Re: Re: Justice not Terror

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/19/01 9:04:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

romey001@... writes:

> I am having trouble with the idea of justice. If it means retribution and

> revenge, I don't think it will accomplish anything when dealing with

> terrorists. I'm in favor of doing what it takes to get rid of the problem

> though, with some reservations.

Hi ne, Mike, Everyone,

I also have a hard time understanding the concept of Justice. I know it is an

important concept in Judaism and has come down to us through the Judeo

-Christian

ethic. Intellectually, I can appreciate the need for law and order and

knowing there are consequences to our actions. That there will be some price

to pay if we harm others makes good sense. On a deeper level, however, it has

never mattered to me that there be retribution for crimes, at least not

retribution imposed by humans.

I believe in the laws of karma and trust that we are all always responsible

for our actions in life. Maybe I'm missing some gene that 86 percent of our

population has according the most recent poll, that wants to see something

bombed in retaliation for the recent terrorism. I just don't feel that. I'm

not even angry so much as just desperately sad that we human beings could

treat each other that way.

I hope we will honor those who lost their lives by working together to make

sure nothing like this ever happens again. So many people are talking about

this being our opportunity to make a collective leap into a better, more

inclusive, loving level of consciousness and that feels exactly right. Then I

turn on the TV and hear that 500 fighter planes are on their way to the gulf

and despair floods back in. Early childhood memories of bombed buildings

collapsing all around flash before my eyes and I have to ask myself....do we

really want to do that again? Do we really want to inflict that pain and

trauma on the current generation of children in the world? Have we learned

nothing? When will we ever get it that we are " one, " that what we do to

others we do to ourselves?

Spitting in the wind,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/19/2001 6:51:57 PM Central Daylight Time,

Brita44@... writes:

> Then I

> turn on the TV and hear that 500 fighter planes are on their way to the

gulf

>

> and despair floods back in.

Dear Suzanne,

Don't despair. Remember the old platitude that it's always darkest just

before dawn. There's a reason it's a platitude! It's true! Just hold your

course and refuse to be drawn into the dark. The sun will rise.

Namasté

Sam

[Guest guest]

Brita44@... wrote:

>

> Whoever said the Sixties

> were dead couldn't be more wrong.

I said it - more as an expression of hope than a categorical statement. I hoped

that, at least, these recent events would awaken us from that dreadful dream.

>

>

> That is taking action. Let's use the laws we have and arrest those who are

> responsible, put them on trial and lock them up if found guilty.

How do you suggest that we find them?

> The last

> time we decided to fight evil in the world over fifty million people gave up

> the ghost and lo and behold, the evil is still here.

The evil is always still here - that's the point. The battle is never finally

won.

The permanent problems are the permanent problems. Fifty million more will die,

and fifty million again. There is no quantum leap to some realm of permanent

light. There is only us. As for death - well, each of us owes God a death, and

I

can think of worse ways to die.

Regards,

Dan Watkins

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/01 11:22:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

> There are always a few - there were in WWII as well.

Hi Dan,

I think you'll find a surprising majority of folks on the planet who will

choose peace once the shock of this tragedy wears off and people no longer

feel obligated to make a blanket vow of allegiance to whatever the government

is feeding us.

> I had fun in my youth as well -- drinking, drag-racing,

> seduction-and-abandonment, the usual. But should nostalgia for the excesses

> of our youth be a guide to our serious actions in adulthood? " Sex, drugs and

> rock-and-roll " hardly seems an adequate guide to life, especially under the

> serious conditions of war.

Well, no wonder you're glad that is over. If that's all you think the sixties

were about you obviously weren't there. For many of us it was a massive

expansion of consciousness, a deep and profound experience of spiritual

social, ethical and moral questioning as well as a clear recognition of our

interconnectedness. Granted, we weren't very grounded (we had to topple some

of the old mental constructs to make room for something new) and there

certainly were excesses but that was only ground clutter. On deeper levels

the world changed through us and around us in ways that you younger folks

just take for granted.

> > Ever hear of evolution?

>

> Yes I have. It is a biological theory according to which the development of

> the complexity of life -- including our human life -- is an unconscious

accident

> occurring over billions of years. It may or may not be true, I don't know.

