Re: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Who decides what each human being deserves????

"All human beings deserve the right to live where they were born, it's a psychological or spiritual matter, not a political one."

Life,liberty and pursuit of happiness weren't enough? Now we have decided unilaterally what each person is owed?

Life is a gift, existence is a gift. We are owed nothing, indeed it is we who must say thank you.

We do not come into this world with "inalienable rights" as human beings. Political statements can mean a lot or nothing----- We have no G-d given right to anything...

We human's can not demand certain things of life...that is not how it works.

WE alone or together decided what we think we are entitled to, or others, but it is not engraved in concrete or anywhere else. We want to give whatever we can to others to make life better...that's fine, but no one has a right to expect anything.

Politics can not prevent a soul in any way whatever...it can kill you, but not change your soul.

Why don't we get real and understand we come into this world with nothing and we leave with nothing. We have no way we can "demand" anything, nor do we "deserve" anything. It is up to other human beings to consent to allow us whatever we need. There are laws which are now in place for many people. But there is no law that says I deserve to live where I was born. No commandment either, no religion which saYS WE ARE OWED ANYTHING.

Maybe if we stopped expecting what we are owed, we could instead help ourselves and others to get what we and they need.

No guarentees come with birth. It is other human beings who must step in.

And no one MUST guarentee us the place to live for all time.

Social committments are not law, nor absolute. The ingredient we hope for is the love of others to allow us to develope.

Toni

Original Message -----

From: Lockhart

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:23 PM

Subject: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Suzanne says:

>>In the early days of One by One we were foolish enough to try to divide the group into Germans and Jews, Victims and Perpetrators for certain workshops and often the German Jews wanted to join the German group and the German Americans wanted to go with the Jews because they had more in common culturally.<<

--That's interesting. Seems like a lot of those victim/perpetrator divisions exist only in language and generalization, breaking down when individuals seek people who are like themselves in other ways.

>>One of the nicest things we do in One by One is try to organize an opportunity for German Jews to return to their home town. We place stumble stones when their homes are no longer there and I've witnessed more than one reunion when the entire town came out to honor the return of Jews who survived the Holocaust.<<

--Ironically, Palestinians are having the same experience. I think it's time we recognize the damage done to human beings when their sense of place and belonging is torn apart by political divisions. All human beings deserve the right to live where they were born, it's a psychological or spiritual matter, not a political one. When politics prevents the soul from finding its peace, there can be no peace in the world, regardless of the identities of victims and perpetrators. Both are harmed by it.

>>There is so much we can do to at least listen to one another and witness the atrocities we humans are wont to perpetrate upone one another..... we can do these dialogue groups and small rituals....one by one by one....they add up.<<

--I've seen that happening more and more lately. Maybe I'm just looking for it more. According to cybernetic systems theory, there are times when an entire system can shift into a new phase, triggered by very small, subtle changes on levels that aren't even noticed (like, say, a conversation between individuals who have never met). Not easy to explain why that happens to someone not familiar with nerdy ideas like chaos theory, but it happens. There's a reason why the "butterfly effect" meme has made its way into movies and other outlets in popular culture. Anyone could be the hundredth monkey, and the notion that individuals have no power and dialogue makes no difference is incredibly naive, now that the global social/economic/political system is so interconnected.

C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -- Aird"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." -- Unknown

Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

--Ironically, Palestinians are having the same experience. I think it's time we recognize the damage done to human beings when their sense of place and belonging is torn apart by political divisions. All human beings deserve the right to live where they were born, it's a psychological or spiritual matter, not a political one. When politics prevents the soul from finding its peace, there can be no peace in the world, regardless of the identities of victims and perpetrators. Both are harmed by it.

* Yes, the right od return is an integral and important part of restorative justice and reconciliation in most cases. Here's a heartwarming outcome for the Bushmen of Botswana that I just received. Suzanne

Subject: BOTSWANA: JOY AS BUSHMEN WIN LANDMARK LEGAL CASESURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE13 December 2006BOTSWANA: JOY AS BUSHMEN WIN LANDMARK LEGAL CASEScenes of jubilation greeted the Botswana High Court's ruling today infavour of the Kalahari Bushmen.The court ruled today that the Botswana government's eviction of the Bushmenwas 'unlawful and unconstitutional', and that they have the right to live ontheir ancestral land inside the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.The court also ruled that the Bushmen applicants have the right to hunt andgather in the reserve, and should not have to apply for permits to enter it.One of the judges, Justice Phumaphi, said the government's refusal to allowthe Bushmen to hunt 'was tantamount to condemning the residents of the CKGRto death by starvation.'However, the judges also said that the government is not obliged to provideservices to Bushmen in the reserve.Bushman spokesman Roy Sesana said outside the court, 'Today is the happiestday for us Bushmen. We have been crying for so long, but today we are cryingwith happiness. Finally we have been set free. The evictions have been very,very painful for my people. I hope that now we can go home to our land.'Survival's director Corry said today, 'The court's ruling is avictory for the Bushmen and for indigenous peoples everywhere in Africa. Itis also a victory for Botswana. If the government quickly enacts the courtruling, then the campaign will end and the country really will havesomething to be proud of.'The court case has been the longest and most expensive in Botswana'shistory.An online press file about the court case, including summaries, biographies,legal precedents, photos and video clips, is available athttp://www.survival-international.org/bushmenpresspack-ENDS- For further information contact Miriam Ross on (+44) (0)20 7687 8734 oremail mr@...To read this press release online visithttp://survival-international.org/news.php?id=2128-- > > We help tribal peoples defend their lives, protect their lands and determine> their own futures.> > Survival International> 6 Charterhouse Buildings> London EC1M 7ET> UK> > Tel: (+44) (0)20 7687 8700> Fax: (+44) (0)20 7687 8701 www.survival-international.org

[Guest guest]

>Some have political power and can force the issue, giving some people the "right of return" >and denying it to others. But I believe there is something innate in human nature that has a >connection to birthplace and a drive to seek freedom and self-determination. Politics can >divide people by religion, nationality or ideology. When it does, chaos results because human >nature is undermined by the ego need for control and security.

Just some news in passing:

BUSHMEN WIN LANDMARK LEGAL CASESurvival InternationalDecember 13, 2006http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?id=2128BOTSWANA - Scenes of jubilation greeted the Botswana High Court's rulingtoday in favour of the Kalahari Bushmen.The court ruled today that the Botswana government's eviction of the Bushmenwas 'unlawful and unconstitutional', and that they have the right to live ontheir ancestral land inside the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.The court also ruled that the Bushmen applicants have the right to hunt andgather in the reserve, and should not have to apply for permits to enter it.One of the judges, Justice Phumaphi, said the government's refusal to allowthe Bushmen to hunt 'was tantamount to condemning the residents of the CKGRto death by starvation.'However, the judges also said that the government is not obliged to provideservices to Bushmen in the reserve.Bushman spokesman Roy Sesana said outside the court, 'Today is the happiestday for us Bushmen. We have been crying for so long, but today we are cryingwith happiness. Finally we have been set free. The evictions have been very,very painful for my people. I hope that now we can go home to our land.'Survival's director Corry said today, 'The court's ruling is avictory for the Bushmen and for indigenous peoples everywhere in Africa. Itis also a victory for Botswana. If the government quickly enacts the courtruling, then the campaign will end and the country really will havesomething to be proud of.'The court case has been the longest and most expensive in Botswana'shistory.An online press file about the court case, including summaries, biographies,legal precedents, photos and video clips, is available at:http://www.survival-international.org/bushmenpresspack

[Guest guest]

>Subject: BOTSWANA: JOY AS BUSHMEN WIN LANDMARK LEGAL CASE

Oh, Suzanne, you must have hit your "send" button a fraction of a second before I did! LOL

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

Oh, Suzanne, you must have hit your "send" button a fraction of a second before I did! LOL

* That's funny....I didn't know what to make of your name on my post :-) We must be hanging out in the same

cyber circles.....I was very happy to hear about the decision in favor of the Bushmen. I've always been fascinated by their culture. Think I read a story about the ways of the Bushmen by s Van der Post when I was very young, probably in my teens, that had a strong affect on me. Suzanne

"To develop the drop of compassion in our own heart is the only effective spiritual response to hatred and violence."Thich Nhat Hanh

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I said:

"

>>Political statements can mean a lot or nothing----- We have no G-d given right to anything...<<

you said:

--In that case, there is no right for Jews to live in Israel, and no right for Palestinians to live in Palestine, no rights for Native Americans, no rights for me or you. It is survival of the fittest, if you are right, and that is a recipe for disaster. I am not religious, but there is some truth in the Judeo-Christian moral code, although it is often applied inconsistently or hypocritically. There are very few human beings who can accept that they have no rights. Again, probably mostly Buddhists who are experienced with meditation and non-self.

You do frustrate me so. We human beings make social contracts....in enlightened situation, to grant each other rights and privileges.

Dictators also make laws to make laws giving rights to a select few.

Communities give members rights to protect themselves.

We are not BORN with rights.

As for the situations you mention....some people thought they had a "right" to give others something in recompense. That doesn't make it a "right". It is a question purely of the human mind to make such decisions.id they can agree......or did G-d tell you the Jews had a heavenly/worldly right to Israel?

The Judeo-Christian moral code only exists if one decides to follow it.Judging by our behavior at the moment, I see no signs of the "Judeo- Christian " moral code endorsed by all and followed by all those groups. The moral code as the 10 commandments is a social contract made by the members of a society for the good of all (when it happens)

You confuse "rights" as universal...they are not unless the person practicing them agrees. G-d does not give "RIGHTS" in my opinion. He allows us to arrange our social economic, religious conceptions as we chose...if we can convince the community to honor them.

Everyone demands "rights" nowadays...probably because no one wants the responsibility for forming a social contract according to a few wishes. We have dignity as a human being....the rights mankind gives and takes away.

Any spiritual person I know has long since realized that all life is a gift. A good book on how society forms and conducts itself might help. Those who are in majority or powerful enough plan their "rights and duties" for everyone in the society...it is know as a social contract. That is what enlightened people do to keep peace and prosperity for themselves and their communities. The "survival of the fittest" is a philosophical understanding of how the earth works, and sadly we as a nation seem to relish being the fittest, at least for a while. We cheerfully give ourselves "rights" but our laws differentiate between members of our country and strangers.

The Palestinian- Israeli problem is not a matter of rights...since neither side accepts the right of the other. What right? who decides? The strongest at the end will do what it has to..even to the point of violence.

We cannot "give" "rights" to anyone unless we can enforce that right by law or power.

I have the rights given to me by the nation I swore allegiance to ...yes under oath. If I leave this country, I will only have "rights" if they are given to me by another country or force. "There isn't even a "right" to life that is universal or ever has been. The common morality is based on who has the most power to enforce their views in this world.

Sadly , what "truths" exist on this planet are those the strong have accepted. We may challenge them only if we wish to be a martyr in whatever society we find ourselves in. Truth is relative to one's culture and location as well as one's religious feelings. We really have no means to make everyone regard our truth as TRUTH. My idea of G-d is that he is absolute Truth...not here on earth where every man has his own idea of what truth is.

Many people find themselves without rights...I just read this morning about the 7 million slaves on our planet. Amnesty International would have no work if everyone agreed that everyone had the same rights....and even in this country, justice is often handed out by error or will...of those in power.

All these sentences are my opinion, except insofar as "social contract" is concerned. That is an accepted principal. Claim any right for yourself you wish....but without the community behind you it will not be so.We cannot make demands we cannot force...either by rule of law or power itself.

Toni

Original Message -----

From: Lockhart

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:28 AM

Subject: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>Who decides what each human being deserves????<<

--Everyone does. Everyon, inluding you, has ideas about what each person deserves. Some have political power and can force the issue, giving some people the "right of return" and denying it to others. But I believe there is something innate in human nature that has a connection to birthplace and a drive to seek freedom and self-determination. Politics can divide people by religion, nationality or ideology. When it does, chaos results because human nature is undermined by the ego need for control and security. That is why the Soviet Union no longer exists, and it is why the American, Israeli, Iranian and North Korean governments may not be able to "live by the sword" indefinitely, without producing massive suffering on all sides.

