War or Peace?

[Guest guest]

JOSEFA:

<>

SUZANNE:

<<The issue is that I don't want us bombing innocent people in retaliation

for this terrorist attack.

<snip>

I don't share your confidence in the wisdom of our politicians and at least

over here, last I heard, we still get to participate in the decisions made

on our behalf. If there are enough of us willing to stand for peace they will

have to hear us. >>

JOSEFA:

<<Forgive me if, in my dreadful hierarchical mind, I rate such people than

those who take to the streets in protest, forcing policemen to protect them,

or those who risk making themselves ill with lengthy fasting, so medical

staff will have to treat them. I think if I were a policewoman or doctor I

may be forgiven for feeling that such people were wasting time which I could

better spend elsewhere.>>

<< JOSEFA: Dan, I'd much rather have you in my corner than all the pacifists -

who, I might add, only have the luxury of being that way because brave men

and women are prepared to die for their rights to chant in their retreats.

Now, watch me get kicked off the list!>>

<<DAN: I think you really nail it here. Perhaps the greatest problem with

pacifism -the greatest injustice associated with pacifism - is that pacifists

are quite

willing to let others do their fighting and dying for them. They reap the

benefits of military defenses without sharing - even to the extent of offering

moral and political support - in the sacrifice. Indeed, in my experience, they

sometimes even blame their benefactors.>>

SUZANNE:

<<Why would you imagine that we can't and don't have the greatest compassion

for those who have given their lives and continue to do the work of cleaning

up this disaster at the same time that we hope for a peaceful resolution?

<snip>

We are all united here in our grief and sorrow of what happened, regardless

of our opinions about how our government should respond. Many of our lives

will never be the same. I live in Massachusetts with daily threats to my

water supply and endless bomb threats to the court houses where I work. I

would suggest you find some positive way to express your fears and concerns

and stop this contemptuous attack on people who are working for a peaceful

solution to this problem.>>

My dear friends:

What makes us so divided? What gives us a myopic view that causes us to

project our fears on eachother rather than the powers that be? What's

happened is a great tragedy and assault to life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness. It's a coward attack on innocent civilians by a severely disturbed

dangerous madman who has been able to convince the very fanatic barbaric

government of Taliban, that they must wage a holy war against humanity. This

man was a enstein who has turned against his creators. The millionaire

Saudi, turned sour against his own government, was specially selected to

serve the US interests by fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan. He

was financially and militarily supported by the government of United States.

What makes him turn around against his creator? Obviously power, greed, envy.

It has nothing to do with religion or Islam, which is a peaceful religion.

When I went on pilgrimmage to Haj, we had to observe certain do's and don'ts

in order for our pilgrimmage to be acceptable. There were do's and don'ts. We

were to maintain an attitude of inner and outer peace and being with God.

Peace was the first and foremost revered attitude toward oneself and others.

We were to speak in kindness, think well of people, be gentle, caring,

forgiving, charitable and minister to the elderly and the disabled. We were

to refrain from anger, using fowl words, hurting anyone or anything, looking

in a mirror (avoiding egocentricity), cutting nails or losing hair (desecrate

the sanctity of the body), or from killing anything, not even an ant or an

irritating buzzing fly or mosquito! Now, if these are the basic tenets of

being a good Muslim who's pilgrimmage is deemed acceptable in the eyes of

God, how could it justify killing of innocent people, or even take revenge

through violence?

Ali, the prophet Mohammad's designee, reveared by Shi'ite Moslems, was said

to have been in a holy was (jihad) against " non-believers " who were after the

prophet. While in a one-on-one combat, he has his sword at the enemy's throat

on the ground when the enemy spits at him. Ali withdraws his sword

immediately. When asked why he didn't kill the man, he said: " If I had killed

him then, it would have been out of personal anger, not for the love of God. "

He did not want his ego in the way to turn this into a personal act of

vengeance. So he let the man go free.

Ali being one of my hero's, I'm definitely not a pacifist, neither

personally, nor on a social-political level. I have risked my life during the

revolution against the Shah's puppet regime and fought for freedom and

women's rights under Khomeini's reign of terror. And here, people call me a

spiritual warrior, because I am ready willing and able to fight, and give my

life, for my deepest convictions. However, at the forefront of my fight, are

the basic goals of freedom, peace and justice for all.