> It has nothing to do with " allowing consciousness to grow. "

It is more than a biological theory. Many of the great thinkers, scientists

and spiritual teachers speak of the evolution of consciousness, including

Jung. There are no accidents in the universe, all of life unfolds in an ever

spiraling movement toward the whole, toward inclusion, toward recognition of

it's interbeing with all things. Toward light. Read some physics....of

course we are made up of light particles.

When I cut myself, blood comes out, not light. I don't know any arcane

> metaphysical truths, I only know what I can see.

That must be very limiting...and lonely I might add.

> The best way I know of to predict the future is to look at the past.

Then we can only see through the lens of past experience, past conditioning

and nothing new can enter. That's why it's necessary to have an occasional

massive shift in consciousness. to catapult us out of identification and

insistence on what we think is real. That's what the sixties were about. It

was a time to examine all of our old beliefs, our sacred cows and toss out

what no longer held true in the light of new ways of seeing.

> you know - ask the Russians). But were it necessary, it would be the fault

> of those who made it necessary. Who was to blame for the widespread

destruction and civilian casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Japanese

government, that' who.

I do not experience life in terms of blame and fault/ us and them. The

bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the most horrendous examples of

man's inhumanity to man. When we choose violence on that scale the whole of

humankind is profoundly diminished.

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

<< May they be finally

succored under the Pax Americana >>

Be very careful what you wish for.

not so lightly,

phoebe

[Guest guest]

zozie@... wrote:

>

>

> << May they be finally

> succored under the Pax Americana >>

>

> Be very careful what you wish for.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't fear to wish for the noble.

Quite lightly,

Dan Watkins

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Suzanne,

I worried about what I had written after I mailed it because I was sure you

would

misunderstand what I was trying to convey. I didn't make ,myself clear enough, I

see.

I spent 5 years living in Germany, and still found people apologizing to

me,wherever I went in town, a a general guilty feeling was still there. I was

not

referring to anyone in particular, certainly not a baby, but growing up when you

did in the period after the war, (my husband was in Germany then) many, many

people felt the great weight of guilt. It seemed to permeate the atmosphere.

That

is what I mean. It is hard for a child not to breath in some of this.

I grew up with survivors guilt as did many who escaped death for no seemingly

rational reason. I referred to the atmosphere of our respective locations. I

needed to deal with this. Burying it did not make me healthy. I suspect many

Germans and Austrians had to deal , in the aftermath, with feelings of guilt as

the story of what truly happened came out. The terrible rape of the survivors

in

Germany and the fear and need for survival must have cast a shadow over your

childhood as other memories did mine. We are not immune from our own childhood

experiences. That was what I was trying to say. We have to deal with our own

personal experiences, and yours and mine were different as was the atmosphere

around us. It may explain our difference of opinion now, don't you think?

I have no bone to pick with you or anyone else. All that I consciously could do,

I did, including living happily among the Germans as a civilian in a small town.

I was afraid when I first got there, but consciousness won quickly and I

relaxed.

It was a long hard road for me as I grew up however to learn not to hate. I( did

have a problem with this shadow for years, but I did overcome in the end through

many years of prayer, effort and finally analysis and writing my autobiography.)

I also learned that I cannot life in fear, regardless of flashbacks and

nightmares, any more than I could live in hate and recriminations. I lived

through the cold war in the front lines since I married a member of the

Strategic

Air Command who was on alert many many times. After a while, the fear permeates

everything in ones life and I wanted my children to feel as save as possible in

a

nuclear age.

I disagree with your point of view, because of my personal experiences in life.

I

do not " opt " for war. I feel a threat similar to 1939 in so far as evil must

not

be allowed to prevail. I never never said anyone was evil. I said the acts were

evil. I have a right to a moral judgment. I also believe that there are times

when we must protect ourselves and defend ourselves and our children and

children's children. Someone other than i killed 6000 innocent people. If that

is not an evil, I do not understand what evil means. And as for evil still on

earth, it will remain as long as good is alive. We do not " kill " evil. We stop

it

from spreading if we can.

