interested in developing the Theatre & Stage that I have been
speaking about.  I have been intrigued by a comment from Stanley,  
calling
it the Theatre of the Imagination.  I have just been speaking with 
Ruby &
I hope I am not crossing a boundary by quoting private conversation 
in a
public Echo!  (She's OKed this message before I sent it)

Ruby said (approximately) that the whole of cyberspace is on the edge
between the visible world and the imaginal world.  That what we do 
here is
create a circle, an infinite one at that! where we can call in the 
gods.
Other things you spoke of Ruby were the desire to DO things as a 
result of
ideas, the nature of safety and danger, the notion of power in a 
circle.
I loved the conversation and will show you this before I post it 
up!  I
hope that you will be able to add some more.

I am hoping to make a space that has some of the qualities of a 
sacred
circle, a theatre, an experiment, a meditation, a ritual.

I am thinking that we are creating something new.  I have the 
background
of psychodrama and this is a totally different medium, so there is 
only
limited value in drawing on the older model.  Usually that is the 
first
thing that new mediums get used for, doing old things.  Music 
Videos are a
true product of TV, not movies.  Message areas are a product of
cyberspace, but how they are used Psybernetically we are still 
inventing
or perhaps more accurately, discovering.  I think the ALTERWORLD 
was a
success in learning about all of this, I have learnt of the power 
inherent
in what we can do here.

Poems, the entering into roles of people long dead, the invention of
characters, the exploration of aspects of our personality, the 
forming of
friendships, the invitation of the gods to enter. . .

All this is as old as humanity and yet it draws on all that is so
difficult for us to express in this culture and in these times.

I went to a wedding on the weekend.  I went into another place 
between the
EDR and VR, an Anglican church.  The ritual allowed me to feel the
presence of higher powers, the prayer meant that we were drawing on
notions of Grace that brought the couple together, a quality that I 
began
to see as a fractal embracing our lives.

At the same time I saw the institution as dying.  It was drawing on
patriarchal roots, and there was an atmosphere of going through
meaningless tired motions.  The new secular priestly work that I do 
as a
psychotherapist and group worker creates states of reverence and 
meaning
that are more involving of the individual and the group even though 
we
work with mundane notions of health and terms like 'client' etc.

I also think that both the church and psychotherapy have huge 
traditions
behind them.  The traditions here as we make ALTERWORLDS can humbly 
draw
on the EDR equivalents, but we are still learning the role.

Cyberspace has evolved roles of System Operator and Moderator, and 
the
warm-up that these terms create is one of policing and regulating.  I
would rather model myself on the psychodrama director, the
psychotherapist, the vicar, the actor.  All of these ways of being
influence others, and they are positions of power, which have been 
abused
many times.  That is one of the things that I am conscious of, I have
total power in this BBS.  I trust I will use it to create spaces, 
circles,
theatres that are in good hands, hands that you will trust to hold 
the
words that come from the deepest reaches of the soul.

I think holding the position of Sysop and group leader etc is not 
only up
to the individual in the role.  In a way we are part of the 
emergence of
the leaders.  The discovery of these roles, learning about them, the
ability to teach the roles, is the business of Psybernet.

So, while the new message areas are not open, it might be a good 
time to
message *about* them so when they do open we can go for it *in* them.

Is 'Theatre & Stage' on the right track?  Is there a better metaphor?
What is the role of the leader?

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4044)   Wed 11 May 94 19:18                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Theatre & Stage
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter

 WL> I am interested in developing the Theatre & Stage that I have
 WL> been speaking about.  I have been intrigued by a comment from
 WL> Stanley,  calling it the Theatre of the Imagination.  I have
 WL> just been speaking with Ruby & I hope I am not crossing a
 WL> boundary by quoting private conversation in a public Echo!
 WL> (She's OKed this message before I sent it)

 WL> Ruby said (approximately) that the whole of cyberspace is on
 WL> the edge between the visible world and the imaginal world.
 WL> That what we do here is create a circle, an infinite one at
 WL> that! where we can call in the gods. Other things you spoke of
 WL> Ruby were the desire to DO things as a result of ideas, the
 WL> nature of safety and danger, the notion of power in a circle. I
 WL> loved the conversation and will show you this before I post it
 WL> up!  I hope that you will be able to add some more.


 WL> I am hoping to make a space that has some of the qualities of a
 WL> sacred circle, a theatre, an experiment, a meditation, a ritual.

All these qualities  Ruby speaks of: between the visible and imaginal
worlds, a circle where we can call in the gods, and what you speak 
of as a
sacred circle,  a ritual,  a theatre, a meditation etc.  I know you 
want a
name that reaches back. A good Greek word would be 'Temenos'. It 
means a
piece of land marked off as sacred,  consecrated to the gods and 
excluded
from profane use. Or what about 'Theatron' ( 'theatre' which means
literally 'seeing place'). Or what about 'Cyberdrama'.  No!  I 
don't know!
Maybe since you've got 'The Agora' maybe 'The Theatron' would be 
fitting.
What about 'Fabular Forum' or 'Forum for Fabulists' (ie 
fabulist:composers
of fables). Or 'Forum for Fabulari' Confabulate is a good word. The 
Oxford
says:  1.Converse, chat. 2.Psychol - to fabricate imaginary 
experiences as
a compensation for loss of memory!!!!  That would be about right 
for me
anyway.  What about 'Omnium Gatherum' which means 'strange mixture'
apparently. What about 'The Omphalos' which is the conical stone at
Delphi, the navel or centre of the earth'. A trifle too masculine 
perhaps.
All right, how about Mnemosyne - now there's a beautiful name (don't
forget to pronounce the E at the end, like Persephone) - 
Mnemosyne=Memory,
Mother of the Nine Muses, Patroness of all the Arts.  'Mnemosyne 
Theatron'
What better?  No, too theatrical <g>

 WL> Poems, the entering into roles of people long dead, the
 WL> invention of characters, the exploration of aspects of our
 WL> personality, the forming of friendships, the invitation of the
 WL> gods to enter. . .
Yes, use this in any  description of the area

WL> Is 'Theatre & Stage' on the right track?

? I think it is
                         Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:02 2000
Date: (3466)   Tue 3 May 94 22:34                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: New Message Areas
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 4688b3cc

I have been creating some new message areas in the Psybernet BBS.  
Ones
that are available for Full Subscribers.  I thought it would be 
good to
announce them here, and I am also seeking your responses and ideas. 
 When
we first started Psybernet  we had a rather large selection of 
message
areas, quite quickly they were amalgamated in the Psybernet Echo as a
result of our experience in them.

Now as we enter a new phase, with the introduction of areas for Full
Subscribers just how this goes will be of interest to watch.  I am 
really
hoping a lot will come from the users of the board, however I have 
made
one or two starts.

== The Agora ==
I found the word in Howard Rheingold's book on Virtual Communities. 
 It is
the Athenian citizen's market place and forum.  The Agora is the 
meeting
and market place and here there are the crossroads that go to other
places, to stick with the metaphor, the Inns and the temples, the 
homes
and the schools the theatres and the shops. It is in the The Agora 
that
people will be able to declare "I want to be in a PyberGroup that . 
. . "
There are a few that exist 'on paper' as it were.

== ZINE ==
I have started an area for those who would like to work on the 
Psybernet
Digest a Zine as they are known in cyberspace.

== Theatre & Stage ==
Two areas that I have spoken of in the anonymity thread to continue 
the
type of Psybernetting we began in the ALTERWORLD.

== Dream group ==


As people become Full Subscribers we will be able to meet with a more
clearly defined group in areas that are more specialised and more 
private.

I have put this message in the Psybernet Echo which now goes to two 
other
BBSes even tough it relates to the Psybernet BBS.  My thinking here 
is
that one of the most powerful things a sysop does is to lay out the 
plan
of a BBS.  How that is done will determine a lot of the nature of the
communication that occurs.  Well this is all new to me and I would 
be most
interested in the comments from others who have grappled with these
questions.  Also as we experiment here I can see that by discussing 
our
experiences here we are contributing to the knowledge of the 
psychological
qualities of cyberspace, what works, and what the principles are.

So please comment, and let us know your thoughts, feelings and 
overall
responses.


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3498)   Wed 4 May 94 23:55                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Re: PysberDigest
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f72e7da6
@REPLY: 3:770/270 536662e0

Good to see you here again, I will write a few replies as they come 
to
mind.  I have been thinking about all these matters too.

 MT>  I have been thinking (before Psybernet) about the idea of
 MT>  doing some sort of socio-gram where you send it out on the
 MT>  net, and people choose associations between words on a diagram
 MT>  (eg. GOD and RELIGION and DEATH as a trivial example.) This
 MT>  creates some sort of strength weighting between them and then


This is a true sociogram eh!  it measures the relationship between 
people
with respect to an idea.  Thus we form communities.  Your project 
would
assist people in forming them.

A result look this (simplified):

'freedom of enterprise'
a       b
                            c




x                      y        z
'to each according to need'


There are two communities here.  Round table and New Labour.


Moreno has said it all really, he used the term 'criterion' but I 
think
idea, meme, or information is also descriptive of what he had in 
mind.  I
wonder what people do form communities around?  Food, sport, 
interests. .
. Hmmmm ideas are probably way down the list.

I wonder what I am doing here?

Your friend

Pluto the dog.


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3501)   Wed 4 May 94 23:55                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Women's Conference
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 00b064c0

I am wanting to be pro-active here.  As I am working on the Psybernet
Digest I would like to have a good warm-up to the Women's 
Conference.  I
think it would be great if we have some discussion here about the 
fact
that we have this area for women users.  There are very few and 
little is
happening but we have made the start we have made and that is very
important.

I am also thinking that the public echos lend themselves more to 
*ideas*
and the PyberGroups that are in private lend themselves more to 
writing
about *experience*, we have certainly found this already on this 
board.

Here are some traditional correspondences:
Earth water === moist, heart, body === experience
Air fire === dry, head, thoughts, swords === ideas
>                                  ^^^^^

To RuFrom:
I am aware that you have been reading Adrienne Rich, and I thought I
might put the poem here we looked at on the CD and also a little 
about
her, this may be of interest and give you some encouragement to 
keep at
it, not just with ideas but perhaps looking towards a style that is
accessible to women.

BTW do you have anything on her writing on language?

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------


Rich, Adrienne, 1929
American poet; b. Baltimore. Her mature poetry, concerned largely 
with
feminist issues and the need for communication, includes _Diving 
into the
Wreck_ (1973) and _The Dream of a Common Language_ (1978). _Of 
Woman Born_
(1976) is a prose investigation of motherhood.


     I want this to be yours
  in the sense that if you find it and read it
     it will be there in you already
  and the leaflet then merely something
     to leave behind, a little leaf
  in the drawer of a sublet room.

 Leaflets [1971]


------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:06 2000
Date: (4689)   Sun 15 May 94  9:59                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Women's Conference
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 396
@MSGID: 3:770/270 ef0fe112
@REPLY: 3:770/270 00b064c0

Walter,


 WL> To RuFrom:
 WL> I am aware that you have been reading Adrienne Rich, and I 
thought I
 WL> might put the poem here we looked at on the CD and also a little
 WL> about her, this may be of interest and give you some 
encouragement to
 WL> keep at it, not just with ideas but perhaps looking towards a 
style
 WL> that is accessible to women.

 WL> BTW do you have anything on her writing on language?

There is her book, THE DREAM OF A COMMON LANGUAGE, which is a 
collection
of poems.
This is particularly relevant for me at the moment, in this medium.