So when something like the bombing of the twin towers happens and disturbs

the world peace, I wish to bring the criminal terrorists to justice. But not

at the expense of taking away the peace, freedom and life of millions of

innocent people who have already suffered enough under the yoke of the

Taliban or dictatorial regimes of Iran or Pakistan. Let's separate the people

from the governments. There is nothing that would please me more than

annihilating the Taliban, Bin Lauden, Hezbollah and the other terrorist

organizations and regimes all over the world. But in a civilized system of

government, the accused must be specifically identified, charged, pursued in

courts of justice; evidence must be presented against them. If not possible,

then individual perpetrators must be singled out and taken out.

We can't go for a carpet attack of Afghanistan as a country because the

fascist fanatics in power, who are in hiding and harboring Bin Lauden, refuse

to turn him in. If we want the real terrorists, we must go after the actual

perpetrators. We can't bombard Kabul just because it's the capital of

Afghanistan and consider millions of casualty of innocent civilians, poor

invalids, women and children as indispensible and acceptable collateral

damage to our quest for vengeance. We cannot get caught up in what Jung

called a " participation mystique " with angry mourners who's eyes are,

understandably, bloodshot from rage, but who cannot see straight.

Jung often abhored and warned us against the danger of mass mindedness. I

have lived through the horror of it in Iran. I have living memories of

participation mystique, collective psychosis, mass mindedness of an oppressed

people who were willing to follow the leadership of religious zealots just to

get rid of the puppet regime of the Shah, but then turned into monsters. We

could make the same mistake by believing everything they tell us in the media

and being too naive to distinguish between what we are told and what is being

actually said and done behind the scenes and why. It takes a lot of practice

in following the U.S. foreign policy and world affairs, which I'm sure this

group is seasoned with. It takes a lot of reflection as we all agree.

It doesn't take human dignity or courage to destroy a whole country

overnight, starve to death or bombard innocent people with laser technology

without even seeing it, and call it a war for freedom and democracy. It takes

unconsciousness of some folks, evil of others, cowardice, apathy to

injustice, hate and violent acts of revenge that can only bread more violence

and vengeance.

We need to practice being in-dividuals, see with our inner eyes and hear with

our inner ears. Practice more tolerance, understanding and compassion. Please

don't call me a coward because I don't support an indiscriminate war of any

sort. Going to war is not patriotism. It's falling into the trap of

patriarchy, uncontrollable testosterone gone haywire. And if I advocate for

love and peace, don't smear at me, give me a dirty look or judge me as some

stupid idiot who has nothing better to do and is wasting time. If you can't

understand or imagine the value and power in love as the only means to heal

all wounds, at least don't make a mockery of it. We are supposedly conscious

individuals. Let's speak and act like it. Let's become more conscious,

present, tolerant, discerning individuals. Let's start at the beginning, with

ourselves. Ask: What am I willing to sacrifice to be of service to my Self

and the world? What attitudes do I need to let go of? What do I need to learn

from this experience? What makes me feel hateful, self-righteous, angry or

revengeful? What qualities do I need to learn and manifest in order to serve

as an instrument of love? How can I help make a difference? How bold and

courageous am I in taking the steps necessary to fulfill my personal myth or

destiny?

And finally, believe me, it's a whole lot easier killing the enemy who spits

at you when you have them by the sword, than to restrain one's ego-driven

anger, pride and natural desire for revenge, and to set the enemy free. What

is your choice?

That's my two cents,

Ghazaleh

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/2001 2:26:52 PM Central Daylight Time,

cloudhand@... writes:

> You say 'we' must do this and 'we' must do that. I

> assume by 'we' , you are placing your 'own' mouth and other fragile body

> parts on the line here, or is the 'we' you are talking about 'them'... You

> know?

> Those other kids who do the fighting for you?

> You were too young to have served in Viet Nam and I'm not sure, but I

> *assume* since you've never spoken of it, that you didn't serve in the

Gulf

> 'War' either. Have you ever seen active service?

