From LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM Mon Dec 24 01:49:16 2001
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: walterl1@w.pop.ihug.co.nz
Received: (qmail 24258 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2001 12:49:25 -0000
Received: from mx1-1.ihug.co.nz (HELO mx1.ihug.co.nz) (203.109.254.17)
  by kate.ihug.co.nz with SMTP; 23 Dec 2001 12:49:25 -0000
Received: from home.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.31] 
	by mx1.ihug.co.nz with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
	id 16I84A-00020M-00; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:49:22 +1300
Received: from home (home.ease.lsoft.com) by home.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.FF74C3B8@home.ease.lsoft.com>; 23 Dec 2001 7:49:16 -0500
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:49:16 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (1.8e)"              <LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Subject: File: "PSYBER-L LOG0111"
To: Walter Logeman <walter@PSYBERNET.CO.NZ>
Message-Id: <E16I84A-00020M-00@mx1.ihug.co.nz>
X-Rcpt-To: walter@psybernet.co.nz

=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:24:53 EST
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Sheryl Garner <PumpknSoul@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: another timely dream
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Stephen, all....

I want you to know that I have been following both your dream stories and
thoughts concerning them here on Psyber-L.  I guess I have been taking the
role of observer of how you yourself responded to the transcendant (as I
believe you expressed it) experience of them.

My role of observer has not been completely objective because the
transcendant aspects have triggered me in some ways, and I've found myself to
be somewhat anxious about any mystical aspects because I'm not really sure I
want to *recognize* anything symbolic, mystical or transcendant in your
dreams.  I think I'm saying that I feel reluctant to commit to sharing the
experience.

Well bottom line for me is that this time of year is especially vibrant (?)
scary (?) to me, because I had either (1) my only conscious identifiable
mystical experience on Halloween several years ago, or (2) a delusion caused
by some psychological need.  I have always had a few lurking thoughts that
Psyber-L may have been tied to it if I had a mystical experience.

On the other hand, in the years since I have come to believe that what I
experienced was probably more likely weighted toward a delusion brought on by
physical, psychological, and spiritual changes in me.  Since I've come to
this belief, my sense of logic tells me that if it was a mystical experience
which attempted to guide me in certain directions, I have failed.  This is
intensely painful because hope, trust, friendship, love and faith were all
tied into it.

Halloween is over now though, with all the attending oddities of this one in
2001 - the full blue moon, the seven sisters constellation, etc. - not to
mention the powerful reality and symbolism destruction of the twin towers
9-11.

Some of my anxiety has eased - I will continue to follow your dreams and
interpretations.  Intuitively I think we (collectively, at least in the US)
have moved into a different state of consciousness - a part of me believes
that you are receiving symbols and themes from those changes.

In a message dated 10/27/2001 1:17:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, hoon@APK.NET
writes:

> Hiya. How's everybody doing? I ask not as a phony courtesy but because I'd
>  like to know. At this point in Psyber-L's 'story' I'm not even sure to whom
>  by everybody refers.
>

Everybody refers to me, anyway, and I suspect others who have just not
responded.

Warm thoughts to all -
Sheryl

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:21:23 -0800
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Nancy Smith <nsmith@NEGIA.NET>
Subject:      Re: Changes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Walter,  (And greeting to anyone else tuning in.)
    I'm curious about several thing, but thought I'd give you time to move
before asking:
>
> > N:  Walter, have you told the list about Kate's new job?  Musta missed
it.
>
> I am not sure.  She is creating a horse trekking business - I did
> the website!  http://www.lyfordtreks.co.nz  It means we live 145k
> apart and a lot of hard work.  Kate loves the work but not the
> life style changes for us.

N: Thanks for the horse site.  I sent it to my niece in Wellington, though
it sounds like it isn't so much for vacationing kids as young as hers.  [It
also, as you say, looks like a Lot of Work.]

    145k is about 90 miles?  Quite a commute.  Dare I hope the new house is
closer to in between?

> > > As you know I am also in other forums Stephen and I expect to see
> > > your dream there too.
> >
> > N: Perhaps Stephen knows.  I'm making no connection.  Is it a secret?
>
> No not secret - but... confidential?  Contained?

N: Oh.  Okay.  But makes me wonder why you mention it here where others are
excluded?  Guess I might just put it down to haste and pressures...

    I'm also wondering how last Thurs.' march went.  Also, and this doesn't
feel quite appropriate to ask on the anti-war list...I'm guessing that your
main object is to keep NZ out of the war.  If it is more than that, I'm
wondering what alternatives those opposed to the US attack might have in
mind.  I'm seeing little patches of criticism for the U.S. action and always
looking to see if any alternatives are suggested.  I'm not terribly
confident that we can lay hands on bin Laden, or that a new govt. backed by
us will be much better for Afghanistan than the Taliban.  I'm certainly not
for the killing of civilians (even in retaliation for ours, if it won't
prevent future such killing, and I don't Know that it will).  Yet, currently
it is said the 65% of US citizens back military action (I think it was
closer to 90% in Sept.)  And I'm wondering what critics think might have
been viable alternatives under the circumstances.  So far no one anywhere
has mentioned any... that I've seen.

    Hope now the personal stress will modify for you.  Blessings, Nancy

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:17:37 -0400
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Stephen Calhoun <hoon@APK.NET>
Subject:      Re: another timely dream
In-Reply-To:  <0mimttoaug5c09mb6ntp5v3s8vlien7g01@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Walter, all,

Playing catch up here.

A couple of thoughts about what you wrote.

> It is the "vessel" thing the container thing.  Shows me
>how much the container contributes to my interpretation and
>experience of a dream.

I dream a lot and most of my dreams, if they are significant to me and
don't seem to have wider implications, I keep to the container of myself.
As I've mentioned a few times in the past, I cannot see the psyber space as
meeting the rigorous requirements of a temenos. This is a case for me of
having my sight informed by both my biases and predisposition. Private
groups come closer to satisfying some of these reservations. However, I
recognize this is just what it is like for me.

***

>When I divide my perceptions over two
>contexts i divide... and on this occasion disappeared I am sorry
>to say. If I cant be in one - I'll be in neither... not quite
>true - as i have been here with your dream Stephen more fully
>than in the other context.

You point in the direction of this qualification not being as big a problem
as it could be, or, better point in the direction of circumstance and
structure not being decisive.

As it happened in the case of this particular dream, I contributed it to
Jung-Fire also. There it landed with an unremarkable thud. You've already
been more generous, and would be so if you say nothing more!

***

One of your strengths, Walter, is your willingness to honestly state your
intention or your struggles with your intention. That's why its not
uncommon to have undivided attention but uncommon to learn someone's
intention is divided.

This is also why for me containment speaks of an integrity of both
intention and attention.

***

regards,

Stephen

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:47:43 -0400
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Stephen Calhoun <hoon@APK.NET>
Subject:      Re: another timely dream
In-Reply-To:  <79.1d662749.2912df65@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Cheryl,

This is very interesting, Cheryl. There's something very mystical about
simply living a symbolic conversation with one's own upwellings but it is
for me these days a living that falls short of transcendent; its a more
mundane kind of communion.

>My role of observer has not been completely objective because the
>transcendant aspects have triggered me in some ways, and I've found myself
>to
>be somewhat anxious about any mystical aspects because I'm not really sure
>I
>want to *recognize* anything symbolic, mystical or transcendant in your
>dreams.

The 'as if' approach helps in this regard. You explore the anxious feeling,
yet, the  "if I had a mystical experience", (as if it were my experience,)
would tell me something by its virtue of being mundane, subjective and,
hopefully, pointing me in the direction of a realizable attitude. It is
difficult of course! I've elevated ignoring that which points in the
direction of being hard on myself into a bit of an art form.

Now it has happened that the symbols have resonated to direct me toward the
attitude of trust that nurture relationship. Growing trust is a matter of
daywork; I don't know of any mystical work around which ever worked for me.
Thus, in my experience, to surrender is to be in one's life imperfectly, to
dare failure, to know failing is part of the territory of trusting.

Its easy for me to measure the breadth of my own illusion because all I
have to recollect are the years I endeavored to 'mystically',
'symbolically', revoke the ineluctable relationship between trust and
failure.

Thanks for your feedback. It's really good and valuable for me to hear your
voice here, Cheryl.

with affection,

Stephen

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:56:55 -0400
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Stephen Calhoun <hoon@APK.NET>
Subject:      viable alternatives
In-Reply-To:  <013601c164b5$dfa6e700$2e0e1ed0@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Nancy, all,

I'd like to distill your query and then move my own consideration beyond it.

>If it is more than that, I'm
>wondering what alternatives those opposed to the US attack might have in
>mind.

>And I'm wondering what critics think might have
>been viable alternatives under the circumstances.  So far no one anywhere
>has mentioned any... that I've seen.

The short of my sense is this: that what it is not right now viable should
become viable.

***

There is a significant gulf between what is proposed to be different,
(example: a 'different' kind of war,) and what really would be different.

I don't have any expectation that the military and political leadership of
the United States is going to suppose the world to have wide contours. But
it is interesting to note that the facts of what is viable do not make
those wide contours simply go away, disappear, or not have their
consequences.

So, a scary thought: what circumstance, consequence, would invoke those
wide contours?

***

I addressed this with a friend the week following the 9-11 attack when, in
response to his nuanced and measured and unremarkable delineation of the
'viable' actions which would direct (literally,) the world to 're-obtain'
security, safety, the preservation of (our) way of life, (etc.,) I
introduced a terrible change in the measurable scenario. I asked him "what
would then happen if the terrorists exploded a 10 megaton atom bomb in the
middle of Seattle?"

He replied, and he was a bit flummoxed by this unspeakable (but not
remarkable!) question, "Well, that would change everything." Poor guy, he
counts on control being sustained.

***

Meanwhile, into my email box over the past weeks almost every possible
variation on non-viable alternatives has been forwarded to me. About this I
am compelled to wonder, 'at what point would the non viable turn into the
viable?'

***

Ignorance of those wide contours invites hubris. This is, obviously, a long
standing problem. Hubris invites a kind of magical thinking. We're back -at
this point- to noting really how 'undifferent' is this war.

Still, there are some remarkable features. A few: the terrorists' ingenious
plot, a plot based in a few simple assumptions, unfolded in all of its
necessary and coordinated complexity to gain a result which might be
characterized as the fruition of the 'wildest' dreams. Also, whatever seams
became exposed, perhaps even with one of their members incarcerated since
the middle of August, those seams did not perturb enough to derail the plot.