>>"All human beings deserve the right to live where they were born, it's a psychological or spiritual matter, not a political one."<<

--Yes.>>Life,liberty and pursuit of happiness weren't enough? Now we have decided unilaterally what each person is owed?<<

--What is your definition of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness"? I can't imagine anyone would be happy or feel free in a refugee camp. There are people like me who can feel at home almost anywhere, at least for a while, but I don't think everyone is like me in that respect. Most have a deep, spiritual connection to their birthplace, regardless of any political conflicts that get in the way. I would not support any policy of ethnic cleansing, and I doubt you would either. Most people seem to understand that, at least for themselves if not for others, the land of one's bith has significance that is deeper than political.>>Life is a gift, existence is a gift. We are owed nothing, indeed it is we who must say thank you.<<

--I can't argue with that. The problem is, many people in this world have a hard time being thankful for their lives, having lost family, land, homes, security or food. It may be possible for a Buddhist to have gratitude in those circumstances, but that is not common.>>We do not come into this world with "inalienable rights" as human beings.<<

--Have you considered taking it up with the US Constitution? I'm not sure I would argue that inalienable rights exist in the way a chair exists, but I believe a shared recognition of rights that extend not to one group alone but to everybody, is a requirement for civilization and social stability.

>>Political statements can mean a lot or nothing----- We have no G-d given right to anything...<<

--In that case, there is no right for Jews to live in Israel, and no right for Palestinians to live in Palestine, no rights for Native Americans, no rights for me or you. It is survival of the fittest, if you are right, and that is a recipe for diaster. I am not religious, but there is some truth in the Judeo-Christian moral code, although it is often applied inconsistently or hypocritically. There are very few human beings who can accept that they have no rights. Again, probably mostly Buddhists who are experienced with meditation and non-self.>>We human's can not demand certain things of life...that is not how it works.WE alone or together decided what we think we are entitled to, or others, but it is not engraved in concrete or anywhere else. We want to give whatever we can to others to make life better...that' s fine, but no one has a right to expect anything.<<

--That's a bit Nietzschean... in terms of raw, animal power, I might agree. But I think there are dimensions to life that people who live on power alone do not understand, and when power is lost because it lacks wisdom, it can be messy. Many things are engraved in concrete, incluing the Ten Commandments, various prayers, poetry and celebrity footprints. We do that to show symbolically that we believe some things are greater than the individual, and are timeless.>>Politics can not prevent a soul in any way whatever...it can kill you, but not change your soul.<<

--That is why politics will never be able to keep people from fighting for the land of their birth. If there is no shared agreement on rights that are consistently applied, chaos results because the soul will not back down. Gandhi understood that and used in in a way that resulted in very little bloodshed on either side. Not everyone is that good at understanding the relationship between power and the soul. Moses also understood, although he was still locked into the tribal code that produced ethnic cleansing and hypocriy. Luther King Jr. applied it very well. We are all still learning.>>Why don't we get real and understand we come into this world with nothing and we leave with nothing.<<

--Can't argue with that.

>>We have no way we can "demand" anything, nor do we "deserve" anything.<<

--You have done a rare thing, if you no longer make demands of anyone or anything. Can you teach others to do that?

>>It is up to other human beings to consent to allow us whatever we need.<<

--How disempowering. Gandhi did not wait for the British to consent. Something more was required.

>>There are laws which are now in place for many people. But there is no law that says I deserve to live where I was born.<<

--You're talking about the kind of laws made by human beings to control each other, which is based on demands. The law demands, and if it demands what is contrary to the soul, chaos is produced, including genocides, wars, terrorism, revolutionary movements and massive suffering. We have to work according to a deeper set of laws, if we want our species to survive. Otherwise, the purpose of the law, which is to protect the rights of one group if not all groups, will be undermined by its effects. Nature cuts out life forms that undermine their own survival by destroying their own food source, environment or, if the life forms are social primates, the social fabric.

>>No commandment either, no religion which saYS WE ARE OWED ANYTHING.<<

--"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"? If we are consistent with that, it might be a good thing. >>Maybe if we stopped expecting what we are owed, we could instead help ourselves and others to get what we and they need.<<

--I agree. Like I said, there are a few people here and there who make no demands of life or of other human beings. There can be a lot of power in that position. But ignoring the needs of others can be disastrous. The key is not to demand for oneself, while serving the needs of others so that they do not fester into demands.>>No guarentees come with birth. It is other human beings who must step in.<<

--I agree there are no guaranees, and that action is required, unless one takes the Buddhist position that desire is a trap.

>>And no one MUST guarentee us the place to live for all time.<<

--If that is a MUST, then it would be necessary for you to work against Zionism. Are you doing so? If so, how do others react to your position?>>Social committments are not law, nor absolute.<<

--Nothing is absolute. Absolutes come from language. But if we had no desires or demands as a species, we would not be here. Only our ancestors who demanded freedom could end slavery, only those who demanded a higher standard of living could give us cars and internet and heart bypass surgery and the Bill of Rights. While I am very Buddhist in some ways, I also have an appreciation for what has been passed down to us, and am not prepared to let what we have disappear. Are you?

C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

[Guest guest]

Dear and Toni,

Lockhart wrote:

Toni says:

>>We are not BORN with rights.<<

--I agree, in the sense that "rights" are not a body part.

Rights are an emergent property of social systems. When they are

violated, things go wrong, and eventually everyone suffers. It's a

consequence of resonance in social systems. Rights are what religious

people call "God-given", and they do mean something. They are not

something you can pin down and take a picture of, but they are real,

and denying them has consequences.

Well, as has been pointed out to me a bazillion times, the fact that a

teaching is necessary doesn't make it true.

It seems to me that the various notions of "universal human rights" as

articulated by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the U.N., Mrs. Roosevelt, and

the other poets have about as much claim to be considered fact as, oh,

I don't know, the rapture or the virgin birth. "Rights" What are they?

What sort of being do they have? Are they observable? measurable?

quantifiable? verifiable by mean of double-blind experiment, lol?.

Justice - now that is something I can understand And it doesn't require

any specious theory of rights. That which is not mandated is forbidden

- piece o' cake.

Best,

Dan

Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo!

Music Unlimited.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan,

I have a problem with everyone demanding their rights......

You asked:

""Rights" What are they? What sort of being do they have? Are they observable? measurable? quantifiable? verifiable by mean of double-blind experiment, lol?.

My point is that " I have a right to...." is false in general. And dear Lord, now people say they have a "right" to respect. Excuse me? I thought respect was something one earned in one way or another. I admit dignity to the human being as such, but rights are dependent on laws and social construction.

As for justice...well, it seems to me we never do agree, and even when we do, we do not practice it blindfolded. We do not seem to see the difference between justice and vengeance either. Now people demand "closure" and mean by that that the person who harmed them goes to jail...at least in this city...and receives the death penalty. Then they think they will have "closure" whatever that is????

I also am tired of "it isn't fair" Who promised us fairness? Again it is a matter of law and social constructs.

My point is, and has been that we have no "rights" except those granted us by law, dictator or community. Who ever holds the power, decides on what rights others may have.

If we could finally stop thinking "we have it coming" whatever it is.....and stop taking things for granted, we might learn justice and we might even consider allowing others to have the same "rights" we have.

Mankind is not going to change, nor become conscious anytime soon. I would like us to be realists, and quit with the "should" for society or ourselves. Things are not going to get better and better simply because we believe in "progress". Human beings may slowly learn all those things idealists and would like to see.....maybe...until then realism is the best stance. We always seem to idealize the "future" as if we would lose our shadow "someday"

I* don't mind reformers or idealists or whatever, but we must begin with the "possible" and not a future world when we all have miraculously changed.

Toni

Re: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Dear and Toni, Lockhart wrote:

Toni says:

>>We are not BORN with rights.<<

--I agree, in the sense that "rights" are not a body part. Rights are an emergent property of social systems. When they are violated, things go wrong, and eventually everyone suffers. It's a consequence of resonance in social systems. Rights are what religious people call "God-given", and they do mean something. They are not something you can pin down and take a picture of, but they are real, and denying them has consequences.

Well, as has been pointed out to me a bazillion times, the fact that a teaching is necessary doesn't make it true. It seems to me that the various notions of "universal human rights" as articulated by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the U.N., Mrs. Roosevelt, and the other poets have about as much claim to be considered fact as, oh, I don't know, the rapture or the virgin birth. "Rights" What are they? What sort of being do they have? Are they observable? measurable? quantifiable? verifiable by mean of double-blind experiment, lol?.Justice - now that is something I can understand And it doesn't require any specious theory of rights. That which is not mandated is forbidden - piece o' cake.Best,Dan

[Guest guest]

Realism is what is...it has no "good " or bad connotation. To be REALISTIC is to see without judgment.

You asked:

"--Best stance for you, or are you dictating for everyone here? "

Of course, One cannot act if one does not see what is, before one tries to change it.

Sanity means to see things as they are, now. To see the world anyother way is in-sanity.

You comment:

"If you say, "I have no right to demand anything" you might benefit. But if you say, "you have no rights" you push the problem outward"

How about I say, no one is born with "rights" nature does not bestow rights upon us,we human beings give them to each other by a contract we make with our society. This isn't a "problem" it is a statement of fact.

I cannot "take my rights". I can expect to follow the traditions of my culture and expect to get paid for my labor...that is not then a right but an obligation on another. I do not have a right to grab what is someone else's in the name of justice.

Once again, we get nowhere is we decide how "society ought to function...nor how people SHOULD act. Why not just understand that we human beings have a long way to go before we are conscious enough for all these noble enterprises. Preaching, I have learned never changes anything. Acceptance of what is...might.

you say:

"--At the moment, there is a lot of misunderstanding about who has real power."

Not in my world. I see those with power over others demanding their own way, and the powerless do what they are told. Brute force is not a synonym for the word "power" And only those who want to will:

"It is not that rights exist, but that if one demands rights for oneself...." Only if one has decided all human beings are equal...and not many have.

I have carried on this discussion with you in hopes that you would see that none of us will accomplish anything if we continue to tell everyone what they "should" do. Admitting where human nature is, in this day of the common era is wisdom, not spinning "shoulds " in the sky.

We must not have expectations of how people "should" react, but how they do react. That is why we study psychology...to understand our human race better...not to try to improve it except 1x1x1.

I have got to laugh..

You asked:

"Have you tried motivational speaking?

It is a sham except in the short run. I can not motivate another except by brute force. I can try to lead them to motivate themselves. What do you think teachers, parents and bosses do? Either threaten or use carrot and stick? It is "self-motivation" we are seeking, only example will be worthwhile in the long run...except for those who take money to teach others "motivational " whatever....

The whole idea is to accept someone as they now are...no need to push them anywhere. Once they are accepted as they are now...maybe they will want to do more or do better. Anything else is a sham and only lasts a very short time. (been there done that)

I will never convince you...you will not change human nature or get people to behave as you wish them to...That is realism. What is NOW.

Toni

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>I have a problem with everyone demanding their rights.<<

--Do you have a problem with people TAKING their rights? I don't. As long as they're nonviolent and consistent in offering the recognition of the same rights to others. Jews took the "right of return" and established the nation of Israel. The "right of return" did not exist, but the deep psychological need for a homeland, coupled with networking and political skill, turned that imaginary right into a real country. Palestinians are struggling with the same issue, an imaginary right that has been frustrated rather than reified by the world. Now, Holocaust denial is being used by Iran's government to counter the use of historical suffering among Jews to justify hard-line security policy, curfews and other harrassment of Palestinians. It is not that rights exist, but that if one demands rights for oneself, one must be willing to extend the same rights to others. If Jews have a "right of return", then Palestinians must have the same right, or Israel's future will be undermined by the inconsistency. Iran will have the same problem, it must be willing to recognize the rights of Iranian Jews, Bahai, and other religious minorities, or the government will be undermined by its own inconsistency. It is possible for people to have many different truths. But inconsistency leads to collapse, eventually. >>And dear Lord, now people say they have a "right" to respect. Excuse me? I thought respect was something one earned in one way or another.<<

--To say someone has "earned" something implies that he has some right to it. If you work at a company that promises you pay, you feel you have a "right" to be paid, and you sue if you're not paid. Rights are reified with actions.