It is about a woman's fierce desire to find a common language. And 
failing
that, to describe where she finds herself standing - speechless.
Adrienne Rich, I think, holds speech to be synonymous with existence.

"Only where there is language is there world."
                                            (The Demon Lover 1966)

I think the emphasis here is on DREAM.
The common language needs another to hear it.
Alone, one dreams of it.
One can only express a desire to enter dialogue, it cannot be done at
will.

I read a review of the book, I can't remember who by, she said 
something
along the lines of this, that the poems were about desire for 
totality of
living, openness of communication and trust, in the now, in the 
immediate,
in the real.

To quote Ellen Bass...

"When a woman speaks from her heart, when she grounds her words in 
the
experience she has lived, when she reads with the full faith that 
she will
be heard, understood, she is a wave coming to shore."

Most of the time, that is not the case for me, here.
I dream of a common language....


Ruby.



 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 396
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5052)   Thu 19 May 94 23:00                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: Women's Conference
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 66475b20
@REPLY: 3:770/270 ef0fe112

Hello Ruby,

Ah! pleased to come across this message, they have a habit of 
eluding me.
I hate the way Silver Xpress makes hundreds of little packets.  I 
want a
decent mail manager!  Where is it.  Who has one?  [excuse the aside.]

 RW> It is about a woman's fierce desire to find a common language.
 RW> And failing that, to describe where she finds herself standing
 RW> - speechless. Adrienne Rich, I think, holds speech to be
 RW> synonymous with existence.

 RW> "Only where there is language is there world."
 RW>                                             (The Demon Lover
 RW>                                             1966)

 RW> I think the emphasis here is on DREAM.
 RW> The common language needs another to hear it.
 RW> Alone, one dreams of it.
 RW> One can only express a desire to enter dialogue, it cannot be
 RW> done at will.

 RW> I read a review of the book, I can't remember who by, she said
 RW> something along the lines of this, that the poems were about
 RW> desire for totality of living, openness of communication and
 RW> trust, in the now, in the immediate, in the real.

 RW> To quote Ellen Bass...

 RW> "When a woman speaks from her heart, when she grounds her words
 RW> in the experience she has lived, when she reads with the full
 RW> faith that she will be heard, understood, she is a wave coming
 RW> to shore."

 RW> Most of the time, that is not the case for me, here.
 RW> I dream of a common language....

You do not have the faith that you will be heard.  Your waves are not
building to breaking point and crashing on the beach.  More of
frustration.  More dreaming of what might be.  More expression of the
desire, more frustrating partial fulfilment.  So many words and so 
few
that make the links you want.

As I try to hear you I feel the fear of being misunderstood.  I see
*ideas* leaping out of your message at me I could respond to those, 
but
you desire a response to you.

I'm not sure if Adrienne Rich has the gender gap in communications 
in mind
in her dream of a common language but I do.  I don't think it is any
wonder that you want women to come to the BBS and into the Women's
Conference.  Look at the whole style of the communication of all 
the women
in out household, imagine how different it would be if it was 4 men 
and
one women!


Words roll off a tongue
Search for an ear
fail & fade
regret birth
& leave a trail
of emptiness.


That is a sort of anti-prayer.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3493)   Wed 4 May 94 15:55                          
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logemann
Subject: PysberDigest
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 536662e0
FROM: Miles Thompson                Area # 3 (  PSYBERNET_ECHO  )
TO: Walter Logeman                May-4-94 3:31pm
Subject: Re: Sick Ideas



 WL>> What branch of what tree are we on?  Are we both on it?  Is
 WL>> Miles on it? Where is Moreno on it?  (He thought he was his own
 WL>> tree poor man, megolamaniak).
 I think I am probably on the literal side of a scientific type 
 sick sick sick tree. I'm taking all of the sick argument with a 
 grain of salt. 
 As a mathemetician, I begin to believe that you can clear away 
 associations, define your ground, and make progess in a totally 
artificial
 realm of your own imagination. OF course, this whole realm of the
 imagination is supposedly filled with the demons that have rushed in
 to help create it.
 But I think like PLATO that in fact the demon which it is grounded 
upon
 is a mystic kind of ULTIMATE truth. A mathematical truth that is 
completely
 and utterly undeniable. - not a religion BTW it doesn't contain 
much 
 meaningful life truths??? or perhaps it does contain some 
information
 . I don't believe what I just said I beleive very much anymore, 
but at 
 least perhaps that is the tree I'm coming from.
 USEFUL thoughts, thunkings that people appreciate often seem to 
come from
 people who SIMPLIFY things. (as Einstein said in one way or 
another).
 Maybe this is the tree where Moreno came from. He thought, 'OK its 
real
 complicated out there, so what we need do is RECOGNISE that...' 
(unlike the
 psychologists etc. who tried to understand the whole complex 
picture). 'and 
 concentrate on the few SIMPLE things that we really CAN do.' 
PERHAPS.


 WL>> What paintings and music will enhance this discussion, poems?.
 WL>> I'm more than happy to upload some graphics related to all of
 WL>> this.

 I've been thinking about this a lot too. Perhaps this would all go 
into the
 'psyberdigest'. BTW how about 'psyberlet' for a name (joke).
 There are heaps of poems, Your poem
 When ideas
 drive me crazy
 may someone
 with a warm heart
 offer me sanity and silence.

 had more of effect on me than I realised, cause I kept thinking 
about it
 as I drove around etc
 . Actually, what i was thinking was about the relation created 
between 
 people with a warm heart and those who yoou may probably not offer 
you
 sanity and silence....
 I have been thinking (before Psybernet) about the idea of doing 
some sort
 of socio-gram where you send it out on the net, and people choose 
 associations between words on a diagram (eg. GOD and RELIGION and 
DEATH
 as a trivial example.) This creates some sort of strength 
weighting between 
 them and then the computer calculates where to put the words on a 
page
 so that the distances between are minimised where there is a strong
 connection. - do you understand?
 It would be quite tricky to set up, because you would really want 
it to
 be reasonably graphical, perhaps it would be easier if it was a 
program that
 resided on Psybernet, and didn't move around - only a few 
entries/entrants 
 would create enough information to create a (possibly) interesting 
 diagram. And you could publish the best in the digest.




From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3507)   Thu 5 May 94  0:56                          
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5366e1b0
@REPLY: 3:770/270 cde4dcb2





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3500)   Wed 4 May 94 23:55                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 cde4dcb2

I had a thought I wanted to share with you.  I have a sense that the
writing we do here is axiomatic.  (must read Reg's paper in the 
Psybernet
Main Library).  We seem to be establishing some basics that define 
. . .
something.  Is it just that we are regurgitating Hillman and 
others?  No,
I think fate has got us here defining the very basics that are 
vital to
the success of Psybernetting.  We may not know what we are doing or 
where
we are going but some of the ground work is being layed.

Is that a bit grandiose?  Perhaps.  But I would hate to miss the 
process
of becoming conscious of it and naming it out of modesty.


love


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (3554)   Fri 6 May 94  0:09                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Re: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 1b8326f1
@REPLY: 3:770/270 5366e1b0

The Psybernet Motif (in the Main Library) is a William Morris 
designed
tapestry, which brings in a feel of an older era, and it is 
Romantic.  The
imagery there is of a tree and fruit, the power of nature.  Then 
the name
itself is a blend of ancient Greece and modern CyberEverything.  I 
have
named the area for Full Subscribers the Agora, now this is in line 
with
the Greek theme, and it has allusions to Howard Rheingold's use of 
the
word to carry the freedom and democracy theme.  His associations 
are with
the WELL, which has its roots in the 'Tools for a New Age' 
philosophy of
the Whole Earth Catalogue, quite an anarchistic sort of frontier
capitalism.

What I am getting at is that this board already carries its message 
in the
images we employ, I like the images but I am not so sure of the 
messages
that they connote.

I was moved to write all of the above after reading a passage in 
the novel
Snow Crash by  Neal Stephenson, 1992,  ROC.  In his future there are
DynaVictorian houses . . .

'Designed on a computer screen, but with an eye toward the elegance 
of
things past and forgotten about.'

DynaVictorian!

PyberGroup!

What am I doing?  Where does style come from, what is evolving 
here?  What
is the culture doing to us.  What are the roots of this tree we are 
on?

I can imagine some future historian, perhaps a CyberArchaeologist, 
saying:

'The early developments in cyberspace attempted to recreate the EDR 
in the
VR, too scared to leave the security  . . . blah blah.  '

Here are a few words that I think capture the medium:

Mirror mirror
Off the wall
You can see right
Through us all.



Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (4038)   Wed 11 May 94 19:18                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hi Walter


 WL> I had a thought I wanted to share with you.  I have a sense
 WL> that the writing we do here is axiomatic.  (must read Reg's
 WL> paper in the Psybernet Main Library).  We seem to be
 WL> establishing some basics that define . . . something.  Is it
 WL> just that we are regurgitating Hillman and others?  No, I think
 WL> fate has got us here defining the very basics that are vital to
 WL> the success of Psybernetting.  We may not know what we are
 WL> doing or where we are going but some of the ground work is
 WL> being layed.

I think you are right in saying what we are working out is 
axiomatic. But
I hadn't thought of it as defining the basics of Psybernetting. Do 
you
mean a sort of basic perspective? Nothing so tight as a philosophy 
- but
more like an outlook? Do you mean that the success of psybernetting 
is
more than just an vague discussion-forum of everything that could be
called psychological by today's very broad and rather vague 
standards -
that we are refining something that could be pertinent to the New
Frontier, the CyberCivilisation? Are we adding a viewpoint which 
has a
natural affinity to it?

 WL> Is that a bit grandiose?  Perhaps.  But I would hate to miss
 WL> the process of becoming conscious of it and naming it out of
 WL> modesty.

     Great, I've always admired your inclination to immodesty - or 
rather
your disinclination to sacrifice awareness on the cross of humility.
Ok, lets work it out. What is it? What we working out you have the
suspicion we may be regurgitating Hillman et al.  Maybe that's 
close to
it. But I can't imagine Hillman on Cybernet for one moment.
     Just a thought right here. You know, there is no doubt that we 
talk
about ideas, don't we? But in a very unique way I think. We are not 
really
into psychological theorising, are we? Not as it is known in our 
field. We
don't talk cases, do we? We don't even talk much about ourselves
personally - Oh we do, but that's not what you are getting at here.
     Would it be too much to say that what we are doing, or trying 
to do,
is a certain way of viewing culture in the very broad sense. Viewing
culture through the eyes of psyche. Maybe with the advent of 
machines, and
the view of the universe as a machine, psyche disappeared.  Maybe 
psyche
is enculturating herself again. Could it be that now *via* the 
machine
she is returning in a totally unexpected place. She is now demanding
something of us, demanding that I sit in front of the keyboard and 
screen
doing exactly what I am doing for *her* purposes. She is demanding 
that I
begin to fill the vacuum  created by 19th century machanics - not 
just by
having a new philosophy about the nature of machines - but through
machines themselves. Psyche always wants to EMBODY herself. We don't
project anima, she projects herself, embodies herself. We fall in 
love
with people she has embodied herself in. Now she is making us fall 
in love
in a new way. Maybe that's why most women aren't interested in 
computers
and cyberspace.  SHE IS AIMING AT US !!!  When I first got my 
computer I
knew she was a woman - you remember me joking about it: how 
DIFFICULT she
was!
          I don't know, Walter!! Too Grandiose? Yet one wouldn't 
want to
suffocate ideas like that just to be likeably modest, as you say.

               Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4042)   Wed 11 May 94 19:18                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter

 WL> The Psybernet Motif (in the Main Library) is a William Morris
 WL> designed tapestry, which brings in a feel of an older era, and
 WL> it is Romantic.  The imagery there is of a tree and fruit, the
 WL> power of nature.  Then the name itself is a blend of ancient
 WL> Greece and modern CyberEverything.  I have named the area for
 WL> Full Subscribers the Agora, now this is in line with the Greek
 WL> theme, and it has allusions to Howard Rheingold's use of the
 WL> word to carry the freedom and democracy theme.  His
 WL> associations are with the WELL, which has its roots in the
 WL> 'Tools for a New Age' philosophy of the Whole Earth Catalogue,
 WL> quite an anarchistic sort of frontier capitalism.

I do like that archaic resonances in all this - but then I would, 
wouldn't
I. Just to let everyone know: the Agora was not only the market place
where the peasants sold their wares but it was also the Assembly of 
the
People rather than the Assembly of the official council. It was 
adorned
with trees, temples and statues of the gods and including a statue of
Hermes Agoraios (of the Market Place). So my Oxford Companion tells 
me.

 WL> What I am getting at is that this board already carries its
 WL> message in the images we employ, I like the images but I am not
 WL> so sure of the messages that they connote.

Those images connote messages of connection, my friend - 'the 
elegance of
things past and forgotten about'.


 WL> Here are a few words that I think capture the medium:

 WL> Mirror mirror
 WL> Off the wall
 WL> You can see right
 WL> Through us all.

Get back on the bloody wall
And tell me:
Who is the most beautiful
Of them all?
                              Best Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4058)   Thu 12 May 94  0:42                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 54aac2c3

 SR> I think you are right in saying what we are working out is
 SR> axiomatic. But I hadn't thought of it as defining the basics of
 SR> Psybernetting. Do you mean a sort of basic perspective? Nothing
 SR> so tight as a philosophy - but more like an outlook?

Yes, I have called it an Ethos and even had a special area for it 
if you
recall.  Here is an experience I had on the weekend which is 
relevant.:

I was the originator of a community called Chippenham in the early 
70's.
Many people coalesced around just that word:  community, or commune 
in
those days.  I think that was possible because of the hype around 
about
the counter culture, hype & hope.  We managed to set up a community 
in
three places an old Christchurch homestead, Chippenham, a house 
next door
Mansfield, and a farm Gricklegrass in Oxford.  To facilitate the 
purchase
of property we wet up an incorporated society, that was an un=hippy 
thing
to do, even though we had a  newsletter for a while it was not 
enshrined
like the constitution of 'Community Assistance Incorporated'

The community has continued on through thick and thin, largely 
around the
physical existence of the houses, which have cheap rental. However 
there
is not enough money around now to keep up the maintenance!  In the 
crisis
some of us originators have gathered around to se if we can help.  
To my
shock they have actually changed the constitution, making it more 
like a
manifesto for the provision of cheap housing.  The original one had
nothing like that in it.  It was blatantly a legal entity to assist
communities.

This has made me regret that I did not write a manifesto for the 
community
itself.  At present they people struggling there have nothing to 
turn to
apart from the now quite useless constitution.  The houses are 
derelict
and not about to attract people who would want to live there, the
philosophy of community is non-existent, so the thing is about dead.

No wonder the Bible is so important, and the American Constitution.
Community hangs around ideas.  Even if the idea is association and
affiliation then that is an idea that needs to be enshrined, for the
community to exist.

The Chippenham ethos is lost and so the community is struggling.  I 
am
assisting by attempting to define the ethos this time on paper (and 
disk)
and that will my bit for the group that was so important for me.

 SR> Do you
 SR> mean that the success of psybernetting is more than just an
 SR> vague discussion-forum of everything that could be called
 SR> psychological by today's very broad and rather vague standards
 SR> - that we are refining something that could be pertinent to the
 SR> New Frontier, the CyberCivilisation? Are we adding a viewpoint
 SR> which has a natural affinity to it?

Yes, I am realising that as I bring in subscriptions on this BBS it 
brings
with it something of belonging and community, citizenship.  But 
what is
the community about?  If it went the Chippenham way it would be about
'cheap communications' rather than something more at the core.

We are evolving the ethos within the context of the medium, that 
dictates
to us.  However it appears that part of *our* ethos is to know which
branch of the tree we are on.  It is a BBS that knows it is a 
medium, that
has its roots in psychotherapy and that it carries with it the 
whole of
that tradition.  As well as that we are *doing* a form of group
psychotherapy, and thus we must look back at that tradition.  We 
are doing
something new however and thus creating new ways of doing 
psychotherapy
and group psychotherapy, primarily in this medium but also outside 
of it.
Much in the way that any ethos will affect how many things are done.

It was the word Frontier that I had doubts about, with the 
connotations of
the American dream, rugged individualism.  With the Greek 
connotations I
am also unsure  . . . perhaps I am unsure with whatever words we 
use, they
will always bring with them their past and their shadow, the unknown.
Every word is a Trojan horse.

 WL>> Is that a bit grandiose?  Perhaps.  But I would hate to miss
 WL>> the process of becoming conscious of it and naming it out of
 WL>> modesty.

 SR> Great, I've always admired your inclination to immodesty -
 SR> or rather your disinclination to sacrifice awareness on
 SR> the cross of humility.

Immodesty is another way to go I suppose.  Often ideas are 
abbreviated by
the name of a founder:  Freudian, Marxist, Jungian.

I definitely think that this board has a touch of Jungian, and 
Moranian,
and Marxist, definitely a touch of Hillman.  Is it Richardsonian,
Logamanian and Smithian?  Not really.  And not such a good idea <g> 
even
if it was I like the notion of Psybernet Ethos, that is enough.

 SR> Ok, lets work it out. What is it?
 SR> What we working out you have the suspicion we may be
 SR> regurgitating Hillman et al.  Maybe that's close to it.
 SR> But I can't imagine Hillman on Cybernet for one moment.

I could but he is a bit sexist!

 SR> Just a thought right here. You know, there is no doubt
 SR> that we talk about ideas, don't we? But in a very unique
 SR> way I think. We are not really into psychological
 SR> theorising, are we? Not as it is known in our field. We
 SR> don't talk cases, do we? We don't even talk much about
 SR> ourselves personally - Oh we do, but that's not what you
 SR> are getting at here.

Well, we carry the THERAPIST Echo and that is for the discussion of 
cases.
It has a place on the board I think.  One of the difficulties there 
is
that there are NLP practitioners, Gestalt and so on, and we don't 
really
get a lot out of cross disciple discussions.  We would look at 
cases in a
Psybernet way!

PyberGroups are much more for the discussion of personal matters.  
Perhaps
the axiomatic work we are doing will lay the groundwork for 
practice in
that area.  The few groups we have had, with the few participants 
have
indicated that there is potential in this area.

 SR> Would it be too much to say that what
 SR> we are doing, or trying to do, is a certain way of viewing
 SR> culture in the very broad sense. Viewing culture through
 SR> the eyes of psyche. Maybe with the advent of machines, and
 SR> the view of the universe as a machine, psyche disappeared.
 SR> Maybe psyche is enculturating herself again. Could it be
 SR> that now *via* the machine she is returning in a totally
 SR> unexpected place. She is now demanding something of us,
 SR> demanding that I sit in front of the keyboard and screen
 SR> doing exactly what I am doing for *her* purposes. She is
 SR> demanding that I begin to fill the vacuum  created by 19th
 SR> century machanics - not just by having a new philosophy
 SR> about the nature of machines - but through machines
 SR> themselves. Psyche always wants to EMBODY herself. We
 SR> don't project anima, she projects herself, embodies
 SR> herself. We fall in love with people she has embodied
 SR> herself in. Now she is making us fall in love in a new
 SR> way.

That sums up the Psybernet Ethos for me Stanley.  Now all we need 
to do is
enshrine it.  Find a form for it.  Psybernet Digest will be one no 
doubt.

I'll conclude with a quote from Snow Crash:

>> ' . . .--- is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?'  Juanita shrugs.
>> 'What's the difference?'


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:10 2000
Date: (6266)   Thu 26 May 94 20:34                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Hello Walter


 WL> No wonder the Bible is so important, and the American
 WL> Constitution. Community hangs around ideas.  Even if the idea
 WL> is association and affiliation then that is an idea that needs
 WL> to be enshrined, for the community to exist.

 WL> The Chippenham ethos is lost and so the community is
 WL> struggling.  I am assisting by attempting to define the ethos
 WL> this time on paper (and disk) and that will my bit for the
 WL> group that was so important for me.

 WL> We are evolving the ethos within the context of the medium,
 WL> that dictates to us.  However it appears that part of *our*
 WL> ethos is to know which branch of the tree we are on.  It is a
 WL> BBS that knows it is a medium, that has its roots in
 WL> psychotherapy and that it carries with it the whole of that
 WL> tradition.

This is very interesting and difficult. Staying with the analogy of 
the
tree - today there are so many vines clinging to that tree that it is
difficult for many people to tell which is tree and which is eclectic
super-growth. Today 'psychology' is too many things. It's 
everything to
everybody. It's everything from behaviourism to Louise Hay; 
everything
from Reality Therapy to Astral Counselling.

I don't know, and I'm sure most people are unsure, whether 
psychology is a
specific tree or a whole forest of amorphous growth. It almost 
seems not
enough to be just psychological. It means too much. Certainly our 
whole
tradition is important. But our *VIEW* of that tradition is crucial.
That's what really says what tree we are on, what our ethos really 
is.

 WL> It was the word Frontier that I had doubts about, with the
 WL> connotations of the American dream, rugged individualism.  With
 WL> the Greek connotations I am also unsure  . . . perhaps I am
 WL> unsure with whatever words we use, they will always bring with
 WL> them their past and their shadow, the unknown. Every word is a
 WL> Trojan horse.

Every word is a Trojan Horse. How very true! That's because 
everything has
its shadow, as you say. It's not a question of finding an ethos 
without a
shadow, but of choosing *which* shadow is less obnoxious.


 WL> Immodesty is another way to go I suppose.  Often ideas are
 WL> abbreviated by the name of a founder:  Freudian, Marxist,
 WL> Jungian.
 WL> I definitely think that this board has a touch of Jungian, and
 WL> Moranian, and Marxist, definitely a touch of Hillman.  Is it
 WL> Richardsonian, Logamanian and Smithian?  Not really.  And not
 WL> such a good idea <g> even if it was I like the notion of
 WL> Psybernet Ethos, that is enough.

Yes, I guess that is enough. Does that really mean that you can't 
make a
Manifesto. All you can do is do the work?  Maybe the work is the
manifesto.

                    Best,
                              Stanley

--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:11 2000
Date: (6329)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Node, branch, leaf.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 375da8ec

 WL>> I think that this BBS is a touch Jungian, and
 WL>> Moranian, and Marxist, with definitely a touch of Hillman.  
Is it
 WL>> Richardsonian, Logamanian and Smithian?  Not really.  And not
 WL>> such a good idea <g> even if it was.  I like the notion of
 WL>> Psybernet Ethos, that is enough.

 SR> Yes, I guess that is enough. Does that really mean that you
 SR> can't make a Manifesto. All you can do is do the work?  Maybe
 SR> the work is the manifesto.

Yes and so having the Psybernet Digest out there is a better way of 
saying
what we are than the brochure.  However that means we loose some
consciusness where we are on the tree and thus we become 'sick' in 
that
way, we become doers, getting on with the job.


wout there is a better way of saying what we are than the brochure.
However that means we loose some consciusness where we are on the 
tree and
thus we become 'sick' in that way, we become doers, getting on with 
the
job.