Another. The U.S. military is apparently not configured today to risk
politically significant casualties despite the fact that its firepower and
the firepower it, or the citizenry of the U.S.,  potentially could be
subjected to is greater than any such firepower possible in any previous
battle. This, incidentally, represents an almost unfathomable philosophical
sea change.

***

It is completely true that the viable options as far as ranges of response
were, are, are not under the purview of you or I, Nancy. Nor for that
matter are those options under the purview of such august company as the
Dalai Lama or any of those persons who's own views, substantial though they
may be, are by definition neither viable or capable of having an impress on
our leadership.

Unintended consequences go with magical thinking, (or hubris; the shadow of
"real-politik",) like bread and butter.

***

So, let me think outside of the box, issue a few non-viable alternatives.
And, instead of simply noting how obviously 'magical' these options, and
options such as these are, regard them instead as viable options who's time
has not yet arrived.

Build schools, housing, hospitals and small factories in the refugee camps
of Iran, Pakistan, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor, and Sudan. Make those
facilities the envy of those who remain in the countries from which the
refugees took refuge.

Wage peace.

***

One way of appreciating the wide contours of human life on earth is to
drill down to a prospective systems view. What future 'fractal' would
substantiate the solution of a problem based in the level defined as not
being the level the problem was generated at?

(The sea change in military thinking is an example of what comes about due
to this kind of processing.)

I wonder if, and here one could shrink this consideration right down to the
personal sphere and its principles and processes, there is anything we can
do *but* think and work to effect what today surely is not viable but
tomorrow may well be viable?

Anyway, wide contours suppose what may be termed the 'phase space' of the
possible. Nancy, what better time than *now* to be thinking outside of the
box, to be thinking of the viable future?

For me, in the current situation, nothing is more terrifying than 'old
think', the illusion of absolute control, the ignorance of dynamics, the
mitigation of complexity and the hubris supposed by viability.

***

regards,

Stephen

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:35:37 -0800
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Nancy Smith <nsmith@NEGIA.NET>
Subject:      Re: viable alternatives
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello, Stephan,
    This is all rather frightening.  I believe I almost understand what you
are saying in your post (despite the coils of alchemical distillary tubing,
at some points lined with shattered irony, which form your communication
style.)  I'm wondering if I should call my old analyst and schedule an
appt....   But down to the matters at hand:
> ***
>
> So, let me think outside of the box, issue a few non-viable alternatives.

N: This sentence reminds me of the dream I posted here several years ago,
wherein you and Judith, as giant ants, were peering down at me, in a box
made of water.

You [like the missionary just before they came to put him in the caldron]
write:
> Build schools, housing, hospitals and small factories in the refugee camps
> of Iran, Pakistan, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor, and Sudan. Make those
> facilities the envy of those who remain in the countries from which the
> refugees took refuge.
>
> Wage peace.

N: Is this so far out of the box, or is it a somewhat more ambitious version
of what organizations such as the Peace Corp., the Friends Service Comm.,
Habitat for Humanity International and others have been doing for some time?
    I was interested to learn yesterday that my grown niece has already
passed on a similar version to Secy. of State, Colin Powell.

    Some practical questions:
    Since our attention is now particularly focused on Pakistan, let me ask
you what the terrorists associated with bin Laden might be doing while we
(whoever we is...just US or a UN coalition, or...) are swinging our hammers
and bulldozers.  Might they have sharp shooters up in the surrounding hills?
If so would 'we' use armed guards to protect us while we work?  The food aid
folk haven't been faring so safely in that area of late (i.e. before the
current counter-attack).
    Envy is a dangerous thing and might well be part of the motivation for
the 9/11 attack.
    Most of the organizations I mention above have tried to involve the
native peoples in their  projects.  Do you have any estimate of what skills
the refuges may have?  If they are not involved what is to be done to avoid
what has happened here with public housing where many of the recipients have
chosen to trash the abodes provided?  I have participated in some of the
Quaker work-camp projects and found it not easy to involve the recipients.
(Many of whom found it more attractive to sit back and criticize as do some
in the peace movements.)
    How might we deal with those who may consider it 'weakness' and
'appeasement' for us to make such contributions when we could retaliate?
    How might we deal with those who (after the world wide standing joke
that the way to prosperity is to pick a war with the US and lose) may feel
that the way to get help for their region is to arrange a terrorist assault
on our soil?
    Your solution certainly has merit, as do those who have been conducting
similar attempts for so many years.  At first glance it even appears to be
less costly than military operations (I speak here of the cost in dollars
rather than in human lives.)  But the countries and refuge camps you mention
are but a drop in the bucket compared to world need.  Can we (the US)
actually afford to lift the entire world by it's economic bootstaps, even
with UN assistance?  I wonder, since it seems we still have hunger and
suffering here at home.

    As for the terror of 'old think' military, I heard on CNN within the
week that the leader of the Taliban is a brother-in-law to bin Laden and in
addition has brain damage which results in seizures.  And we continue to
wonder if this group may have or get nukes.  Apparently they are still
carrying a grudge from the Crusades.  It may be that like Hilter they 'need'
someone to hate.  I wonder how many gifts of hospitals, schools and houses
it might take to soften that 'need'.

    I wonder what any are currently doing to reach and reform Charlie
Manson?

    This is not to say that it is not in our own self-interest to pull our
heads out of the sands and attempt to understand the forces against us.  And
to see what can be done to establish meaningful communications with them.

    I'm not so sure any of this is beyond our joint purview, at least any
more than current military efforts are.  It is so easy for us intuitives to
sit and spin idealistic solutions.  We need the practical sensation types to
come in and help us build  models and constuct flowcharts.

    At any rate, Stephan, I thank you for your thoughts, and know that you
are currently doing what you can to bring your dream into reality.  Do they
not say that 'music hath charm to sooth the savage breast' (sometimes I
think 'they' need to be a bit more specific about what kind of music <g>)

    And, oh, btw when did you say you were leaving for the Peace Corp.?

    If I sound ambivalent here about what needs to be done, it is because I
don't truly believe I and/or any entirely understand the human motivational
system.  It does, however, seem to me quite possible that we now count
Germany, Italy and Japan among our friends (or at least allies) because of
our contrustive treatment after WWII, which as I understand it, was at the
time ground breaking.  What you propose is only that we do something similar
only leaving out the conquest bit.  Perhaps so...yet weren't almost all the
apostles martyred?  And is the gentleness of Jesus all that prevalent today
among Christian nations?

    Ah, progress is a journey which appears to spiral around much more than
it does upwards.

    Blessings to all,

    Nancy

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Nov 2001 21:36:54 -0400
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Stephen Calhoun <hoon@APK.NET>
Subject:      Re: viable alternatives
In-Reply-To:  <00af01c1670a$faa2ed40$c00f1ed0@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Nancy, all,

I have no idea why you choose to patronize me. Why?

I'll tell you this right now, I am going to patronize you right now because
after acknowledging some of the merits of my ideas you showcase your agenda
to elevate the old think of death dealing to the place we already know it
obtains, 'front and center'.

I'm sorry but your response is comatose on arrival for me; old think I get
plenty of every day in the newspapers. But, I will say this, I do hope it
all works out.

***

Do you have any thoughtful remarks you would be able to contribute about
the following subjects:

1) the history of Afghanistan in the 19th and 20th century
2) the history of our relations with Pakistan since the end of WWII?
3) the economic conditions of the third world?
4) the history of U.S. militarism, secret wars, and actions of the CIA in
the 20th century

That would be, of course, for starters. So comment and I'll feedback to you
how informed your comments happen to be because I've have studied these
subject matters extensively for years and could provide some refinement to
your views.

***

Perhaps, for starters, you might consider and comment on our future
relations with some of our Allies who also happen to support terrorism
through various devious and treacherous dealings with power centers in
their own countries. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia come immediately to
mind. I ask you this because the old thinkers are currently silent about
these future relations.

***

Meanwhile, I wonder 'what the terrorists associated with bin Laden might be
doing' in the aftermath of our conquest of the Taliban and the terrorist
cells in Afghanistan?

You ask, "Can we (the US) actually afford to lift the entire world by it's
economic bootstaps, even with UN assistance?"

Can we afford not to? What is the alternative? Do you think the table of
the world tipped into our maw is a problem or just the reward for our
ingenuity and avarice?

***

Here's a *sensation* I've experienced: a large caliber round slamming into
my back from point blank range.

How 'bout you; ever had somebody shoot to kill you?

***

regards,

Stephen

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:44:02 -0800
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Nancy Smith <nsmith@NEGIA.NET>
Subject:      Re: viable alternatives
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Stephan,  All,

You wrote:
>
> I have no idea why you choose to patronize me. Why?

N: You experienced my post as 'patronizing'?  I suggest that you look into
why you would chose that word.  Does it stem from the Latin for 'father'?
(Is that suggestion additionally patronizing?)
    'Offensive' I could understand.  Quite probably my post also struck
others as less
than 'companionable' in tone.
    Stephen, I am hardly the only one who experiences your convoluted
writing style as 'offensive' (I don't want to choose a more specific term as
I've found this to be a booby trap.  In language style the dealer and the
recipient usually cannot agree more than to say 'less than friendly'.)  I
read your style as a sort of 'one upmanship' placing clever over clear.  And
was responding in tone more to your style than your ideas.
>
You continue:
> I'll tell you this right now, I am going to patronize you right now
because
> after acknowledging some of the merits of my ideas you showcase your
agenda
> to elevate the old think of death dealing to the place we already know it
> obtains, 'front and center'.

N: Well, at least my post shocked you into 'straight forward' verbalization,
so it wasn't entirely wasted.  I'll try to respond to you questions though
you will not consider my responses 'answers', I think.  And since you seem
to be proposing a game of 'whoever has the most facts wins', you will
doubtlessly belittle me for my attempt.  I am an Intuitive, and while I find
'fact' quite grounding, when they can be found (usually they are distorted
after the event) they are not my strength.  (Have I already 'lost'?)
>
And then:
> I'm sorry but your response is comatose on arrival for me; old think I get
> plenty of every day in the newspapers. But, I will say this, I do hope it
> all works out.

