Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 Hi, all of you fine people. Interesting, somewhat strange subjects , but important ones. I have only some little observation. The gloom and doom about the now finishing war should now be replaced with a positive attitude for what can be done. Sackcloth and ashes were appropriate in my mind before...but we are dealing with a fait accompli' More breast beating now, seems to me personally an indulgence without any use but guilt. To me, this is a subject of private meditation and prayer from now on. I also think we can and must be very vigilant about our civil liberties. It is so easy to fall into inertia. I can see and understand the concern. I also am deeply concerned. And public action and arousing the ignorant seems important. Can we allow the images of horror and war to recede a little and bring forth the images of responding to needs? We fought the good fight,( on the list and in our hearts) but the conclusion was forgone. Now we need to help the rebuilding, not to go over the past with recriminations. Maybe it is just me, but I personally can stand mo more negativity for a while. I must conserve , or rather rediscover,my positive outlook and husband my strength- We are back in politics again, as we usually are, but i do so agree with the threat to our free speech and opinions in a land where the usual response to any unpleasant situation is " America...love it or leave it " The very appearance of the renewal of " star champer " tactics and atmosphere chills me to the bone. There is a quote somewhere in the back of my mind about eternal vigilance being the price of liberty. right on!! The threat is not from the outside but from within, always with us, but now tremendously straighthened. I cannot believe we are holding prisoners incomunicado and without counsel. Where am I? What I really wanted to say is that my daughter from Florida left today. My garden is weeded, fertilized, mulched and some planted. My heart is full as I see my pansies which she planted. She did everything including,clipping dead stuff, hauling mulch and dirt around. I am so thankful...I can't tell you. I look outside at my budding pear tree and see things in order for the moment and alive with a new Spring. I am so blessed with my children i will never quit saying thankyou. (She also took care of her father except for night duty which is mine.She cooked all the meals) I am speechless in wonder, as this was the 'problem child " of early days. All is healed, I think in both of us, and i am forgiven for what I consider some nasty temper tamtrums, and difficulty when she came to us at 13 months.We both had to learn to accept each other, and then to love. It is sometimes harder with a one year old who spent the first year of her life in foster care and the children's hospital, being born without hip sockets.and then in a cast between her legs. It was my husband's statement to the adoption agency, when he said (without ever having discussed it with me) that we would be happy to take a handicapped child.She was ours that minute! There is nothing handicapped about her now, 44 years later. She healed in time and became the best athlete in the family. God is good. Toni -- Original Message ----- To: <JUNG-FIRE > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 1:19 PM Subject: Re: TIA; Minority Report : Using pre-emptive analytic data is chilling stuff because it inverts the entire established principle of precedence and the Presumption of Innocence which is the foundation of how laws are interpreted and applied in the U.S. and other countries including Canada and Britain. Interpretation of Laws and a major function of courts in these countries is to interpret, construe, analyze, and apply other types of laws, including constitutions, statutes, rules of court, etc. By establishing precedence for application of these laws based on a specific set of facts, case law ³fills in the gaps² of these other laws. I don't see much in the way of a gulag being established at this time by the indiscriminate interpretation of the names of the data list. But there is enough slippage into a pre-emptive model that there is cause for grave concern. One pre-emptive model is the police state that comes from Europe, countries like East Germany, Nazi Germany and the Soviet union, and was implemented during the McCarthy years in the U.S. with blacklisting. Surely a dark era in your history. The hallowed Presumption of Innocence principle succinctly conveys the principle that no person may be convicted of a crime unless the government carries the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me that those who find themselves targeted by airlines, car rental companies and financial institutions could use the Internet to build a network to prepare for a class action suit against the U.S. Government. Frances " They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. " R.D. Laing " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 Dear Toni, I think you are so right. Yesterday my friend Tia (from the training programme) came back to my place for dinner after our weekend lecture, and was instantly drawn to my " shrine " , which consists of statues and postcards of deities from different pantheons. One of these is a genuine Babylonian goddess figure from 1,850-1,650 BCE (a present from Graham). I was thankful for having her as I watched so much culture being destroyed on TV. I am so glad that you had this precious time with your daughter. Was this ? Do give her my warmest ragards - I really liked her, although we didn't have that much opportunity to chat at Alice's - she has such a soft voice and wasn't near enough for me to hear her without straining. love, fa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 Dan wrote: For example, are Jan and pro- or anti death penalty? Hmmmm., I wonder. What do > they think about the war in Iraq? Another puzzler :-). > > I don't trust 'em either. I am happy to be protected from them. I wonder, Dan, would you also feel the need to be protected from a 75 year old Quaker lady I know, named Alice? She also is outspoken in her belief in peace and pacifism. She loves cats, children, and has spent most of her retirement (she was a librarian) doing volunteer work for charitable agencies. I'm sure Mother would have been against the death penalty and I can't imagine she would have supported Bush and his imperalist regime. Would there be need for you to be protected from her as well? Of course Jan, , Alice and Mother are all women. And while we know if Suzanne were a man, you would have recently been tempted to " belt her " , perhaps your statement " I am happy to be protected from them " is a rather tongue in cheek insult? Well, then what about men like Gandhi and King? You would have needed protection? And exactly what did Jesus mean (if we can believe they were indeed his words) " blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God " ? If those are indeed his words, no doubt he would be considered " unpatriotic " and you would need protection. From all those who take the words " thou shalt not kill " seriously, what lengths would you go to assure yourself " protection " ? Perhaps those who know you well on this list just laugh and say, oh that's just Dan. Maybe you were just joking as I wondered at first. But I don't know -- reading 's post I remember Joe, recently of this group, threatening to turn him in to the authorities. I think of the military recruiter who recently told a college professor attending a peace rally that he " should be shot in the head " . I think of those in my own community who have written letters to the editor of the local newspaper saying all peace activitists should be tried as traitors. I think of the Patriot Act giving the gov't the right to access our email, the posts we make in groups such as these. Will we all who email our friends and family our hopes for peace be on a 'no fly' list soon (except you of course)? Reading 's post and your words: One has > a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of right, or even > duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " country. When, oh when, will we be past this hippy stuff? - well, maybe soon (60's hippies were, on > the whole, notoriously reluctant to suffer much for their putative convictions - the fun was over when the cops started shooting back). I thought of Nazi Germany, when members of the Nazi Youth Guard were called upon to turn their neighbors and parents in for anti-Nazi sentiments. Have you yet reported those in this list Dan? Don't you need to be protected from us? You say the hippies ran when the shooting started? What facts do you base this statement on? If you were unarmed (as you would be if you were marching for peace) and the military began shooting at you, would you run? And, well, where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Hmmm...? You wrote, > It is almost as though people believe that totally free speech is some sort of divine, eternal, universal, absolute right, instead of what it is - a > desideratum that must at times be balanced against other desiderata. And of course you have a point -- what is a " right " anyway except a cultural construct? Do we have a " right " to free speech, a right to our own lives? Many would answer emphatically " Yes! " and I'm tempted to join them. You say these things are desiderata, and I agree with you. Freedom of speech, freedom to love, life itself are very much desired and needed by all souls on this earth, and so we go beyond the cultural to the spiritual. We must rely on the divine to inform us and now we are on tenuous ground, almost floating. Yet such is the nature of the mysteries we are given to live. It is in *my* nature to hope and keep my faith that light will prevail over darkness. I like the way Frances signs her posts " in the dance " . I recognize all of us are there in the dance. I lean on the words of the Dalai Lama who when speaking of the Chinese invaders of Tibet says we must strive for compassion because compassion has the power to change the Chinese heart, the Chinese mind. I hope the same thing for America's mind and heart also. (P.S. Pardon the intrusion -- I know your reply was to but although I tried to imprison my hands, they found their way free...at least for now. ;-^) " This theme of reality as a wilderness...is the theme which unifies my own life. It enfolds and simplifies, comprehends and completes. Whenever I awaken, I awaken to it. It carries with it the gift of life. " Henry Bugbee > > > But what if your background happens to fit some suspicious