> Some people here have, you know?

OK, this very thing has been on my mind for some time and since I haven't

posted yet today, even though this is not a very Jungian-like post, I gotta

do it.

Even though my experiences cannot compare with those of some of the folks

here, war has been an aspect of my entire life. I was born in 1942 and

didn't have a father for three years because he was overseas the entire time.

I was in college in the 60s, though I didn't participate in the " resistance "

because I was trying too hard to make enough money to feed myself and pay for

my tuition, board, etc. Many of the friends I made never came back from Viet

Nam. I was married in 1965 and a week later my soldier husband was sent to

Korea so that our first 13 months together were spent apart. In 1970 he was

sent to Viet Nam and I only saw him after that in divorce court because this

kind of " patriotism " put him in the way of other people who were where I

wasn't. In 1972 he was killed in a plane crash in the line of duty. I was

devastated by that almost as much as by the divorce.

I spent 25 years working for the Army as a Department of Army civilian in

army hospitals and I saw what war does to people. I spent 10 years as a

corpsman with a fleet hospital (like a MASH unit) in the navy reserve.

Missed the Gulf war by less than two weeks. Would have gone if it hadn't

been over so fast. But I got all the vaccines, etc., and it's quite possible

they play a part in the condition I now find myself in. 'Course, nobody's

gonna admit that until it's too late and all the Gulf War syndrome people are

dead, just like with Agent Orange during Viet Nam.

So, I feel like I have some ground to stand on when I come out for peace. I

do have grounds for comparison, I believe, and I feel that my opinion is

based on something more than just opinion.

I agree that terrorism must be eradicated; I don't believe war is the way to

do it, at least not the kinds of wars we've waged in the past. It's gonna be

a war of intelligence and undercover operations, spies, if you will. Not an

attractive picture to most Wayne fans, I'm afraid. It's gonna be dirty

and covert and most of us will never know what's going on and, because we as

a country are used to instant gratification, that will make it hard to

maintain.

I also have come to understand that love is the only answer, even if it's not

as straightforward as gratification from bopping the enemy over the head.

Love doesn't preclude justice, it demands it. But love can transform the

most obdurate enemy if it's applied with integrity, decency and sincerity. I

think that's where we as a nation fall short because we always look at the

bottom line of " what's in it for me? " As someone once said, " An awful lot

can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the credit. " If we as a nation

and a society can figure out what's best for everyone involved - and this is

not easy, with so many different types of peoples in the mix - and apply that

knowledge to the best of our abilities, then we will have managed this

situation with love. Not sentimentality, but love. I can't change Dan.

He's made up his mind and facts won't make any difference. Even the devil

can quote scriptures to his own ends. There's always going to be a quotation

from somebody, somewhere that can be used to support an argument. It's like

statistics. You can make 'em say anything you want. So, I can't change

anyone. I can only change me. If there is to be peace, then let it begin

with me.

Dan, I can love you, even if I don't agree with you, which I certainly don't.

You can write things that are brash, opinionated and sometimes even mean.

You're the same age as my baby sister and the world you two grew up in is

very different than the one I grew up in, but that doesn't give you the

authority to define the world or to think it has to be run the way you think

it should be run. Your posts suggest an attitude much like the one I had

when I was between 14 and 16 and knew it all. Life has a way of changing

that. I'm surprised you've managed to hang on to it for as long as you have.

Good luck.

OK, off my soapbox.

Namasté

Sam

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/2001 4:42:35 PM Central Daylight Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

> This is serious -

> buster. I live in a large metropolitan area a few miles from a major

> airforce base, the largest fighter-pilot training facility in the world

> - a potential target. I'm not going anywhere.

FWIW, I live five miles from the largest army base in the free world. What's

that got to do with anything?

Namasté

Sam

[Guest guest]

Mike:

cloudhand@... wrote:

>

> Dan

>

> I find your remarks rude in the extreme.

> Since I have been slapped down recently for far less ridicule, perhaps you

> will have the good grace to tecognise this?

I have reviewed my post. As far as I can see, I have not been rude. I

have been pointed, and perhaps even offensive, but one can be pointed -

and even offensive - without being rude. Is this a discussion group or a

dinner party? I will also remind you that I did not " slap you down. " I

was not offended by the post in question, and as far as I'm concerned no

apology is necessary.