In my personal opinion, it ( defense against an evil threat)is something worth

dying for. Life is precious and not to given away lightly. But living with the

presence of pervading evil and doing nothing to defend oneself is not an option

for me. We will not defeat evil forever. we can stop this particular evil from

consuming our lives.

There is room for all attitudes toward the present threat. Those attitudes are

the results of our experiences in life. That was the basis for my remarks. Clear

sightedness means acknowledging we all come from somewhere and we all come

together with different experiences.

The feeling inner connectiveness did not spring from the sixties. Every major

religion has preached the Oneness of all men. Some people just suddenly realized

very old realities.

Peace at any price was only preached by those who were afraid and had not

thought out what giving in to " any price " would do to their world.

I am all for " redeeming light and goodness " I am waiting to be told how. We each

must do the job within before we go out to redeem others. That will not be done

in a day, a year or probably a century. What do we do until that day comes?

Allow

our loved ones to sink into fear and confusion?

There will be no quantum leap into consciousness. There is no deus ex machina.

There is only us. And we are often our own worst enemy. This event will not lead

to the END of the world. We have been there more times than I can tell you in

the

last 60 years. (the Cuban missile crisis for one) Fear is our own worst enemy

and I have faith in tomorrow as I have seen many tomorrows. We did not in 1939

and we cannot now " buy peace in our time " by appeasement and refusal to fight

the

evil thrust upon us.

I have seen no post that has said people are evil. Many posts noted an " evil

deed " those are not the same things. We may judge an event, but we have to be

very careful before we judge another human being, and then it is only our

judgment as finite human beings. It is not Absolute.

Our stance today is self defense. We are re-acting to what has been perpetrated.

We are not starting anything, though we might finish the fear for a while.

If we lived near each other, misunderstandings like these would never happen. We

would be hugging each other in support. I fee a bond of love with you and the

other members of this list, Suzanne, and nothing I write or say has anything to

do with 70 year old events except to remind us we do not grow in a vacuum.

.. Brita44@... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/21/01 2:33:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, toni@...

> writes:

>

> >

> > I was speaking generally as you surmised. As you know I too faced the

> > violence and have had recurring dreams and flash backs. We, it must be said

> > were basically on opposite sides of that war, and there was no guilt in my

> > righteous, but fearful outrage.

>

> Dear Toni, All:

>

> I wasn't on any side during World War II and I certainly didn't bear any

> guilt. I was a child, frightened in my mother's belly, born into a world gone

> mad, strapped to my mother's back as she searched through piles of dead

> bodies for my father and my three year old sister. I was a CHILD. This

> notion of sides, of projecting our own shadow on the other and then getting

> all puffed up and righteous and willing to kill each other is insane.. If we

> really follow this path and opt for war and kill more innocent people we will

> all die this time. There will be no home on this earth for our children. We

> already had a terrorist threat to our water supply in Boston for this

> weekend. The fighting will not be " over there " this time.

>

> We Americans have apparently accrued some good karma over the years and

> because we have so much more than so many people on the earth we have a

> responsibility to help and not multiple this suffering and violence. This is

> a test and we had better pull off a quantum leap in consciousness and we had

> better do it soon. I'm all for singing " God Bless America " but we had

> better start learning to sing

> " God Bless the World " if we want to survive. Whoever said the Sixties

> were dead couldn't be more wrong. That was our training ground...that's when

> the seed for recognizing our interconnectedness as a species was

> planted....now comes our chance to connect with the light within and choose

> life.

>

> I don't believe that people are evil. We may be capable of perpetrating great

> harm on each other and some behaviors may be deemed evil but as you said, we

> can differentiate the behavior from the person what's the point of killing

> people, with the possible exception of self defense or protecting one's loved

> ones from certain harm.

> What is required of us is to heal and redeem the light and goodness in

> people. To bring those who are lost and isolated in hatred and fear back into

> the human family. Terrorists are people too and they live among us all over

> the world. It is too easy to demonize and label some people as evil, as

> other. .....much more difficult to see they are ordinary people like you and

> me, that under certain circumstances we are all capable of doing abominable

> things. Lets work on understanding what those circumstances are.