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3508)   Thu 5 May 94  0:58                          
From: Miles Thompson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: PsyberDigest
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5366e22a


 MT>>  I have been thinking (before Psybernet) about the idea of
 MT>>  doing some sort of socio-gram where you send it out on the
 MT>>  net, and people choose associations between words on a diagram
 MT>>  (eg. GOD and RELIGION and DEATH as a trivial example.) This
 MT>>  creates some sort of strength weighting between them and then
 
 WL>This is a true sociogram eh!  it measures the relationship 
between people
 WL>with respect to an idea.  Thus we form communities.  Your 
project would
 WL>assist people in forming them

I was actually thinking of a diagram in which ideas are related to 
each other
but not with respect to an idea - except vaguely formed in my head, 
"their relatedness". My thought was that there would have to be a 
good 
warm up paragraph on the top of the questionaire sheet to define 
what 
this was intended (vaguely) to mean. "Warm up" was the word in my 
brain 
incidentally. I see now that there are many more possibilities than
ideas relatedness in the sense, of how closely they are 
interlinked, and
share ideas (from their historical trees I guess!!). I had thought
that I would do this questionaire in my sociology research methods
course (but they didn't let us do anything as fun/challenging as 
that) and
give it to the Maths lecturers at canterbury with all the different 
areas
of mathematical endeavour, such as Calculus, Chaos theory, Measure 
theory,
Theory of groups, whatever whatever. (Now it is easier to see what 
was 
intended by "related" as a concept).
After each reply, I would redraw the questionaire - this is where 
the idea of using a computer comes in - to best represent 
the relatedness of the various subjects as given by the 
lecturers/respondents 
so far, so that it would begin to converge to a single plan of Maths
as an endeavour, (and make more and more sense what the intended 
question 
really is). 
You would also want to allow room for various words  
eg. "FRACTALS" as seperate from "CHAOS" to be dropped or added.

That is, it would produce a sort of mass-produced MIND-MAP of the 
field 
of Maths, that I could then use in my studies.
But which also (if done properly) may be of interest in say a 
mathematical
journal. and then you could publish one in the journals of every 
field of
every subject of every planet of everything. Or in the Psyber Digest
You SEE, its a world shatteringly brilliant idea....

It could show where different things may be of use combining 
- both when things seem too far apart and when they seem, by 
proximity
to others, to be closer than you would have expected. This seems
to relate to the ideas grow on trees/sick ideas debate.
 
 
 
 WL>Moreno has said it all really, he used the term 'criterion' but 
I think
 WL>idea, meme, or information is also descriptive of what he had 
in mind.  I
 WL>wonder what people do form communities around?  Food, sport, 
interests. .
 WL>More(Y/n/=)?. Hmmmm ideas are probably way down the list.

You demonstrate that there are wider ways of doing this than just on
the criterion of "relatedness". Such as in the field of politics...
-definitely a winner subject for these things- you could relate
things around the criterion of say "How much these different parties
are or should be political allies" set out so that you could 
understannd 
it.

 I wonder what I am doing here?

Your friend Plato the Cat dude.






From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:03 2000
Date: (3496)   Wed 4 May 94 23:48                          
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: All
Subject: The Risk of Life.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 385
@MSGID: 3:770/270 e43bf56e
@REPLY: 3:770/270 dd014b07

 SR>> But you know, a place of safety always brings with it
 SR>> danger, just as trust always is accompanied by betrayal. 
Where love
 SR>> and trust is, betrayal is always waiting in the wings. And sure
 SR>> enough, somebody will oblige.


And when the sun rises we are afraid
it might not remain
when the sun sets we are afraid
it might not rise in the morning
when our stomachs are full we are afraid
of indigestion
when our stomachs are empty we are afraid
we may never eat again
when we are loved we are afraid
love will vanish
when we are alone we are afraid
love will never return
and when we speak we are afraid
our words will not be heard
nor welcomed
but when we are silent
we are still afraid.

So it is better to speak
remembering
we were never meant to survive.

                             Audre Lorde
                             from "A Litany For Survival"
                             pp 31-32.

Ruby.


 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 385
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:05 2000
Date: (4043)   Wed 11 May 94 19:18                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Re: The Risk of Life.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Ruby

 SR>>> But you know, a place of safety always brings with it
 SR>>> danger, just as trust always is accompanied by betrayal. 
Where love
 SR>>> and trust is, betrayal is always waiting in the wings. And 
sure
 SR>>> enough, somebody will oblige.


 RW> And when the sun rises we are afraid
 RW> it might not remain
 RW> when the sun sets we are afraid
 RW> it might not rise in the morning
 RW> when our stomachs are full we are afraid
 RW> of indigestion
 RW> when our stomachs are empty we are afraid
 RW> we may never eat again
 RW> when we are loved we are afraid
 RW> love will vanish
 RW> when we are alone we are afraid
 RW> love will never return
 RW> and when we speak we are afraid
 RW> our words will not be heard
 RW> nor welcomed
 RW> but when we are silent
 RW> we are still afraid.

 RW> So it is better to speak
 RW> remembering
 RW> we were never meant to survive.

 RW>                              Audre Lorde
 RW>                              from "A Litany For Survival"
 So it is better to speak
 remembering
 we were never meant to survive.

A hard thing to remember when we are afraid.
A lovely poem Ruby. It makes me realise just how much I am afraid.

                         Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (3551)   Fri 6 May 94  0:09                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Miles Thompson
Subject: Sociometry
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 5a76ddd1
@REPLY: 3:770/270 5366e22a

 MT>  I've been busy with tests and life and things.

And that's OK?

Ahah. Have I got you right? You are wanting to make a map of the 
tree of
ideas within the discipline of maths.  While this a somewhat 
subjective
thing, it would somehow gain objectivity if it was the composite of 
the
picture of many people.

 MT> That is, it would produce a sort of mass-produced MIND-MAP of
 MT> the field of Maths, that I could then use in my studies.

 MT> It could show where different things may be of use combining
 MT> - both when things seem too far apart and when they seem, by
 MT> proximity to others, to be closer than you would have expected.
 MT> This seems to relate to the ideas grow on trees/sick ideas
 MT> debate.

It sure does, I am not so sure of the mass produced side of it.  
This is a
bit like voting for which is the best TV show.  I'd probably not 
like it.
I would like to see the tree that someone did who was good at
comprehending the field.  Even then how you construct the tree 
depends on
which bit of the tree you are on!

I saw one that placed Moreno in the Humanist branch.  Now, he is 
difficult
to categorise but I would prefer to acknowledge his theological
contribution.  'God is Dead', and now he enters via the psychodrama 
stage.
That is hardly humanist.

I like to think that I am 
Neo-Pagan-Exisentialist-Humanist-Techno-Zen.  In
other words lost!

Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (3968)   Sun 8 May 94 23:42                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Godnet
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 f8b36214

Hi all,

I have uploaded the text of an article I liked in WiReD.

The writer quite rightly sees a continuum from cave drawings to the
Internet.

The interesting thing is how the whole church can be seen as 
vwhicle for
info.  Social structure determined by the info that passes through 
it.

See I_F201.txt  Stands for Idees Forte, which is a department in 
the Mag.
The file has several other articles but I downloaded it from WiReD 
for
this one:

WIRED 2.01

Idees Fortes
************

New Mediaeval Aesthetic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Learning from the Nerds of the Middle Ages

By Rebecca E. Zorach

Here is one quote:

>> The  digital   world  has  been  likened  to  the  American
>> frontier, but  the anarchical  Dark Ages,  full of  worries
>> over the  relationship of  body and  soul, seem  perhaps an
>> even more  apt comparison. In America in the '90s, glimmers
>> of the  medieval past  abound, about which we might rightly
>> be ambivalent: neo-Gothic fashions, New Age mysticism, neo-
>> tribalism, and  the fall  of empires,  to name  a  few.  So
>> although  the   creative  possibilities  are  legion,  some
>> caution seems  advisable. The  monks connection to "GodNet"
>> was a  two-way street.  Monks were free to pursue knowledge
>> and literary  creation without  profit motives because they
>> were supported by the corporate structure of the Church.


I hope someone enjoys the idea of godnet as much as me!

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4772)   Mon 16 May 94 20:35                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Godnet
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear Walter,


 WL> I have uploaded the text of an article I liked in WiReD.


 WL> See I_F201.txt  Stands for Idees Forte, which is a department
 WL> in the Mag. The file has several other articles but I
 WL> downloaded it from WiReD for this one:

 WL> WIRED 2.01

 WL> Idees Fortes
 WL> ************

Thanks Walter, I will DL this one.

 WL> New Mediaeval Aesthetic
 WL> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 WL> Learning from the Nerds of the Middle Ages

 WL> By Rebecca E. Zorach

 WL> I hope someone enjoys the idea of godnet as much as me!

This was the article in one of the WIREDs you loaned me. I was 
going to
get it copied. But confined to home for a while, never got round to 
it. So
am really please I can have it. Thanks a lot, I can certainly 
recommend to
all our circle.

          Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:04 2000
Date: (3969)   Sun 8 May 94 23:42                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Between the lines.
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 961a66dc


I am reading:  Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_, 1992, ROC.

One character, Juanita, designed the faces for VR, so that the 
'vapour of
nuance' of body language could be captured in cyberspace.

I am loving the book even though I think he is perpetuating a common
misconception about words.  Made me think about :-) and <g>, we add 
the
emoticons to tone _down_ the power of the words!

The 'vapour of nuance' comes through between the lines.  The space 
between
the lines is a mirror and a peep hole, and we never know exactly if 
we see
the other person or a reflection of ourselves.

Two new articles I have put in the Main Library from WiReD are on 
this
theme of the power of text.

WIRED 1.2  Hot New Medium: Text    By Paul Saffo
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WIRED 2.04  ASCII Is Too Intimate  By Mike Godwin
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This one I found summed up my ideas quite well <g>.

Both these articles are in among some others in the respective Idees
Fortes files, named I_F###.txt in the Psybernet Main Library.


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4773)   Mon 16 May 94 20:35                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Between the lines.
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1
 WL> Hi All


 WL> I am reading:  Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_, 1992, ROC.

 WL> One character, Juanita, designed the faces for VR, so that the
 WL> 'vapour of nuance' of body language could be captured in
 WL> cyberspace.

Snow Crash - is it a novel, Walter?

 WL> I am loving the book even though I think he is perpetuating a
 WL> common misconception about words.  Made me think about :-) and
<g>>, we add the emoticons to tone _down_ the power of the words!

Now there a thing: - the emoticons to TONE DOWN the power of words. 
What I
think they do is UNsubtle nuances. They DEvapourise nuances and 
turn them
into cliches.


 WL> The 'vapour of nuance' comes through between the lines.  The
 WL> space between the lines is a mirror and a peep hole, and we
 WL> never know exactly if we see the other person or a reflection
 WL> of ourselves.