>>I admit dignity to the human being as such, but rights are dependent on laws and social construction.<<

--What is dignity, exactly?>>As for justice...well, it seems to me we never do agree, and even when we do, we do not practice it blindfolded. We do not seem to see the difference between justice and vengeance either. Now people demand "closure" and mean by that that the person who harmed them goes to jail...at least in this city...and receives the death penalty. Then they think they will have "closure" whatever that is????<<

--I agree, Toni. Well said. It's the blindfold that is the problem. People disagree on what rights are most essential, but it's the inconsistency that does the damage.>>I also am tired of "it isn't fair" Who promised us fairness?<<

--We can promise each other fairness. If we keep our word, it means something. If we don't keep our word, it means something. Nature doesn't make promises, but humans do.>> Who ever holds the power, decides on what rights others may have.<<

--At the moment, there is a lot of misunderstanding about who has real power. Much of what seems powerful in the world is really weak, and there are times when the pen really is mightier than the sword. It would be a mistake to think power is merely a matter of brute force. Words have power. The word "rights" has power, but not with everyone. Those who want to make the word mean something will act on it. >>If we could finally stop thinking "we have it coming" whatever it is.....and stop taking things for granted, we might learn justice and we might even consider allowing others to have the same "rights" we have.<<

--I agree. The problem is, that is a philosophy that can only be applied to oneself, not to another. If you say, "I have no right to demand anything" you might benefit. But if you say, "you have no rights" you push the problem outward, and that has consequences. >>Mankind is not going to change, nor become conscious anytime soon.<<

--That's the spirit! Have you tried motivational speaking? Mankind changes when circumstances force a change. That's why slavery is now a crime, rather than an accepted institution. It's why women have the vote. People may become conscious and then backslide a little, but the progression over time is forward, not static.

>>I would like us to be realists, and quit with the "should" for society or ourselves.<<

--Realism is overrated. Much of what is considered "real" is only reified by enough people that no one person believes he or she can go against the grain of the crowd.

>>Things are not going to get better and better simply because we believe in "progress". Human beings may slowly learn all those things idealists and would like to see.....maybe. ..until then realism is the best stance.<<

--Best stance for you, or are you dictating for everyone here? America wouldn't even be an independent nation if the "realists" had won out. A lot of people in power are "realistic" about power, i.e. cynical and willing to perpetuate dysfunction out of fear of being labeled "idealistic" or shot down by realists. We did not go to the moon on a rocket made out of realism. It was made out of imagination, reified and made physical by a dream. Even wars, something we tend to be very "realistic" about, begin with dreams and words. They don't just fall off a tree, they fall out of the collective shadow projection and identification with power and technolog,

>>I* don't mind reformers or idealists or whatever, but we must begin with the "possible" and not a future world when we all have miraculously changed.<<

--Even pragmatic corporations know it's useful sometimes to throw out preconceptions and start with an unreasonable goal. It produces better products than "realisim", which sees only what is happening (and very little of that) and not what could be made to happen.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

toni wrote:

Dear Dan,

I have a problem with everyone demanding their

rights......

You asked:

""Rights" What are they? What sort

of being do they have? Are they observable? measurable? quantifiable?

verifiable by mean of double-blind experiment, lol?.

My point is that " I have a right to...." is

false in general.

In general, perhaps - that is, in the case of most human beings,

perhaps. Not in the case of him who actually has the right - the

magnanimous man, for example.

And dear Lord, now people say they have a

"right" to respect. Excuse me? I thought respect was something one

earned in one way or another.

Me, too.

I admit dignity to the human being as such,

I can't see that.

but rights are dependent on laws and social

construction.

As for justice...well, it seems to me we never do

agree, and even when we do, we do not practice it blindfolded. We do

not seem to see the difference between justice and vengeance either.

Now people demand "closure" and mean by that that the person who harmed

them goes to jail...at least in this city...and receives the death

penalty. Then they think they will have "closure" whatever that is??

I think I know what they mean - they mean the intense soul-satisfaction

that comes with revenge, with getting even, with getting your own back,

with making your enemy pay. It's like a shot of heroin. There's hardly

a sweeter experience in life.Why, it's almost like being in love.

??

I also am tired of "it isn't fair" Who promised

us fairness? Again it is a matter of law and social constructs.

My point is, and has been that we have no

"rights" except those granted us by law, dictator or community.

For the great majority this seems to be true.

best,

Dan

Who ever holds the power, decides on what rights

others may have.

If we could finally stop thinking "we have it

coming" whatever it is.....and stop taking things for granted, we might

learn justice and we might even consider allowing others to have the

same "rights" we have.

Mankind is not going to change, nor become

conscious anytime soon. I would like us to be realists, and quit with

the "should" for society or ourselves. Things are not going to get

better and better simply because we believe in "progress". Human beings

may slowly learn all those things idealists and would like to

see.....maybe...until then realism is the best stance. We always

seem to idealize the "future" as if we would lose our shadow "someday"

I* don't mind reformers or idealists or whatever,

but we must begin with the "possible" and not a future world when we

all have miraculously changed.

Toni

-----

Original Message -----

From:

Dan

and Watkins

To:

JUNG-FIRE

Sent:

Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:37 PM

Subject:

Re: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Dear and Toni,

Lockhart wrote:

Toni says:

>>We are not BORN with rights.<<

--I agree, in the sense that "rights" are not a body part.

Rights are an emergent property of social systems. When they are

violated, things go wrong, and eventually everyone suffers. It's a

consequence of resonance in social systems. Rights are what religious

people call "God-given", and they do mean something. They are not

something you can pin down and take a picture of, but they are real,

and denying them has consequences.

Well, as has been pointed out to me a bazillion times, the fact that a

teaching is necessary doesn't make it true.

It seems to me that the various notions of "universal human rights" as

articulated by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the U.N., Mrs. Roosevelt, and

the other poets have about as much claim to be considered fact as, oh,

I don't know, the rapture or the virgin birth. "Rights" What are they?

What sort of being do they have? Are they observable? measurable?

quantifiable? verifiable by mean of double-blind experiment, lol?.

Justice - now that is something I can understand And it doesn't require

any specious theory of rights. That which is not mandated is forbidden

- piece o' cake.

Best,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Lockhart wrote:

Dan says:

>>Well, as has been pointed out to me a bazillion times,

the fact that a

teaching is necessary doesn't make it true.<<

--Very true. And what is necessary changes with circumstances.

That which is necessary and untrue at one point becomes unnecessary and

still untrue later on, and then there is much confusion. Some people

truly believe that America will collapse if gays are allowed to marry

or if Christians become a minority.

America will collapse regardless, as all regimes eventually do. The

question is, when?

It is untrue that a religion must attach itself formally to

religious principles, in fact it may be a huge liability, but if it is

viewed as necessary, it doesn't matter how true it is, in terms of raw

power. But immediate, enforceable power is only a temporal form,

unstable by nature. Every religion recognizes that truth, and political

groups deny it, however much they pay lip service to God.

>>"Rights" What are they? What sort of being do they have? Are

they observable? measurable? quantifiable? verifiable by mean of

double-blind experiment, lol?. Justice - now that is something I can

understand.<<

--Where is justice? I don't see justice here... can you verify

it by a double-blind experiment? lol? Oh, you're laughing at your

unintentional irony, I get it.

Actually, I'm laughing at "empiricists" - not that you are necessarily

one. I had in mind in particular Dawson and those like him, who eschew

religion in favor of their own pet faiths, but at the same time wish to

rely on "universal human rights." Jettison God, jettison rights - one

is as "metaphysical" as the other. Not, to repeat, to imply that you

don't see that.

You might say justice exists

I say that justice exists when each gets "his own" - ie, what is

suitable for him. Not that it is easy or even possible to bring that

about - but that's the goal.

in the execution of a criminal, or in the return of a purse to

an elderly woman after the purse-snatcher has been permanently

disfigured by steel-toed boots jammed into his face by an angry mob of

decent, God-fearing citizens.

Hmmm. ... that actually almost sounds too pleasant to be just.

In which case, I would say it's more a symbol of justice, and

only to some, while rights exist in symbols of rights. Examples: a man

freed from prison after a DNA test proves him innocent, a journalist in

China freed by international pressure after being imprisoned for

speaking the truth, or the willingness of enemies to abide by the same

laws, dissolving hypocrisy and double standards in conflict and making

sanity possible.

You could also say that justice and rights both exist in the

form of language, like the Bill of Rights, laws against murder, and

agreements that make justice and rights possible.

Yes, but these are conventions.

You might believe you have a right to carry a gun in the United

States.

But a "natural right"? I dunno. Unless prudence confers "rights." But

why not just say that it is prudent to allow free citizens to own guns,

and leave it at that?

If so, that right does not exist floating in the air somewhere,

but in the Constitution and in the agreement by many to stand by it.

Someone who believes in the right to gay marriage would use the same

logic.

Again, a matter of prudence. I don't know what will happen when we

overthrow a five thousand year institution that has been a cornerstone

of society in favor of some radical new regime - but in any event, we

seem bent on making the experiment, so we'll see. Perhaps marriage will

once again become something for the elite - could be worse, I suppose.

Heterosexual shacking has already lost most of the shame attached to it

(though I do note that many people still describe their shack-up

partners as "fiance's", although they may have been together for many

years, with no real plans to marry - that suggests at least a residuum

of shame).

I will say this - there would appear to be no argument that can be made

in favor of "gay marriage" that could not with at least equal validity

be made for polygamy.

Best,

Dan

It's consistency that has a powerful effect over time, the

willingness to agree on common definitions of justice and established

rights. People use the word "justice" in ways that can vastly differ,

for some it means executing women who have abortions or commit

adultery, for others it means not being stolen from or killed without

cause. It is the agreement that makes coordinated use of force

possible, and it is consistency that prevents the use of force from

becoming a tool of bullies and dictators. Agreement is a form of social

power, based in language. Consistency is a property of reality,

enforced by a higher law than ourselves. Of course, humans like to

represent their idea of a higher power, creating a lot of suffering

that in my view is unnecessary.

Would you like a bowl of justice? It's gooooood.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

[sam: Dan previously wrote]:

>>Heterosexual shacking has already lost most of the shame attached to it (though I do note that many people still describe their shack-up partners as "fiance's", although they may have been together for many years, with no real plans to marry - that suggests at least a residuum of shame)<<

Just an interjection here that I can't resist. FWIW, I refer to SO's and my liaison of nearly 30 years as "the world's longest shack job" (and by the laws of TX that doesn't automatically make us common law wed) and I refer to him as my partner (sometimes my "consort" LOL). Hey, my marriage lasted seven years, my non-marriage, OTOH...

Blissings,

Sam

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself. ~ Wayne DyerIdeologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. ~ Eugene IonescuLet us clothe ourselves in a mutual tolerance of one another’s views. ~ St. Clement of RomeI support the separation of Church and Hate. ~ Bumper Sticker

[Guest guest]

>Easy divorce has certainly been a disaster.

Perhaps, but believe me, this one was not easy. It was before the days of no-fault divorce and I wanted with all my heart to keep him married to me. I could have, too. But a real marriage is more (for me, anyway) than just a government-sanctioned contract. This event in my life showed me just how much that contractual paper was worth.

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

Lockhart wrote:

Dan says:

>>America will collapse regardless, as all regimes

eventually do. The

question is, when?<<

--That's just the spirit and vision I've come to expect from

American Conservatives. Just kidding. Some conservatives aren't like

that.

So you think there is something human that lasts forever? That a

regime, for example, can be not just long-lived, but sempiternal? Even

the pyramids will collapse or erode some day, and they're made of stone.

I don't know any conservatives who think that any regime lasts forever.

The notion that you can somehow create a perfect, incorrutible regime

is, I would say, the very essence of "progressivism."

>>I had in mind in particular Dawson and those like him, who

eschew religion in favor of their own pet faiths, but at the same time

wish to rely on "universal human rights."<<

--Is it your opinion that the universe can only make a verdict

on human nature and culture if it's governed by a deity? If I loosen

all the bolts in a car, nature will say, "Sorry, you aren't going to

get very far in that thing".