N: 'Comatose' huh?  Are you really 'sorry'?  Why?
    As usual I suspect I am unclear about your ideas, in this case of 'new
think', except
for what you've already said about building hospitals etc.  You hope 'all
what' works
out?  The US attempts to stop terrorism?  I'm not all that optimistic.  (Nor
is my PhD in history sister-in-law.)  But
you've not answered my questions on how we might implement you ideas without
the workers being picked off by sharp-shooters and the work otherwise
sabotaged.
    My God, those folks are still holding grudges from the Crusades!  (Which
I'd agree were hubristic, ridiculous and unthinkably inhumane [like the
Taliban today].)
>
> ***
>
> Do you have any thoughtful remarks you would be able to contribute about
> the following subjects:

N: Mostly I don't much make ...er...a... 'contributions'.  I believe what I
have to say is 'thoughtful' (Possibly 'mindful' would be a better choice),
but I sense in the above that you are
retaining the right to
judge that yourself, so I suspect 'you' may not find them so.  They will be
far more general than your questions.  I'm a good deal more interested in an
anthropological approach than a historical.  The first is hard to find; the
latter is uninterestingly full of wars, unrevealing legalisms, and power
struggles.
>
> 1) the history of Afghanistan in the 19th and 20th century

N: Very generally the country seems to have been a battle ground for
imperialistic struggles between Britain, Russia, against various sorts of
Islamic rule.  The
US appears to have taken a 'hidden hand' is supplying arms to the Russian
resistance, quite possibly less to help the Afghans than to thwart the
Russian.  I'm guessing that by and large the native peoples were pretty much
pawns through all this to varying degrees, regardless of who had the upper
hand.  Even before the period you specify
there were the Huns and the Persians.   The place has a long history as a
'battle ground'.

> 2) the history of our relations with Pakistan since the end of W.W.II?

N: As to the specifics of U.S. relations, I know almost nothing, but tend to
suppose
that we have acted there out of expedient self-interest as we (and pretty
well all other nations) are wont to do everywhere.  In general their history
seems to be somewhat similar to Afghanistan in  problems with the British
and additionally with India.
It does, however, appear that when not fighting with 'outsiders' both
countries have had trouble establishing any sort of stable internal govt.


> 3) the economic conditions of the third world?

N: Is not good.  Nor in Someways quite as bad as sometimes pictured (By this
I mean they should not be judged entirely by the standards of another
culture).  My
notion is that industrialization and exploitation has collided with native
culture everywhere.  The tendency has been to wipe out working Native ways
and cultures, without the peoples (usually) finding any way to move on with
the 'newer ways'.  Diseases have spread both ways.
Europeans brought sexual diseases, small pox etc. to native peoples.  Africa
appears to have gifted us with AIDS.  The U.S. is in a better position to
deal scientifically with all this than the third world and the peoples in
the latter appear
to resent us for not handing them more of the where-withall to do as well.
    We profit from cheap labor where we can.  Our unions scream at us to
'buy American'.

> 4) the history of U.S. militarism, secret wars, and actions of the CIA in
> the 20th century

N: Again expedient self-interest.  Actually (and you will call this 'old
think' I expect) one of the ways to deal with bin Laden would have been
through a
trained (possibly CIA) assassination team.  This would save a lot of lives
possibly (assuming that we actually Do have sufficient evidence of his guilt
in 9/11).  The problem here is, not so much that we would betray our own
principles [which to some degree we do all the time], but that how we could
set up checks and balances on such a force so that it did not become a
greater threat to us than he?
>
> That would be, of course, for starters. So comment and I'll feedback to
you
> how informed your comments happen to be because I've have studied these
> subject matters extensively for years and could provide some refinement to
> your views.

N: Hmmm...  You may indeed be 'well studied', but from which sources?  All
are skewed.  And processed through what lens?  What prejudices of your
own may you bring to your studies and their processing into future
procedures?  If you are planning to inform on the details of history, that's
fine if you will use clear language.  It will be less 'refinement' than a
whole basic course, of course <g>.
    I don't even pretend to be all that 'well studied' in historic detail,
and yet tend to trust my own instincts as much or more than yours.
    Incidentally, Stephen, I suspect you know that at this point I do not so
much oppose your views as really wonder how the heck they could be
implemented.
>
> ***
>
> Perhaps, for starters, you might consider and comment on our future
> relations with some of our Allies who also happen to support terrorism
> through various devious and treacherous dealings with power centers in
> their own countries. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia come immediately to
> mind. I ask you this because the old thinkers are currently silent about
> these future relations.

N: Of course they are.  Unlike you (I suspect) those of them who are in
power are too danged busy coping with a real life global situation without a
crystal ball, a situation  which probably Has no 'Good' solution, but only a
bunch of
possibles from which to chose the least awful (for us, probably) for which
there is sufficient U. S. citizen and world support.
    I don't laud this, but only recognize it.
    I wonder, Stephan, can you give me the names of any with a solid
political following in this country who both preach and practice what You
term 'new think'?  I'd honestly like to know who they are.
>
> ***
>
> Meanwhile, I wonder 'what the terrorists associated with bin Laden might
be
> doing' in the aftermath of our conquest of the Taliban and the terrorist
> cells in Afghanistan?

N: Again, no crystal ball.  At the moment my focus is on whether the rebel
faction and/or the folks of the exiled king in Italy, and any others
involved can form any sort of a government (should 'our' military operation
provide them with a country) which will be functional and have at heart the
interests of (or any real interest in) the Afghan people.
>
> You ask, "Can we (the US) actually afford to lift the entire world by it's
> economic bootstraps, even with UN assistance?"
>
> Can we afford not to? What is the alternative? Do you think the table of
> the world tipped into our maw is a problem or just the reward for our
> ingenuity and avarice?

N: A bit of both.  (Actually here you are sounding like my nephew in SF, CA)
I think almost everything is both a problem and an
opportunity.  It seems, from the way you write, only you have the optimum
crystal ball.
    My guess is that unless an exceptional leader, capable of attracting
extreme support, can be found, that we (the U.S. and others) will continue
to act out of expedient self-interest.
    Am I mistaken or do your views have a slightly Marxist tinge?  I don't
ask that out of a 'better dead than red' stance.  In deed I believe pure
Marxism has never been tried.  I'd like to see each 'fish in the morning...'
etc. and see the practice of 'to each according to his (and I hope her) need
and from each according to his/her ability.'  Or however it goes.  It is
perhaps likely too idealistic to happen, certainly within my lifetime (human
nature being what it is.)
>
> ***
>
> Here's a *sensation* I've experienced: a large caliber round slamming into
> my back from point blank range.
>
> How 'bout you; ever had somebody shoot to kill you?

N: Well... and did your experience happen in military combat?  If there is a
residue which might keep you from entering the Peace Corp. or it's 'new
think' equivalent, I apologize for my caustic remarks...but then how could I
know?

    Actually attacks on my life have not so far included firearms.  As to
'combat' I have experienced being struck repeatedly by fist in the belly
when pregnant with twins and then devoted half a lifetime trying to cope
with and raise the results.  Ever tried that?

    Have we switched to a fast game of 'whoever has the worse horror story
wins'?

    Am I to be ignored now (as you did with Dave) or treated to a
counterattack from you rapier wit (which is, no lie, is both awesome and
often a pain-in-the.)

    Possibly we could both get behind a drive to develop solar energy to
feed everyone's maw?  (I'm supposing that has fallen by the wayside from a
lack of quick profitability.)  Or is that also 'old think'?

    Blessings,  Nancy

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:25:16 -0400
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Stephen Calhoun <hoon@APK.NET>
Subject:      matronization
In-Reply-To:  <000c01c167dd$b442e200$bd0f1ed0@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Nancy, all,

Nancy, I suppose I may in your eyes deserve whatever you came up with by
way of responding to my own aggressive and 'not companionable' reply.
Whatever... If I read a reply and become angered and shoot off my own
response I make trouble for myself. Last week in response to an email I
sent to another group, a lurker back-channeled me with a short response:
"Your lectures are unwelcome in my mailbox. Please consider getting rid of
your computer, going outside and getting a life."

Not bad advice.

***

You don't like my writing style; you really very much don't like my writing
style. My style's convolutions offend you. (What an odd thing to be
offended by!) Feeling yourself, perhaps, to be in a kind of stylistic
competition, (my take on "I read your style as a sort of 'one upmanship'
placing clever over clear.") you admit you were "responding in tone more to
your style than your ideas".

What am I to feel about this, Nancy? 'Patronizing' is the wrong word;
perhaps a coinage 'matronizing' will serve my sense of what my style evokes
in you. So, 'matronizing' would be the expression of didactic attitude
which presumes that a radical change in who another person is would benefit
one's own self. The short of matronizing: "Be a good boy."

If you read my self expression as one-upsmanship, that, Nancy, is not its
intention. I can't put it any more clearly than that. If this admission
cannot allow you to remove the pea in your mattress, please don't blame me
for your lost sleep.

***

regards,

Stephen

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:49:29 -0400
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Stephen Calhoun <hoon@APK.NET>
Subject:      the self-critical intellect, knowledge, eros
In-Reply-To:  <000c01c167dd$b442e200$bd0f1ed0@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Nancy, all,

(To comclude my response...) Nancy, you write, "And since you seem to be
proposing a game of 'whoever has the most facts wins'"

Facts? Facts into strings of facts? Strings of facts into what, Nancy? What
did I wonder out loud about? Facts?

Hardly, what I wondered (nastily and rhetorically) out loud about is
whether you *KNEW* much about the context of history, history being -of
course- the unfolding of events; history actual more than simply factual.
You would like to quibble over the presentation of the facts about those
actualities?

As you write, "but from which sources?  All are skewed.  And processed
through what lens?  What prejudices of your own may you bring to your
studies and their processing into future procedures?"

Fine, except you also write [history] "is uninterestingly full of wars,
unrevealing legalisms, and power struggles." The idea of credible 'sources'
is, no doubt, lost on you. I would, from my perspective, and knowing what
the word *anthropology* means, wonder how anyone could be interested in
anthropological approaches and yet summarily reject the interests of
history.

***

Not surprisingly, Nancy you then proceed to demonstrate your ignorance. The
following -to me- reads as the remarks of someone who has been
'appropriately' indoctrinated and minds not to know of any bothersome
actuality, fact or nuance.

"My God, those folks are still holding grudges from the Crusades!"

"Very generally the country seems to have been a battle ground for
imperialistic struggles between Britain, Russia, against various sorts of
Islamic rule."

" The US appears to have taken a 'hidden hand' is supplying arms to the
Russian resistance, quite possibly less to help the Afghans than to thwart
the Russian.

"Even before the period you specify there were the Huns and the Persians."
The place has a long history as a 'battle ground'."

"In general their history seems to be somewhat similar to Afghanistan in
problems with the British and additionally with India."