> I will also ask you this. You say 'we' must do this and 'we' must do that. I

> assume by 'we' , you are placing your 'own' mouth and other fragile body

> parts on the line here, or is the 'we' you are talking about 'them'... You

know?

> Those other kids who do the fighting for you?

> You were too young to have served in Viet Nam and I'm not sure, but I

> *assume* since you've never spoken of it, that you didn't serve in the Gulf

> 'War' either. Have you ever seen active service?

No. That is a matter of accident of history rather than any

unwillingness on my part. Even now, if they'd take me, I'd go. As long

as we are considering the deaths of the young, we might consider the

deaths of the young in the recent terrorist attack, and - more to the

point - those who will die in the *next* terrorist attack, which will be

inevitable if we do nothing. " We, " incidentally, are we Americans and

our allies.

> Some people here have, you know?

> I also note that you are accusing people of disloyalty.

Questioning is not yet accusing. I did not single anyone out. And one is

justified in questioning the loyalties of thsoe who preach pacificism in

time of war. Did you read the Orwell.

> In fact, if one examines the past couple of weeks on this list, one finds that

> one enormous chunk of it has been manipulated round into 'Dan the Man vs

> The Powers of Darkness and Evil' and that almost all the discord here stems

> from exactly that. And I am beginning to object.

> So I'll make a suggestion: Join up. Or shut up.

> At the moment it's all just bluster, buster.

I live in a nation that has recently been attacked. People here are

buying gas masks, and antibiotics to fight anthrax. This is serious -

buster. I live in a large metropolitan area a few miles from a major

airforce base, the largest fighter-pilot training facility in the world

- a potential target. I'm not going anywhere.

> The people on this list that you are pleased to sneer at are at least doing

> what they are saying. They are trying (in the face of enormous resistance, I

> might add - from a VERY small minority) to create peace.

" Create peace? " How can anyone create peace if they eschew war? If you

can't talk to me, you haven't a prayer of persuading the public. What

you get from me is what you can expect from the public, albeit writ

small (and more moderate).

>I don't care

> whether you agree with them or not. But I *do* care that you speak with

> respect on my list. If you don't wish to, I don't much care either, but you

will

> have to do it somewhere else. I hope I make myself clear.

You do what you've got to do on " your " list.

Dan Watkins

>

[Guest guest]

> I have reviewed my post. As far as I can see, I have not been rude. I

> have been pointed, and perhaps even offensive, but one can be pointed -

> and even offensive - without being rude. Is this a discussion group or a

> dinner party? I will also remind you that I did not " slap you down. " I

> was not offended by the post in question, and as far as I'm concerned no

> apology is necessary.

*I see.

fa? May we have your opinion on this matter please?

> " We, " incidentally, are we Americans and

> our allies.

*No, my friend. 'We' are those who are actually in there doing something

beyond allowing themselves to become enflamed by the 'collective

unconscious'. I have yet to hear a word from you that I can't find on the front

page of a state-owned newspaper.

'We' is either swept up in the media version of this and bellowing for

someone else to enact 'we's' justice, or 'we' is gettin our ass in there and

doing what mouths are mouthing. At the moment all yours is doing is

creating the negativity you feel. There's another American 'we' that gets on

with going through the ruins, fighting for lives, putting its own life on the

block. There is yet another that is doing everything in its power to make your

kind of 'we' see reason.

I don't see you doing any of this except perhaps occasionally clapping. Your

'we' is a paper dragon.

And - because utterly wrapped up in its own arrogance - a dangerous paper

dragon at that...

> Questioning is not yet accusing. I did not single anyone out. And one is

> justified in questioning the loyalties of thsoe who preach pacificism in

> time of war. Did you read the Orwell.

*I read the Orwell. I have read most of Orwell. I don't necessarily agree with

him. Did you read the Gandhi? the Dalai Lama? the Kunzang Dechen

Lingpa?