profile? > > I must say that this looks like a pretty " suspicious profile " to me, too. Profiling works - I'd be willing to bet the rent that I could predict the > opinions of these two gals on a number of issues with, say, 90% accuracy just on the basis of what I know here (San Francisco, anti- war, private > citizens meddling in foreign affairs that don't concern them). For example, are Jan and pro- or anti death penalty? Hmmmm., I wonder. What do > they think about the war in Iraq? Another puzzler :-). > > I don't trust 'em either. I am happy to be protected from them. > > > > > > Like what happened to Jan and Gordon, journalist for > > War Times, a San Francisco-based antiwar magazine. In August the two > > were stopped as security risks as they tried to fly to Boston. They > > were eventually allowed to proceed but with a red " S " stamped on > > their boarding pass which meant searches at every stop. > > > > These women have monitored elections in El Salvador and assisted > > antiapartheid activists in South Africa. They were told they were on > > the " no fly " list, but what if they were merely victims of a CAPPS > > algorithm by traveling to those places during those years? What if > > your travel background leads to heightened security procedures every > > time you fly? How can you correct the computer's inaccurate > > presumptions? > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked Dan, and he answered, " I do agree with this, actually - but > > speech is not mere opinion or " belief, " speech is behavior. Nuff > > said. " > > > > This is a startling 'nuff said'. Speech is behavior, but it's the use > > of speech to anticipate future behavior that has put citizens on the > > no-fly lists. Is this future behavior terrorism? Illegality? > > One assumes - reasonably - that what one says is connected to what one thinks and what one might do. Kaszinski's (sp?) words were consistent with his > actions. It's a matter of prudence. People seem to think that flying (for example) is some kind of divine right. I once boarded an El-Al flight > overseen by some gentlemen with automatic weapons who clearly didn't think so, lol. Really, people seem to think that they can just say anything, and > there are not supposed to be any " real world " consequences. I see that Tim Robbins has his knickers in a twist because the Baseball Hall of Fame now > wants nothing to do with him and his wife, after their performances at the s and elsewhere (does he not understand that other people get to have > opinions, too?). > > It is almost as though people believe that totally free speech is some sort of divine, eternal, universal, absolute right, instead of what it is - a > desideratum that must at times be balanced against other desiderata. > > > > > > > > No, it is not. What is distressing is: if speech is information about > > future behavior, then how are citizens to be protected from law > > enforcement's speculation about this future behavior, if this > > speculation *has nothing to do with prospectively illegal future > > acts*? > > It is not mere speculation, and so far the consequences appear to have been quite mild. Being denied a boarding pass, or even a job, ain't exactly the > gulag, you know? And perhaps people can avoid even these mild consequences by avoiding the fact or appearance of being disloyal troublemakers. One has > a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of right, or even > duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " country. When, oh when, will we be past this hippy stuff? - well, maybe soon (60's hippies were, on > the whole, notoriously reluctant to suffer much for their putative convictions - the fun was over when the cops started shooting back). > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 Dear , wrote: > Dan wrote: > > For example, are Jan and pro- or anti death penalty? Hmmmm., > I wonder. What do > > they think about the war in Iraq? Another puzzler :-). > > > > I don't trust 'em either. I am happy to be protected from them. > > I wonder, Dan, would you also feel the need to be protected from a 75 > year old Quaker lady I know, named Alice? She also is outspoken in > her belief in peace and pacifism. She loves cats, children, and has > spent most of her retirement (she was a librarian) doing volunteer > work for charitable agencies. Oh, probably not - " Quaker " tells the tale; perhaps unworldly and naive, but probably harmless. A charming lady, I have no doubt. > > > I'm sure Mother would have been against the death penalty and > I can't imagine she would have supported Bush and his imperalist > regime. I can't either - after all, she put a wreath on Enver Hoxha's grave. That is more suggestive of totalitarian, Stalinist sympathies - or, alternatively, an incredibly childish belief that " all you need is love, " played out in the world press (such people are sometimes known as " useful idiots " ). Either way, pretty scary stuff. > Would there be need for you to be protected from her as well? > > Of course Jan, , Alice and Mother are all women. And > while we know if Suzanne were a man, you would have recently been > tempted to " belt her " , perhaps your statement " I am happy to be > protected from them " is a rather tongue in cheek insult? No, I mean that. Terrorism is real, and " sandalistas " - as Jan and would appear to be - bear watching, imo. I would not strike a woman except in genuine self-defense, but that doesn't mean that I kid myself that a woman can't be a terrorist. > > > Well, then what about men like Gandhi and King? I don't think they were terrorists. Gandhi appears to have done some mischief, although not to me or mine. King was mostly harmless, on the whole, I think - he did not advocate the violent overthrow of the government or anything like that. > You would have > needed protection? And exactly what did Jesus mean (if we can > believe they were indeed his words) " blessed are the peacemakers for > they shall be called the children of God " ? If those are indeed his > words, no doubt he would be considered " unpatriotic " and you would > need protection. The Grand Inquisitor was not altogether wrong, imo. An apology can be made even for him. There is a difference between terrorists and mere fools, although both are dangerous. I am not a Christian. I don't very much care what Jesus meant, frankly. I don't love my enemies. The more ancient idea that you should help your friends, harm your enemies, and keep a watchful eye on strangers makes more sense to me. I suspect that paganism reflects the closest thing to the true speech about the gods, and it seems to me that Jung thought so too. The Romans thought Jesus was a problem, and I would say that history bore them out - Jung credits Christianity with the undermining of the Roman empire. Since this is a Jung list, perhaps Jung on Jesus might be worthwhile: " A young man who hasn't yet lived and experienced the world, who hasn't even married or had a profession, cannot possibly be a model of how to live. If all men should imitate Christ, walking about and talking wisely and doing nothing at all, sometimes getting an ass somewhere in order to have a ride, it just wouldn't do; such people would nowadays land in the lunatic asylum. It is impossible for such a figure now to be a model or a solution or an answer. " CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_ 22 January 1936. I just love that, lol. It cracks me up. > > > >From all those who take the words " thou shalt not kill " seriously, How *could* one take seriously a mere cultural construct (anticipating your statement below)? I have never understood that. > > what lengths would you go to assure yourself " protection " ? Hard to say, exactly - to whatever lengths were necessary, I suppose. > > > Perhaps those who know you well on this list just laugh and say, oh > that's just Dan. I shouldn't wonder. > Maybe you were just joking as I wondered at first. Oh, no. > > But I don't know -- reading 's post I remember Joe, recently > of this group, threatening to turn him in to the authorities. I > think of the military recruiter who recently told a college professor > attending a peace rally that he " should be shot in the head " . I > think of those in my own community who have written letters to the > editor of the local newspaper saying all peace activitists should be > tried as traitors. I think of the Patriot Act giving the gov't the > right to access our email, the posts we make in groups such as > these. Will we all who email our friends and family our hopes for > peace be on a 'no fly' list soon (except you of course)? I don't know. If I were worried about it, I might avoid e-mail. " Hoping for peace " is one thing, it seems to me. Getting involved in South American revolutionary movements is another. FDR is famous (or infamous) for having said of the original Somoza (Nicaraguan dictator) that " he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. " Just so. What does it mean when Americans give aid and comfort, not to our sons of bitches, but to the sons of bitches who oppose them? It is enough to give one pause, I think. > > > Reading 's post and your words: > One has > > a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - > private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though > they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of > right, or even > > duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " country. When, oh > when, will we be past this hippy stuff? - well, maybe soon (60's > hippies were, on > > the whole, notoriously reluctant to suffer much for their putative > convictions - the fun was over when the cops started shooting back). > > I thought of Nazi Germany, when members of the Nazi Youth Guard were > called upon to turn their neighbors and parents in for anti-Nazi > sentiments. Have you yet reported those in this list Dan? It is hardly my place to do that. Anyway, turned them in for what? > Don't you > need to be protected from us? I don't know - about the few here that I know, I would say " no. " > > > You say the hippies ran when the shooting started? What facts do you > base this statement on? Kent State was the last big " peace " march of the 60's- of course, the draft ended not too long after, and that was mostly what the " movement " was about anyway. > If you were unarmed (as you would be if you > were marching for peace) and the military began shooting at you, > would you run? I don't know - would I be throwing rocks and bottles and incendiary devices, and refusing to disperse as the cops had ordered? > And, well, where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Elsewhere - can't say that I blame him. The war *was* fairly stupid, I must admit. > > Hmmm...? > > You wrote, > > It is almost as though people believe that totally free speech is > some sort of divine, eternal, universal, absolute right, instead of > what it is - a > > desideratum that must at times be balanced against other desiderata. > > And of course you have a point -- what is a " right " anyway except a > cultural construct? Ah, well - in that case, there is no need to argue about " right. " It just all comes down to power, then, and we shall see what we shall see. > Do we have a " right " to free speech, a right to > our own lives? Many would answer emphatically " Yes! " and I'm tempted > to join them. You say these things are desiderata, and I agree with > you. Freedom of speech, freedom to love, life itself are very much > desired and needed by all souls on this earth, and so we go beyond > the cultural to the spiritual. We must rely on the divine to inform > us and now we are on tenuous ground, almost floating. First you say it is a matter of " cultural construct, " and now you seem to say that it is more a matter of divine information - which is it? Are we talking " cultural construct " or natural law? > Yet such is > the nature of the mysteries we are given to live. It is in *my* > nature to hope and keep my faith that light will prevail over > darkness. > > I like the way Frances signs her posts " in the dance " . I recognize > all of us are there in the dance. I lean on the words of the Dalai > Lama who when speaking of the Chinese invaders of Tibet says we must > strive for compassion because compassion has the power to change the > Chinese heart, the Chinese mind. And it's worked out so well for them, too. The Chinese soldiers were just bowled over by the power of all that love, folded their tents and went home ;-). Seriously, when Tibet is liberated -as I sincerely hope that it will be - it will be, I believe, by armed force (or at least the credible threat of same). > I hope the same thing for America's > mind and heart also. > > > > (P.S. Pardon the intrusion -- I know your reply was to but > although I tried to imprison my hands, they found their way free...at > least for now. ;-^) No need to apologize. Regards, Dan Watkins > > > " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 In a message dated 4/14/2003 8:56:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, toni.toni2@... writes: > is still in constant pain to which she will not give in, because > the doctors are afraid that another operation would not do any good as far > as the pain is concerned. She tries not to show it, but she is pretty > fragile at the moment. I hope the medical geniuses will figure out a way to > relieve the pain without turning her into a zombie. She refuses to take > anything which clouds her mind. > Hi Toni, Forgive my intrusion here but I thought to tell you that my sister was in severe chronic pain for much of her life and was getting a great deal of relief from a combination of neurontin and methadone. Pain clinics are beginning to treat people with low doses of methadone and having great success. It is not as addicting and has far fewer side effects than the more narcotic pain killers like vicotin and percosset. It took her a while to get over the thought that methadone is usually used for drug addiction but in her case it was really a relief. She also found her mind was getting much clearer. That was also shortly before she died which we think was from a blood clot to the brain...nothing to do with the change in medications. Just thought I'd share that in case it is useful information. Glad to hear that Ray is getting stronger. We were visited here in Hatfield, Massachusetts by a flock of three thousand snowy owls over the weekend and thousand more Canadian Geese came by to join them. It was quite something. Love, Suzanne " Mourn not the dead. But rather mourn the apathetic throng - the cowed and meek who see the world's great anguish and its wrong, and dare not speak. " - Ralph Chaplin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 Dear fa, No, it was , the second oldest. , the oldest was natural born, and was 2 when we adopted . After , we adopted , who we got right from the hospital at 3 weeks, and then 4 years later, after an ectopic pregnancy that came as close in doing me in, and I was under strict orders not to have any more pregnancies ( quite a number were miscarriages during those years between and who was born after the longest labor in the world, in 1965., while Ray was in Korea for a year and I was 34 going on 104. is still in constant pain to which she will not give in, because the doctors are afraid that another operation would not do any good as far as the pain is concerned. She tries not to show it, but she is pretty fragile at the moment.I hope the medical geniuses will figure out a way to aleave the pain without turning her into a zombie. She refuses to take anything which clouds her mind. Beth lives here in Pittsburgh, but could not be any help except as company for her Dad when her last of 4 girls , Ellen age 9 would leave her in peace long enough.Two are away in college and the third will go next year. Since I am getting hard of hearing, she sometimes has to repeat herself for me too. I believe she is so soft voiced because her mother was anything but.?? Yes, I shuddered when I read the reports of the Baghdad museum.Sometimes human nature surprises me, when I just have finished thinking I might have a clue. Pent up feelings I can understand, but destroying one's own heritage???? love, Toni To: <JUNG-FIRE > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 5:28 PM Subject: Re: TIA; Minority Report > Dear Toni, > > I think you are so right. > > Yesterday my friend Tia (from the training programme) came back to my place > for dinner after our weekend lecture, and was instantly drawn to my > " shrine " , which consists of statues and postcards of deities from different > pantheons. One of these is a genuine Babylonian goddess figure from > 1,850-1,650 BCE (a present from Graham). I was thankful for having her as I > watched so much culture being destroyed on TV. > > I am so glad that you had this precious time with your daughter. Was this > ? Do give her my warmest ragards - I really liked her, although we > didn't have that much opportunity to chat at Alice's - she has such a soft > voice and wasn't near enough for me to hear her without straining. > > love, fa > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 Dear , In my years on this list with Dan, I have decided that he " cannot " be serious. He, of course, tells me he is. It is hard to believe, but I try. I find those most in fear, those most needing security are the same as those who want any signs of freedom and opposition to the powers that be, very threatening. When one is not willing to take risks, and cannot allow others to do the same , it is to me ,a sign of fear and I have mentioned this to Dan many times. We have argued the death penalty, the ability to realize that every experience we have is not a " thought, we had made up " and that perhaps the there something else in this word besides the rational mind, but Dan stands fast in his view. That is OK too, because we believe everyone is entitled to their own, but it seems weird sometimes around this fire. Dan is honest with the feelings he expresses, and knowledgeable about his understanding of history, psychology and " don't shake the boat " theory. He is just a " puzzlement " His appraisal as the perfection of the life in the Middle Ages is either funny or tragic depending on our view.But, you know it was a very hierarchical society where freedom to think or worship or move, or decline to fight for the lord of their land was a sign of treason. Therefore it was a society where everyone knew their place...and the serfs were meant to do as told by Church and lord of the manor. A structured society which is what I believe Dan craves. Dan I am not talking about you behind your back. I have said all this to you personally over and over, right? Security above all.??? We are who we are, and Dan is who he is.We can fight with him, disagree with him, doubt him and his , to us, strange ideas in the year 2003, but we must love him first. That of course, we do with everyone here if we can. Toni He simply cannot fathom some of the ideas, meanings and faith in whatever some of us have. Civic unrest is the worst threat.Liberal ideas are the cause of that unrest, therefore liberal opinions and desires are wrong.Neat.??? Re: TIA; Minority Report > Dan wrote: > > For example, are Jan and pro- or anti death penalty? Hmmmm., > I wonder. What do > > they think about the war in Iraq? Another puzzler :-). > > > > I don't trust 'em either. I am happy to be protected from them. > > > I wonder, Dan, would you also feel the need to be protected from a 75 > year old Quaker lady I know, named Alice? She also is outspoken in > her belief in peace and pacifism. She loves cats, children, and has > spent most of her retirement (she was a librarian) doing volunteer > work for charitable agencies. > > I'm sure Mother would have been against the death penalty and > I can't imagine she would have supported Bush and his imperalist > regime. Would there be need for you to be protected from her as well? > > Of course Jan, , Alice and Mother are all women. And > while we know if Suzanne were a man, you would have recently been > tempted to " belt her " , perhaps your statement " I am happy to be > protected from them " is a rather tongue in cheek insult? > > Well, then what about men like Gandhi and King? You would have > needed protection? And exactly what did Jesus mean (if we can > believe they were indeed his words) " blessed are the peacemakers for > they shall be called the children of God " ? If those are indeed his > words, no doubt he would be considered " unpatriotic " and you would > need protection. > > From all those who take the words " thou shalt not kill " seriously, > what lengths would you go to assure yourself " protection " ? > > Perhaps those who know you well on this list just laugh and say, oh > that's just Dan. Maybe you were just joking as I wondered at first. > But I don't know -- reading 's post I remember Joe, recently > of this group, threatening to turn him in to the authorities. I > think of the military recruiter who recently told a college professor > attending a peace rally that he " should be shot in the head " . I > think of those in my own community who have written letters to the > editor of the