Only a deity (or other personal being) can "say" anything. Nature

"says" things only metaphorically - it doesn't really say anything.

There is just causality and that's it.

Same thing happens to societies, and there is no objective

reason to assume a deity behind it all. Maybe nature just wants us to

survive.

Again, absent a deity, nature does not "want." It is dead, just as the

moderns assume.

Not forever, but for a while. Maybe we haven't loosened all our

bolts. Maybe there's time to change. But only those who take the risk

to change are saved from the "dustbin of history" (kudos to Bush's

speechwriter for that poetic and possibly alchemical metaphor)

>>Jettison God, jettison rights - one is as "metaphysical"

as the other.<<

--How did one metaphysical concept become equally valid to every

other metaphysical concept?

My scare quotes were to indicate that I was using "metaphysical" the

way moderns typically use it - to mean something completely made up and

unreal (don't forget that moderns say that everything that is, is

natural, such that it is even meaningless to say that something is

"unnatural"). If we are talking about real metaphysics, then I agree

with you.

That would only hold true if one is a thinking type with

intuition as the inferior function, or a feeling type raised to believe

certain religious groups or beliefs are contaminating influences.

>>I say that justice exists when each gets "his own" - ie, what

is suitable for him. Not that it is easy or even possible to bring that

about - but that's the goal.<<

--I think we agree on that point. Freedom of religion being an

example. I get my freedom to worship any deity I want, or no deity, and

you get the same freedom, and if anyone tries to take that freedom away

from us, we stop them. That is instinctive behavior,

Nothing could be less "instinctive." Instinct "says" :-), you will

worship and obey the gods of the tribe, or we will eject or kill you.

Hence Socrates. Instinct isn't justice, though, because man is an

incomplete thing (thus Jung's teleology). It should also be said that

"what I want," with regard to religion or something else, is not

necessarily just either. Most people don't know their own interest.

and very much in alignment with the "will of nature", with or

without a moral deity behind it.

>>Hmmm. ... that actually almost sounds too pleasant to be

just.<<

--The notion that justice always involves violent retaliation is

an unjust concept,

I don't know anyone who maintains that. If I pay my bills on time, that

is just, and it has nothing to do with retribution, violent or

otherwise.

one that has oppressed millions and done so much damage to the

world, it's a wonder we put up with it. We ought to put that concept to

death, put it out of its misery and do what works instead. If fear of

retaliation or punishment were enough to keep society duct-taped

together, there would be so much "justice" in Iraq we'd be put to

shame, what with all our understanding and tolerance. .

Nietzsche argues at length that such violence has contributed

positively and even necessarily to the development of man. Is he wrong?

Are we sure?

>>But a "natural right"?<<

--One that, if violated, destabilizes a social system, leading

to collapse.

Surely it is just for some regimes to collapse. The Third Reich, the

Mao regime, the Castro regime, etc.

Speaking of Iraq, I have been reading in the media arguments to the

effect that the Iraqis are worse off now than before Saddam was deposed

because, though Saddam was a tryant, at least the people had

electricity and safe streets and commerce and what not. Now, on the

other hand, they have civil war. Two things: first, I am reminded of

Plutarch's statement to the effect that the people will always trade

liberty for physical security; 'nuff said.

Secondly, I am reminded of the American civil war, fought because of

chattel slavery, a tryannical practice. Lots of suffering and death

involved. Should we have foregone the war and accepted the tyranny in

order to preserve peace and prosperity? If not, well, - maybe we

shouldn't in Iraq either.

Or one that all people want for themselves, whether or not

they're willing to extend them to others. "Do not what is hateful to

yourself".

>>But why not just say that it is prudent to allow free

citizens to own guns, and leave it at that?<<

--I don't think owning guns is a "natural right". But freedom

is, and it may well be prudent to allow people to own guns, in order to

protect their freedoms. I certainly wouldn't demand that all Iraqis

give up their guns, they don't want to feel unsafe and at risk,

although there's not much one can do about a suicide bomber with a

vehicle. In the US, I'd say there's minimal chance of the government

oppressing people to the point of armed revolt, and minimal chance of

armed invasion by another military power.

I'd say that you are too sanguine. In the words of the philosopher

Glenn Fry (I think it's Glenn Fry), the wolf is *always* at the door.

But, to the degree that you may be right, I would say that it is in

part *because* we have an armed populace. Who wants to mess with fifty

million armed men who will live free or die?

There is, however, violent crime, and I wouldn't deprive

someone of a weapon if it makes them feel safer. An armed public is a

deterrent to crime in a way the death penalty is not. It's an immediate

threat, invokes uncertainty, and delivers "punishment" immediately and

without appeal.

Well said. I like it.

Drawn-out court cases, violent and soul-numbing prison

environments and other delayed punishments do not work, are extremely

inhumane, and produce more, not less crime. So I make a crystal clear

distinction between self-defense and punishment. If you have to kill

someone to stay alive, you have my permission.

I will also, if necessary, kill someone to protect my property, with or

without your permission; this due to recent change in AZ law. Who says

things always get worse?

If you advocate killing people for crimes they committed years

ago, there we disagree.

If I ran up a phone bill twenty years ago and then skipped town, don't

you think I should pay it now?

>>Perhaps marriage will once again become something for the elite

- could be worse, I suppose.<<

--How could that possibly happen?

You have property (old money) to protect, you want to strengthen the

family with good alliances, you have money for a nice wedding (middle

class types here), you want protection from abandonment, etc. you get

married. otherwise, you just shack up. Just like the old days.

If people don't trust the government, marriage becomes more of

a social or religious institution, which it SHOULD be. Why would the

government be qualified to decide who should or shouldn't marry? If it

were up to me, I would give tax credits to people raising children,

married or not. I would not allow secular law to define a religious

institution. Different religious groups have different opinions on gay

marriage, and no church should be forced to perform them. But religious

groups that value love

I'm talking about marriage, not love. Love in a marriage is nice as

lagniappe, and often occurs, but it is not necessary to marriage.

Marriage does not exist for the gratification ("happiness," if you

like) of married adults, any more than the military exists for the

gratification of the soldiers. Both exist for a political purpose. As

the philosopher tina asks, What's love got to do, got to do with

it?

over dogma should not be forced to STOP gay marriages, because

that is a violation of religious freedoms. And yes, that also means

polygamy is a religious institution and not the government's business,

unless someone's rights are being violated. Forcing kids to marry is a

violation of right. Adult, consensual polygamy is none of my business,

and none of the government's business.

At least you are consistent on this point. That is more than I can say

for many.

I believe my view is consistent and would reduce tensions over

links between government and religion. Trying to force one moral code

on everyone only works if the code is based on the notion of consent

and the need for voluntary contracts to be made without interference.

Good morality is not based on consent, but on justice.

>>Heterosexual shacking has already lost most of the shame

attached to it

(though I do note that many people still describe their shack-up

partners as "fiance's", although they may have been together for many

years, with no real plans to marry - that suggests at least a residuum

of shame)<<

--The problem with shame is that it distracts from doing what is

right. Is it wrong for people to "shack up"? Only to some.

Yeah, like their children - the ones who, for example, get sexually

abused by the concatenation of "step-fathers" that move through the

house of the (quite literally) tax-fattened, slattern mother. I see it

every day.

Again, none of the government's business. Priests can judge all

they want, although it's hypocritical and ironic given the teachings of

Jesus.

Jesus was apolitical. Religion is very political - that's its job. The

hypocrisy, as you call it, is totally necessary.

But the government should not be in that business. I simply

don't CARE if being married is right for someone else or not. I need to

know what's right for me, not bully someone else (with or without the

force of law behind me) into adopting my moral code.

>>I will say this - there would appear to be no argument that can

be made in favor of "gay marriage" that could not with at least equal

validity be made for polygamy.<<

--I agree. My view is consistent -- adult consensual behavior is

not my problem, and it's not the government's problem.

We may agree, but not for the same reasons.

No one has the right to tell anyone they must marry against

their will (ok, they can say it, but not enforce it), and no one has

the right to tell anyone they must not marry the person they love.

I can't go along with that.

Polygamy may or may not be harmful (I suspect it's only harmful

if it involves forced marriage or child marriage), but alcohol is

harmful and we don't ban it, nor should we.

Only because we can't. Prudence imposes limits, but in "theory" (as

they say) there is no reason not to ban alcohol.

Some things must be up to the individual. You know, the freedom

thing.

The freedom thing, as I see it, is about living according to law you

helped make yourself (even if only by representation), free (and this

is the big thing) from foreign domination. And that could certainly

include laws against alcohol and other drugs, fornication, usury, gay

marriage, and a host of other things. Freedom is not

do-your-own-thingism. Freedom is, you are a citizen, and you get a say

- but your say is one of 200 billion, lol.

Best,

Dan

What our nation was supposedly based on, back in the day.

C. Lockhart

http://www.soulaquarium.net

Yahoo! Messenger: grailsnail

Blog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of

human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible

warning." -- Aird

"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." --

Unknown

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

sampatron@... wrote:

In a message dated 12/17/2006 8:54:26 A.M. Central Standard

Time, grailsnail writes:

 

 

[sam:  Dan previously wrote]:

>>Heterosexual shacking has already lost most of the

shame attached to it

(though I do note that many people still describe their shack-up

partners as "fiance's", although they may have been together for many

years, with no real plans to marry - that suggests at least a residuum

of shame)<<

Just an interjection here that I can't resist.  FWIW, I refer to

SO's and my liaison of nearly 30 years as "the world's longest shack

job" (and by the laws of TX that doesn't automatically make us common

law wed) and I refer to him as my partner (sometimes my "consort"

LOL). Hey, my marriage lasted seven years, my non-marriage, OTOH...

Dear Sam,

Easy divorce has certainly been a disaster.

Best,

Dan

 

Blissings,

Sam

 

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define

yourself. ~ Wayne Dyer

Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. ~ Eugene

Ionescu

Let us clothe ourselves in a mutual tolerance of one another’s views. ~

St. Clement of Rome

I support the separation of Church and Hate. ~ Bumper Sticker

[Guest guest]

On dear , there you go again:

"Sadly, it's very easy to think one is being "realistic" while judging a situation in reference to the past, rather than to what's possible."

How do you know what is possible. A vision? your own capability? Your estimate of what you "think" someone may be capable of?

Stop...do not touch go. Reality is what is NOW. no guessing, no maybe, no shoulds, no hopes. Right here right now. That is reality. One does not judge every event by the past if one is conscious...and one doesn't "imagine" what is "possible".

I am not talking about how people "portray" themselves. I am speaking of what to our being is now reality. I don't want to judge what someone may be thinking, or did think. The Now is what is in front of me.

All this waddling around won't do. Its bad enough truth as we know it is relative, depending on how we see. Lets not get hung up on what we think others are thinking or doing. #hat is before us now, is what we must deal with. Not wishes,hopes, inklings about some future. All that has its place, I guess, but not is speaking about reality. Consciousness is not possible unless we can be in the NOW.

You like realistic=cynical. OK , but that is your read, not ,mine. I think reality is a gift we are constantly opening...Why do you care how others think about reality...it is what they do that tells you who they are.

You take many things for granted that you cannot prove;

" We have an innate drive to seek freedom, and to cooperate against common threats. "

We have an innate drive to survive. Period

Talk all around each case as you do, it is full of assumptions, judgments, shoulds and coulds. When you speak for others you have no idea.

Where do you get these assumptions:

"Freedom and rights are themes that resonate, that accumulate power, and eventually prevail over tyranny. We cannot not do that, it's in our nature"

Are you making a statement of past history? over how long? a day in the life of humanity.

Over generalizations do not convince me. You speak like a 21st century man, right now right here. You have no knowledge of past or future except what someone has written (not too objectively) or what someone thinks may happen someday.

Dear heaven, , where does this come from?:

"If you don't stand for your rights, you lose yourself and it can take a long time to get yourself back from cynicism and resignation, the "who are you to think you can change anything" mindset that is so pervasive and corrosive in our culture."

resignation is not cynicism, it is accepting the situation as it is right now. Standing up for my rights needs to be done in time of conflict or when one is personally attacked for those rights.