This kind of blather puts your own request for 'viable alternatives' into
bold relief for me. You identify the murderous rationale long invoked when
necessary, *expedient self-interest*.

How many innocent civilians have been perished by this rationale since the
end of world war 2? You don't know, do you? You don't care to know, I would
wager. And, finally, you won't now go and investigate this number; it's
uninteresting, right?; after all the cause for all this carnage is already
found: 'expedient self-interest'; our country's, and, I would point out,
anybody else's country's. Such a number would be an abstraction, an
uninteresting fact, of little import to the 'intuitive'.

***

Yup: how brilliant. We're all in a sort of global competition of expedient
self-interests. And, what do you think differentiates one expedient
self-interest from another? (Probably you haven't given this much thought
since you've already admitted 'power struggles' are uninteresting.)

Competing expedient self-interests; how are they differentiated? The allies
are hoping fuel-air bombs and cluster bombs and bunker busters and other
tools will do a nice job. Likewise dropping 1% of the Afghani's daily food
needs by air every day should help.

Napalm almost worked 'way back when'. The bombing of the innocent
pharmaceutical factory in Sudan didn't work, but several hundred thousand
dead Sudanese citizens aren't on your radar screen at all, are they Nancy?
No matter: this incident was just bad intelligence in service of expedient
self-interest; oops!

How about desert storm and Iraq? What has the combined expedient
self-interests of the wicked despot Hussein and the foolish evil of our
sanctions combined to successfully promote there? A million+ innocent
civilians dead because of what, Nancy?

Saudi Arabia? We need their oil so we need their royalty in power. What
deal with the wahhabis, kharadji, nadji sects keeps the royalty in power?
To what causes do some of those fundamentalists send their oil money? How
many of the hijackers were Saudis? Why don't the Saudi allow US
intelligence to talk with the families of the Saudi hijackers?

Why? "Expedient self-interest", the all-purpose rationale for the
anti-intellectual (facts:bad!) lemmings of the world.

***

>I wonder, Stephan, can you give me the names of any with a solid
>political following in this country who both preach and practice what You
>term 'new think'?  I'd honestly like to know who they are.

Ahhh. But, Nancy, its expedient self-interest which drives the followership
of old think, don't you think? I should wake up and just realize the 'no
brainer' (the usual flourish with which expedient self-interest is
branded,) that: "its not OUR problem, its THEIR problem".

I wonder if you'd like to know 'so honestly' that you'd go explore the
answer to your question on your own initiative?

***

As far as Marx goes, I am not a Marxist. His philosophy should be
comprehended by any person who wants to know about the turning of the 19th
century into the 20th with respect to the development of the history of
ideas and also the effect of ideas on the course of history. So, Marx, is
not an unimportant figure to me, but my own inchoate ideas about global
economic possibilities are largely a 'work-in-progress' influenced by Adam
Smith, Lewis Mumford, Buckminster Fuller, E.F. Schumacher, Murray
Bookschin, Morris Earle, Hernando de Soto, and many others you know little
about. However, John Peet's piece here ( http://dieoff.com/page130.htm )
summarizing the myths about endless resources might allow you have a few
thoughts pull against your decadent, magical 'expedient self-interest'
rationalizations.

***

Also, no matter what grounds my own belief system, its grounded also by how
its critical tension is amplified; so it is important for me to know a lot
about the opposite assumptions and principles and interpretations and those
ideas are almost as important as the ideas I naturally gravitate to.

In fact, Nancy, I have a sort of intellectual pedigree. It's
uncredentialed, untested, so its not of particular merit in the
conventional sense. Its inspired by my lifelong curiosities over a typical
bright dilettante's expansive range of interests. Maybe, too, it results
from an unconscious motive: to compensate against my intellect's relative
isolation. Cast like this, my ideas strike you as clever but not clear, at
times seeming to be motivated by 'one-upsmanship'. But: facts over critical
thinking skills and the widest and deepest possible perspective I'm able to
comprehend and, God Willing, understand?

No matter how matronizing or patronizing someone is in response, and also
no matter how well deserved the rebuff to whatever the offence was, I will
continue to go about the satisfaction of my curiosities along their full
range as I have done for thirty-five years. I am certainly: a snob and
arrogant, and passive/aggressive; all of these charmless attributes are
rooted in my insecurities. Admitting this, I say to you: deal with it, or
not.

***

I believe: each is granted their own way of knowing, for better or worse,
and this way of knowing may be flexible, may be impressionable, may be
dynamic and creative, may be permeable and thus may be able to grow,
deepen, expand, may even become in some aspects sublime. Or not.

Do I suffer other person's ignorance badly? The truth is, mostly, it causes
me little suffering. However, one thing I will not do is attempt to edify
someone proud of, or who make excuses for, their own ignorance. Such
persons are, to me, hopeless cases and always are part of someone else's
problem to solve. Besides, I'm not equipped to influence them.

Although I am far from being magnanimous, not hypocritical, or 'peaceful'
person, I have no problem with ignorant people unless such persons wish to
blather about politics uninterested in history; psychology uninterested in
philosophy; science uninterested in the history or technics of science,
etc. You get the idea: these kinds of disconnects trouble me.

***

Persons who are turned on by facts, ideas and "inter-penetrating
multiplicities"; persons who themselves have developed keen self-critical
faculties, persons who are conversant with history, the history of ideas,
the history of culture; persons who are intelligently skeptical and
naturally creative and open to walking on the edge of their own beliefs;
persons with courageous convictions; persons with finely tuned intuitions,
eros,. . .those are the persons I prefer to profoundly engage.

And an even greater preference of mine is engage persons like this who can
challenge me, stretch me, edify me, show me to be full of crap, even knock
me down a few notches, humble me.

***

regards,

Stephen

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:46:31 -0800
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Nancy Smith <nsmith@NEGIA.NET>
Subject:      Re: the self-critical intellect, knowledge,
              eros/kindness and the trancendent function
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good morning. Stephen.  It is a crisp sunny day here.  Too bad.  I feel that
a bit of thunder and lightning would be a more fitting accompaniment for
responding to your last.

You write:
> Fine, except you also write [history] "is uninterestingly full of wars,
> unrevealing legalisms, and power struggles." The idea of credible
'sources'
> is, no doubt, lost on you. I would, from my perspective, and knowing what
> the word *anthropology* means, wonder how anyone could be interested in
> anthropological approaches and yet summarily reject the interests of
> history.

N: Don't know that my few impressionistic brushstrokes toward history in the
middle-east  qualify as  even 'summary.'  (ask me about Ur and we might fare
better) To me anthropology doesn't omit what is usually called 'history'.
It simply reduces it to its approprotriate proportions, i.e. wars are
mentioned as should be any passing states of possession (Ares or other) but
the emphasis is on the day to day life of the people and that which gives it
meaning.  Wars may have devistating reprocussions, but generally have no
more 'meaning' than epilepic seizures.
>
> ***
>
> Not surprisingly, Nancy you then proceed to demonstrate your ignorance.
The
> following -to me- reads as the remarks of someone who has been
> 'appropriately' indoctrinated and minds not to know of any bothersome
> actuality, fact or nuance.

N: Yes.  I thought it was 'big' of me to reveal my undisputed ignorace as I
did.  And my crystal ball was infallible in predicting that you would
belittle me for it.  So far you, yourself have demonstrated little but
bitting wit and a lot of bad temper.
>
> "My God, those folks are still holding grudges from the Crusades!"
>
> "Very generally the country seems to have been a battle ground for
> imperialistic struggles between Britain, Russia, against various sorts of
> Islamic rule."
>
> " The US appears to have taken a 'hidden hand' is supplying arms to the
> Russian resistance, quite possibly less to help the Afghans than to thwart
> the Russian.
>
> "Even before the period you specify there were the Huns and the Persians."
> The place has a long history as a 'battle ground'."
>
> "In general their history seems to be somewhat similar to Afghanistan in
> problems with the British and additionally with India."
>
> This kind of blather puts your own request for 'viable alternatives' into
> bold relief for me. You identify the murderous rationale long invoked when
> necessary, *expedient self-interest*.

N: Sorry?  I don't see how 'expedient  self-interest' is a 'rationale' of
any sort.  It indicates pretty clearly the self-interest of pretty well all
the 'rulers' (invasive or indiginous) to the exclusion of the welfare of the
common people and hence to the whole.  And apparently 'bold relief' for you
does not call forth anything useful.
>
> How many innocent civilians have been perished by this rationale since the
> end of world war 2? You don't know, do you?

N: No. I don't.  I'd hazard that the number is large, though probably much
less large (and here I stray from Afghan-Pakistan to other parts of the the
third world) than those who have died of 'natural disasters' including
famine and AID.  Seems to me I recently saw something to the effect that 1/3
of the population of parts of Africa were dying from the latter.

> You don't care to know, I would
> wager. And, finally, you won't now go and investigate this number; it's
> uninteresting, right?; after all the cause for all this carnage is already
> found: 'expedient self-interest'; our country's, and, I would point out,
> anybody else's country's. Such a number would be an abstraction, an
> uninteresting fact, of little import to the 'intuitive'.

N: My, my, my.  Aren't 'we' being nasty?  And you are doing what about all
this?
>
> ***
>
> Yup: how brilliant. We're all in a sort of global competition of expedient
> self-interests. And, what do you think differentiates one expedient
> self-interest from another? (Probably you haven't given this much thought
> since you've already admitted 'power struggles' are uninteresting.)

N: Hmmm...  I'm wondering how much this 'diffentiation' matters, if all are
in the name of 'power'.  Now, if some attacks are in the name of a father
trying to steal crumbs for his starving child... that would make a
difference.  Even so it appears to me that his ends might be served in some
better way than joining in an organized military attack.  Efforts in the
name of power have a way of stopping crumbs at the top, so that they never
filter down to the starving.
>
> Competing expedient self-interests; how are they differentiated? The
allies
> are hoping fuel-air bombs and cluster bombs and bunker busters and other
> tools will do a nice job. Likewise dropping 1% of the Afghani's daily food
> needs by air every day should help.