Yes, that's right. One should write with the 'vapour of nuances' in 
mind.
A vapour is like a scent. I remember a French novel I read when I was
young by someone called Huysmans (not sure of the spelling) called 'A
Rabours' (not sure of the French). Anyway it was in the 
artistic-aesthete
art-for-arts-sake school, somewhat like Oscar Wilde  - all the rage 
on the
continent, too, at that time among the super-effete intellectuals. 
Anyway,
the hero, if you can call him such by a stretch of the imagination, 
had a
Scent Organ. Each note on this organ release a certain perfume. He 
would
sit it for hours trying different 'chords' and different 'melodies'.
     Words have a sensuous aesthetic quality too. But we tend to 
overlook
this, being too intent on communicating. We should learn to taste our
writing; you know, like those wine-tasters. If we were word-tasters 
we
could  sip  a sentence we have just written, close our eyes and say,
'Ahhh, what a beautiful bouquet, just a wee bit over-fleshy. But 
what a
divine EXIT it has as it slips down into the mind!  Yes, slightly 
Chateaux
Flaubert 1852. Only slightly mind!'


 WL> Two new articles I have put in the Main Library from WiReD are
 WL> on this theme of the power of text.

 WL> WIRED 1.2  Hot New Medium: Text    By Paul Saffo
 WL>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 WL> WIRED 2.04  ASCII Is Too Intimate  By Mike Godwin
 WL>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 WL> This one I found summed up my ideas quite well <g>.

There you go <g>ing again - blowing the vapours!

 WL> Both these articles are in among some others in the respective
 WL> Idees Fortes files, named I_F###.txt in the Psybernet Main
 WL> Library.

Great, I'll have them. That one  'Economy txt' I've read twice. 
What a
fantastically lively writer. Quite blows my mind.
I think it's wonderful being able to DL all this stuff. Very 
Exciting.

                    Best Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4707)   Sun 15 May 94 23:08                         
From: Rick Nolan
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: test
St: Rcvd
@MSGID: 3:770/105 2dd6ab7a
@REPLY: 3:770/270 4396fc1d

 WL> Could you please let me know if you got this from somewhere 
other
 WL> than The Psybernet BBS, thanks


Got it here perfectly :-)

Regards
Rick

--- GoldED 2.42.G1114
 * Origin: What's the Point? Christchurch N.Z. (3:770/105)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:07 2000
Date: (4706)   Sun 15 May 94 23:00                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: test
St: Local Sent
@MSGID: 3:770/270@fidonet 4396fc1d
@PID: FM 2.11.SW UNREG


Walter

---
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS (64-3-365-6878) V32B V42B ChCh New Zealand 
(3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5033)   Thu 19 May 94  2:12                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Talk at the psychological Forum
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 326cda9e

I am up here at Mt Lyford, with the main task on my mind of 
preparing for
my talk called 'The War between Gods and Humans'  For some reason I 
can
write messages till I ache, but I hate writing a 'paper'.  I will 
though.
Most of what I want to say I have said here and comes from the 
discussions
here in 'Anonymity' and 'Sick Ideas' thread, and I will draw 
heavily on
that but put it into a coherent structure.  I'll upload my drafts as
WBGAH01.txt  02 03 etc.  any feed back as I go welcome, I am quite
nervous!.

One file I found vaguely relevant was :

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------
>>
>> The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> ISSN 1068-5723             February 28, 1994 Volume 2 Issue 1
>>                                                    HARRIS V2N1
>>
>> THE PSYCHODYNAMIC EFFECTS OF VIRTUAL REALITY
>>
>>
>> Leslie D. Harris
>> Susquehanna University
>> lharris@einstein.susqu.edu
>>
>>
>> ABSTRACT
>>
>> This article explores the potential effects of virtual reality on
>> our subsequent experiences of the world.  If, as Daniel Dennet,
>> Jerome Bruner, and others have argued, our past experiences in-
>> fluence subsequent perceptions of the world, then VR experiences
>> can have a profound effect on our conscious beings.  Those expe-
>> riences can become part of a perceptual and an emotional back-
>> ground that changes the way we see things.  At its best, virtual
>> reality can allow us to transcend our limitations, to expand our
>> emotional lives.  At its worst, VR can become a form of torture,
>> in which we subject ourselves to traumatic experiences that scar
>> our emotional and perceptual lives.
>>
>>
------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------

Now what is that to do with the gods and Humans?

Broadly speaking Gods exist in an imaginal world, in the virtual 
world
created by story and myth.  A world of words suspended in a 
relationship.
that is a VR.  That is psychotherapy.  Harris is exploring the 
connection
with that world and EDR.  (S)he notes that the VR has profound 
effect upon
the EDR, as therapists we know that already, nothing in EDR is as 
life
changing as the experiences in VR!

The war I am interested in is how these two worlds compete.  Why 
does she
look on the effects of VR on EDR?  Why not EDR upon VR?  Religions 
might
do that,  They might say, don't do this or that in EDR because it 
has a
bad effect on the spiritual life.
Therapies usually take the side of the humans.  They look to see 
how the
work will enhance the 'functioning' of the client.  The crisis of 
pain &
suffering can also be welcomed as an enforced soulfulness.  In more 
old
fashioned language the crisis can even be seen as a punishment for 
the sin
of neglecting the gods.

Am I making sense?  You see how this makes for a RADICALLY different
therapy?  Even if it is impossible or not desirable to get the 
client to
have this point of view, it transforms me as a therapist to think 
like
this, and transforms the therapy.  It finally makes sense of why I 
hated
all that 'functional' dysfunctional' I got fed in social work and
particularly in psychodrama training.

In a supervision recently a supervisee asked:  Would it be better 
to help
her cope or to look at the roots of the pain?  My answer was to let 
the
'therapy' (i was thinking Gods) answer that question.  Listen to the
therapy process.

Is this interesting?  I hope so that is the theme of my talk.


bye for now


Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5034)   Thu 19 May 94 10:33                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Talk at the psychological Forum
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 400
@MSGID: 3:770/270 03a28bb0
@REPLY: 3:770/270 326cda9e

Hi Walter,

 WL> I am up here at Mt Lyford, with the main task on my mind of 
preparing
 WL> for my talk called 'The War between Gods and Humans'

I'm looking forward to it.
When is it?

 WL> Broadly speaking Gods exist in an imaginal world, in the virtual
 WL> world created by story and myth.  A world of words suspended 
in a
 WL> relationship. that is a VR.  That is psychotherapy.  Harris is
 WL> exploring the connection with that world and EDR.  (S)he notes 
that
 WL> the VR has profound effect upon the EDR, as therapists we know 
that
 WL> already, nothing in EDR is as life changing as the experiences 
in VR!

I was tidying last night and came across some scribbled notes from 
a Jean
Houston Workshop I took part in last year...a small sentence caught 
my eye
- " The Greeks saw Gods.
    What do we see?
    Flying saucers?"

I remember that she talked about whatever 'was there', coming through
somehow. That there once were 10 dimensions, that 7 collapsed and 
left in
their place all the black matter in the universe. Her question - what
resides there? There is some different frequency domain that gives us
access to these alternative worlds, and the line between them gets 
very
very thin.
That we fill in what we cannot see with imagination and dreaming, 
yearning
to find a truer deeper richer image, and it is from this that 
creativity
is born.

I don't understand this, but some quantum physicist out there 
might, and
if they do, can they translate for me....

...the archetypal reality has geopsychic space.

Another thing she spoke of (I'm referring to my notes now), and you 
may
like this Walter - "the imaginal worlds hold the seeds of what 
emerges."

She spoke also of the 'enfolded order' and the 'unfolded order', that
within these the archetypes (the patterns of possible unfolding) 
waited
for our alliance with human consciousness.
To lose our boundaries, our margins, increases our ability to tap 
into the
mind of the universe, into the IMPLICATE ORDER. I guess the extreme 
of
this is schizophrenia, a thin membrane to the potential of reality.

Oooooh, the membranes are thinning! Scary stuff! <G>
But they are, they are...

 WL> Is this interesting?

Yes! Your talk will be immensly interesting.
I got off the track a little didn't I, but its ALL interesting.
The Jean Houston stuff FASCINATES me. That imagination shows what 
is real
but invisible, locked away in other worlds and desparate to get 
through.
This has been discussed here before, hasn't it?

Why do you think it needs to get through?
Why do the gods need *us*?

 WL> bye for now

byeeeeeeeeeee! <G>


Ruby.

PS. You were pleased to get your pack back. <G> <G> <G>.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 400
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:14 2000
Date: (7876)   Tue 31 May 94 14:32                         
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Talk at the psychological Forum
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1


 WL> Broadly speaking Gods exist in an imaginal world, in the
 WL> virtual world created by story and myth.  A world of words
 WL> suspended in a relationship. that is a VR.  That is
 WL> psychotherapy.  Harris is exploring the connection with that
 WL> world and EDR.  (S)he notes that the VR has profound effect
 WL> upon the EDR, as therapists we know that already, nothing in
 WL> EDR is as life changing as the experiences in VR!

It is very useful to contrast these two worlds: VR and EDR - up to a
point. But the difficulty I encounter is that these terms tend to be
'hold-alls'. To distinguish them too drastically blurs their 
similarities.
The so-called EDR is full of gods. Without the imagination there 
would be
no EDR. In fact, you could say that EDR is just a rather persistent 
and
dulled form of VR.

 WL> The war I am interested in is how these two worlds compete.

Perhaps the war is between two forms of VR. Could you call EDR  
'ossified
VR' -  myths that have condensed themselves into the literal (real) 
world.
What we should is  do is un-ossify them so that we find the gold 
hidden
there - much like the alchemists took 'massa confusa', 'prima 
materia',
and heated it up in the vessel so that it would yield up its 
fantasies. We
are heating up EDR in these discussion to reveal the VR hidden 
there. The
competition we experience between these two worlds is the 
resistance of
matter to yield up the ghost.

 WL> Why does she look on the effects of VR on EDR?  Why not EDR
 WL> upon VR?  Religions might do that,  They might say, don't do
 WL> this or that in EDR because it has a bad effect on the
 WL> spiritual life.

Yes, they do interact and have an effect on each other because they 
are
basically ontologically equal.

WL>Therapies usually take the side of the humans.
 WL> They look to see how the work will enhance the 'functioning' of
 WL> the client.

You mean they work so that the fluidity of VR doesn't bugger up the
ossified fantasies of EDR.

WL> The crisis of pain & suffering can also be
 WL> welcomed as an enforced soulfulness.  In more old fashioned
 WL> language the crisis can even be seen as a punishment for the
 WL> sin of neglecting the gods.

Yes, that's the 'return of the repressed', buggering up the ossified
fantasies of EDR.

 WL> Am I making sense?

Admirably so!

WL> You see how this makes for a RADICALLY  different therapy?  
Even if it
WL> is impossible or not desirable
 WL> to get the client to have this point of view, it transforms me
 WL> as a therapist to think like this, and transforms the therapy.

And in transforming you it cannot help but transform the client. 
Even 'via
negativa' - because of the things you DON'T do.

 WL> It finally makes sense of why I hated all that 'functional'
 WL> dysfunctional' I got fed in social work and particularly in
 WL> psychodrama training.

Absolute sense.

 WL> In a supervision recently a supervisee asked:  Would it be
 WL> better to help her cope or to look at the roots of the pain?
 WL> My answer was to let the 'therapy' (i was thinking Gods) answer
 WL> that question.  Listen to the therapy process.

Marvellous!

 WL> Is this interesting?  I hope so that is the theme of my talk.

Yes, and it was a great talk Walter. I'm thinking of following up 
your
theme in my July talk at the same venue.

                    Best,
                              Stanley


--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:15 2000
Date: (8469)   Wed 1 Jun 94  2:48                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: Re: Talk at the psychological Forum
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 e04a6512

Dear Stanley,

The hub of our little rub is getting more crisply defined.  I have 
replied
to a message tonight [see 'anonymity' with a time (in the message) 
several
hours before this one], on this theme, though I gladly circle 
around it
here again, tuning more finely.