local newspaper saying all peace activitists should be > tried as traitors. I think of the Patriot Act giving the gov't the > right to access our email, the posts we make in groups such as > these. Will we all who email our friends and family our hopes for > peace be on a 'no fly' list soon (except you of course)? > > Reading 's post and your words: > One has > > a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - > private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though > they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of > right, or even > > duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " country. When, oh > when, will we be past this hippy stuff? - well, maybe soon (60's > hippies were, on > > the whole, notoriously reluctant to suffer much for their putative > convictions - the fun was over when the cops started shooting back). > > I thought of Nazi Germany, when members of the Nazi Youth Guard were > called upon to turn their neighbors and parents in for anti-Nazi > sentiments. Have you yet reported those in this list Dan? Don't you > need to be protected from us? > > You say the hippies ran when the shooting started? What facts do you > base this statement on? If you were unarmed (as you would be if you > were marching for peace) and the military began shooting at you, > would you run? And, well, where was Bush during the Vietnam war? > Hmmm...? > > You wrote, > > It is almost as though people believe that totally free speech is > some sort of divine, eternal, universal, absolute right, instead of > what it is - a > > desideratum that must at times be balanced against other desiderata. > > > And of course you have a point -- what is a " right " anyway except a > cultural construct? Do we have a " right " to free speech, a right to > our own lives? Many would answer emphatically " Yes! " and I'm tempted > to join them. You say these things are desiderata, and I agree with > you. Freedom of speech, freedom to love, life itself are very much > desired and needed by all souls on this earth, and so we go beyond > the cultural to the spiritual. We must rely on the divine to inform > us and now we are on tenuous ground, almost floating. Yet such is > the nature of the mysteries we are given to live. It is in *my* > nature to hope and keep my faith that light will prevail over > darkness. > > I like the way Frances signs her posts " in the dance " . I recognize > all of us are there in the dance. I lean on the words of the Dalai > Lama who when speaking of the Chinese invaders of Tibet says we must > strive for compassion because compassion has the power to change the > Chinese heart, the Chinese mind. I hope the same thing for America's > mind and heart also. > > > > (P.S. Pardon the intrusion -- I know your reply was to but > although I tried to imprison my hands, they found their way free...at > least for now. ;-^) > > " This theme of reality as a wilderness...is the theme which unifies > my own life. It enfolds and simplifies, comprehends and completes. > Whenever I awaken, I awaken to it. It carries with it the gift of > life. " Henry Bugbee > > > > > > > > > > But what if your background happens to fit some suspicious > profile? > > > > I must say that this looks like a pretty " suspicious profile " to > me, too. Profiling works - I'd be willing to bet the rent that I > could predict the > > opinions of these two gals on a number of issues with, say, 90% > accuracy just on the basis of what I know here (San Francisco, anti- > war, private > > citizens meddling in foreign affairs that don't concern them). For > example, are Jan and pro- or anti death penalty? Hmmmm., I > wonder. What do > > they think about the war in Iraq? Another puzzler :-). > > > > I don't trust 'em either. I am happy to be protected from them. > > > > > > > > > > Like what happened to Jan and Gordon, journalist for > > > War Times, a San Francisco-based antiwar magazine. In August the > two > > > were stopped as security risks as they tried to fly to Boston. > They > > > were eventually allowed to proceed but with a red " S " stamped on > > > their boarding pass which meant searches at every stop. > > > > > > These women have monitored elections in El Salvador and assisted > > > antiapartheid activists in South Africa. They were told they were > on > > > the " no fly " list, but what if they were merely victims of a CAPPS > > > algorithm by traveling to those places during those years? What if > > > your travel background leads to heightened security procedures > every > > > time you fly? How can you correct the computer's inaccurate > > > presumptions? > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked Dan, and he answered, " I do agree with this, actually - > but > > > speech is not mere opinion or " belief, " speech is behavior. Nuff > > > said. " > > > > > > This is a startling 'nuff said'. Speech is behavior, but it's the > use > > > of speech to anticipate future behavior that has put citizens on > the > > > no-fly lists. Is this future behavior terrorism? Illegality? > > > > One assumes - reasonably - that what one says is connected to what > one thinks and what one might do. Kaszinski's (sp?) words were > consistent with his > > actions. It's a matter of prudence. People seem to think that > flying (for example) is some kind of divine right. I once boarded an > El-Al flight > > overseen by some gentlemen with automatic weapons who clearly > didn't think so, lol. Really, people seem to think that they can just > say anything, and > > there are not supposed to be any " real world " consequences. I see > that Tim Robbins has his knickers in a twist because the Baseball > Hall of Fame now > > wants nothing to do with him and his wife, after their performances > at the s and elsewhere (does he not understand that other people > get to have > > opinions, too?). > > > > It is almost as though people believe that totally free speech is > some sort of divine, eternal, universal, absolute right, instead of > what it is - a > > desideratum that must at times be balanced against other desiderata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not. What is distressing is: if speech is information > about > > > future behavior, then how are citizens to be protected from law > > > enforcement's speculation about this future behavior, if this > > > speculation *has nothing to do with prospectively illegal future > > > acts*? > > > > It is not mere speculation, and so far the consequences appear to > have been quite mild. Being denied a boarding pass, or even a job, > ain't exactly the > > gulag, you know? And perhaps people can avoid even these mild > consequences by avoiding the fact or appearance of being disloyal > troublemakers. One has > > a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - > private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though > they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of > right, or even > > duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " country. When, oh > when, will we be past this hippy stuff? - well, maybe soon (60's > hippies were, on > > the whole, notoriously reluctant to suffer much for their putative > convictions - the fun was over when the cops started shooting back). > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 Dear Toni, " You wrote: and the serfs were meant to do as told by Church and lord of the manor. A structured society which is what I believe Dan craves. " Thank you, Toni. After reading Dan's reply to my post, I too thought fear was the big issue here. Ironic though, a structured society should it come to pass as envisioned by the right wing, particularly the Fundamentalist Christian right wing, I think even Dan would come to see as a nightmare. I appreciate both your and Dan's honesty, and perhaps I have a little more understanding now. However, such understanding comes accompanied with questions! Ah well, another time! Aloha, " There must be the...generating force of love behind every effort destined to be successful. " Henry Thoreau > > > > > > > But what if your background happens to fit some suspicious > > profile? > > > > > > I must say that this looks like a pretty " suspicious profile " to > > me, too. Profiling works - I'd be willing to bet the rent that I > > could predict the > > > opinions of these two gals on a number of issues with, say, 90% > > accuracy just on the basis of what I know here (San Francisco, anti- > > war, private > > > citizens meddling in foreign affairs that don't concern them). For > > example, are Jan and pro- or anti death penalty? Hmmmm., I > > wonder. What do > > > they think about the war in Iraq? Another puzzler :-). > > > > > > I don't trust 'em either. I am happy to be protected from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like what happened to Jan and Gordon, journalist for > > > > War Times, a San Francisco-based antiwar magazine. In August the > > two > > > > were stopped as security risks as they tried to fly to Boston. > > They > > > > were eventually allowed to proceed but with a red " S " stamped on > > > > their boarding pass which meant searches at every stop. > > > > > > > > These women have monitored elections in El Salvador and assisted > > > > antiapartheid activists in South Africa. They were told they were > > on > > > > the " no fly " list, but what if they were merely victims of a CAPPS > > > > algorithm by traveling to those places during those years? What if > > > > your travel background leads to heightened security procedures > > every > > > > time you fly? How can you correct the computer's inaccurate > > > > presumptions? > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked Dan, and he answered, " I do agree with this, actually - > > but > > > > speech is not mere opinion or " belief, " speech is behavior. Nuff > > > > said. " > > > > > > > > This is a startling 'nuff said'. Speech is behavior, but it's the > > use > > > > of speech to anticipate future behavior that has put citizens on > > the > > > > no-fly lists. Is this future behavior terrorism? Illegality? > > > > > > One assumes - reasonably - that what one says is connected to what > > one thinks and what one might do. Kaszinski's (sp?) words were > > consistent with his > > > actions. It's a matter of prudence. People seem to think that > > flying (for example) is some kind of divine right. I once boarded an > > El-Al flight > > > overseen by some gentlemen with automatic weapons who clearly > > didn't think so, lol. Really, people seem to think that they can just > > say anything, and > > > there are not supposed to be any " real world " consequences. I see > > that Tim Robbins has his knickers in a twist because the Baseball > > Hall of Fame now > > > wants nothing to do with him and his wife, after their performances > > at the s and elsewhere (does he not understand that other people > > get to have > > > opinions, too?). > > > > > > It is almost as though people believe that totally free speech is > > some sort of divine, eternal, universal, absolute right, instead of > > what it is - a > > > desideratum that must at times be balanced against other desiderata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not. What is distressing is: if speech is information > > about > > > > future behavior, then how are citizens to be protected from law > > > > enforcement's speculation about this future behavior, if this > > > > speculation *has nothing to do with prospectively illegal future > > > > acts*? > > > > > > It is not mere speculation, and so far the consequences appear to > > have been quite mild. Being denied a boarding pass, or even a job, > > ain't exactly the > > > gulag, you know? And perhaps people can avoid even these mild > > consequences by avoiding the fact or appearance of being disloyal > > troublemakers. One has > > > a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - > > private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > > > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though > > they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of > > right, or even > > > duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " country. When, oh > > when, will we be past this hippy stuff? - well, maybe soon (60's > > hippies were, on > > > the whole, notoriously reluctant to suffer much for their putative > > convictions - the fun was over when the cops started shooting back). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings > may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2003 Report Share Posted April 15, 2003 Hello Dan, I'm sure your vision for our country and mine will continue to remain on divergent paths. But as U.S. troops sit by and allow libraries and priceless historical documents to burn in Baghdad, I'll add a few comments to the exchange: : > > And, well, where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Dan: > Elsewhere - can't say that I blame him. The war *was* fairly stupid, I must admit. > And you don't see the hypocrisy in this? I agree the Vietnam war was stupid and would add as immoral and unnecessary as the Iraq war. During the 60s draft dodgers were considered unpatriotic. I don't agree, am merely recalling. Yet to campaign for peace and diplomacy in Iraq warrants one the label of traitor. Where are all the WMD that made this war so necessary for Americans to sacrifice their sons and daughters and pulverize into non-existence thousands of Iraqi men, women, children? and... : > > >From all those who take the words " thou shalt not kill " seriously, > Dan: > How *could* one take seriously a mere cultural construct (anticipating your statement below)? I have never understood that. I don't take the mystery which informs the statement " thou shalt not kill " to *be* a mere cultural construct. It's present at the core of many religions and is more than mere rhetoric. Dan: > There is a difference between terrorists and mere fools, although both are dangerous. I am not a Christian. I don't very much care what Jesus meant, > frankly. I don't love my enemies. The more ancient idea that you should help your friends, harm your enemies, and keep a watchful eye on strangers > makes more sense to me. I suspect that paganism reflects the closest thing to the true speech about the gods, and it seems to me that Jung thought so > too. The Romans thought Jesus was a problem, and I would say that history bore them out - Jung credits Christianity with the undermining of the Roman > empire. Since this is a Jung list, perhaps Jung on Jesus might be worthwhile: > > " A young man who hasn't yet lived and experienced the world, who hasn't even married or had a profession, cannot possibly be a model of how to live. > If all men should imitate Christ, walking about and talking wisely and doing nothing at all, sometimes getting an ass somewhere in order to have a > ride, it just wouldn't do; such people would nowadays land in the lunatic asylum. It is impossible for such a figure now to be a model or a solution > or an answer. " > > CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_ 22 January 1936. > > I just love that, lol. It cracks me up. > > I'm not a Christian either. This doesn't mean I don't have a relationship to Christ. Jung wrote much about Christianity and Christ in addition to the above quote from 1936 which provided you so much amusement. He also declared himself to be a Christian in a letter from 1960 (I think), sorry I need to look up this source later: ' " So many letters I have received have emphasized my statement about'knowing' (of God ) [in 'Face to Face', the Listenner, October 29]. My opinion about 'knowledge of God' is an unconventional way of thinking, and I quite understand if it should be suggested that I am no Christian. Yet I think of myself as a Christian since I am entirely based upon Christian concepts. " As for your quote in which Jung dicusses the inappropriateness of imitating Christ, I found the following quote helpful in understanding what he meant by this: " Christ...took himself with exemplary seriousness and lived his life to the bitter end, regardless of human convention and in opposition to his own lawful tradition, as the worst heretic in the eyes of the Jews and a madman in the eyes of his family. But we? We imitate Christ and hope he will deliver us from our own fate. Like little lambs we follow the shepherd, naturally to good pastures. No talk at all of uniting our Above and Below! On the contrary Christ and his cross deliver us from our conflict, which we simply leave alone...Instead of bearing ourselves, i.e., our own cross, ourselves, we load Christ with our unresolved conflicts. We 'place ourselves under his cross,' but by golly not under our own...The cross of Christ was borne by himself and was his. To put oneself under somebody else's cross, which has already been carried by him, is certainly easier than to carry your own cross amid the mockery and contempt of the world. That way you remain nicely ensconced in tradition and are praised as devout. This is well-organized Pharisaism and highly un-Christian. Whoever imitates Christ and has the cheek to want to take Christ's cross on himself when he can't even carry his own has in my view not yet learnt the ABC of the Christian message. Have your congregation understood that they must close their eyes to the traditional teachings and go through the darkness of their own souls and set aside everything in order to become that which every individual bears in himself as his individual task, and that no one can take this burden from him? We continually pray that 'this cup may pass from us' and not harm us. Even Christ did so, but without success...We might...discover among other things that in every feature Christ's life is a prototype of individuation and hence cannot be imitated: one can only live one's own life totally in the same way with all the consequences this entails. " C G Jung Collected Letters Vol II pp. 76-77 letter to Dorothee Hoch as quoted in _Carl Jung: Wounded Healer of the Soul_ by Dunne So, I think this gives a deeper insight into the progression of Jung's ruminations on Christianity and Christ. Just a thought, how do you think non-Christians will fare in the United States the Fundamentalist Christian right wing hope to establish? wrote: I lean on the words of the Dalai > > Lama who when speaking of the Chinese invaders of Tibet says we must > > strive for compassion because compassion has the power to change the > > Chinese heart, the Chinese mind. Dan said: > And it's worked out so well for them, too. The Chinese soldiers were just bowled over by the power of all that love, folded their tents and went home > ;-). Even tho this was tongue in cheek, I think you know the Dalai Lama doesn't expect compassion to be an instant process. No doubt to Tibetan Buddhists, we have all of eternity to work these things out. ;-) Aloha, " Perhaps the openness of a human being in his entirety is a condition of philosophical truth. If this is so, contraction and rigidity and deadness of spirit would mark the moments of our philosophical failing as surely as our flagrant contradictions. " Henry Bugbee (_The Inward Morning_) > > > > > > For example, are Jan and pro- or anti death penalty? Hmmmm., > > I wonder. What do > > > they think about the war in Iraq? Another puzzler :-). > > > > > > I don't trust 'em either. I am happy to be protected from them. > > > > I wonder, Dan, would you also feel the need to be protected from a 75 > > year old Quaker lady I know, named Alice? She also is outspoken in > > her belief in peace and pacifism. She loves cats, children, and has > > spent most of her retirement (she was a librarian) doing volunteer > > work for charitable agencies. > > Oh, probably not - " Quaker " tells the tale; perhaps unworldly and naive, but probably harmless. A charming lady, I have no doubt. > > > > > > > I'm sure Mother would have been against the death penalty and > > I can't imagine she would have supported Bush and his imperalist > > regime. > > I can't either - after all, she put a wreath on Enver Hoxha's grave. That is more suggestive of totalitarian, Stalinist sympathies - or, > alternatively, an incredibly childish belief that " all you need is love, " played out in the world press (such people are sometimes known as " useful > idiots " ). Either way, pretty scary stuff. > > > > Would there be need for you to be protected from her as well? > > > > Of course Jan, , Alice and Mother are all women. And > > while we know if Suzanne were a man, you would have recently been > > tempted to " belt her " , perhaps your statement " I am happy to be > > protected from them " is a rather tongue in cheek insult? > > No, I mean that. Terrorism is real, and " sandalistas " - as Jan and would appear to be - bear watching, imo. I would not strike a woman except > in genuine self-defense, but that doesn't mean that I kid myself that a woman can't be a terrorist. > > > > > > > Well, then what about men like Gandhi and King? > > I don't think they were terrorists. Gandhi appears to have done some mischief, although not to me or mine. King was mostly harmless, on the whole, I > think - he did not advocate the violent overthrow of the government or anything like that. > > > > You