It is a matter of price. How much will it cost us in life or death to stand up to let others take them away? What rights must I protect in everyday life? That depends on where I am and what I do.

I am always free in my mind and in my heart. No one can take that away from me unless they kill me...or maybe "brainwash me"?

I have a lot more privileges than rights, and so do you. No one can take away my "right" to love, or any other inward peace.

"--Then accept my opinion, as it is. Agreed?"

Sure I accept it as your opinion. I may judge that opinion according to my lights. My idea is perhaps we need less opinions on how others should behave. We inspire by our actions, not by our words...those are soon forgotten"You need to stop watching TV. Real people are working for what matters in this world, huge numbers of them. Why be cynical? Be afraid, maybe. But cynicism may be premature."

How little you know me. Cynical I cannot be, my faith will not see it. But realism is a wake up call and helps us to see where we actually are, not where we wish we were. Real people are always acting , some for good others not,in this world....especially if I, like many others believe that each of us carries a bit of the Kingdom of G-d within. I don't mind "do -gooders" at all...unless they start to judge me. I also know that we human beings will eventually win over evil, but probably not today. That is part of the faith i base my life on...cynicism is a cheap way out and I have never been cynical. I am however an observer of man kind also, and I see many many of us who are not very conscious. And that is what it will take.

I would perhaps suffer less if I cut myself off from all current events, but I see my responsibility to be aware and perhaps do something little...and become even more grateful for life.

I have given up, tho' in old age trying to tell others what they must do to save the world according to me. I gave up trying to be G-d a while ago, and I find humility would suit me better. Now there is a goal!

Toni

, i won't even give this an answer...you got to be kidding?

"--I'm so sorry to hear that. Have you tried vision, teamwork and incentives? I believe management theory has evolved a little since caveman times." And to think I managed quite a few people in business, public and private and seem to have succeeded...without a class in "management theory"

Do you actually think these things have just been created? Speaking of humility? I guess I need to work on that some more.

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>Sanity means to see things as they are, now. To see the world anyother way is in-sanity.<<

--Sanity is being able to tell the difference between what's happening now, and what happened in the past. When the present is judged through the eyes of the past, transference blocks awareness and receptivity to what is presently real. Sadly, it's very easy to think one is being "realistic" while judging a situation in reference to the past, rather than to what's possible. The Middle East is a great example. Everyone there portrays himself as being "realistic" about power, and from all the trauma and horror in their history, it makes perfect sense for them to do so. It just results in insanity down the road. Often, what is "realistic" is really cynical, based on the belief that what happened in the past must repeat. Therefore, if one is betrayed or traumatized in the past, one must continue fearing betrayal and trauma, eventually bringing upon the same kind of traumatic situation that made the past so toxic. Both Israelis and Palestinians have grown up with stories of suffering, horror and betrayal. Both sides are constellating the demons they see in each other's eyes, repeating history with tragic consequences. All the result of "realistic" decisions. Luther King Jr. pointed that out, and not many seem to have listened. I guess every religious, national or ethnic tribe needs its own messiah to show the way. But I wish they'd all listen to the ones who made it clear enough already, without having to share his or her tribal identity. A Jewish messiah would say nothing that hasn't been said by Buddhists, Christians or Muslims. An Islamic messiah would say nothing that hasn't been said by rabbis and bishops who understood the requirement for interfaith cooperation and reconciliation. But every group keeps waiting for its own messiah, so there's a trickle-down effect as leaders emerge in each group who resonate to the frequency of the people who "got it" in other groups. Critical mass is not far.>>How about I say, no one is born with "rights" nature does not bestow rights upon us,we human beings give them to each other by a contract we make with our society. This isn't a "problem" it is a statement of fact.<<

--I did not disagree with that particular statement. We have an innate drive to seek freedom, and to cooperate against common threats. Freedom and rights are themes that resonate, that accumulate power, and eventually prevail over tyranny. We cannot not do that, it's in our nature. We'll tolerate oppression by people "like us" (sharing our nationality, religious or ethnic identity) as long as we're afraid of some enemy, but no tribe tolerates enslavement or oppression by another tribe. The issue, again, is consistency. History is an engine for weeding out inconsistency, that's built into the laws of nature. Tribes that cannot cooperate with other tribes against a common threat do not survive, they are taken out of existence. Tribes that oppress other tribes collapse as their elites lose touch with reality and the teeming hordes amass intelligence and tactics superior to theirs. At this time in history, tribes that insulate themselves out of fear have a tendency to disconnect themselves, become paranoid, and lash out with pogroms and suicidal civil wars. That is a compementary process to the sifting of tribes that are cosmopolitan, interfaith, secular and connected, bringing those tribes into greater power and driving fundamentalists and fanatics out of power. The process cannot be stopped, it is only a matter of how much damage is done by insular groups that detach from reality and go on crusades against other groups. Hopefully, things will change without nuclear or biological terrorism or another full-blown world war. Our species can only take so much.>>I cannot "take my rights". I can expect to follow the traditions of my culture and expect to get paid for my labor...that is not then a right but an obligation on another. I do not have a right to grab what is someone else's in the name of justice.<<

--If someone else has your rights, you might want to grab them back. I would. You can do it nonviolently, if you're smart. If you don't stand for your rights, you lose yourself and it can take a long time to get yourself back from cynicism and resignation, the "who are you to think you can change anything" mindset that is so pervasive and corrosive in our culture.>>Once again, we get nowhere is we decide how "society ought to function...nor how people SHOULD act.<<

--Are you saying I "should" change my approach? I like my approach. It works for me. It seems to inspire people a little bit. Why would I trade that in?

>>Why not just understand that we human beings have a long way to go before we are conscious enough for all these noble enterprises. Preaching, I have learned never changes anything. Acceptance of what is...might.<<

--Then accept my opinion, as it is. Agreed?>>I see those with power over others demanding their own way, and the powerless do what they are told.<<

--Actually the powerless do what they're told, only until they form a plan to take their power back. The real issue is making sure the powerless take their power back before hatred is so strong that violent revolt leads to cycles of persecution and pogroms. We really are lucky we can fight for our rights nonviolently in the US. There is some persecution of pot smokers and polygamists and illegal immigrants and so on, but we're doing better than much of the world and we should be proud of that, and work to do even better.

>>"It is not that rights exist, but that if one demands rights for oneself...." Only if one has decided all human beings are equal...and not many have.<<

--I have. That's a start. I know quite a few others who have. You need to stop watching TV. Real people are working for what matters in this world, huge numbers of them. Why be cynical? Be afraid, maybe. But cynicism may be premature.>>I have carried on this discussion with you in hopes that you would see that none of us will accomplish anything if we continue to tell everyone what they "should" do.<<

--I acknowledge that you think I should change my mind. But will I? Stay tuned...

>>Admitting where human nature is, in this day of the common era is wisdom, not spinning "shoulds " in the sky.<<

--I spin my "shoulds" in the social web, in the form of possibilities. Not in the sky. I use the sky for visualization, not "shoulds".>>We must not have expectations of how people "should" react, but how they do react. That is why we study psychology.. .to understand our human race better...not to try to improve it except 1x1x1.<<

--I'd say Oprah changes more than one life at a time. It really depends on how many people you know, how many you influence (of course, you influence everyone, one way or the other) and how much time and energy you have to raise your own consciousness and entrain others to raise theirs. But if you only speak to one person and make a difference, that may be a way to change the world, and everyone has their own way of being the change.>>I can not motivate another except by brute force.<<

--I'm so sorry to hear that. Have you tried vision, teamwork and incentives? I believe management theory has evolved a little since caveman times.

>>What do you think teachers, parents and bosses do? Either threaten or use carrot and stick?<<

--That's why our system is falling apart. Human beings will organize around hierarchical leaders for a while if there is an external threat. But in the modern system, threats must constantly be created or cultivated in order to justify the hierarchical structure that is based on stress, fear and denial. There are people who have learned to organize themselves in better ways, relying on the natural human need to contribute and to be part of a thriving collective. Some of those people can motivate millions without using force, and with incentives that are enjoyable and produce pride rather than envy. Again, look at Oprah. She mentions a book that changed her life, and millions of people buy the book, changing their own lives, the life of the author, and giving hope to aspiring authors that a good idea at the right time can change the world for the better. Oprah doesn't have to threaten or buy anyone's loyalty. She cracked the code for fame and wealth, not by bullying her way to the top, but by inspiring others by allowing them to inspire her. Alternatives to the discipline-and-punish model is not only possible, but practiced and proven. Why is there even a debate as to which is the better way?>>The whole idea is to accept someone as they now are...no need to push them anywhere.<<

--I'm glad you accept me as I am and have no desire to change my mind. Because it's not going to change until my current thinking proves wrong. So good so far.

>>I will never convince you...you will not change human nature or get people to behave as you wish them to...That is realism. What is NOW.<<

"?). Nature is telling us, it's time.

[Guest guest]

Sam, you got it right!

Wow, Toni! Never did I expect to hear/read those words from you. *WEG*

A little bit more about this not-marriage that I think is important to realize. Because there are no legal contracts binding us from year to year or even day to day, we have to make the commitment to each other over and over, by our actions, by our words, by our caring. I think that this is necessary in the best of marriages, too, but too often it seems, as you said, Toni, that we make promises to love someone for the next 75 years and as anybody who's ever been in a 12-step program learns, this is nearly impossible to do. However, we can take it day by day and make it.

Doesn't mean there aren't inherent legal issues around property, medical care, etc, but that can be worked with.

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper StickerWho looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung (from a letter to Fanny Bowditch, dated 22 Oct 1916 in Volume I of the Letters of C. G. Jung)Just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true; just because I don't believe something doesn't mean it's untrue. ~ SamThere is no reality except the one contained within us. That is why so many people live such an unreal life. They take the images outside of them for reality and never allow the world within to assert itself. ~ Herman Hesse

[Guest guest]

Lockhart wrote:

Dan says:

>>Easy divorce has certainly been a disaster.<<

--Actually, I hear it's the difficult divorces that are hardest

on the children. Paperwork may be the least of their problems.

You feign misunderstanding. What I mean, of course, is that it is

generally better if parents are "encouraged" by strict divorce laws to

go ahead and tough it out instead of divorcing. "Staying together for

the sake of the children," this used to be called in better times. Of

course, for this to work, it presupposes a basic decency on the part of

the parents that is these days evidently often lacking.

I'm sure we could agree, if not on whether people should be

legally or socially punished for falling out of love

Falling out of love is irrelevant.

and following their heart

Following their heart is irrelevant. What matters is duty.

or sanity out of a marriage (it's not like people just leave

marriages because they have a low attention span), on the need for

maturity and mutual understanding, inside or outside of marriage. It is

hostility, blame and loyalty games that make divorce ugly for kids, and

all of that can happen inside a marriage, and frequently does before it

leads to divorce.

Well, I agree that estranged people should not behave badly. The

answer, it seems to me, is to bring up children not to behave badly, so

that, as adults, they will not behave badly. This entails teaching

them, from an early age and consistently throughout society, to be

ladies and gentlemen. People used to udnerstand the need for this, even

if they were not ever 100% successful in actualizing it.

Aristotle and Miss Manners are all the psychology that most people

need, and in a pinch, we can manage without Aristotle.

Children need to know that everyone sees everyone, including

them. If there is hostility in a marriage or a breakup, the kids absorb

the energy and get scared, feeling something is deeply wrong.

There is something wrong. That's life. But usually abandonment (and

that's what divorce is) is worse.

That wrong is not necessarily divorce, it is more likely a

product of people fighting and punishing each other, unable to see the

other person because of the pain and sense of betrayal. I think adding

shame and blame to the issue only feeds the pattern of retaliation

inside and outside a marriage, making one partner wrong and the other

righteous, and the kids feeling lost and alone, unable to take sides

and stuck in the middle. Imagine how that experience might affect a

child's understanding of justice -- as a punishment that divides the

family and kills a piece of everyone in the process. Is it a surprise

that we are collectively obsessed with blame, punishment and making

other people wrong?

In a way, I agree with you that divorce could destroy

civilization (I don't think gay marriage could, although it might up

the bar for lavish weddings).