N: You and I both know that those drops are largely by way of warding off
such accusations of 'not caring' as you level against me above.  Still they
are a good bit more useful than pamphlets, especially considering that many
of the folk probably can't read.  (Certainly most of the younger women.)
They would be even better if the food packets were a different color than
the cluster bombs.  How would you propose we 'should' have gotten any food
at all to the people under the circumstances?  Even before the bombings the
Taliban was making food help all but impossible.  That's, to a large extent,
power in action again.  We want to 'look good', the Taliban wants us to
'look bad'.  All the while, either way, the people starve in the middle.
    As to other goals of the present counter-attack, the only one worthy of
mention is a hope to discourage future terrorist attacks, by 'making an
example'.  (Probably I have almost as little hope as you that is will be
successful.)
>
> Napalm almost worked 'way back when'. The bombing of the innocent
> pharmaceutical factory in Sudan didn't work, but several hundred thousand
> dead Sudanese citizens aren't on your radar screen at all, are they Nancy?
> No matter: this incident was just bad intelligence in service of expedient
> self-interest; oops!

N: Ah, Stephan.  You have caught me out again.  Obviously I am 'one of the
bad guys'.  And you said you were doing what at that time?
    (btw you forgot 'nerve gas, biological warfare, Hiroshima, the
holocaust,  bull fighting, activities at Roman coliseums, the rack, suttee,
crucifiction, burns at the stake, hacked off body parts (still fairly common
'punishments' in the Arab world, I hear), our current reinstitution of the
the Death Penalty, the druids way of tacking a foes intestine end to a tree
and then forcing the foe to run around the tree, and hundreds of other
attrocities.  Surely you'd like to blame my ignorance and other inadequacies
for all of those, as well?)
>
> How about desert storm and Iraq? What has the combined expedient
> self-interests of the wicked despot Hussein and the foolish evil of our
> sanctions combined to successfully promote there? A million+ innocent
> civilians dead because of what, Nancy?

N: Because obsessive aggression appears to be more attractive to many than
garden variety compassion, I believe.  And your energies are devoted to
which?
>
> Saudi Arabia? We need their oil so we need their royalty in power. What
> deal with the wahhabis, kharadji, nadji sects keeps the royalty in power?
> To what causes do some of those fundamentalists send their oil money? How
> many of the hijackers were Saudis? Why don't the Saudi allow US
> intelligence to talk with the families of the Saudi hijackers?

N: Tell me, if you know.  I curious about that last.  Particularly as a
mutual friend this week suggested that we promote the Taliban to turn bin
Laden over to the Saudis for trial.
    Power is heady stuff, particularly to those who have lost faith in love.
(Or is that 'sloppy sentamentalism' in your book?)
>
> Why? "Expedient self-interest", the all-purpose rationale for the
> anti-intellectual (facts:bad!) lemmings of the world.

N: Lemmings: not good (this is Buffy-speak from one drunken episode).  On
the other hand 'intellectuals' have a regretable tendency to sit on their
hands while blowing into a book.
>
> ***
>
> >I wonder, Stephan, can you give me the names of any with a solid
> >political following in this country who both preach and practice what You
> >term 'new think'?  I'd honestly like to know who they are.
>
> Ahhh. But, Nancy, its expedient self-interest which drives the
followership
> of old think, don't you think? I should wake up and just realize the 'no
> brainer' (the usual flourish with which expedient self-interest is
> branded,) that: "its not OUR problem, its THEIR problem".

N: And surely, to some degree at least It Is Their problem?  You write, not
so much as if You (whom, as far as I know, are at best only nominally one of
Them) were laying claim to it, but as if you would like to foist it off onto
everyone else.  Do you happen to own a car?  Might you have an adeqate diet?
>
> I wonder if you'd like to know 'so honestly' that you'd go explore the
> answer to your question on your own initiative?

N: If you mean will I forsake my own journey to attend fully to that of
others?  Then, no.  If you mean, will I, as I trod my own path, keep a
weather-eye out for that of others, then I would hardly be particpating in
what-ever-this-is with you -despite it's negativity and attempted insults -
if I were as disinterested as you claim.  Though I suppose it does afford us
each a relatively harmless way to blow off the frustration which attends
life, particularly right now, during this seemingly fruitless struggle to
reach goals on which few agree, and none apparently have any really
constuctive ideas about  how consensus can be reached.  Oh, for a golden
wand.
    btw I learned something yesterday at Bible study group which, though I
had all the necessary data, I hadn't actually integrated into knowledge.  I
was told that Christianity and Islam are the only large religions which
believe in proseletizing (or that only they have it right).  Now if one were
to believe that religion is actually a motivational force (rather than a
vehicle, as I tend to believe) that alone could bring the world horned head
to horned head.  A poisonous notion, that:  'It I am right, than logic
demands that you must be wrong'.
>
> ***
>
> As far as Marx goes, I am not a Marxist. His philosophy should be
> comprehended by any person who wants to know about the turning of the 19th
> century into the 20th with respect to the development of the history of
> ideas and also the effect of ideas on the course of history. So, Marx, is
> not an unimportant figure to me, but my own inchoate ideas about global
> economic possibilities are largely a 'work-in-progress' influenced by Adam
> Smith, Lewis Mumford, Buckminster Fuller, E.F. Schumacher, Murray
> Bookschin, Morris Earle, Hernando de Soto, and many others you know little
> about. However, John Peet's piece here ( http://dieoff.com/page130.htm )
> summarizing the myths about endless resources might allow you have a few
> thoughts pull against your decadent, magical 'expedient self-interest'
> rationalizations.

N: Lordy.  How can I resist such beguilingly persuasive words?  Now, if my
cranky software will cooperate...  btw I Do hope you have selected this site
with due thought to my 'inferior intellect and motivation' as well as my
expressed interest in anthropology?
>
> ***
>
> Also, no matter what grounds my own belief system, its grounded also by
how
> its critical tension is amplified; so it is important for me to know a lot
> about the opposite assumptions and principles and interpretations and
those
> ideas are almost as important as the ideas I naturally gravitate to.
>
> In fact, Nancy, I have a sort of intellectual pedigree. It's
> uncredentialed, untested, so its not of particular merit in the
> conventional sense. Its inspired by my lifelong curiosities over a typical
> bright dilettante's expansive range of interests. Maybe, too, it results
> from an unconscious motive: to compensate against my intellect's relative
> isolation.

N:   In the first you tell me little I hadn't already gleaned about you.  In
the second I would asked,  do you suppose that your 'relative isolation' is
caused more by your matchless, innovative brilliance?  Or by your
'aggressive' and obscure delivery?

>Cast like this, my ideas strike you as clever but not clear, at
> times seeming to be motivated by 'one-upsmanship'. But: facts over
critical
> thinking skills and the widest and deepest possible perspective I'm able
to
> comprehend and, God Willing, understand?

N: I believe, Stephan, it is not your ideas, but your abortive delivery of
them that provokes my remarks.  Unfortunately your last sentence convey
little, except perhaps to my mountain leaping intuitive goat, who claims
that you say that your goal is to understand as much and as deeply as
possible.  If that is it, I, of all people, would have no objections.  Only
the question of why you feel you must use so much offensive- and
obscure-speak in discussing it?  I take a very unZen-like position that
anything one truly understands can be put in such a way that any other
person - speaking approximately the same mother tongue, possessing at least
moderate intelligence and willingness - can understand.  Any other form of
communication usually indicates some sort of posturing (or expedient
self-interest <g>)
>
> No matter how matronizing or patronizing someone is in response, and also
> no matter how well deserved the rebuff to whatever the offence was, I will
> continue to go about the satisfaction of my curiosities along their full
> range as I have done for thirty-five years.

N: By all means <g>

>I am certainly: a snob and
> arrogant, and passive/aggressive; all of these charmless attributes are
> rooted in my insecurities. Admitting this, I say to you: deal with it, or
> not.

N: Huh.  Once more, it seems that the 'failures' of others become mine...
and casual passers-by to deal with...
>
> ***
>
> I believe: each is granted their own way of knowing, for better or worse,
> and this way of knowing may be flexible, may be impressionable, may be
> dynamic and creative, may be permeable and thus may be able to grow,
> deepen, expand, may even become in some aspects sublime. Or not.
>
> Do I suffer other person's ignorance badly? The truth is, mostly, it
causes
> me little suffering. However, one thing I will not do is attempt to edify
> someone proud of, or who make excuses for, their own ignorance. Such
> persons are, to me, hopeless cases and always are part of someone else's
> problem to solve. Besides, I'm not equipped to influence them.

N: Hmmm... Judgmental as usual, huh?  However I am glad to be let off the
hook for once, as I feel/do none of the above (or if so, no more than you
with your 'insecurities'.)  Though I Do wonder, with that humongous chip you
stagger under, whom  Are you equipped to influence?
>
> Although I am far from being magnanimous, not hypocritical, or 'peaceful'
> person, I have no problem with ignorant people unless such persons wish to
> blather about politics uninterested in history; psychology uninterested in
> philosophy; science uninterested in the history or technics of science,
> etc. You get the idea: these kinds of disconnects trouble me.

N: I didn't exactly 'wish to blather' though I grant you, I did have a
choice in whether to attempt the questions you directly proposed to me, or
not, out of my abysmal ignorance.  It is less a question of total
disinterest in the subjects you mention, than a recognization of innate
abilities and preferred emphasis.
>
> ***
>
> Persons who are turned on by facts, ideas and "inter-penetrating
> multiplicities"; persons who themselves have developed keen self-critical
> faculties, persons who are conversant with history, the history of ideas,
> the history of culture; persons who are intelligently skeptical and
> naturally creative and open to walking on the edge of their own beliefs;
> persons with courageous convictions; persons with finely tuned intuitions,
> eros,. . .those are the persons I prefer to profoundly engage.

N: Interesting.  Apparently you do not deem me among that group.  Nor have
you given me much reason to deem you among such either (particularly not the
last mentioned).  And you presume that you have like qualities to offer
those who qualify?

    For myself: I value Distilled knowledge, uninflated self-awareness,
courtesy and mutuality of respect, openmindedness (over convictions),
creative clarity, a non-judgemental attitude, interest without
competitiveness and good-will to all.
>
> And an even greater preference of mine is engage persons like this who can
> challenge me, stretch me, edify me, show me to be full of crap, even knock
> me down a few notches, humble me.

N: The latter sound fairly s&m.  And as if, once more, you are trying to
draw others into responsibilities which rightly belong to yourself.  Sounds
like a 'dirty job', but if you feel it must be administered from outside, I
certainly hope you find what you need.
    It appears we have each more or less become disqualifies from worthiness
of the attentions of the other.  Yes?
>
    May you be blessed with all you desire and learn from it what happens
when one gets what one wishes for.