would have > > needed protection? And exactly what did Jesus mean (if we can > > believe they were indeed his words) " blessed are the peacemakers for > > they shall be called the children of God " ? If those are indeed his > > words, no doubt he would be considered " unpatriotic " and you would > > need protection. > > The Grand Inquisitor was not altogether wrong, imo. An apology can be made even for him. > > There is a difference between terrorists and mere fools, although both are dangerous. I am not a Christian. I don't very much care what Jesus meant, > frankly. I don't love my enemies. The more ancient idea that you should help your friends, harm your enemies, and keep a watchful eye on strangers > makes more sense to me. I suspect that paganism reflects the closest thing to the true speech about the gods, and it seems to me that Jung thought so > too. The Romans thought Jesus was a problem, and I would say that history bore them out - Jung credits Christianity with the undermining of the Roman > empire. Since this is a Jung list, perhaps Jung on Jesus might be worthwhile: > > " A young man who hasn't yet lived and experienced the world, who hasn't even married or had a profession, cannot possibly be a model of how to live. > If all men should imitate Christ, walking about and talking wisely and doing nothing at all, sometimes getting an ass somewhere in order to have a > ride, it just wouldn't do; such people would nowadays land in the lunatic asylum. It is impossible for such a figure now to be a model or a solution > or an answer. " > > CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_ 22 January 1936. > > I just love that, lol. It cracks me up. > > > > > > > > >From all those who take the words " thou shalt not kill " seriously, > > How *could* one take seriously a mere cultural construct (anticipating your statement below)? I have never understood that. > > > > > what lengths would you go to assure yourself " protection " ? > > Hard to say, exactly - to whatever lengths were necessary, I suppose. > > > > > > > Perhaps those who know you well on this list just laugh and say, oh > > that's just Dan. > > I shouldn't wonder. > > > > Maybe you were just joking as I wondered at first. > > Oh, no. > > > > > But I don't know -- reading 's post I remember Joe, recently > > of this group, threatening to turn him in to the authorities. I > > think of the military recruiter who recently told a college professor > > attending a peace rally that he " should be shot in the head " . I > > think of those in my own community who have written letters to the > > editor of the local newspaper saying all peace activitists should be > > tried as traitors. I think of the Patriot Act giving the gov't the > > right to access our email, the posts we make in groups such as > > these. Will we all who email our friends and family our hopes for > > peace be on a 'no fly' list soon (except you of course)? > > I don't know. If I were worried about it, I might avoid e-mail. > > " Hoping for peace " is one thing, it seems to me. Getting involved in South American revolutionary movements is another. FDR is famous (or infamous) > for having said of the original Somoza (Nicaraguan dictator) that " he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. " Just so. What does it mean > when Americans give aid and comfort, not to our sons of bitches, but to the sons of bitches who oppose them? It is enough to give one pause, I think. > > > > > > > > Reading 's post and your words: > > One has > > > a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - > > private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > > > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though > > they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of > > right, or even > > > duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " country. When, oh > > when, will we be past this hippy stuff? - well, maybe soon (60's > > hippies were, on > > > the whole, notoriously reluctant to suffer much for their putative > > convictions - the fun was over when the cops started shooting back). > > > > I thought of Nazi Germany, when members of the Nazi Youth Guard were > > called upon to turn their neighbors and parents in for anti-Nazi > > sentiments. Have you yet reported those in this list Dan? > > It is hardly my place to do that. Anyway, turned them in for what? > > > Don't you > > need to be protected from us? > > I don't know - about the few here that I know, I would say " no. " > > > > > > > You say the hippies ran when the shooting started? What facts do you > > base this statement on? > > Kent State was the last big " peace " march of the 60's- of course, the draft ended not too long after, and that was mostly what the " movement " was > about anyway. > > > > If you were unarmed (as you would be if you > > were marching for peace) and the military began shooting at you, > > would you run? > > I don't know - would I be throwing rocks and bottles and incendiary devices, and refusing to disperse as the cops had ordered? > > > > And, well, where was Bush during the Vietnam war? > > Elsewhere - can't say that I blame him. The war *was* fairly stupid, I must admit. > > > > > Hmmm...? > > > > You wrote, > > > It is almost as though people believe that totally free speech is > > some sort of divine, eternal, universal, absolute right, instead of > > what it is - a > > > desideratum that must at times be balanced against other desiderata. > > > > And of course you have a point -- what is a " right " anyway except a > > cultural construct? > > Ah, well - in that case, there is no need to argue about " right. " It just all comes down to power, then, and we shall see what we shall see. > > > > Do we have a " right " to free speech, a right to > > our own lives? Many would answer emphatically " Yes! " and I'm tempted > > to join them. You say these things are desiderata, and I agree with > > you. Freedom of speech, freedom to love, life itself are very much > > desired and needed by all souls on this earth, and so we go beyond > > the cultural to the spiritual. We must rely on the divine to inform > > us and now we are on tenuous ground, almost floating. > > First you say it is a matter of " cultural construct, " and now you seem to say that it is more a matter of divine information - which is it? Are we > talking " cultural construct " or natural law? > > > > Yet such is > > the nature of the mysteries we are given to live. It is in *my* > > nature to hope and keep my faith that light will prevail over > > darkness. > > > > I like the way Frances signs her posts " in the dance " . I recognize > > all of us are there in the dance. I lean on the words of the Dalai > > Lama who when speaking of the Chinese invaders of Tibet says we must > > strive for compassion because compassion has the power to change the > > Chinese heart, the Chinese mind. > > And it's worked out so well for them, too. The Chinese soldiers were just bowled over by the power of all that love, folded their tents and went home > ;-). > > Seriously, when Tibet is liberated -as I sincerely hope that it will be - it will be, I believe, by armed force (or at least the credible threat of > same). > > > > > > I hope the same thing for America's > > mind and heart also. > > > > > > > > (P.S. Pardon the intrusion -- I know your reply was to but > > although I tried to imprison my hands, they found their way free...at > > least for now. ;-^) > > No need to apologize. > > Regards, > > Dan Watkins > > > > > > > " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2003 Report Share Posted April 15, 2003 Dear , wrote: > Hello Dan, > > I'm sure your vision for our country and mine will continue to remain > on divergent paths. But as U.S. troops sit by and allow libraries > and priceless historical documents to burn in Baghdad, I'll add a few > comments to the exchange: Ah, it's the *troops* fault, is it? First they are blamed for restoring civilization at all, and then for not restoring it fast enough. It's a tough old world. > > > : > > > And, well, where was Bush during the Vietnam war? > > Dan: > > Elsewhere - can't say that I blame him. The war *was* fairly > stupid, I must admit. > > > > And you don't see the hypocrisy in this? Not really. I've never heard Bush praise the Vietnam war - and he did not, as far as I know, break the law by not serving in it. > I agree the Vietnam war > was stupid and would add as immoral and unnecessary as the Iraq war. > During the 60s draft dodgers were considered unpatriotic. I don'tagree, am merely recalling. > Yet to campaign for peace and diplomacy > in Iraq warrants one the label of traitor. Where are all the WMD > that made this war so necessary for Americans to sacrifice their sons > and daughters and pulverize into non-existence thousands of Iraqi > men, women, children? I imagine that they will turn up. Even if they don't, though - imo, the war is really about imposing peace and stability on the middle east, and providing a salutary lesson to those who might wish to foment terrorist attacks on the U.S. or its allies, or give aid and comfort to those who do (I wonder if Syria has learned this lesson? I suppose time will tell. Some are not one-trial learners, and in addition have difficulty learning from the mistakes of others). And I think that certain nations will perhaps now better understand the need to avoid, not just wrongdoing, but the appearance of wrongdoing. > > > and... > > : > > > >From all those who take the words " thou shalt not kill " > seriously, > > > Dan: > > How *could* one take seriously a mere cultural construct > (anticipating your statement below)? I have never understood that. > > I don't take the mystery which informs the statement " thou shalt not > kill " to *be* a mere cultural construct. It's present at the core of > many religions and is more than mere rhetoric. Ah... so not all " values " are " cultural constructs, " then? You may be right. > > > Dan: > > There is a difference between terrorists and mere fools, although > both are dangerous. I am not a Christian. I don't very much care what > Jesus meant, > > frankly. I don't love my enemies. The more ancient idea that you > should help your friends, harm your enemies, and keep a watchful eye > on strangers > > makes more sense to me. I suspect that paganism reflects the > closest thing to the true speech about the gods, and it seems to me > that Jung thought so > > too. The Romans thought Jesus was a problem, and I would say that > history bore them out - Jung credits Christianity with the > undermining of the Roman > > empire. Since this is a Jung