> I live in a nation that has recently been attacked. People here are

> buying gas masks, and antibiotics to fight anthrax. This is serious -

> buster. I live in a large metropolitan area a few miles from a major

> airforce base, the largest fighter-pilot training facility in the world

> - a potential target. I'm not going anywhere.

*You do, indeed, live in a nation that has recently been attacked. Just as do

many who have recently been attacked by your nation. And yet you are

unable to see that your " gut " reaction is an exact mirror of theirs? I doubt

that you are that obtuse. So who are you trying to kid? Yourself?

Do you still - after years of reading Jung - believe that there is blow that can

be struck that will end all blows? If you do, my friend, then I say that Carl

Gustave Jung (or is it just your reading of him?) is useless.

> > The people on this list that you are pleased to sneer at are at least doing

> > what they are saying. They are trying (in the face of enormous resistance, I

> > might add - from a VERY small minority) to create peace.

>

> " Create peace? " How can anyone create peace if they eschew war?

*For you they are opposites. Imagine a vision - just next to yours - in which

they are not.

> If you

> can't talk to me, you haven't a prayer of persuading the public. What

> you get from me is what you can expect from the public, albeit writ

> small (and more moderate).

*I *AM* talking to you.

I am saying Dan Watkins, wake up You are intimately related to the whole.

There is no part of it that is not infinitely anchored in yourself, but I do not

expect you to see this.

However I can demand - because it *is* " my " list - I am the 'list owner' - that

you speak with respect or take your views elsewhere. That I certainly can do.

> You do what you've got to do on " your " list.

*Yes. Moderate.

m

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/2001 8:08:36 PM Central Daylight Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

> Military bases are targets during wars, and attacks on them are often

> accompanied

> by " collateral damage " - esp. in case of nuclear or biological attack, no?

>

You really didn't have to explain that. I've lived through an awful lot of

def cons between 1966 and now. I suppose a rhetorical question doesn't

always come across as such.

Anyway, you're there, I'm here. Breathe deep and get it over with quickly.

As for me, I intend to do the same if necessary, but I *will* not live in

fear waiting for it to happen. I'll live until I die and not die before

death. Until that time I'll refuse to entertain the negative attitude you

project so well, even though I realize I carry that same negativity within

me. I accept it and choose not to live by it. Of course, I acknowledge that

you have the same choice to live how you choose and salute you for it even

though it's not the same as my choice. It's your life and there must be a

payoff for you somewhere in it or you wouldn't make that choice.

Namasté

Sam

[Guest guest]

sampatron@... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/27/2001 4:42:35 PM Central Daylight Time,

> dwatkins5@... writes:

>

> > This is serious -

> > buster. I live in a large metropolitan area a few miles from a major

> > airforce base, the largest fighter-pilot training facility in the world

> > - a potential target. I'm not going anywhere.

>

> FWIW, I live five miles from the largest army base in the free world. What's

> that got to do with anything?

>

> Namasté

> Sam

>

Military bases are targets during wars, and attacks on them are often

accompanied

by " collateral damage " - esp. in case of nuclear or biological attack, no?

Best regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

cloudhand@... wrote:

> > I have reviewed my post. As far as I can see, I have not been rude. I

> > have been pointed, and perhaps even offensive, but one can be pointed -

> > and even offensive - without being rude. Is this a discussion group or a

> > dinner party? I will also remind you that I did not " slap you down. " I

> > was not offended by the post in question, and as far as I'm concerned no

> > apology is necessary.

> *I see.

> fa? May we have your opinion on this matter please?

>

> > " We, " incidentally, are we Americans and

> > our allies.

> *No, my friend. 'We' are those who are actually in there doing something

> beyond allowing themselves to become enflamed by the 'collective

> unconscious'. I have yet to hear a word from you that I can't find on the

front

> page of a state-owned newspaper.

Then you can't have been listening, since some of what I have said can - and is-

found in the pages of Carl Jung.

>

> 'We' is either swept up in the media version of this and bellowing for

> someone else to enact 'we's' justice, or 'we' is gettin our ass in there and

> doing what mouths are mouthing. At the moment all yours is doing is

> creating the negativity you feel. There's another American 'we' that gets on

> with going through the ruins, fighting for lives, putting its own life on the

> block. There is yet another that is doing everything in its power to make your

> kind of 'we' see reason.