 SR> The so-called EDR is full of gods.
 SR> Without the imagination there would be no EDR. In fact, you
 SR> could say that EDR is just a rather persistent and dulled form
 SR> of VR.

Yes.

AND,

Without EDR there would be no imagination!

I don't think you are looking at Bishop Berkeley's trees when on 
one is
looking. <1>  It requires imagination to make sense of something, 
not to
make it exist.  The world is always perceived via an archetypal
perspective.  It is the world that has an impact on that 
perspective.  The
medium is the message if you like.

 SR> Yes, they do interact and have an effect on each other

Yes.

 SR> because they are basically ontologically equal.

No. One is the mother of the other.  Ontologically.

 WL>> Therapies usually take the side of the humans.
 WL>> They look to see how the work will enhance the 'functioning' of
 WL>> the client.

 SR> You mean they work so that the fluidity of VR doesn't bugger up
 SR> the ossified fantasies of EDR.

Yes.  Because those fantasies reflect the ideology of the ruling 
class.
(Class as defined by the relationship to the means of power -- to 
add a
Logemanian twist).  Fantasies do not crystallise into conserved 
continents
of ideas willy-nilly.  The geography of ideas is built on the 
systems (As
Miles put it, -- systems -- not individuals) that host them.  There 
is a
symbiosis between the fantasies (message, idea, imagination, 
archetype,
god) and the EDR (World, medium, host system, humans).

 SR> Yes, that's the 'return of the repressed', buggering up the
 SR> ossified fantasies of EDR.

Now we are in agreement again, though I hope the excursion chasing 
the
difference is almost zeroed in on, we will soon catch the sprite.

 SR> Yes, and it was a great talk Walter. I'm thinking of following
 SR> up your theme in my July talk at the same venue.

Thanks, I found it a difficult business.  I'll certainly be at yours.



Walter

<1> For some notes on Berekely see my footnote in a message called 
<1>.  I
am quoting him not because I have any affinity with his views, we 
are not
even on his tree! (well branch).  However, I post the notes just 
for the
fun of comparing trees.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:18 2000
Date: (9988)   Tue 7 Jun 94  0:54                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Talk at the psychological Forum
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

 WL> Without EDR there would be no imagination!

 WL>  It requires imagination to make sense
 WL> of something, not to make it exist.

But 'to make sense' IS to exist.
  Existere = to stand out.
 Existence has no sense unless it makes sense.

 SR>> Yes, they ( reality and imagination) do interact and have an 
effect
on each other

 WL> Yes.

 SR>> because they are basically ontologically equal.

 WL> No. One is the mother of the other.  Ontologically.


Ahhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!  Now there's the rub.  Imagination is 'contingent
being' as they would have said in the Middle Ages when ontology was 
all
the rage!

 WL>>> Therapies usually take the side of the humans.
 WL>>> They look to see how the work will enhance the 'functioning' 
of
 WL>>> the client.

 SR>> You mean they work so that the fluidity of VR doesn't bugger up
 SR>> the ossified fantasies of EDR.

 WL> Yes.  Because those fantasies reflect the ideology of the
 WL> ruling class. (Class as defined by the relationship to the
 WL> means of power -- to add a Logemanian twist).  Fantasies do not
 WL> crystallise into conserved continents of ideas willy-nilly.
 WL> The geography of ideas is built on the systems (As Miles put
 WL> it, -- systems -- not individuals) that host them.  There is a
 WL> symbiosis between the fantasies (message, idea, imagination,
 WL> archetype, god) and the EDR (World, medium, host system,
 WL> humans).

Social systems, then, are the sourse of the imagination.

 SR>> Yes, that's the 'return of the repressed', buggering up the
 SR>> ossified fantasies of EDR.

 WL> Now we are in agreement again, though I hope the excursion
 WL> chasing the difference is almost zeroed in on, we will soon
 WL> catch the sprite.

Remember, a sprite is a purely imaginal being.

                    Love,
                    Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5109)   Fri 20 May 94  2:07                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Personality tests
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 60
@MSGID: 3:770/270 49528ee8
@REPLY: 3:770/270 c33f7943
 JH>> Have you heard of the
 JH>> myers-briggs personality indicator.  I have a computer program
 JH>> which asks about 70 questions then gives an assessment based on
 JH>> your answers.  I have another program called NAOCA.  This
 JH>> stands for North American Oxford Capacity Analysis.  I didn't
 JH>> like the test results of the 200 questions I answered probably
 JH>> because they could have been accurate and were a tad negative.
 JH>> Do you want these uploaded?

 WL> I am not so into tests but others might be.  I am more than 
happy to
 WL> have them here.  I saw a myers briggs one the other day but it 
was
 WL> corrupted, might try d/l again some time.  I'd be interested 
in them
 WL> more than the IQ ones.

OK.  I've uploaded them both to the main library.  They have been 
archived
together under the name TESTS.zip.  I've left my assessment on the 
naoca test
there.  The results of the test display in a graph type format - ie 
bar
graph.

 WL> The IQ tests I think give some people a false sense of their 
capacities.
 WL> The tests don't say :  What do you like?  What are you good 
at?  So that
 WL> someone who liked music and could play and read it, but hated 
little
 WL> puzzles would score low on IQ.  On CompuServe there is a Mensa
 WL> conference, I don't know a lot about it but they are meant to 
have a
 WL> high IQ.  All they do though is test each other on complex 
little
 WL> puzzles, which less intelligent people would soon get bored 
with!

Yes, I heard something similar a long time ago, now I come to think 
of it,
ie the tests not covering things like sporting ability or other 
abilities and
talents but just complex puzzles and brain teasers.

 JH>> BTW the myers-briggs assessment was INFP - Introvert,
 JH>> Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving.

 WL> That is interesting!  I had a client who had that.  One in a 
hundred for
 WL> men I was told.

Does that mean it is quite common or quite rare or somewhere in 
between those
two?

 WL> I wonder how these tests work on someone like me, who has 
trained up on
 WL> those qualities.  I think I have become much more of those 
three than I
 WL> was, say at 20.  Do people change over the years?  I'll give 
it a go if
 WL> you U/L it.

Which three?  NFP or INF or IFP?

See you of the flipside. <--Quote from a fantasy-type novel, if 
you're
wondering.
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 60
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:09 2000
Date: (5141)   Sun 22 May 94  0:01                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Personality tests
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 718d33b9
@REPLY: 3:770/270 49528ee8


 JH> OK.  I've uploaded them both to the main library.  They have
 JH> been archived together under the name TESTS.zip.  I've left my
 JH> assessment on the naoca test there.  The results of the test
 JH> display in a graph type format - ie bar graph.

 JH>>> BTW the myers-briggs assessment was INFP - Introvert,
 JH>>> Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving.

 WL>> That is interesting!  I had a client who had that.  One in a 
hundred
 WL>> for men I was told.

 JH> Does that mean it is quite common or quite rare or somewhere in
 JH> between those two?

Rare, especially for men.

I am an INTJ.

 JH> Which three?  NFP or INF or IFP?

I thought I had developed a lot more of NFP, I think I have, I 
scored very
high on the N and only just scraped in on T & J.

I have been writing a lot with Ruby, we seem to have a TJ  - FP
difference!  Perhaps I am way off beam.

These traits though could be seen as personal traits OR as which
archetypes are dominantly at work in us  (to bring in a hobby 
horse, well
I have an excuse, I am doing a talk on this theme on Wednesday).  
That
perspective makes a difference to me.  Traits weigh me down like 
lead.
Archetypes free me and I float like helium.  Perhaps that is just a 
trait
of mine!

 JH> See you of the flipside. <--Quote from a fantasy-type novel, if
 JH> you're wondering.

Which one?

see ya

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:09 2000
Date: (5932)   Mon 23 May 94 17:09                         
From: Ruby Wadeson
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Personality tests
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 404
@MSGID: 3:770/270 0ac9b255
@REPLY: 3:770/270 718d33b9

Dear Walter,

 WL> I am an INTJ.
 WL> I thought I had developed a lot more of NFP, I think I have, I 
scored
 WL> very high on the N and only just scraped in on T & J.
 WL> I have been writing a lot with Ruby, we seem to have a TJ  - FP
 WL> difference!

That's interesting Walt. The test indicated ENFP for me.
I scored zero for (T)hinking <G>.


Yours,
      mindlessly,
                 Ruby.



 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 404
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:10 2000
Date: (6044)   Tue 24 May 94  3:26                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Personality tests
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 64
@MSGID: 3:770/270 e314b8bd
@REPLY: 3:770/270 718d33b9

 JH>>>> BTW the myers-briggs assessment was INFP - Introvert,
 JH>>>> Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving.

 WL>>> That is interesting!  I had a client who had that.  One in a 
hundred
 WL>>> for men I was told.

 JH>> Does that mean it is quite common or quite rare or somewhere in
 JH>> between those two?

 WL> Rare, especially for men.

What kinds of vocations should INFP's go into?  Also why do you 
think it is
rare for men to have these traits?  Can you tell me a bit more 
about INFP or
refer me to a book or something so I can find out more about this?

 WL> I am an INTJ.

Do you find being an INTJ helps you in evaluating your client's 
needs better?

 WL> I have been writing a lot with Ruby, we seem to have a TJ  - FP
 WL> difference!  Perhaps I am way off beam.

Not meaning to sound like Eliza but why do you think you are way 
off beam?

 WL> These traits though could be seen as personal traits OR as which
 WL> archetypes are dominantly at work in us.

What is an archetype?

 WL> Traits weigh me down like lead. Archetypes free me and I float 
like
 WL> helium.  Perhaps that is just a trait of mine!

Which particular traits weigh you down and is it possible to change 
them,
over time?

 JH>> See you on the flipside. <--Quote from a fantasy-type novel, if
 JH>> you're wondering.

 WL> Which one?

I think it was called something like "Oversoul Seven" and was a 
fantasy novel
about the astral plane and the peoples (and non-peoples) on it.  
The astral
plane if you don't know is to do with OOBE's or 
out-of-body-experiences and
is a realm you can sometimes go to if you astral travel.  That is, 
dissociate
from your physical body and wander about in spirit form for a 
while.  There
are plenty of books on the subject.  There are also innumerable 
methods for
'getting out' that is, to exteriorize ones' spirit or soul or 
whatever and go
for a short journey anywhere on the planet without the restrictions 
of time
and space and lack of public transport.  I think that there is a 
psychiatric
term for it but I don't recall it at present.  I think also that 
most if not
all "shrinks" would consider the people that do this to be out of 
touch with
reality.  But then what is reality?  My reality isn't exactly the 
same as
anybody elses reality nor their reality anything like mine.  The 
experience
of astral travel is subjective to the person experiencing it but it 
can be
proved by laboratory tests that there may be some reality to it.

  WL> see ya


John Hicks

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 64
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:12 2000
Date: (6333)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Personality tests
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 aaa1b7ce
@REPLY: 3:770/270 e314b8bd

 JH> What kinds of vocations should INFP's go into?  Also why do you
 JH> think it is rare for men to have these traits?  Can you tell me
 JH> a bit more about INFP or refer me to a book or something so I
 JH> can find out more about this?

I have a good book on it, which I have leant to someone, I will get 
tit
back and send it to you.  My hunch is with all those traits is that 
youd
be good at one to one things involving practical nurturing with 
people.
perhaps a district nurse or a turor of music or maths etc.  Teaching
english as a forwign language, my son is doing that at the moment in
Japan.

Of course I rattle these off with only minimal understanding of you 
or the
system.  It must be the ways INTJ s operate <g> .