>

> That is taking action. Let's use the laws we have and arrest those who are

> responsible, put them on trial and lock them up if found guilty. Then let's

> move on and use our new found sense of unity and expand it to include all of

> the earth's peoples. Let's work together to fight poverty, to save the

> enviornment, to share our different cultures, to educate those who don't know

> freedom.. There's a lot to do. No need to bomb half a dozen countries to the

> ground to show our resolve...takes more courage not to do that. The last

> time we decided to fight evil in the world over fifty million people gave up

> the ghost and lo and behold, the evil is still here.

>

> Love,

>

> Suzanne

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Brita,

You wrote:

> IDear Dan,

>

> He may have not used those three words in that exact order (they were

> probably coined by people exploring the meeting of mysticism and physics) but

> all of Jung's theories and life work was dedicated to increasing

> consciousness.

I think you overstate the case. Part of Jung's work was dedicated to increasing

consciousness, surely. Part of it was psychotherapy - and we know that Jung

would

send some of his patients back to church, if they could go, or give some advice

and send them away with their defenses intact. Part of his work was a

consideration of the social and political aspects of human life, and the problem

of the inevitable tension (to put it mildly) between the true individual and the

community.

Individuation in the sense of " increasing consciousness " is not, in Jung's view,

for everyone; further, he speaks of individuation in two different ways - in one

sense as increasing consciousness, and in another sense as what " happens

naturally " when a thing becomes what it is or a person becomes what he is

" meant "

to be. This complicates matters.

In particular, Jung understands the insurmountable problems inherent in trying

to

achieve a high level of consciousness *en-masse*. The best human being will

always be vastly better than the community at large, the worst human beings

vastly worse. The herd as herd (Jung uses the Nietzschean terminology, so I will

as well) is always relatively unconscious. This fact accounts, I believe, for

Jung's relative distrust of democracy and of large regimes generally, and his

praise for aristocracy - and particularly the English brand of aristocracy. If I

understand Jung correctly, the (true) aristocrat - the gentleman or lady -

serves

in a sense to bridge the gap between the relatively unconscious herd and the

true

individual. The gentleman or lady (by virtue of a certain kind of education) is

in a sense " conscious enough " to think and see relatively independently, and to

be somewhat proof against the herd mentality, while at the same time remaining

loyal to and devoted to the city or the nation.

It is indeed the case that Jung understands " war psychology " in terms of herd

instinct, splitting and mass projection, and other primitive processes. He does

not conclude from that, however, that when under attack we should not fight.

Jung

was not a pacifist during WWII, for example. I think that Jung thinks that

understanding the psychology of war might help mitigate the horrors of war; it

might help us wage war more astutely and carefully when we must wage it; it

might

even help to prevent war at times. He does not, however, ever to my knowledge

state or imply that consciousness raising en-masse will make war unnecessary or

obsolete, or that we should, when attacked, simply " raise our consciousnesses "

(whatever that might entail) rather than fight. Jung does not attribute that

kind

of power to psychology.

The problem of the relationship of the individual to the community is not a

simple one:

" Human beings have one faculty which, though it is of greatest utility for

collective purposes, is most pernicious for individuation, and that is the

faculty of imitation " CW 7, 242.

There we have it - the faculty that is " of greatest utility " for our necessary

communal life is at the same time " most pernicious " for individuation. And yet

at

the same time the individual is dependent upon and naturally connected to the

community. To further complicate the matter, the collective - if it is a good,

functional community - itself serves, by means of its laws, customs and

traditions, to protect its members from a fall into complete primitivity:

" Loss of roots and lack of tradition neuroticize the masses and prepare them for

collective hysteria. Collective hysteria calls for collective therapy, which

consists in abolition of liberty and terrorization " CW 9, II, 282.

In the absence, then of " laws, customs and traditions " - collective measures

which serve to reign in individuality and to homogenize the community's actions,

attitudes and even thoughts - liberty, a fundamental precondition for *any*

development of individuality, is lost altogether. God will have His little

jokes.

As Jung says, " As always, life is a voyage between Scylla and Charybdis " CW 16,

502.

Best regards,

Dan watkins