It is just this sort of flippancy about one of the two or three most

important problems currently facing us (vastly more important than

global warming, for example) that makes me inclined to despair of this

issue, and just to circle the wagons. Nice weddings and good interior

decorating - yes, that's what's important.

But I'd like to widen the issue, and make it about divisions in

the heart, in neighborhoods and in the world, whether those divisions

are a product of difficult marriages and divorces, or social

segregation, marginalization of the elderly, abandonment of ethics,

elitism, inappropriate self-interest in business, the two party

political division, the "culture wars", or the ridiculous lack of

knowledge many Americans have about the Middle East, and vice versa.

Oh, mercy. I will only say that ethics requires elitism. Abandonment of

elitism puts us on the road to social disintegration. Human beings are

not created equal in any meaningful sense, as Jung notes repeatedly,

and wild-man Jefferson to the contrary notwithstanding.

Regarding the Middle East, it is for the elites to understand, and to

lead the people. When they don't, I agree that that is a problem.

We've been collectively divorcing ouselves from each other. Even

difficult marriages can be less toxic than some of the anger over

politics, bullying and secrecy on high levels of government and

business, or death threats against a Rabbi for wanting to include a

Menorah in a Christmas display at the airport.

All the more reason for the family to be a refuge from an (inevitably,

forever and ever amen) uncaring world, don't you think?

That last one reeks of irony... a lot of Christians seem angry

(in some pretty un-christian ways, some of them) at the "political

correctness" of people who want Christmas displays to be inclusive

rather than exclusively Christian... the trees are a pagan artifact,

noted... at least pagans are represented by default. But death threats

are the ultimate form of political correctness. What kind of tunnel

vision does one have to develop in order to consider the Rabbi or

airport people "politically correct bullies" but not to recognize and

be outraged by death threats and racist comments directed at the Rabbi?

You are attacking a straw man. One worthless anthropos threatens a

rabbi, and suddenly he is representative of Christiandom? Come on.

Hypocrisy, anyone? I remember Jesus not being real happy about

that sort of thing. Perhaps this will teach Christians to be a little

more Christlike toward their political "enemies". Turn the other cheek,

even. I get a little suspicious of a nation that claims religious

values are a requirement of civilization, but refuse to actually follow

the teachings of the religion they're valuing so conspicuously and

zealously.

Well, they have to be the right sort of religious values - not just any

will do. The gods have to support the city. Introduce strange, foreign

gods, and who knows what will happen?

But the star represents Bethlehem, which has specifically

Christian significance... and the word "Christmas", which doesn't

offend Muslims, although the number of checkpoints one has to go

through to get from Nazareth to Bethlehem, does offend. It's weird what

we get outraged by as a society and what we can look away from

comfortably.

It is not weird to acknowledge that we have enemies, or to be

suspicious of those who look like them and come from the same places

and follow the same faith. What is weird is to pretend that we really

think that an eighty-year-old Irish nun poses the same threat on an

airplane, and warrants the same degree of suspicious attention, as a

middle-aged Pakistani business man or, as it might be, some imams

praying ostentatiously in the airport.

At least there is some shared outrage by conservative and

liberal Christians alike at genocide in Darfur. That's inspiring to

me... Catholics, protestants, secularists, all united not out of a

shared fear of Kerry or Hillary Clinton, but out of a deep

humanitarian outrage over ethnic cleansing and mass murder. I think

we're improving our game a little, we divided Americans and earthlings.

How can you look at the past century and say that? It was arguably the

worst ever. I have to say that this feels like whistling past the

graveyard.

Best regards,

Dan

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]



Dear Dan,

,Sam, anyone interested.

marriage is a civil arrangement for the upbringing of children and the stability of the society. It has nothing to do with romantic love, nor even until recently with love.

For centuries people realized that a contract is a contract, and love had nothing to do with guaranteeing a safe harbor from penury or want...for women and kids.Property was the main reason for eons.

This romantic nonsense has only been around for a few hindered years. marriage in a civil contract, a commitment of 2 people and their families...for the stability of the state and property was the rule until then.

maybe we are beginning to get it right, nowadays. NO ONE SHOULD TAKE AN OATH AT AN IMMATURE AGE TO "LOVE" ANOTHER FOR 75 YEARS. This promise making suggests we are in control of our world and our emotions. It is fine for those who actually understand the difference between romantic love and real love, but only them.

For ages there have been bad marriages, violent ones, sterile ones, loveless ones. People found their emotional attachments in family and friends, not just in one person.. Today everyone thinks that each person in a marriage must be all things to the other. Few people can attain that kind of love...and in my opinion, a contract on paper has nothing to do with that.

Wouldn't it be better, not to rush into a binding contract when one is still immature and full of lust.??? There must be a way to have impermanent unions for those who have no clue to what real love is. Why not? Maybe they will even discover it through them.

We should keep marriage for those who actually want a family and a long commitment. But our society frowns on "living together" which I don't think it should. We rush into a union because our hormones are driving us crazy, or because we think we have found the cure for loneliness.

Divorce is hurtful to all concerned, but better, I think than keeping a sham non-union going and making each other miserable for life.Misery spreads to all then.

Let us not mix civil ceremonies and religious. I do not agree with 19 year olds deciding for life who they will share it with...its a disaster waiting to happen. And why should people be given only one choice, when after a few years nothing is left of romantic love?

before we can have long lasting unions we have to be able to take responsibility and have a clue to how we intend to commit. So let's have more living together for youth, and whatever type union for mature individuals. No piece of paper is worth years of suffering, and no piece of paper is going to bestow the ability to love someone totally.

Sex is not evil and it is a riot of feelings for most youth. Nobody thinks straight when they dream of walking down the aisle so neighbors and friends can see who they finally caught. Most people do it because society frowns on any other way of expressing one's sexuality. So we allow our kids to dream of everlasting happiness, and marriage as the way to have all needs met. Good grief!

So what happens to the kids of this kind of union? Trouble. But then growing up in an unhappy or violent home is no better. Kids should learn how to love by being loved and cared for. maybe we should hand out birth control more liberally and thus keep unwanted children from being born.

I don't have answers. But I have myself, my mother, my grandmother and 3 girls and a boy....I know how marriages do not work. And growing up in an unhappy home isn't the way to start life.

Marriage should be limited to adults, conscious ones...there's a "should " for you. Love is where you find it, and once found too precious to fool with...real love, I mean. Those folks should get married because they know the future is in their combined hands...2 adults coming together to create a home from themselves and their children. Well....I can dream can't I?

Let's stop assuming marriage is the answer to every relationship. People have been having extra marital relations for eons....why not just leave out the civil contract until they are adults?

Morality is a sometimes thing. We allow ourselves immorality or amorality...but by G-d our children will do it right...the neighbors must be satisfied at all costs.

Why not give those strict so called moral people a choice? Sex is not dirty, poverty may be, sickness may be, and a secure future is a dream that cannot hold in our age.

Well, I've done it, now. Where is the confessional? Let's beat ourselves up because we didn't realize years ago that we are not good at permanent commitment, or understanding the other,and just see how it will be.

Morality changes over the ages, and what was good once is not necessarily good always and everywhere. In my opinion, a moral person is one who can actually love, and understands human weakness.

Of course, I say this after an extremely good and happy marriage of almost 50 years. But we were adults. We were ready to take the bad with the good,and the responsibility for children. Something inside us ( G-d) or whatever ,knew we would love in spite of conflicts,problems, sickness and war.

Lets stop castigating everyone for divorce. If we will just admit to our humanity, and our ability to get things wrong, we could stop beating ourselves up, dismiss the act as a failure of life, and love our children by showing them that parents are not perfect and it is OK to admit a mistake and learn from it.

Shame has no place if we would not be so consumed with our pride. Let's admit to human fallibly.....promises to love for 75 years can never be assured human beings being as they are and a world of constant uncertainty. No one should be ashamed of trying to love.Or of admitted failure from which to learn.

Sam, you got it right! Dan, easy divorce is not a disaster..it is an admission that we are too human to make lifelong commitments until we grow up. Why add more suffering to what in Everyman's lot?

perhaps if we judged others less we would be more forgiving to ourselves.

Toni

From: Dan and Watkins

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:57 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

sampatron@... wrote:

In a message dated 12/17/2006 8:54:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, grailsnail writes:

[sam: Dan previously wrote]:

>>Heterosexual shacking has already lost most of the shame attached to it (though I do note that many people still describe their shack-up partners as "fiance's", although they may have been together for many years, with no real plans to marry - that suggests at least a residuum of shame)<<

Just an interjection here that I can't resist. FWIW, I refer to SO's and my liaison of nearly 30 years as "the world's longest shack job" (and by the laws of TX that doesn't automatically make us common law wed) and I refer to him as my partner (sometimes my "consort" LOL). Hey, my marriage lasted seven years, my non-marriage, OTOH...Dear Sam,Easy divorce has certainly been a disaster.Best,Dan

[Guest guest]

Lockhart wrote:

Dan says:

>>Only a deity (or other personal being) can "say"

anything. Nature "says" things only metaphorically - it doesn't really

say anything. There is just causality and that's it.<<

--That's why nature gave us God. The voice of nature, in a

human-like form (yes, it can actually take the form of words heard in

the brain, but then so does our inner imaginary voice, and the two can

become confused). Ever wonder why God allows tribalism and genocide and

then turns around and enables people to unite against tribalism and

genocide?

Yep. I concluded that there is no particular providence.

We haven't fully distinguished the God of humanity from the

half-God of nature stumbling through the process of becoming fully

human. When Moses murdered Midianite children, he believed he was

following God's will. What he allegedly did (if we trust the Bible) was

more the will of God's shadow, back when God had serious shadow

projection issues. I think Jung wrote some stuff about that, but I

haven't read much of it.

>>Again, absent a deity, nature does not "want." It is dead, just

as the

moderns assume.<<

--"Dead"? You're calling a massive, miraculous tangle of living,

breathing plants, animals and human beings, with even the dead bodies

feeding life processes and even the most dead of dead things alive with

energy, gravity, quantum puzzles, color, form and texture DEAD? What is

your mind doing to you?? Open your eyes. Nothing is "dead" in the sense

you're using.

The modern narrative is that life arises from non-life. Organic matter

arises (somehow - by accident) from inorganic matter. The universe

itself, however, is not fundamentally alive or conscious. Nature is not

fundamentally alive or conscious. That is materialism, the currently

dominant dogma - it is Hawkins' religion, for example

You're projecting fear of death ONTO nature and thinking it's

dead,

Try again, Sigmund. See above. Read it in the moderns. I don't assume

that death is an evil, but modern political philosophy (the father of

modern science) does - hence the need to conquer nature, cure all

disease, endlessly prolong life, etc. Modern medicine does that, not me.

not superior and saved from nature like we think we are or need

to be.

>>My scare quotes were to indicate that I was using

"metaphysical" the way moderns typically use it - to mean something

completely made up and unreal"

--The computer I'm typing on was made up and once unreal. Now

it's real.

First there were no computers, then there were. Just as first there

were no 1960 buicks, then there were. Are you suggesting that the same

applies to metaphysics? That metaphysics is a human creation? In the

view of modern science, in any event, metaphysics is just talk and not

real at all.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the power of myth and metaphor.

Jesus made up parables about unreal people, and those parables contain

not only valid concepts, but were considered by some to be the

foundation of Western civilization. Pretty damn cool, for something

Jesus made up.

>>(don't forget that moderns say that everything that is,

is natural, such that it is even meaningless to say that something is

"unnatural")<<

--I think that's a bit like calling everything "food", since

everything ends up eaten by something, including planets eaten by suns,

black holes, etc.

Maybe. It's their argument, not mine.

I'd use the word "natural" as distinguished from technological

or manmade.

I'll accept that as a start.

Humans are natural, they didn't create themselves from scratch

according to their own problem-solving algorithms and capcity for

cultural information exchange. My computer is part of the universe, and

in that sense is "natural" (maybe there should be two words for this...

it's like "Jew" as a religious, then an ethnic, then a cultural term,

without consistency). But my computer is manmade (or womanmade,

not sure which) and unnatural in that it has components which won't

degrade in the same way or require the same treatment as natural waste

in a compost heap.