    Many blessings,

    Nancy

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:36:16 -0500
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Stephen Calhoun <hoon@APK.NET>
Subject:      Re: the self-critical intellect, knowledge,
              eros/kindness and the trancendent function
In-Reply-To:  <003f01c16957$83c6ce40$bf0f1ed0@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Nancy, all,

Couple of comments, Nancy. I'm gratified to learn much of what I had hoped
to convey in fact was rendered -this time- clearly enough for you to have
comprehended it. This does reinforce your preference for clarity over
obscurity, a preference I'll also comment on. One person's obscurity is
another person's clarity. In language, in mathematics, in jazz, etc.

***

>> Why don't the Saudi allow US
>> intelligence to talk with the families of the Saudi hijackers?
>
>N: Tell me, if you know.  I curious about that last.

Possibly the Saudis do not wish inquiries to be made so as to prevent
further inquiries to ensue, inquiries which might develop even further
lines of inquiries which might then start to unravel the various ways some
of the monied Saudi elite operate as patrons of terrorist organizations.
Possibly significant tendrils of support reach into the Saudi royalty, or,
possibly, the Saudi royalty's security forces may have had prior knowledge
of such operations.

***

>Any other form of
>communication usually indicates some sort of posturing

'If I can't understand it, it's posturing.'/'your abortive delivery of
them that provokes my remarks'

The little posture that could provoke...

***

regards,

Stephen

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:52:14 +1300
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Walter Logeman <walter@PSYBERNET.CO.NZ>
Organization: psybernet
Subject:      Re: viable alternatives
In-Reply-To:  <p04330104b80cb99f820e@[207.54.160.165]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Stephen, Nancy all,

I am not settled into my new place nor fully out of the old one,
the phone connections and desk space are a problem at home and -
strangely at work, where my shared internet connection is down
right now as Dan has moved office.

So my involvement is brief here.

I have found the friction - tone in the discussion difficult -
but this a time of war and we are still talking - which must be
counted as a good thing!

I think the question Nancy of "what is the alternative" is
interesting but also leaves me hanging in a at the end of a
leading question... does there need to be an alternative?  an
alternative to what?  An alternative to creating safety in the
US? The bombing makes it worse.  An alternative way of punishing
the perpetrators of the WTC and Pentagon terrorist attacks?
Bombing Afghanistan does not punish them. Making the world a
better place?  Hardly.

The roots of this war is tied in with US/Global imperialism -
superpower on the rampage - and so getting to the roots of it is
the global opposition - which wages its resistance as best it can
everyday around the world.  The US is simply doing what it has
been doing for years - expanding its military industrial complex
under the guise of freedom and humanitarianism.  The expansion is
the exact opposite of that.

Still, asking the question makes sense - and I have a hankering
to answer it less obliquely and to say "international law" is the
alternative (and like Stephen) - but it is not viable - (see my
debate re this with Josh - where I make the case for
international law - but where he really points out the futility.
http://www.topica.com/lists/nzstopwar/read/message.html?mid=800949733&sort=t&start=0


A day or two later...

Nor is "waging peace" as Stephen calls it a viable option - this
assumes the humanitarian motive to the system - but it is only
present in the people of good will - hence the propaganda ploy
works on us to some extent.

~~~

It should not surprise me that the debate here in Psyber-L has
included language, style, clarity etc.

I have been impressed with an article by Arundhati Roy:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/26/feature1.shtml

   "When he announced the air strikes, President George
   W. Bush said, Were a peaceful nation. Americas
   favorite ambassador, Tony Blair (who also holds the
   portfolio of British prime minister), echoed him:
   Were a peaceful people.

   So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys.
   War is peace."

And one by Robert Fisk on media
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=103717

   "Air campaign"? "Coalition forces"? "War on terror"?
   How much    longer must we go on enduring these lies?"

Both articles highlight the destruction of language.

Language is vital in this war.  It is not just semantics - I
think our civilization is at stake.  We have an Orwellian
nightmare of doublespeak. The official version on CNN is "clear"
and almost everything else seems like some sort of extreme
jargon.  The thing is that the spin-doctors have worked on the
media language - and the rest of us have to make do with our
personal & idiosyncratic tongue.

"War on terror" is nothing like an objective description, yet it
is used to describe the current state of affairs.  But what
should we call it?  Can we all call it whatever we like?  Is
there a neutral description?  Our names for these events and
times will put us in one or another camp! Attack on Afghanistan?
Attack on WTC?  These seem fairly neutral.  But is neutrality
appropriate?

~~~

I may well be on my soap box here - and I have a site and mailing
list for that http://www.psybernet.co.nz/nzstopwar/  however I am
most interested in the psyber aspect of this.  Our process and
reflection on it makes good sense here.

How is the experience of this war for us online?  Here the
language of the war stands out.  Here the conflicts online are of
note.  Is this the first war that is really "on the net"?  How is
the net doing with that?  Does it help?


Walter

Does the

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:58:33 -0800
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Nancy Smith <nsmith@NEGIA.NET>
Subject:      Re: viable alternatives
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good morning Walter, all,
    I am 'ready' to respond a little now.  I hope you all will be able to
figure out my sometimes imprecise jabs at 'factual' references.  After two
days of research - admittedly  mostly for my own understanding more than
others - there are names and other info I haven't found that would help
those more geared to a Sensation Function.

Walter wrote:
> I am not settled into my new place nor fully out of the old one,
> the phone connections and desk space are a problem at home and -
> strangely at work, where my shared internet connection is down
> right now as Dan has moved office.

N: I'm sure this adds to your frustration level, Walter.  At the risk of
annoying with the obvious, I'd suggest that you may have too many irons in
the fire.
>
> So my involvement is brief here.

N: I'm supposing that with the sparcity of posts to this list, that most of
us only check it occasionally.  There is hardly a day I'm not on my computer
yet I memorize the number of unread posts and don't check in here unless
that number increases.

> I have found the friction - tone in the discussion difficult -
> but this a time of war and we are still talking - which must be
> counted as a good thing!

N: Let us hope so.  With the level of what some call evil in the world,
anything which can be called 'good' (espec. as Thanksgiving approaches here)
must be cherished.
    Later, Walter, you ask what we are finding on the Net which bears on the
current 'war'.  I'll stop briefly here to note one thing I'm finding.  I
belong to four discussion lists (excluding 'stopthe war' and poetry lists).
My observation has been that discussion of the current crisis varies with
the sensitivity to discord.  What this seems to mean is that on the list
with the most pro-peace feeling types the (rather dictitorial moderator) has
forbidden all discussion of the current 'war' because there are those with
strong feelings who join the 'war' onlist from both sides (the 4-5 most
violent are all thinking types).  On another Jung list the 'ruler/moderator'
has also banned it because it disinterests him and Jung himself has nothing
to say on 'This 'war'.  On the freest list, with the best moderator I've
ever experienced, the 'war' is currently out of the limelight.  It was the
most informative to read after 9/11.  All are international lists.
    I really meant to mention only the first remark, but once started, it
sorta flowed on.

> I think the question Nancy of "what is the alternative" is
> interesting but also leaves me hanging in a at the end of a
> leading question... does there need to be an alternative?

N: You, Walter, have been critical of the current action of the US and
supporters.  My question was posed with that
in mind.  Anything else would have been an alternative.  Folks, I think,
delude themselves into thinking that to do nothing, is actually to do
nothing.  The terrorists of 9/11 would have computed 'nothing' into
'something' and would have guaged their future actions accordingly.

>  an
> alternative to what?  An alternative to creating safety in the
> US? The bombing makes it worse.  An alternative way of punishing
> the perpetrators of the WTC and Pentagon terrorist attacks?
> Bombing Afghanistan does not punish them. Making the world a
> better place?  Hardly.

N: I cannot agree with any of the three answers you offer above.  I do not
firmly disagree with them, but I certainly question your omnescence in
offering what is yet to be shown.  It may be that the future will show that
the opposite is true in all three cases; or it may not. [I seem to preceive
a belief that we might to better to somehow appease the terrorists.  While
hoping that we as a nation will become more allert to the thoughts,
expressions and needs of the rest of the world, I don't think appeasement
would help with the Al Qaeda group, and more than with Timothy McVeigh, the
Oklahoma bomber who killed hundreds).
>
> The roots of this war is tied in with US/Global imperialism -
> superpower on the rampage - and so getting to the roots of it is
> the global opposition - which wages its resistance as best it can
> everyday around the world.  The US is simply doing what it has
> been doing for years - expanding its military industrial complex
> under the guise of freedom and humanitarianism.  The expansion is
> the exact opposite of that.

N: The above paragraph surprises me.  I'd like to put it down to the heat of
your moment, as otherwise, for me, it disqualifies your objectivity.
    I have checked about a bit over you terming, as I read it, the US as an
'imperialist nation'.  My family's Doctor of History replies that we were
imperialistic 100 years ago, but not now.  An intelligent friend from the
mountains replies that we (the US) are not imperialistic but are often
arrogant.  I'd tend to agree with that, though doubt that we are more
arrogant than the more powerful in the mideast (and I include Israel).  [I
also checked with a Chinese correspondent in the Filipines, who hopes that
while we are at it we'll remove their local bandido terrorist]  We are, for
better or worse, right now the world's main 'Superpower' so that any
'stirring' here have somewhat the effect of Gulliver first awaking had on
the Lilliputions... an understandable overreaction.
    *** My most immediate reaction to your comments is to say that to call
'us' an 'imperialistic nation' is received here with the same enthusiasm as
'crusades' is received in Islam.  It  smacks here of 'old think' from the
communist side of the cold war era.
    Incidentally my suspicious is that Bush was surprised by the Islamic
reaction to the word 'crusade'.  He is from the western fringe of the Bible
Belt where the word is used mostly in relation to 'tent meetings' for
Christian fundamentalists, with no thought of the quixotic episodes over 800
years ago.
    Such is language and word choice around the globe.
>
> Still, asking the question makes sense - and I have a hankering
> to answer it less obliquely and to say "international law" is the
> alternative (and like Stephen) - but it is not viable - (see my
> debate re this with Josh - where I make the case for
> international law - but where he really points out the futility.

N: Thank you, Walter.  I appreciate what I preceive to be a serious attempt
at response.
I will now respond briefly to each of your [relatively] interesting sites.
You (and others) I hope, may respond to my responses.