 JH> What is an archetype?

Ah!  That is the $10000000 question.

Here is my way of putting it:  It is a trait but viewed in a less 
personal
way.  An archetype gets you.  A trait is more innate in you.  The 
word
'type' is a bit like trait isn't it.  Arche perhaps has to do with 
old and
bossy, like archbishop.  So an archetype is a trait that is bigger 
than
you, the boss of the little traits.

 WL>> Traits weigh me down like lead. Archetypes free me and I 
float like
 WL>> helium.  Perhaps that is just a trait of mine!

 JH> Which particular traits weigh you down and is it possible to
 JH> change them, over time?

So it is not any one particular one that weighs me down it is the 
idea
that it is all me.  With archetypes I see that I am governed by 
some thing
bigger than me.

 JH> I think it was called something like "Oversoul Seven"

Sounds like another archetype to me!  I may have a look around for 
it.


Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:13 2000
Date: (7835)   Sun 29 May 94  1:52                         
From: John Hicks
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: Re: Personality tests
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 69
@MSGID: 3:770/270 d3e89cbc
@REPLY: 3:770/270 aaa1b7ce

 JH>> What kinds of vocations should INFP's go into?  Also why do you
 JH>> think it is rare for men to have these traits?  Can you tell me
 JH>> a bit more about INFP or refer me to a book or something so I
 JH>> can find out more about this?

 WL> I have a good book on it, which I have lent to someone, I will 
get it
 WL> back and send it to you.  My hunch is with all those traits is 
that youd
 WL> be good at one to one things involving practical nurturing 
with people.
 WL> perhaps a district nurse or a tutor of music or maths etc.  
Teaching
 WL> english as a foreign language, my son is doing that at the 
moment in
 WL> Japan.

It would be good to loan it for awhile.  You're right about the 
teaching
aspect.  I like to teach people things that I know something about. 
 My
ex-flatmate is currently in Japan too (Osaka, I think) and he's 
been teaching
english as a second language.  He is also a nurse and had been 
working at a
rest home for quite some time before travelling to Japan.  I don't 
think I'd
like nursing though.


 WL> So an archetype is a trait that
 WL> is bigger than you, the boss of the little traits.

How does one find out what their archetype is?  Is it important to 
find out?

 WL>>> Traits weigh me down like lead. Archetypes free me and I 
float like
 WL>>> helium.  Perhaps that is just a trait of mine!

 JH>> Which particular traits weigh you down and is it possible to
 JH>> change them, over time?

 WL> So it is not any one particular one that weighs me down it is 
the idea
 WL> that it is all me.  With archetypes I see that I am governed 
by some
 WL> thing bigger than me.

God, perhaps?

 JH>> I think it was called something like "Oversoul Seven"

 WL> Sounds like another archetype to me!  I may have a look around 
for it.

Take a look in Scorpio Books.  That's where I found it.
I found it there about six years ago.  There may be a series of 
them by now
and there were certainly two or three of them when I was there at 
that time.

John Hicks

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 69
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:17 2000
Date: (9961)   Mon 6 Jun 94 20:28                          
From: Stanley Richards
To: John Hicks
Subject: Re: Personality tests
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX V3.02/5.00H1

Dear John



 WL>> So an archetype is a trait that
 WL>> is bigger than you, the boss of the little traits.

 JH> How does one find out what their archetype is?  Is it important
 JH> to find out?


 WL>>  With archetypes I see that I am governed by some thing 
bigger than
WL>> me.

 JH> God, perhaps?

Yes, John, an archetype is God - only there are lots of them. One 
for each
universe we inhabit.  That's an inflated way of saying: 'One for each
trait'.

               Best,
                        Stanley
--- Via Silver Xpress V3.02



 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5032)   Thu 19 May 94  2:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: EJVC
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 0aac3824

The monitor has a wealth of info and will be useful for anyone with 
net
access to have.  I can see this being a useful thing here to put 
resources
related to Psybernet in the library.  I was quite pleased with the 
Harris
document as it is about the first item I have ever found in 
cyberspace
with the word psychodynamic in it!

Here is a clip of the index to the Monitor, EJVCV2N1.MON:

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------

The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture
__________________________________________________________________
ISSN 1068-5723             February 28, 1994 Volume 2 Issue 1
                                                  EJVCV2N1 MONITOR
                THE CYBERSPACE MONITOR
                ======================


                /////////////////////
                / TABLE OF CONTENTS /
                /////////////////////


SPECIAL INTERNET CONNECTIONS
Scott Yanoff <yanoff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>

INFORMATION SOURCES
John A. December <decemj@rpi.edu>

INTERNET SERVICES FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Version 1.7 - 4 February, 1994
Kevin Savetz <Savetz@rahul.net>

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------


There is a wealth of info all related to virtual culture, so of some
relevance to us here.

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:08 2000
Date: (5051)   Thu 19 May 94 22:18                         
From: John Hicks
To: All
Subject: Myers-briggs personality indicator
St: Local Sent
@PID: RA 2.01 1220
@MSGID: 3:770/270 537a833e

The myers-briggs test is about 70-80 questions long and have yes, 
no or maybe answers.  Apparently there are 16 personality groupings 
and you'll be one of those sixteen.  Mine was INFP which stands for 
Introvert, iNtuitive, Feeling, Perceiving.  I'm not sure but I 
think you can get a printout of the result at the end of the test.  
Also the NAOCA test you can get a printout of as well as having the 
test questions in a separate file ready to be printed out as well 
as an answer sheet for those questions.

Any feedback would be appreciated.





From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:12 2000
Date: (6335)   Sat 28 May 94 19:11                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Hi What is the point? users
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 cc8b9587

I may have written in this vane before but then nothing much came 
of the
Echo as I had something wrong with the routing.

Please feel free to contribute to this Echo.  Here is a statement 
about
its scope.

------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------

                            ============
                         Brief Introduction
                            To Psybernet
                            ============
Psybernet derives  its name  from Psyche and Cybernetics.  Psyche 
is a
Greek word  for the  soul and  cybernetics is  the art  of 
information
systems.

The unconscious  realms of  the psyche, communication and 
relationship
skills are all affected and evolving in cyberspace.  Psybernet BBS 
and
Echo aim to explore and experience this process.

                            Psybernet Echo
                            ==============
Topics  typically   include  psychotherapy,   the   unconscious,   
the
imagination,  archetypes,   dreams,  myths   and  metaphors,  
personal
identity.   There is an emphasis on working psychologically within 
the
medium of cyberspace.

Of wider  appeal are  discussions on literature and poetry, movies 
and
music, relationships  and parenting, gender issues, love, learning 
and
everyday life.   Discussion  of treatment and recovery and of 
clinical
issues is welcome, but these are not the main focus of the echo.

The aim  is to  make the Echo as widely available as possible on 
BBSes
that share something of the ethos associated with Psybernet.  The 
Echo
is available by arrangement.

                     The Psybernet Bulletin Board
                            ==============
The Psybernet  BBS is  the home  of The  Psybernet Echo.    A  
Women's
Conference is  available to  women users only.  The BBS specialises 
in
message areas  with restricted  access for  purposes such  as 
clinical
discussion, exploration of dreams, relationships, dramatic writing. 
 A
file  library  is  being  built  on  topics  relevant  to  the  
board.
Subscriptions apply.

Walter Logeman.

        ------------------== Contact points  ==--------------
        Psybernet, Walter Logeman  (Sysop)
        Bulletin Board:            +64-3-365-6876
        Fidonet:                    3:770/270
        24hr Answer phone:         +64-3-377-1206
        Fax:                       +64-3-377-1207
        Compuserve:                 100026,3145
        Internet                    wlogeman@nzonline.ac.nz

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------

Looking forward to hearing from you!


Walter


--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:13 2000
Date: (7847)   Sun 29 May 94 12:25                         
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Bruce Sterling Paper
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 61488678

"Free as Air, Free As Water, Free As Knowledge" (Speech)

I have just read a paper by Bruce Sterling I downloaded from the 
Internet
and will put in the Psybernet Main Library.  Here is a brief review 
and a
quote.

Bruce Sterling is one of the more erudite cyberpunk SF authors.  I 
read
the novel called the Difference Engine he co-authored with William 
Gibson,
if it were a little better crafted I think that it would have been 
an all
time classic.  The novel postulates the arrival of the computer age 
in
Victorian England.

This little paper is a gem I think.  It is about the economy of ideas
(again).  Having just delivered a 'talk' myself it is a pleasure to 
see
this paper written up as a talk.  He has style.

Stanley said recently that Psybernet perhaps the way to define 
Psybernet
is just to do the work.  Well putting this paper in the Library is 
the
work as far as I am concerned.  It is not directly related to the 
Psyche
part of Psybernet, but very much to the cybernetic side.  The 
question of
what ideas are, what information is, how that relates to who we 
are, what
psyche is, it is all touched on here.  One thing that keeps coming 
up with
these pioneers of cyberspace is the notion of freedom.  They have a
saying: information wants to be free  (Sterling's?) and in this 
paper, as
in many, they allude heavily to Benjamin Franklin and the founding 
fathers
and the constitution.  Sterling argues for non-commodified 
information,
(all his writing is available free on the net) but by drawing on the
origins of American free-for-all is he caught by the infectious and
dominant info-virus of the American Dream?  Now that is a good 
question.
(Discuss in 500 words or less)

[can I also mention Stevan Harnard's HARNARD.ZIP paper again, also 
worth
reading on a similar theme.]  Here is a quote from the talk.


------------------%------------quote-----------------%--------------
Bruce Sterling
bruces@well.sf.ca.us
Speech to the Library Information Technology Association
June 1992, San Francisco CA

"Free as Air, Free As Water, Free As Knowledge" (Speech)

Hi everybody. Well, this is the Library Information Technology
Association, so I guess I ought to be talking about libraries, or
information, or technology, or at least association. I'm gonna give
it a shot, but I want to try this from an unusual perspective. I
want to start by talking about money.

You wouldn't guess it sometimes to hear some people talk, but we
don't live in a technocratic information society. We live in a
highly advanced capitalist society. People talk a lot about the
power and glory of specialized knowledge and technical expertise.
Knowledge is power -- but if so, why aren't knowledgeable people
*in* power? And it's true there's a Library *of* Congress. But how
many librarians are there *in* Congress?

The nature of our society strongly affects the nature of our
technology.

------------------%---------end quote----------------%--------------

FREE_AS_.SPE  or FREE_AS_.ZIP in the Psybernet Main Library.

May it keep you up all night!


Walter


_____________________________________________________________________
Tip:                 Getting a File from the BBS

The Psybernet Main Library is accessible (Subscribers only) from 
the main
menu, press [F].  To down load a file you Tag it first, press [L] 
for list
then [T] for tag.  It will prompt you to see if you want to ADD 
more files
to the list.  That done, from the File Library menu press [D] for 
download
(you are down, to the BBS is UP).  If the file ends in .ZIP that 
means
that once you have the file you will need PKUNZIP.EXE to expand the 
file
to its useable format.  If you have any questions about this please 
ask in
the Psybernet Local Conference.  This may all seem complex at 
first, it is
a breeze once you get it going smoothly --- a curtain will lift and 
you
will be a citizen of the global village.  When you are stuck, there 
is a
wonderful opportunity for a moment of contemplation, a cup of your
favourite soothing beverage, some deep breathing, a stretch and the 
gentle
kindling of a paradigm shift.

Enjoy it,   Walter.