>>Nothing could be less "instinctive. " Instinct "says" :-), you

will worship and obey the gods of the tribe, or we will eject or kill

you.<<

--Not quite. Nature says, "If the group is uniting against an

enemy, pull in with the crowd or you'll get hurt by both sides".

Culture says "Allahu Akbar" or "Islam is a Satanic religion". We

instinctively USE religious symbols to perpetuate tribal schisms, but

only to the point where the division backfires and unity is required

for survival. It's instinctive for enemies to overcome their divisions

in order to prevent disaster or defeat by a shared enemy. Which leads

to some pretty interesting behavior when religious groups that are

deeply divided by symbols suddenly become allies in a campaign of some

kind. Protestant conservatives who thought Catholicism or the US

government was the Beast of Revelation seemed to have little problem

showing Christlke brotherhood toward Catholics and toward the US

government, when the enemy was Kerry or Islamofascists.

In effect, the world is being invaded by types of warfare that

are unbearable to human beings, because they unermine the goals of

their instincts. Instincts want survival, of the individual and the

group that protects the individual. If tribalism and the instinct for

war makes survival impossible for everyone, what happens? Everyone

unites. Doesn't matter what religion they believe in, what political

idelogy is their sacred cow, what they hate about Ann Coulter or

Hillary Clinton, or whether they watch Fox or CNN. Nature may say

"unite, or die" as the damage done to civilians by terrorism, nuclear

or biological weapons and gobal warming is felt by more and more

people, and some will experience the voice of nature as the voice of

God or Satan, depending on whether it feels good to withdraw shadow

projection or threatens one's sense of specialness, superiority and

rightness. The same thing happened when Jesus upset the status quo,

requiring Jews, Romans and others to re-evaluate their relationship to

shadow and to their enemy. "Love your enemy" was, and still is, a

radical teaching, rejected by conservative establishments almost

universally.

Maybe for good reason.

Enemies are united in their tendency to project shadow and

escalate entanglements produced by shadow. Extremists on both sides of

a conflict will poison both sides with political correctness ("If you

love your enemy, you're a traitor and you'll get hurt" is one of the

more extreme forms of PC, practiced by people on many sides of many

conflicts) and draw the masses into wars that do not serve their

natural, instinctual self-interest. At some point, people on all sides

of the "culture wars" and the "clash of civilizations" (talk about

scare quotes!) will unite in explling extremism and the divisions they

use as vehicles for their own power. That doesn't mean everyone will

give up their religion or culture or language to assimilate into a

global melting pot (that only happens with intermarriage and relaxing

of social boundaries), but it does mean it will no longer be possible

to assume God hates the same people we do, or to inflame fear and

hatred in crowds the way political and religious leaders have when it

served them.

>>Most people don't know their own interest.<<

--That's one reason they attempt to judge or control the

interests of others.

>>If I pay my bills on time, that is just, and it has

nothing to do with retribution, violent or otherwise.<<

--It is just because you are not making the company pay for your

own use of energy. Justice does not have to be violent, and in fact

violence rarely produces justice, and often backfires and produces more

injustice than the original offense.

>>Nietzsche argues at length that such violence has contributed

positively

and even necessarily to the development of man. Is he wrong? Are we

sure?<<

--Probably everything, maybe without exception, ends up

producing SOME positive consequences.

Evaded the question. What about the "necessarily?"

The issue for us living, judging beings is to find actions that

produce more good than harm, and that is not always easy. One reason

God says, "Let me judge the person. Love the sinner and condemn the

sin". The problem is, even people who believe in God will judge the

sinner while excusing the sin on their own side. When an Israeli

settler commits a hateful act toward a Palestinian, many if not most

Israelis immediately focus on the last act of hatred by a Palestinian

extremist. If each side judges the other to be "evil" rather than

condemning acts of hatred by ANYONE, what happens? Escalating shadow

entanglement, leading eventualy to ethnic cleansing, suicide

bombings or some other atrocity. Young males are especially prone to

proving their manhood by falling into the shadow field, and females are

prone to directing the rage of males outward so they don't fight each

other, making peace by displacing the consequences of hatred. It's one

of the most toxic patterns in human culture, derived from natural,

tribalistic impulses, but accelerated and equipped with modern

machinery, media manipulation and psychology.

>>Speaking of Iraq, I have been reading in the media arguments to

the effect that the Iraqis are worse off now than before Saddam was

deposed<<

--Probably true, but not something the Bush team would have

considered when it would have affected decision-making. We can consider

it now, but we have to act from where we are. Iraqis are suffering and

we promised to help them. We may or may not be able to make a

difference militarily or diplomatically. It may require something on

the civilian level to pressure governments into changing their policy

and plans. Saddam is no longer the problem, and his trial is for the

most part entertainment. Putting him to death will change little, as

death is no longer a punishment for guilt in Iraq, but a punishment for

being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Same thing can happen in

gang neighborhoods, whether or not the death penalty is used against

drive-by shooters. If you're going to die young anyway, why not prove

you were the baddest on the block and do some damage to your enemy, or

your enemy's children, in the process?

Wish we had more psychologists in Congress... aside from media

psychologists, I mean.

Well, you got Ted Strickland as gov. of Ohio, anyway. But most

psychologists are materialists, I can tell you. They don't know from

"shadow integration." They tend to think *I'm* too new-agey, if you can

believe that.

If the psychology applied at high levels is based on

manipulation and marketing rather than conflict resolution and shadow

integration, we get lots of niche marketing and focus-group tested

language, but it's always a leader using somone else's words in a way

that is calculated to get emotional responses rather than thinking in

the audience. We haven't yet gotten to the root of the problem, still

on our quest to kill shadow by removing some group or another from the

equation.

>>I am reminded of Plutarch's statement to the effect that the

people will always trade liberty for physical security; 'nuff

said.<<

--Agreed. When people are afraid of being misled, they tend to

attach themselves to one leader and reject all other sources of

information, while the leader brands all competition as "appeasers",

"traitors" or "fools". So they give up liberty, hoping the leader will

stick it to their enemy, if not make the public safer.

>>Secondly, I am reminded of the American civil war, fought

because of chattel slavery, a tryannical practice.<<

--Some say slavery was only an issue that was pulled into it,

one reason among many. But the campaign against slavery, although it

took thousands of years for the world to agree (more or less) to end

it, did succeed.

You speak as though you think it is really over. Apart from the fact

that it isn't everywhere, it will be back in the places where it has

currently ended. The time will come when people will accept it again,

here and in Europe. The wolf is always at the door.

The work of scattered individuals who listened to conscience

eventually coalesced into a political base strong enough to force the

issue. Tyranny collapses when the experience of the oppressed finally

shows up in the awareness of ordinary people whose habitualactions

support the oppressor.

>>Should we have foregone the war and accepted the tyranny

in order to preserve peace and prosperity?<<

--I'd say it just depends. I would not force free elections in

Pakistan. Musharraf

is infinitely better than some of the alternatives. He is a

pragmatic authoritarian leader, as opposed to a dogmatic one. A

pragmatic tyrant will say "Do what is required for the country to

survive, or else". A dogmatic one will say "Do it because God says

so." If the tyrant is doing what really is required for the nation to

remain stable, that may be preferable to a freely elected dogmatic

tyrant

Agreed. Hence Battista preferable to Castro, the American gov't was

justified in oustiing de, etc.

who wants God to destroy the infidels, and believes God is

putting him in the driver's seat.

>>In the words of the philosopher Glenn Fry (I think it's Glenn

Fry), the wolf is *always* at the door.<<

--The wolf is always at someone's door. If it's always at YOUR

door, you either live in a really crappy neighborhood, or you haven't

dealt with shadow.

Nah - danger isn't imaginary. It's always there (thank god).

>>Who wants to mess with fifty million armed men who will

live free or die?<<

--Good point. Although, Iraqis have loved their guns for a long

time, and fear of getting shot doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent

there.

Partly because so many people are shooting, you get shot

whether or not you're shooting.

>>I will also, if necessary, kill someone to protect my property,

with or without your permission; this due to recent change in AZ

law.<<

--It would be due to a decision you make in your mind, not to AZ

law.

Maybe, but the law influences my decision. I might run from my home

(like a slave) rather than face prison, but when the law gives me the

right to protect my property (like a free man) with deadly force and

backs me up, I might do that. The putative value of the life of the

dirtbag attacking me, however, doesn't enter into it. When he attacks

me like that, he forfeits his right to life, as far as I'm concerned.

The change in law will only give you more ammunition to

convince yourself you're right to shoot. And I would not punish you,

although I might spend some time talking to the trespasser's family,

and perhaps send you photos of his grandmother,

And I might put that picture over my fireplace and take a photo of me

standing beneath it with a shotgun, smiling, and e-mail it to you.

Maybe you misunderestimate me.

so you know that all desisions have consequences beyond the

immediate solution to a problem.

If it were up to me, I would not kill someone unless I believed

my life, or somone else's life, was in immediate danger and the only

reliable form of defense available were to kill. I would still have to

deal with the pychological effects on myself of making that decision,

and that might take time, so I gravitate toward alternatives.

>>If I ran up a phone bill twenty years ago and then skipped

town, don't

you think I should pay it now?<<

--Should, yes. Or do something in the present that would do as

much good. Sometimes justice travels a strange path before things are

resolved. You can't bring the dead back to life, and some people

believe the only positive action that can be taken is to take the

perpetrator's life (oddly, we feel cheated when he take his own

life and delivers justice after delivering suffering).

Absolutely. An interesting phenomenon. The thing is, the criminals is

supposed to lose his freedom, his agency. He, having proved himself a

natural slave, is to become a slave in fact - subject to our will, not

his own. When he takes his own life, he exerts his own agency and

cheats us. Hence he must be prevented from suicide. If he contracts a

deadly illness, we treat him, cure him, and then kill him. same kinda

deal. It's now up to *us*. We, the community, own his life.

But there are ways to carry justice forward that are saner, and

I think every religion hints at that possibility. Reconciliation

between Israelis and Arabs would be justice.

Yes. I'm not sanguine, but we can hope.

What's happening now, tit for tat and escalation, is not

justice, but it's done with "justice" as an attached label. Injustice

tends to replicate over time with perpetrator and victim roles swapped,

which is also a problem.

>>You have property (old money) to protect, you want to

strengthen the family with good alliances, you have money for a nice

wedding (middle class types here), you want protection from

abandonment, etc. you get married. otherwise, you just shack up. Just

like the old days.<<

--Right. So let the rich marry to protect their assets, and

suffer the deadening effects of a marriage made for ulterior motives.

I'd rather be married for love, companionship, etc.

Who says the rich can't enjoy love and companinship, even having

married for what you call "ulterior motives."

I have no money, no assets to protect. So human bonds mean

quite a bit to me, and aren't just arrangements made to protect

havings.

>>Love in a marriage is nice as lagniappe, and often occurs, but

it is not necessary to marriage.<<

--Love isn't necessary if you want to get married. A gay man and

a gay woman can marry each other legally, as some conservatives point

out.

I'm one of them.

An immigrant can marry to get citizenship. Some call those

"sham marriages".

Some people may be wrong.

I wouldn't judge them for it, but really, I'd rather marry

someone I enjoy being with. Being married only because your boss might

think you're a bad person if you get divorced, doesn't sound like a lot

of fun to me. And my first commitment is to caring about other people,

not protecting my own ass, so fear of being looked down upon isn't

really on my agenda. If I'm in a marriage, it's because I love someone

and care about her feelings. She'd be hurt if I left. Why would I care

if Jerry Falwell thinks divorce is evil? Would anyone feel good if

their mate said, "I don't love you, I love someone else. But for the

sake of our marriage, which is purely for convenience and conformity at

thi point, I'll remain married to you."?

What has "feeling good" got to do with it. You feel about as good as

you make up your mind to be, anyway.

Honesty isn't compatible with that kind of marriage. I'd put

honesty first,

Have you been married? Do you know the answer to the question, Do I

look fat in this?, lol.

so that my mate could find an arrangement based on love,

something she'd value a lot more than my commitment to conformity or

pressure by law. To me, that would be the more moral decision. And I'd

let the gay man and gay woman marry people they love, too. I'd rather

they be happy than put on a show for society's approval.