> I don't see you doing any of this except perhaps occasionally clapping.

From 6000 miles away you don't see me at all. You don't know what I do or don't

do.

If your point is that, because I am not actually going through the WTC rubble

with

my own hands, I should keep my mouth shut, that's just silly.

>

> *You do, indeed, live in a nation that has recently been attacked. Just as do

> many who have recently been attacked by your nation.

Now we get down to brass tacks. I must have missed the news reports on these

alleged

attacks. Did we invade Canada, perchance? Or do you refer to ongoing attacks on

the

Iraqi bases from which attacks on our fighter jets are launched? Do you honestly

suggest that bombing military bases in an unfriendly country in self-defense is

equivalent to the WTC bombing? I doubt that *you* are that obtuse.

> And yet you are

> unable to see that your " gut " reaction is an exact mirror of theirs? I doubt

> that you are that obtuse. So who are you trying to kid? Yourself?

> Do you still - after years of reading Jung - believe that there is blow that

can

> be struck that will end all blows?

Of course not. Where did that come from? Conflict is a permanent part of the

human

condition. There will be no " war to end all wars. "

If a zoologist from another planet were sent to study our species, what kind of

animals would he tell his superiors that we were?

> If you do, my friend, then I say that Carl

> Gustave Jung (or is it just your reading of him?) is useless.

>

> > > The people on this list that you are pleased to sneer at are at least

doing

> > > what they are saying. They are trying (in the face of enormous resistance,

I

> > > might add - from a VERY small minority) to create peace.

> >

> > " Create peace? " How can anyone create peace if they eschew war?

> *For you they are opposites. Imagine a vision - just next to yours - in which

> they are not.

I can't. If they are not opposites, what are they?

>

>

> > If you

> > can't talk to me, you haven't a prayer of persuading the public. What

> > you get from me is what you can expect from the public, albeit writ

> > small (and more moderate).

> *I *AM* talking to you.

> I am saying Dan Watkins, wake up You are intimately related to the whole.

> There is no part of it that is not infinitely anchored in yourself, but I do

not

> expect you to see this.

Then why not tell me something that I will see, and that would hence actually

benefit me, if you are wise? The wise man (like Jung) knows how to speak

different

truths in different ways to different people. To repeat, if you can't teach or

persuade me, you haven't got a prayer of teaching or persuading the public.

>

> However I can demand - because it *is* " my " list - I am the 'list owner' -

that

> you speak with respect or take your views elsewhere. That I certainly can do.

I yam what I yam. You must do as you think best.

Dan Watkins

>

[Guest guest]

> some of what I have said can - and is-

> found in the pages of Carl Jung.

*Dan, there are people who read the Bible that way too.

I don't trust their reading much either.

> > 'We' is either swept up in the media version of this and bellowing for

> > someone else to enact 'we's' justice, or 'we' is gettin our ass in there and

> If your point is that, because I am not actually going through the WTC rubble

with

> my own hands, I should keep my mouth shut, that's just silly.

*No. My point is that you certainly aren't doing anything else that's useful.

> Now we get down to brass tacks. I must have missed the news reports on these

alleged

> attacks. Did we invade Canada, perchance? Or do you refer to ongoing attacks

on the

> Iraqi bases from which attacks on our fighter jets are launched? Do you

honestly

> suggest that bombing military bases in an unfriendly country in self-defense

is

> equivalent to the WTC bombing? I doubt that *you* are that obtuse.

*Dan - wake up. Perhaps you have heard of Bosnia, Nicaragua, and others

too numerous to even begin to go into... The 'unfriendly' country you mention

was a US ally in the push against Iran. Who do YOU think gets hit by the

'friendly' American bombs?

I would also remind you that attacking guerillas on their homeground has

never been exactly a good idea. As America knows to its detriment. You

might be prepared to sacrifice American and other lives to assuage your

thirst for vengeance; I am not.

And I am sided with a growing group of others who are not - the fools (like

Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, the Club of Budapest and others) that you sneer at.