list, perhaps Jung on Jesus might be > worthwhile: > > > > " A young man who hasn't yet lived and experienced the world, who > hasn't even married or had a profession, cannot possibly be a model > of how to live. > > If all men should imitate Christ, walking about and talking wisely > and doing nothing at all, sometimes getting an ass somewhere in order > to have a > > ride, it just wouldn't do; such people would nowadays land in the > lunatic asylum. It is impossible for such a figure now to be a model > or a solution > > or an answer. " > > > > CGJ, _Nietzsche Seminars_ 22 January 1936. > > > > I just love that, lol. It cracks me up. > > > > > > I'm not a Christian either. This doesn't mean I don't have a > relationship to Christ. > > Jung wrote much about Christianity and Christ in addition to the > above quote from 1936 which provided you so much amusement. He also > declared himself to be a Christian in a letter from 1960 (I think), > sorry I need to look up this source later: > > ' " So many letters I have received have emphasized my statement > about'knowing' (of God ) [in 'Face to Face', the Listenner, October > 29]. My opinion about 'knowledge of God' is an unconventional way of > thinking, and I quite understand if it should be suggested that I am > no Christian. Yet I think of myself as a Christian since I am > entirely based upon Christian concepts. " To whom was he writing, I wonder? Jung contradicted himself often. He also spoke different " truths " to different people, and says as much. > > > As for your quote in which Jung dicusses the inappropriateness of > imitating Christ, I found the following quote helpful in > understanding what he meant by this: > > " Christ...took himself with exemplary seriousness and lived his life > to the bitter end, regardless of human convention and in opposition > to his own lawful tradition, as the worst heretic in the eyes of the > Jews and a madman in the eyes of his family. But we? We imitate > Christ and hope he will deliver us from our own fate. Like little > lambs we follow the shepherd, naturally to good pastures. No talk at > all of uniting our Above and Below! On the contrary Christ and his > cross deliver us from our conflict, which we simply leave > alone...Instead of bearing ourselves, i.e., our own cross, ourselves, > we load Christ with our unresolved conflicts. We 'place ourselves > under his cross,' but by golly not under our own...The cross of > Christ was borne by himself and was his. To put oneself under > somebody else's cross, which has already been carried by him, is > certainly easier than to carry your own cross amid the mockery and > contempt of the world. That way you remain nicely ensconced in > tradition and are praised as devout. This is well-organized > Pharisaism and highly un-Christian. Whoever imitates Christ and has > the cheek to want to take Christ's cross on himself when he can't > even carry his own has in my view not yet learnt the ABC of the > Christian message. > Have your congregation understood that they must close their eyes > to the traditional teachings and go through the darkness of their own > souls and set aside everything in order to become that which every > individual bears in himself as his individual task, and that no one > can take this burden from him? We continually pray that 'this cup > may pass from us' and not harm us. Even Christ did so, but without > success...We might...discover among other things that in every > feature Christ's life is a prototype of individuation and hence > cannot be imitated: one can only live one's own life totally in the > same way with all the consequences this entails. " What shall we make of this apparent contradiction, then? I note that Jung is apparently speaking to a Christian. It is also true that Jung draws a distinction between Christ the symbol and Christ the man. > > C G Jung Collected Letters Vol II pp. 76-77 letter to > Dorothee Hoch as quoted in _Carl Jung: Wounded Healer of the Soul_ by > Dunne > > So, I think this gives a deeper insight into the progression > of Jung's ruminations on Christianity and Christ. > > Just a thought, how do you think non-Christians will fare in > the United States the Fundamentalist Christian right wing hope to > establish? I don't think that the fundamentalist Christian right wing will get all that it desires. To the degree that it does? Well, I doubt that secularists will be actually persecuted, but secular institutions will be increasingly opposed. " One nation under God " will be understood as something other than an empty slogan. Prayer will return to the schools. Legal abortion will go away. There will be efforts to channel federal " welfare " money through the churches and synagogues rather than through (at first I typed " trough, " lol) secular state organizations - which works for me. Give it to the nuns, say I - they are more likely to do some good with it. I think that there will be more informal pressure on people to keep secular views to themselves - the village atheist will be tolerated, but not considered respectable. > > > wrote: > > I lean on the words of the > Dalai > > > Lama who when speaking of the Chinese invaders of Tibet says we > must > > > strive for compassion because compassion has the power to change > the > > > Chinese heart, the Chinese mind. > > Dan said: > > And it's worked out so well for them, too. The Chinese soldiers > were just bowled over by the power of all that love, folded their > tents and went home > > ;-). > > Even tho this was tongue in cheek, Fairly serious, actually. The only thing the likes of the Chinese tyrants understand is force. > I think you know the Dalai Lama > doesn't expect compassion to be an instant process. No doubt to > Tibetan Buddhists, we have all of eternity to work these things out. Ah... well, then, I won't rush - or worry overmuch about the Tibetans. " Gottes Muehlen mahlen langsam.... " Regards, Dan Watkins > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2003 Report Share Posted April 15, 2003 Dear , Calhoun wrote: > Dan, all, > > I find your reply dubious and illogical, and full of unreasonable > debating tactics. I would be disappointed - not to mention shocked - if you didn't. > But let me cut to the chase and point out the > obvious: > > you clearly don't agree with , as you say you do. > > " A man's belief is his own; he is the keeper of his conscience; Big > Brother has no rightful concern in these areas. " > > " I do agree with this " > > Not really, right? Yes, really - " belief " is private. It is actions that are of political concern (speech, of course, being an action). I will also note that not all governmental authority is tyrannical, as implied by the term " Big Brother. " > > > *** > > As your following statements clearly demonstrate: > > 1) I'd be willing to bet the rent that I could predict the opinions > of these two gals on a number of issues 2) I am happy to be protected > from them. > > Not to worry, Dan, Big brother does wish to protect you to some > extent from " a man's belief " . I'm more concerned about their potential actions. > > > *** > > Now, as for your mode of argument. > > " One assumes - reasonably - that what one says is connected to what > one thinks and what one might do. Kaszinski's (sp?) words were > consistent with his actions. " > > This is -of course- the fallacy of the false analogy. You make no > case for the mentioned example sharing any proposition with the > Unibomber. Your argument also contains elements of the straw man and > appeal to emotion, both fallacies. My point was that it is not unreasonable to predict a person's future actions on the basis of his past speech and other deeds (not to mention other " demographic data, " if we care to think of it that way), even if such predictions are far from infallible. The doubtless charming ladies in question were said to have " monitored elections in El Salvador and assisted antiapartheid activists in South Africa " - that is, meddled in foreign affairs that should not have concerned them, and in ways that were not necessarily consistent with the foreign policy or interests of their own nation at the time. My point was that that should have been enough to warrant keeping an eye on them in airports (where we are particularly vulnerable to attack), and perhaps wondering where their own loyalties lay. Enough said, I should have thought. I don't think this constitutes making of them a straw man - there may well be more to that man than straw. As for appeals to emotion, that was not my conscious intent, but in any case appeal to emotion is a part of rhetoric, which is in turn a part of political science ;-). > > > Next you try different fallacious tactics. > > 1) It's a matter of prudence. > 2) People seem to think that flying (for example) is some kind of divine right. > > (1) is an example of the fallacy of a genuine but inefficient cause. > Yes, prudence may be causative, or it may not be. You don't offer any > evidence to support it as an efficient cause. Nor could you, because > in doing so you will have to admit of competing causitive principles. Well, I don't understand your objection here. Suffice it to say that by prudence I mean the art of applying the principles of justice correctly in a particular case - or, in other words, the art of knowing and doing what is fitting in a given concrete case. I am not sure what causality has to do with it, except insofar as the prudent man (the *phronemos*, if I may be forgiven for showing off my improving skills) does what is fitting in a given case - or causes it to be done, if you prefer. > > > (2) is an example of changing the subject, and, also an example of an > appeal to prejudice, as well as the fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion > ( ignoratio elenchi). We're not talking about the qualification of > rights, we're talking about the denial of a right *no matter what* > its qualification could be. Let me be more clear - there is absolute right to fly. The women in question cannot complain of having been the victims of a violation of a natural right to fly, because there is no such right. Now, they could perhaps complain about having been ill-used under the law - but as far as I know, they were not. You (or I) can be forbidden to fly under the law, without necessarily suffering any injustice. > (This said, the qualifications might > count for a lot in another argument, but this argument hasn't been > offered. Any appeal to the argument not made is, duh, a fallacy. > > Although, for me, the difference between your purportedly abject > 'divine right' and the right supposed here: > > US Constitution. Amendment 1:Congress shall make no law respecting an > establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; > or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of > the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for > a redress of grievances. > > is hard for me to extrude. What part of the Constitution doesn't > apply to a particular citizen? To repeat, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. You have already seen my defense of Lincoln - I'm not sure I can do better than that. " Freedom of speech " has never been understood to protect the right to shout " fire " in a theater, to conspire to overthrow the government, to incite to riot or crime, etc. Again - abstract principle must be prudently applied. What do you think the founders meant by the first amendment? > > > *** > > (3) Being denied a boarding pass, or even a job, ain't exactly the > gulag, you know? > > Again: straw man, changing the subject, appeal to emotion, (in its > appeal to a freighted quality or characterization,) and irrelevant > conclusion. Whether it's a gulag or not is besides the point. On the contrary, it is quite to the point. There will be no perfect justice. Those who expect perfect justice (the " lovers of pure justice, " as I have seen them called) - who do not, for example, see the difference between genocide (say) and being denied entrance to a country club (say) are not harmless - they are quite mischievous. It is they who feel free to tear down decent regimes because they are not perfect regimes. If someone is unjustly denied a boarding pass, or a job, that might at times just be the price that one pays for a decent but imperfect regime - I have been the victim of minor injustices, haven't you? Suck it up. Frisked at every connecting flight? Boo, hoo, hoo - I grow tired of hearing people whine about these minor inconveniences, and I know that I am not alone. > If you > want to bring up a counter-argument based in degree, it would be okay > to suggest this. Although, that is an argument which will lead to the > slippery slope in any case. Notable too, the slippery slope is itself > a bit fallacious if used to argue for conclusions not available in > the evidence, so your use of gulag here is fallacious for that reason > too. > > *** > > I would suppose that you wish it both ways. But, I've noted your > rascally illogic before. > > You write, > > " And perhaps people can avoid even these mild consequences by > avoiding the fact or appearance of being disloyal troublemakers. One > has a right to wonder about the loyalties of " anti-war activists " - > private citizens who think that their personal opinions are > oh-so-very-important-and-valuable (it's not, after all, as though > they were senators or something), and that they have some sort of > right, or even duty, to " take action " against their own " evil " > country " > > Two questions melded together: in what ways are citizens legally > entitled to hold what kind of opinion? Citizens may legally hold any non-seditious opinion (and they may even hold seditious ones if they keep them to themselves), as far as I know. I did not, I will note, suggest that the women in question broke the law - I don't know whether they broke the law or not. I suggested only that a prudent person would, imo, consider that they bore watching, given their history. In any case, I don't really know what free speech even has to do with it - these women were not arrested for anything they said. > > > Divine right is, hello!, irrelevant. Really? I am surprised that you care so little for a law based on an appeal to " nature and nature's God. " > It is a legal right. Disloyalty > is defined in certain terms in Federal law, and, treason is so,* in > the bill of rights. The applicable statutes apply to employees of the > US government. (the act of August 26, 1950, Public Law 733; most of > which has been overturned in later decisions.). Going farther back, > Lincoln declined to sign the Wade- Loyalty Act. > > The legal precedents for protected speech are many, and they've been > on a roller coaster since day one. > > " The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document > in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the > Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of > freedom. The God-given " unalienable rights " that the infant nation > rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only > if their application is rigorously analyzed. " > (UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin) > > The Supreme Court has gone back and forth in various rulings with > respect to speech protection offered on behalf of speech said to > advocate or incite. True enough. No argument here. > The established precedents implement a particular > standard, " clear and present danger, " (Holmes+) so, certain kinds of > speech are indeed outside of the protection of the constitution. This > was first established in 1925, (Gitlow v. New York) In 1943 ( > v. Mississippi) the court mitigated the force of that ruling. > However, between the Act (1940) and the Subversive Activities > Control Act of 1950 the conception of protected speech was so damaged > that it would take the Supreme Court, starting with Rowoldt v. > Perfetto in 1957, twenty years to roll back the excesses of the > McCarthy era, substantially ending with Wooley vs. Maynard (1977), > with some unsettling sidetracks such as Gibson v. Florida > Legislative Investigation Committee (1963). > > In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court (1969) established a new > standard: Speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is > intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and is " likely to > produce such action. " The Brandenburg ruling is the law today. > > " The essential characteristic of these liberties is, that under their > shield many types of life, character, opinion and belief can develop > unmolested and unobstructed. Nowhere is this shield more necessary > than in our own country for a people composed of many races and of > many creeds. There are limits to the exercise of these liberties. The > danger in these times from the coercive activities of those who in > the delusion of racial or religious conceit would incite violence and > breaches of the peace in order to deprive others of their equal right > to the exercise of their liberties, is emphasized by events familiar > to all. These and other transgressions of those limits the states > appropriately may punish. [310 U.S. 296, 311] Although the > contents of the record not unnaturally aroused animosity, we think > that, in the absence of a statute narrowly drawn to define and punish > specific conduct as constituting a clear and present danger to a > substantial interest of the State, the petitioner's communication, > considered in the light of the constitutional guarantees, raised no > such clear and present menace to public peace and order as to render > him liable to conviction of the common law offense in question. " > (Justice , CANTWELL v. St. of CT) > > " Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own > words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, > on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to > advocate the described type of action. [n4] Such a statute falls > within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The > contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be > supported, and that decision is therefore overruled. " > Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) > http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+395+u!2\ Es!2E+444!3A%5D%5E%5Bgroup+citemenu!3A%5D%5E%5Blevel+case+citation!3A%5D%5E%5Bgr\ oup+notes!3A%5D/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only? > > Excellent overview of the shifting sands: > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ > > *** > > Appearance is, again, irrelevant, unless intent is material. If I > tell somebody I'd like to point a gun at you, I may become a subject > to an investigation. But, if I own a gun and a dartboard with your > image on it, I'm not likely to be the subject of an investigation > because I've not committed a crime. > > > *III. Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist > only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, > giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason > unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on > Confession in open Court. Aid and Comfort. Mr. Penn, you attorney is holding on line one :-). Seriously, the " human shield " halfwits come perilously close, I should think. Ah, but these are easy going times. At most they will be subject to a strip search - this year. The silly season is not over yet, although I think it wanes. Regards, Dan Watkins > > > (recently invoked here!) > > *** > > regards, > > > > ''If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it > is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be > orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of > opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith > therein.'' > Chief Justice , West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) So much for *Congress* shall make no law. Now no one shall make law, it seems - apart, that is, from the Supreme Court, of course. > > > + " The question in every case is whether the words used are used in > such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and > present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that > Congress has the right to prevent. " ruling in Schenck v U.S (1919) > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 > > > > I lean on the words of the > > Dalai > > > > Lama who when speaking of the Chinese invaders of Tibet says we > > must > > > > strive for compassion because compassion has the power to change > > the > > > > Chinese heart, the Chinese mind. > > > > Dan said: > > > And it's worked out so well for them, too. The Chinese soldiers > > were just bowled over by the power of all that love, folded their > > tents and went home > > > ;-). > > > > Even tho this was tongue in cheek, > > Fairly serious, actually. The only thing the likes of the Chinese tyrants understand is force. > > > I think you know the Dalai Lama > > doesn't expect compassion to be an instant process. No doubt to > > Tibetan Buddhists, we have all of eternity to work these things out. > > Ah... well, then, I won't rush - or worry overmuch about the Tibetans. " Gottes Muehlen mahlen langsam.... " > > Regards, > > Dan Watkins > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.