>
http://www.topica.com/lists/nzstopwar/read/message.html?mid=800949733&sort=t
&start=0

N: This was very interesting, as it was more or less the first explanation
I'd heard of this proposed court.  I'm guessing something pretty similar may
be said of 80-99% of the US populace.  I'm still puzzling about the whole
thing and watching what will happen with this court and also if the Kyoto
global warming agreement procedes without us.
    Personally I've always been 'for' moves toward world govt.  Yet as I see
the unfolding of current events I both see the world moving closer to this
and understand the US reluctance to participate right now.  I asked you,
Would any other nation in our position do otherwise (a highly speculative
question in the circumstances).
    We have recently been kicked out (off?) of the UN Humanitarian Committee
(?) Which this nation (those few who know of it) resent.  I am still unable
to find out a lot about that event.  What I most want to know is how the
record of the remaining nations compare with our own.
    As you, and others, point out there is considerable anti-American
sentiment around the world.  How can anyone expect us to surrender our
purogatives under these conditions?  To expect that other nations will be
'fair' to us?
    This country has experienced an inward shift to the right since the last
presidental election (the results of which as you know were so close as
still possibly have been wrongly decided).  Oddly I'd guess much of this
shift may be due to Clinton's confusion over bed sheet boundaries and
subsequent efforts to cover his confusion.  Personally, I regret that the
investigation didn't continue and uncover what I suspect may be some 80% of
such confusion  on the Republican side.  (There seems to be a statistical
relationship between power and this sort of behavior) I say that for our
internal good.  With the world it might have done some immediate harm, tho
possibly long term good.
    At any rate this rightside shift and it's ramifications, even into
sit-coms, has surprised me.
    Jesse Helms, who may be a laughing stock to much of the more liberal
citizenry here, has perhaps profited from this shift.
>
    In summary of the last site, I read you, Walter, to be saying that an
international court won't work because the US won't cooperate.  We, among 4
other, Do have veto power in the upper body of the UN.  It appears we want
it with the court also.
>
> A day or two later...
>
> Nor is "waging peace" as Stephen calls it a viable option - this
> assumes the humanitarian motive to the system - but it is only
> present in the people of good will - hence the propaganda ploy
> works on us to some extent.

N: The above paragraph is a little unclear to me.  I preceive 'good will' to
be as prevalent here (if not more so) than in most countries.  When it comes
to a world view, good will toward all is probably as rare as is 'common
sense'.
>
> ~~~
>
> It should not surprise me that the debate here in Psyber-L has
> included language, style, clarity etc.

N: Hmmm... that was a 4 year old dam you saw break in my case.
>
> I have been impressed with an article by Arundhati Roy:
>
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/26/feature1.shtml

N: Goodness, Walter.  What a choice.  Here she is reputed for her
anti-American sentiments.  In India she is (still?) being tried for
'obscenity'.  My main point, however, would be that she is a gifted
novelist.  A fiction writer, I believe, is distinguished by his/her ability
to jerk emotional strings.  I don't much like having 'my strings jerked'.
It is akin to 'manipulation'.
>
>    "When he announced the air strikes, President George
>    W. Bush said, "We're a peaceful nation." America's
>    favorite ambassador, Tony Blair (who also holds the
>    portfolio of British prime minister), echoed him:
>    "We're a peaceful people."

N: I guess Tony Blair has progressed of late here from a figure of fun on
Sat. Night Live to a new 'respectability' due to his staunch backing.
>
>    So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys.
>    War is peace."

N: And in most countries the Police try to preserve peace when they are not
beating up on minorities.

N: Your mockery has a 'mean' feel to it.  Oddly it is true that the US has
moved from an isolationist nation to regarding itself as the 'world's police
force'.  I can't compare NZ in all this.  While I hear of a good deal of
anti-American sentiment (from a rather small minority I'm told) over there,
I do tend to regard NZ as something of a lovely, green island of peace.  Our
family historian returned fairly recently with tales of its beauty.  In my
(quite possibly insufficiently uninformed) mind I tend to equate it with
Switzerland,  though its boundaries are guarded by sea rather than
mountains.
>
> And one by Robert Fisk on media
> http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=103717

N: I thank you for this site, Walter.  Assuming that it is on the same
track, I may now have a glimmer of what Stephen was referring to as 'old
think'.

    I am in a bit of a quandary what to say about this, since I have
expressed a favor for and eventual world govt.

    It seems to me that the anti-American sentiment in the world...when it
moves beyond a reasonable resentment of our 'arrogance' and the 'ugly
Americans' visiting aboard (where they are courted by the tourist industry)
are really asking for a Christ-like self-sacrifice and that much of it boils
down to envy.  Of individuals of other nation, it's my feeling that often
the more they themselves have the more they express a desire us to give them
what we have.  I'm wondering if this isn't sometimes a distraction to divert
criticism for their own selfishness to us and ours?  Those who are truly
suffering are usually too preoccupied for 'mean covetous feelings'.
>
>    "Air campaign"? "Coalition forces"? "War on terror"?
>    How much    longer must we go on enduring these lies?"

N: Perhaps as long as we must endure the use of manipulation and that new
one 'framing' from the 'Helping Professions'?
>
> Both articles highlight the destruction of language.

N:  I think 'misuse' rather than 'destruction'.  The latter might to
reserved for 'honest communication' rather than 'language.' There are
examples closer to 'home' from both of us (doubtless) right here in this
post.
>
> Language is vital in this war.  It is not just semantics - I
> think our civilization is at stake.  We have an Orwellian
> nightmare of doublespeak. The official version on CNN is "clear"
> and almost everything else seems like some sort of extreme
> jargon.  The thing is that the spin-doctors have worked on the
> media language - and the rest of us have to make do with our
> personal & idiosyncratic tongue.

N: If our civilization is at stake I'd think it was more through nukes than
language.  Language has always been misused to prove any point which suited
the self-interest of the user.  Bin Laden's gang is a prime example.
    I recently posted an article from the Christian Science Monitor to the
'peaceful' Jung group which made a partial beginning on answering Bush's
question, "Why do they hate us?" (bless him for asking) from a muslim
viewpoint.
    CNN isn't so bad.  Some commentators are asking our officials some of
the 'hard questions'.  Of course they are also filling the airwaves with a
lot of repetition and misinformation in their effort to fill 24/7.
    This will antagonize some, but I treasure the image of their attempt to
interview Sharon and seeing him answer in evasions as he slunk off the
screen with a backward look of contempt and distrust.  He reminded me of a
dog (I love dogs) beaten since birth who still has a snarl ready.  I'm not
anti-semetic, I think.  Yet I feel it is unwise for a group to think of
themselves as 'chosen' and then claim 'victim' status.  Nobody much likes
those who consider themselves 'special' (witness the AntiAmerican feeling
abroad).
>
> "War on terror" is nothing like an objective description, yet it
> is used to describe the current state of affairs.  But what
> should we call it?  Can we all call it whatever we like?  Is
> there a neutral description?  Our names for these events and
> times will put us in one or another camp! Attack on Afghanistan?
> Attack on WTC?  These seem fairly neutral.  But is neutrality
> appropriate?

N: Objectivity is always appropriate, I think.  But perhaps only god can
achieve it.
    As you say, only 'fairly' neutral.  I must say I'd like to send all our
pilots and bombers back to target school.  Perhaps through ignorance I
underestimate the difficulties, but even given some tolerance for this
military operation as a whole, their 'misses' have been devestating to
whatever 'cause' we have.
    My personal stance is that on the 'down' side the US has acted out of
long safety in the immediate outrage of "They Can't Do That To Us!".  Well,
of course, 'they' Did so that.  On the up side I believe that we are truly
sick and tired of small, illegal groups running around killing whomever they
like in fits of personal agrandizement and self-righteousness.  You don't
see any difference between us and them?  I think I do see a bit, in both
quality and quantity.
>
> ~~~
>
> I may well be on my soap box here - and I have a site and mailing
> list for that http://www.psybernet.co.nz/nzstopwar/  however I am
> most interested in the psyber aspect of this.  Our process and
> reflection on it makes good sense here.

N: I wonder, Walter, have you unsubscribed me from your 'stopwar' list
without telling me?  I haven't received a post in a very long time, though
the 'peace movement' posts continue to arrive.
>
> How is the experience of this war for us online?  Here the
> language of the war stands out.  Here the conflicts online are of
> note.  Is this the first war that is really "on the net"?  How is
> the net doing with that?  Does it help?

N: I've tried to answer this a bit at the beginning.  It's the first war
(I'm not sure it is a 'war' rather than a 'self appointed', if you will,
police action) where I (and I'd guess most) have been on the net.  IMO it
has definitely made understanding better.  BUT, war occurs largely where
communication has already failed.  To the degree this 'war' is the 'poor'
against the 'rich'.  The poor do not own computers so we hear nothing from
them.  There is bias on both sides.  This bias seems to promote an extremism
of language (and evasion) which very nearly precludes communication, while
promoting 'possession'.
    One of my Big disgusts (though ambivalent) with this current situation
is the Bush blackout on news.  Preserving 'national security' has just
enough validity to be misused.  I had hoped that improved news coverage
would at least prevent another 'My Lai'.  Now I'm not sure - under current
constraints - it could have.
    I just read this morning that Bush intends to claim special powers to
set up a US military court in which to try and sentence terrorist.  I await
the outcry.  If he manages this unilateral move, I also await the outcome.
I can't see how the results can be any more unfair than those to the people
who went to work in Washington and New York (from... is it 62 or 82
nations?) on 9/11 and never came home.
    I have no particular liking for Bush (Shrubbo, the Fastest gun in the
West etc.).  I wish I knew just how wrong he will turn out to be.  Yet there
is little indication that his opponent Gore would have acted much
differently.  (Lord only knows what Nader would have done!)
    My own contribution to the current situation other than to lists and
individual correspondence?:

    http://www.wordmachine1.com/WorldWall7.html

    There are now 30 + 'towers' (pages) from poets all over the world, some
of them the best in the field.  Incidentally 'sponsorship' here uniquely
costs no money, only creativity and hopefully reflection.

    But the question I REALLY want to leave you all with is: Doesn't it take
a great deal of inner 'hawkishness' to be so attracted to the current 'war
on terrorism' (or whatever any may care to call it) when 240,000,000 African
men, women and children died last year of AIDs and as far as I know there
this no reason the number should be less this year?  IF there is little
honesty in the world in language, I hope you will each use what you have to
inwardly ponder this question.

    Blessings to all,  Nancy

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:45:38 +1300
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Walter Logeman <walter@PSYBERNET.CO.NZ>
Organization: psybernet
Subject:      Re: viable alternatives
In-Reply-To:  <000d01c16d4f$20d5a1c0$a70f1ed0@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nancy,

I want to acknowledge your detailed response, though I am in the
midst of - as you say - too many things on my plate.  The end is
in site though, we are cleaning out the old house - having a
garage sale on Dec 1. Bringing over the books next week etc.