> Conflict is a permanent part of the human

> condition. There will be no " war to end all wars. "

>

> If a zoologist from another planet were sent to study our species, what kind

of

> animals would he tell his superiors that we were?

*Probably 'incurably stupid with extremely rare flashes of what might almost

pass for lucidity'. And as long as we are convinced that conflict, refusal of

consequences and a 'me first' attitude are 'inevitable', more the former than

the latter.

> I can't. If they are not opposites, what are they?

*Hows about the ideas of 'skilful' in that it is unlikely to become a direct

cause of further negative results, and less so in that what you are looking at

here already IS a result of such 'unskill'? A little like the flow of water and

the

hardness of ice. They *look* like opposites, bu the one is simply a siezed-up

version or state of the other.

We've discussed anger and outrage before on this list... Releasing one's

anger into clarity and an open-minded and open-hearted lucidity beyond hope

and fear is what might be termed skilful. This does NOT entail 'going all soft

around the edges'. Getting caught up in the hopes and fears, however,

'hardens' into harsh thoughts, harsh words, and - finally - harsh actions,

lashing out - as here - even at friends as enemies.

Which harshness is highly contagious and - since it obscures the more lucid

state in its swirl of uncontrolled negative emotions - becomes, as it were,

'addictive'... a 'normal operating-level'. And the realm of awareness in which

one finds oneself reflects this same harshness in its every facet.

Maybe that's what you prefer. I, myself, prefer the other.

> Then why not tell me something that I will see, and that would hence actually

> benefit me, if you are wise? The wise man (like Jung) knows how to speak

different

> truths in different ways to different people. To repeat, if you can't teach or

> persuade me, you haven't got a prayer of teaching or persuading the public.

*I am not interested in being 'wise' - particularly not if 'being wise' means

sitting in some seventh heaven with my legs neatly pressed and folded and

my gaze very firmly fixed on my own navel.

However, perhaps you will understand - or at least consider - the above?

> I yam what I yam. You must do as you think best.

*I has nothing to do with what *I* 'must do'.

I am asking *you* to realise that you are not surrounded by enemies here,

and that certainly there is no-one here you may sneer at.

Almost no progress has been made on this list over the past two weeks,

nailed as it is to this stupid point, viz., Dan vs the rest,. I would like us to

move on now.

I'm sure everyone's had enough and the place has become quite unpleasant

to be in.

If you want to start another list elswhere and continue it with those who

would like to discuss it with you, be my guest - be Yahoo's guest, in fact...

I'm afraid I must declare a moritorium on this subject here and now. I have let

it continue this long to give the pent up horror a escape vent. I believe we are

moving on to a different phase now.

m

[Guest guest]

I thought these quotes from the old fool might help right now:

" Great innovations never come from above; they come invariably from below,

just as trees never grow from the sky downward, but upward from the earth.

The upheaval of our world and the upheaval of our consciousness are one and

the same. Everything has become relative and therefore doubtful. And while

man, hesitant and questioning, contemplates a world that is distracted and

treaties of peace and pacts of friendship, with democracy and dictatorship,

capitalism and Bolshevism, his spirit yearns for an answer that will allay

the turmoil of doubt and uncertainty. And the unconscious drive of the

psyche; it is the much-derided, silent folk of the land, who are less

infected with academic prejudices than the shining celebrities are wont to

be. " CW 10, p 177

" In the same measure as the conscious attitude may pride itself on a certain

godlikeness by reason of its lofty and absolute standpoint, an unconscious

attitude develops with a godlikeness oriented downwards to an archaic god

whose nature is sensual and brutal. The enantiodromia of Heraclitus ensures

that the time will come when this deus absconditus shall rise to the surface

and press the God of our ideals to the wall. " CW 6, p 150

" The great events of world history are, at bottom, profoundly unimportant.

In the last analysis, the essential thing is the life of the individual.

This alone makes history, here alone do the great tranformations first take

place, and the whole future, the whole history of the world, ultimately

spring as a gigantic summation from these hidden sources in individuals. In

our private and most subjective lives we are not only the passive witnesses

of our age, and it sufferers, but also its makers " CW 10, p 315

Love to all,

Greg

_______________________________________________________

Send a cool gift with your E-Card

http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/