_____________________________________________________________________
___

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:13 2000
Date: (7834)   Sun 29 May 94  1:52                         
From: John Hicks
To: All
Subject: Soul travel
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00/5.00H1 UNREG 69
@MSGID: 3:770/270 31f404c1

It is a very common thing to have happen to people at the moment 
they're
involved in some kind of accident which is life threatening eg. 
someone gets
hit by a moving vehicle and instantly they 'project' out of their 
bodies and
watch the ensuing activity around their now still bodies lying on 
the ground
or whatever or else the person is about to undergo some type of 
surgery and
just after they've gone under the anaesthetic, they seem to be 
watching the
entire surgical procedures take place from a vantage point near the 
ceiling
of the room they're in.

There is a group in Christchurch which actively practise the 
'excursion of
the soul.'  The group is called Eckankar and they do what they call 
'soul
travel' although as far as I can tell its another term for astral 
travel
although they have what are termed 'guides' or 'ascended masters' 
who help
the 'Eckist' or  Eck adherant to leave their bodies behind for a 
short time
and go to the inner worlds.

I would like others' thoughts and opinions on the above.  I have 
experienced
soul travel but only spontaneously and had no control over when it 
happened
although it was always when I was lying down or asleep.  It is 
similar to
flying dreams in which the dreamer is flying around like superman.  
Thanks.

John Hicks

 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 69
--- via Silver Xpress V4.00 [NR]
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:15 2000
Date: (8467)   Wed 1 Jun 94  2:48                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Stanley Richards
Subject: ftp
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 38cbfe6d

 SR> I'll definitely DL VV.Txt.
 SR> Thanks.   Please, what does 'FPT' mean?

FTP
File Transfer Protocol -- a system on the <Internet> whereby one 
(or one
of one's alters) can DL a file of any computer anywhere on the 
Internet.
To do it one needs access.  Not only that but some suitable 
software and
the address of the systems to FTP.  I have put resources in the 
Psybernet
Main Library with heaps of Psybernet related addresses, I hope 
others also
post up the results of their excursions in the net.  There is a 
similar
command in <Fidonet> called <FREQing> or File request.


A few more definitions:

FREQing
One <Fidonet> BBS can get files from another.  On this Psybernet 
BBS I am
in the process of making a list of files available for other BBSes to
FREQ.  I will post the list when it is done.  Users can't make File
requests, if however you have a request I may be able to get the 
file and
forward it to you (There may be toll charges).  BBSes may have 
lists of
the files they have available, if you have any from psychological 
BBSes
please post them up.

FidoNet
A world wide hobbyist network of personal computers . . .  (To 
quote the
Hackers  Dictionary)  Psybernet is connected to FidoNet.  Our node 
number
is 1:770/270.


I am popping these definitions into the PSYGLOSS.TXT file, I have 
updated
the file recently and it is of more interest I think.   I have 
included
little things like this:

_____________________________________________________________________
Tip:                 Getting a File from the BBS

The Psybernet Main Library is accessible (Subscribers only) from 
the main
menu, press [F].  To down load a file you Tag it first, press [L] 
for list
then [T] for tag.  It will prompt you to see if you want to ADD 
more files
to the list.  That done, from the File Library menu press [D] for 
download
(you are down, to the BBS is UP).  If the file ends in .ZIP that 
means
that once you have the file you will need PKUNZIP.EXE to expand the 
file
to its useable format.  If you have any questions about this please 
ask in
the Psybernet Local Conference.  This may all seem complex at 
first, it is
a breeze once you get it going smoothly --- a curtain will lift and 
you
will be a citizen of the global village.  When you are stuck, there 
is a
wonderful opportunity for a moment of contemplation, a cup of your
favourite soothing beverage, some deep breathing, a stretch and the 
gentle
kindling of a paradigm shift.

Enjoy it,   Walter.
_____________________________________________________________________
___

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:19 2000
Date: (10631)   Wed 1 Jun 94  9:51                          
From: Reg Smith
To: Walter Logeman
Subject: ftp
St: Rcvd
@MSGID: 3:770/270.1 2dec5c25
@REPLY: 3:770/270 38cbfe6d
@TID: xMail 1.00 noreg
@EID: ed79 cc95e391

01 Jun 94 02:48, Walter Logeman wrote to Stanley Richards:

 WL> Psybernet is connected to FidoNet. Our node number is 1:770/270.

You have made a typo there Walter. Psybernet's Address is 3:770/270.


Regards
Reg

--- xMail 1.00
 * Origin: Theracom, Christchurch, N.Z. (Unpublished)  (3:770/270.1)

From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:15 2000
Date: (8478)   Wed 1 Jun 94 17:17                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Ruby Wadeson
Subject: Universal & Personal
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 9275b398
@REPLY: 3:770/270 4f441132

I am not really trying to fix yous up.  You have drawn attention to
something crucial Ruby.

 RW> Stanley, who is this 'one'?

Reg often does it too, he will say 'Who is this 'we' etc.  I do it 
in the
therapy sessions, people distance themselves from their experience 
with
such statements as 'You just cant get on with things when you feel 
like
that.'

The SGMA (standard growth movement approved) response is something 
like
''say 'I' and let yourself experience the difference as you do that''
etc.  I think that is a useful intervention at times.

However  . . .

One wants to draw attention to experience that is more universal 
eternal
and perhaps has its origins in forces greater than ones immediate 
life.
Then there is no avoiding or protecting going on.  One is simply 
speaking
of life in a style that suits the nature of the discourse.

Perhaps the frustration you have experienced (and perhaps still do) 
Ruby
is in this area, you want to seek into the individual and personal, 
even
may be, to find the universal and divine in the here and now 
connection.
perhaps seeking the same moon via a different vehicle, or not 
seeking the
moon at all, but groping on the earth.

Old synthesiser suggests we do both.  This Psybernet Echo will lead 
do
points in the discussion where both modes of discourse become 
unsuitable
for a general public echo.  The current discussions are not in that
category, I think they are a wonderful wild rumpus and I have been 
almost
falling off the bench laughing, as you know Ruby!  Just as well I 
have
given up on grins <g>.

I can see the need for the PsyberGroups where confidentiality is 
defined,
where the style of discourse is to some extent identified, at least 
the
description of the group would make that obvious.

I also think that there is something wonderful happening in the 
discussion
on the nature of ideas, I would love to see us work on a paper on 
that, a
joint one, with those interested, perhaps to be published in the 
Journal
on electronic Culture?

This Echo can continue to spawn the work deeper in cyberspace.

Love

Walter

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:15 2000
Date: (8468)   Wed 1 Jun 94  2:48                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: <1>
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 a5f9e02a
 <1>


 > Bishop Berkeley  destroyed this  world in  one volume  octavo; and
 > nothing remained,  after his  time, but  mind; which experienced a
 > similar fate from the hand of Mr. Hume in 1737.
 >
 > Sydney Smith (1771-1845)
 > English writer, clergyman
 >
 >               --++-=<*>****>>>>>O<<<<<****<*>=-++--
 >
 >
 > Berke-le-ian-ism
 > The philosophy  of George  Berkeley,  which  holds  that  material
 > objects have  no independent being but exist only as concepts of a
 > human or divine mind.
 > The American Heritage Dictionary
 >
              --++-=<*>****>>>>>O<<<<<****<*>=-++--
 >
 >
 > George Noel Gordon, Lord Byron   1788-1824
 >
 > When Bishop  Berkeley said there was no matter, And proved it twas
 > no matter what he said.
 >
 >  Don Juan. canto XI [1823], st. 1
 >
 >               --++-=<*>****>>>>>O<<<<<****<*>=-++--
 >
 > idealism
 >
 > idealism ,  in philosophy,  the attempt to account for all objects
 > in nature  and experience  as representations  of  the  mind,  and
 > sometimes to  assign to  such representations  a higher  order  of
 > existence. It  is opposed  to MATERIALISM  and  NATURALISM.  Early
 > idealism (e.g.,  that of PLATO) conceived a world in which eternal
 > ideas constituted reality; in modern times idealism (e.g., that of
 > George BERKELEY in the 18th cent.) has come to refer the source of
 > ideas to  the individual's consciousness. In KANT's transcendental
 > idealism, the  phenomenal world  of human  understanding opposes a
 > world of  things-in-themselves, while  the later  German idealists
 > (e.g., FICHTE,  SCHELLING, and  HEGEL) treated  all reality as the
 > creation of  mind or  spirit. More  recent idealists  include F.H.
 > BRADLEY and CROCE.
 >
 > The  Concise  Columbia  Encyclopedia  is  licensed  from  Columbia
 > University Press.   Copyright  (c) 1989, 1991 by Columbia University
 > Press. All rights reserved.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:16 2000
Date: (9948)   Sun 5 Jun 94 20:28                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: Sue Townsend
Subject: Invitation to Sue
St: Local Rcvd Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 c5f12089

I see that you have found a way, in a place where you have been 
hurt, to
express strong feelings, and that is important and I welcome that.  
I hope
that you will continue to write here, and find a way to bring Monty 
in
messages under your name even though he does not have access as 
'Monty'.
You bring valuable perspectives to the board, and I think your
contributions are an essential part in the building up of 
Psybernet.  I
would like to hear from you Sue, and to continue discussing how 
Psybernet
can evolve into a space that you can have confidence in.

That you and others have confidence in the board is important to 
the whole
development of Psybernet and, as Sysop, I do my best to maintain firm
boundaries around access, privacy, gender and names.   We can make 
all
sorts of areas with different boundaries, as we have done.  I think 
it is
important that each area has clear guidelines and I will spell 
these out
more fully for this echo.

I would like to respond to some of the things Monty has said, 
others may
wish to do so too.  It is important that we do this in mail 
addressed to
you Sue, as Monty will not have access other than through you.  To 
reply
with the gusto that his sentiments deserve I would like to know 
that you
are willing to work, at least for now, within the parameters of 
this Echo,
I really hope that you will.

Best wishes,

Walter
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:16 2000
Date: (8618)   Fri 3 Jun 94  0:03                          
From: Walter Logeman
To: All
Subject: Real names
St: Local Sent
@PID: SX4.00P/5.00H1 SW11685
@MSGID: 3:770/270 8ac720bc

This is an apology for an oversight in the software.  All the major 
areas
are read only to un-validated users.  This means that usually the 
question
of handles and aliases can be discussed with new user as they seek
validation.  The board itself is working fine but it was possible to
upload via the off-line reader, now that has been adjusted.  
Apologies for
any misunderstandings.  I trust that if there are any that we will 
attend
to them with caring.

This means that all users are using their real name as far as this 
can be
checked over the phone.  The whole question of the use of aliases and
handles has been discussed and experimented with on the Psybernet 
BBS.
The decision to have 'real names only' is one that currently 
applies and
has done since the announcement of the closure of the ALTERWORLD.


Walter, Sysop.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P SW11685
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



From @ Sat Feb 12 14:31:16 2000
Date: (8482)   Wed 1 Jun 94 19:57                          
From: FRAZER GREENWOOD
To: WALTER LOGEMAN
Subject: Re: FTP
St: Local Rcvd Sent

 WL> FidoNet

 WL> A world wide hobbyist network of personal computers . . .  (To 
quote
 WL> the Hackers  Dictionary)  Psybernet is connected to FidoNet.  
Our node
 WL> number is 1:770/270.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   THE NUMBER IS 3:770/270 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just in Case !!!!!

Cheer's...

Frazer Greenwood

... Death to all fanatics!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00H1
 * Origin: Psybernet BBS Psychology & Cybernetics 
+64-3-365-6876V42b (3:770/270)