Briefly.

Nancy - I am willing to dialogue with you on this.  I understand
we come from different places - and I understand that we will not
be easily changed in our perspectives.  I recall the shock when I
realised in the Vietnam days that the US (government) was in the
wrong there.  I had grown up believing in the great benevolent
champion of peace truth and justice in the American way.
(Superman on TV).

You use the term anti-Amarican. I am not anti-American and many
people opposed to the way the US does its foreign policy are not
anti-American. In a way it is sad to see such a great nation do
such bad things. The opponent of this in the US especially need
courage to go against a dominant ideology - that involves love
not hate.

Can you see how it can hurt to be called anti-American if one
opposes some Bush government position?

But even those opponents of the war who use the words US - maybe
me at times - are not talking about anything other than the US
military and industrial complex.  It goes beyond the US too,
Globalisation - imperialism.

OK - that might put it all into marxist terms and I am ok with
that.  It is an older paradigm but it does not make it wrong.  Of
course there have been disastrous political events in its name -
but the perspective of class relations and the importance of
material survival - seems no more than Maslow and basic sociology
to me.

That there are huge global forces influencing events and that
these are masked by religion, and ideology seems to me a
political perspective that is parallel to the psychological
perspective that postulates a psyche.  It is knowable but not
easily.

Got to go.


Walter

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:38:31 -0800
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Nancy Smith <nsmith@NEGIA.NET>
Subject:      Re: viable alternatives
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Walter,

You wrote:
>
> I want to acknowledge your detailed response, though I am in the
> midst of - as you say - too many things on my plate.  The end is
> in site though, we are cleaning out the old house - having a
> garage sale on Dec 1. Bringing over the books next week etc.

N: It sounds as if there is still a great deal to do.  I hope you have help
and that Kate does also in looking after the horses.

    I have a few preliminary questions about the proposed discusion, mixed
with a comment or two (rereading I'd better say 'or ten').
>
> Briefly.
>
> Nancy - I am willing to dialogue with you on this.

N: How to interprete 'willing'.  Hopefully you aren't viewing this as a
'favor' you are doing me?  I'd hope if we are to engage this way it might be
for the benefit of both and attendant listeners?  (Possibly I'm transferring
a little here from my 'fed up' state with hierarchical 'graciousness'  --
not inappropriate to the current conflict, which rather than a 'war of
lies', I'd call at times a struggle for moral superiority.)

> I understand
> we come from different places - and I understand that we will not
> be easily changed in our perspectives.

N: Personally, at this point, the only change I seek is that which comes
from an understanding of one another's perspectives [and I don't just mean
'yours and mine'].  Difficult enough in this world where everyone seems to
be rapid firing 'absolutes'.

> I recall the shock when I
> realised in the Vietnam days that the US (government) was in the
> wrong there.

N: A very broad statement.  In war it may be safely assumed that there is
some wrong on every side.  Yet I agree all in all it was a regretable
portion of our history (and theirs).

> I had grown up believing in the great benevolent
> champion of peace truth and justice in the American way.

N: You speak here, I think, of the pain of disillusionment, the crumbling of
ideals.  If so, I agree.

> (Superman on TV).

N: Interesting.  The imagery of the nightmare I mentioned (on this list a
couple of months ago) but chose not to specify was of my dream ego in the
body of the Christopher Reeves' Superman.  'We' were in a community
processing kitchen, going through an electrical garbage disposal which had
stuck just as our shared body had passed to the mid thigh.  Attendants were
trying to restart the mechanism.
    I correspond with a Chinese of the Philippines who reported a dream of
being in an American jeep with soldiers on the top of a cliff in an Afghan
setting.  One of the large American soldiers got out and went over the cliff
edge.
    It turned out to our surprise when we checked that both dreams occurred
Oct 11th, exactly one month before the terrorist attack here.
>
> You use the term anti-Amarican. I am not anti-American and many
> people opposed to the way the US does its foreign policy are not
> anti-American.

Walter, You wrote:
"The roots of this war is tied in with US/Global imperialism -
superpower on the rampage - and so getting to the roots of it is
the global opposition - which wages its resistance as best it can
everyday around the world.  The US is simply doing what it has
been doing for years - expanding its military industrial complex
under the guise of freedom and humanitarianism.  The expansion is
the exact opposite of that."

> In a way it is sad to see such a great nation do
> such bad things. The opponent of this in the US especially need
> courage to go against a dominant ideology - that involves love
> not hate.

N: Hmmm.  I hear this so often in different settings applied sometimes with
the dangest interpretations of what may be done in the name of 'love'.
Sometimes it seems that every side of every issue claims to be acting out of
'love'.  Poor word.  It's almost lost its meaning.  Is it 'love' to
'campaign' for a person or nation to live up to the ideals of others?

>
> Can you see how it can hurt to be called anti-American if one
> opposes some Bush government position?

N: Did you suppose I was doing any of the above or that my intention was to
'hurt'?  I don't think your interpretation is fair in that, far from
specifying 'the Bush government' (in the bit quoted above) you mention, "The
US is simply doing what it has been doing for years..."

> But even those opponents of the war who use the words US - maybe
> me at times - are not talking about anything other than the US
> military and industrial complex.  It goes beyond the US too,
> Globalisation - imperialism.

N: I read, "The roots of this war is tied in with US/Global imperialism -
superpower on the rampage..." several times because 'US/Global imperailism'
could possibly be taken at least two ways, yet as the US is, at the moment,
the only 'superpower', I ended by believing you must mean that 'we' were
practicing 'global imperialism'.  Now I think you'd have to go far and
search very hard to find an American who wouldn't take that as
'anti-American.'

>
> OK - that might put it all into marxist terms and I am ok with
> that.

N: As I've said, I don't think pure Marxism has been tried.  It appears to
me that it is perhaps simply impractical.  But I don't see that as the bell
rope on which you appeared to be pulling.  Rather 'imperialism', as I said,
was the prime insult of the Russians during the cold war.  That is how
almost any of us here (in the US) would read it, I believe.  Since the
Russians (under a different ideology) were every bit, if not more,
imperialist as we, such bells are unlikely to tinkle of 'love.'

> It is an older paradigm but it does not make it wrong.  Of
> course there have been disastrous political events in its name -
> but the perspective of class relations and the importance of
> material survival - seems no more than Maslow and basic sociology
> to me.
>
N: I don't want to have to refresh on ideological 'smoke'.  Partly because
I, in fact, agree with much that follows (I think...it seems a little
vaguely stated to me, but... who am I as an intuitive to criticise another
intuitives phrasing?)

> That there are huge global forces influencing events and that
> these are masked by religion, and ideology seems to me a
> political perspective that is parallel to the psychological
> perspective that postulates a psyche.  It is knowable but not
> easily.

N: About the best I can do is to agree that there are forces masquerading
under banners of 'moral superiority'.  Where I think we may still disagree
is that you appear to believe far more in 'intentionality', while I have
faith in the existence of bumbling stupidities.
    I must return to the principle of 'expedient self-interest' salted
occasionally with grains of good intentions (and you know where Hansel and
Gretel followed that 'road')
    We are a 'Capitalist' based system.  (What is NZ?) Apparently this means
(at least to Republicans) that what is good for business is, in the long
run, good for the 'people'.  Personally I'm inclined a bit more toward a
moderate 'socialism' (It works better for some nations than others. Our
welfare system turned out rather badly in too many cases, creating a rather
criminal subculture.).  This alone is enough to get me labeled
'anti-American' with many on the 'I wear my buttons on my nose' crowd.
>
> Got to go.

N: Gaps are probably of value if we are to 'dialogue'.  As I hope I've
somewhat demonstrated above, the rhetoric of hasty one-sided statements
polarizes rather than leading to 'understanding' if not 'agreement'.

    I hope that unlike the Afghanis, who have moved for a month from
starving to fasting, you and Kate are eating wisely - since I assume you are
able - and sleeping well to minimize stress.

    Love (????? I hope) Nancy

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Nov 2001 05:11:26 -0800
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Aldon Hynes <ahynes1@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Random Thoughts
In-Reply-To:  <001601c17070$fdb79700$a10f1ed0@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Stephen asked how everyone is doing.  I am doing okay.
 I am a bit sleep deprived with the arrival of Fiona.
I am a bit anxious as I continue to look for a new
job.  I am concerned with what is going on in our
world.  I am tuning into other currents, arts and
religion, especially online.  I appreciated Stephen's
posts and have read a little of the Koran online.  I
am still digesting it.

I am also thinking about Stephen's and Walter's
discussion about the dreams within different contexts.
 With that, I will post what I posted to a different
list.

From:  "Aldon" <ahynes1@yahoo.com>
Date:  Sat Nov 17, 2001  4:36 pm
Subject:  Random Thoughts


There is no moon in the sky tonight
The spheres have conspired the show.

The new month brings Ramadan,
Fasting in an impoverished nation
With bombers in a moonless sky

Owls fly tonight.  There is something in the air
Harry Potter has left for the celluloid Hogwart's
to the delight of many children.

Dream is destiny,
as well pass through the tail
of a dying comet
leaves dust to wish upon,
A show of meteors

Meanwhile the dust is still settling
From the fall of the trade centers.

There is no moon in the sky tonight
The spheres have conspired the show.




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html


=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:38:44 -0500
Reply-To:     Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender:       Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace <PSYBER-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From:         Aldon Hynes <ahynes1@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Catching UP

Okay, so now I've gotten through the dialog between Stephen, Walter and
Nancy.  My previous post was only partly through the discussion.  No
offense intended to the participants, but I've gotten pretty board with
political discussions over the past few months.  It has happening on many
mailing lists I am on.  Normally, I return to a Dadaist position and mock
both sides.  The heat of peoples discussions online reflecting the heat of
the World Trade Centers burning, or the bombs falling on Afganistan.

Then old Zen story comes to mind:

Buddha told a parable in sutra:

A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger
after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine
and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above.
Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was
waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.

Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away
the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine
with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it
tasted!

I leave it to the imagination of the readers to determine who the white
mouse and who the black mouse in the recent emails is, whether either of
them are 'viable' whatever that means, and what the strawberry represents.

Aldon

____________________________________________________________
Read, write in Psyber-L, manage your options, or unsubscribe
here:      http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/psyber-l.html