>>Both exist for a political purpose.<<

--If marriage is purely political, of COURSE it's going to

unravel at times of political polarization, mistrust of leaders, and

economic instability. It's a fragile foundation. Lesbian couples, on

the other hand, marry generally for love, and tend to have marriages

that last longer than the average Protestant fundamentalist. Catholics

do pretty well too. If people want to promote marriage, study marriages

that last without coercion.

Catholics do well precisely because Catholicism frowns on divorce. I

don't know how you would track the divorce rate for married lesbians

(who must be few in number anyway).

>>Good morality is not based on consent, but on justice.<<

--If you come into my house and take my TV set, that's theft. If

I invite you in and give the TV to you as a gift, it's not a crime. The

key difference is consent. Justice exists because consent exists.

But theft is unjust regardless of consent. It is not unjust because we

all got together and agreed that it would be unjust.

>>Yeah, like their children - the ones who, for example, get

sexually abused by the concatenation of "step-fathers" that move

through the house of the (quite literally) tax-fattened, slattern

mother. I see it every day.<<

--"Tax-fattened, slattern mother"?

Did you like that? I thought it was evocative, even if I say so myself

- accurate, too.

If you see them in the course of your job, get another job.

You're not the right person for it. But you are right that step-fathers

are statistically more likely to abuse step-children.

I put "step-fathers" in scare quotes because they are often not even

step-fathers - just the latest transitory shack-up boyfriend.

And Iike your poetic phrase, "concatenation of step-fathers".

But consider one of the puzzles faced by the mother: if you're not

married, you can be preyed upon, but if you don't have sex with men

you're dating, they are likely to move on, feeling pushed away and

tempted by easier "game".

Advice to such women - get a copy of _The Rules_, commit it to memory,

and follow it.

http://www.therulesbook.com/

To make matters worse, some men judge you for your past, making

you feel like you have no options but to scrape the bottom of the

barrel, to settle for a guy with a job, or one who isn't too critical.

If you were to find yourself in her shoes, what actions would you take?

_The Rules_

Not asking here what actions YOU would take, but what you would

do if you had her history, and were seen as she is seen by others.

Well, that would still be me. But the first thing I do is avoid bad men

- if that means celebacy forever, so be it. The next thing I do is

exercise and diet. If I live in an urban cesspool, I try to get out -

better Fort Wayne than New York. I finish school - GED if necessary. I

move back in with my mother, if possible. Depends, actually, as you

know. YMMV. Overall, I adopt the habits, attitudes and values of the

WASP, patriarchal, Connecticut upper-middle-class circa 1948. When I

do, things get better in a hurry. It's not rocket science. Good habits,

attitudes and values lead to good results, almost inevitably. Need a

start? Watch the Huxtables on afternoon TV, and resolve to be as much

like them as possible.

Easy to say, "Get a job" to someone who keeps losing

opportunities because the boss says "Jesus, another tax-fattened

slattern. Do we even have a cubicle big enough for her ass? Get someone

else."

Some people say Sodom was destroyed not because the Queer Eye

guys drove around in a chariot giving makeovers to straight men, but

because time was money, money was blood and blood was cheap. We're

treating human beings as if they are wasting our time, and then they

bleed, and then we blame them and throw them out of our minds for being

such a bloody waste of time.

>>Jesus was apolitical. Religion is very political - that's its

job. The hypocrisy, as you call it, is totally necessary.<<

--Hypocrisy unravels and backfires by nature. It just takes a

little time for truth to catch up with lies of convenience. Religion is

political, and Jesus was very political.

Well, then, he wasn't very good at it, was he? He ended badly, as I

recall. or do you think that he really intended to take over the West?

If so, then I guess props to him.

He did not advocate armed revolution against Rome, knowing he

wouldn't last long that way. He did point out the hypocrisy of

religious leaders corrupted by politics, and that's why he's still

hanging on that cross thingy. It's a reminder to all of us, "Don't fuck

with the old boys' club. We'll nail you." The truth fucks with

everybody, and that's why we view it as expendable, and why it comes

back like a moquito to drain us of self-certainty, and why we must

resist truth at all costs -- it will weaken us, shame us and invite

reprisals by our enemies and rivals. Stamp it out. Out! Out, I say! Why

isn't it working? What do you mean I'm a liar? You're a liar! Where's

my gun? Isn't hypocrisy FUN?

> No one has the right to tell anyone they must marry against their

will

> (ok, they can say it, but not enforce it), and no one has the

right to

> tell anyone they must not marry the person they love.

>>I can't go along with that.<<

--Which part? That no one has the right to force somone to

marry, or that no one has the right to tell people not to marry?

Both.

You do have the right to tell people not to marry, and I have a

right to tell you you don't have the right to do that. But neither of

us has the right to force people to marry, which is probably a good

thing.

well, not me personally - but, you know, the legislators.

>>Prudence imposes limits, but in "theory" (as they say) there is

no reason not to ban alcohol.<<

--But I'm guessing that trying to ban alcohol isn't as exciting

an issue to many conservatives as trying to ban gay marriage.

Habit. And we drink ourselves.

Any reason why? Alcohol is implicated in domestic violence (the

step-father you mentioned earlier is probably an alcoholic), drunk

driving deaths, and numerous divorces. If the gay couple down the

street gets married, they're probably not killing anyone or breaking up

YOUR marriage or anyone else's. So it seems to me you have a bit of a

perspective problem here... if I were to ban either alcohol or gay

marriage, I'd put alcohol MUCH higher on my list, because of the damage

it can cause or aggravate.

I might do as well - but the one is not doable, the other stil is

(maybe).

Of course, the law tells me I can't smoke pot, and that's never

stopped me before. Really, ethics are internalized, they're not a

product of pressure by law.

Ethics = "habits," so in a sense you are right. But law (among other

things) inculcates habits.

Peer pressure can make a difference, but I'm not sure I'd want

to be deeply involved with groups that want to ban gay marriage and

drink a lot of beer. Everyone drinks vodka in Ukraine and they drive

like maniacs, but they tend to oppose gay marriage. Very strange, what

culture and habit do to the mind.

>>The freedom thing, as I see it, is about living according to

law you helped make yourself (even if only by representation) , free

(and this is the big thing) from foreign domination.<<

--"All enemies, foreign and domestic..." Not just foreign

domination, but I agree with you. Freedom involves living by the laws

you are willing to live by, which gives maximal freedom without

enabling people to use that freedom to dominate others. I think we're

both very "American" in that way. Freedom is our banner, and we need to

keep our word and represent the spirit of freedom. We can't bully

others into being free, but we can inspire them. Our culture appears

worldwide, and in some of the remotest parts of the world it's not all

that shocking if someone shows up wearing a t-shirt with some American

band or brand logo. We really should be using that power to inspire

people to take their freedom back from tyrants, rather than trying to

occupy anarchic hellholes after removing a dictator who holds sectarian

or ethnic tensions in check. Man (and perhaps it is man, more than

woman, given representation ratios in politics and on corporate

boards) is not quite wise enough to judge the world, even by God's

standards and with godlike technology.

>>And that could certainly include laws against alcohol

and other drugs, fornication, usury, gay marriage, and a host of other

things. Freedom is not do-your-own- thingism.<<

--Well, I'm pretty sure you're not going to get a fornication

ban through legislature.

They used to be in place, in many places. Things got worse. The "sexual

revolution" was a freakin' disaster. Don't think I'm against it, though.

Gay marriage, maybe, since most Senators aren't gay and don't

plan to be. But fornication... I dunno, I think you might run into

serious hypocrisy issues. The freedom to fornicate is not guaranteed in

the Constitution, at last not named specifically as a right, but that

freedom is protected by the hypocrisy-backlash effect. Someone

endorsing an anti-fornication bill would almost immediately be exposed

by a hooker or ex-lover, tainting the bill and leading to its early

demise.

By this reasoning, anyone who ever smoked pot can't be against drug

bans now. Yuppie parents won't warn their children against drugs

because of the fear of "hypocrsiy," lol - the liberals' mortal sin.

When I was kid I street raced on occasion. If I now tell my nephew that

street racing is stupid and wrong, am I a bad 'ole hypocrite?

Best,

dan

Jesus invoked this principle too, when he overruled a stoning

mob before it could kill a woman accused of adultery. He said, "He who

is without sin, cast the first stone." Brilliant move. The first guy to

throw stones is always the one with something to hide. So there are

ways to protect freedom that don't involve a formal, legal process.

Jesus didn't challenge the adultery law in court, he simply saw a woman

suffering and afraid, and did what was most effective and efficient in

saving her life. That invokes a higher law, one most people in power

and most followers of power don't understand. Still works, though.

C. Lockhart

http://www.soulaquarium.net

Yahoo! Messenger: grailsnail

Blog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of

human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible

warning." -- Aird

"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." --

Unknown

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

toni wrote:

Dear Dan,

,Sam, anyone interested.

 

marriage is a civil

arrangement for the upbringing of children and the stability of the

society. It has nothing to do with romantic love, nor even until

recently with love.

Bingo. well said, all of it.

Best,

Dan

 

For centuries people realized

that a contract is a contract, and love had nothing to do with

guaranteeing a safe harbor from penury or want...for women and

kids.Property was the main reason for eons.

 

This romantic nonsense has

only been around for a few hindered years. marriage in a civil

contract, a commitment of 2 people and their families...for the

stability of the state and property was the rule until then.

 

maybe we are beginning to get

it right, nowadays. NO ONE SHOULD TAKE AN OATH AT AN IMMATURE AGE TO

"LOVE" ANOTHER FOR 75 YEARS. This promise making suggests we are in

control of our world and our emotions. It is fine for those who

actually understand the difference between romantic love and real love,

but only  them.

 

For ages there have been bad

marriages, violent ones, sterile ones, loveless ones. People found

their emotional attachments in family and friends, not just in one

person.. Today everyone thinks that each person in a marriage must be

all things to the other. Few people can attain that kind of love...and

in my opinion, a contract on paper has nothing to do with that.

 

Wouldn't it be better, not to

rush into a binding contract when one is still immature and full of

lust.??? There must be a way to have impermanent unions for those who

have no clue to what real love is. Why not? Maybe they will even

discover it through them.

 

We should keep marriage for

those who actually want a family and a long commitment. But our society

frowns on "living together" which I don't think it should. We rush into

a union because our hormones are driving us crazy, or because we think

we have found the cure for loneliness.

 

Divorce is hurtful to all

concerned, but better, I think than keeping a sham non-union going and

making each other miserable for life.Misery spreads to all then.

 

Let us not mix civil

ceremonies and religious. I do not agree with 19 year olds deciding for

life who they will share it with...its a disaster waiting to happen.

And why should people be given only one choice, when after a few years

nothing is left of romantic love?

 

before we can have long

lasting unions we have to be able to take responsibility and have a

clue to how we intend to commit. So let's have more living together for

youth, and whatever type union for mature individuals. No piece of

paper is worth years of suffering, and no piece of paper is going to

bestow the ability to love someone totally.

 

Sex is not evil and it is a

riot of feelings for most youth. Nobody thinks straight when they dream

of walking down the aisle so neighbors and friends can see who they

finally caught. Most people do it because society frowns on any other

way of expressing one's sexuality. So we allow our kids to dream of

everlasting happiness, and marriage as the way to have all needs met.

Good grief!

 

So what happens to the kids of

this kind of union? Trouble. But then growing up in an unhappy or

violent home is no better. Kids should learn how to love by being loved

and cared for. maybe we should hand out birth control more liberally

and thus keep unwanted children from being born.

 

I don't have answers. But I

have myself, my mother, my grandmother and 3 girls and a boy....I know

how marriages do not work. And growing up in an unhappy home isn't the

way to start life.

 

Marriage should be limited to

adults, conscious ones...there's a "should " for you. Love is

where you find it, and once found too precious to fool with...real

love, I mean. Those folks should get married because they know the

future is in their combined hands...2 adults coming together to create

a home from themselves and their children. Well....I can dream can't I?

 

Let's stop assuming marriage

is the answer to every relationship. People have been having extra

marital relations for eons....why not just leave out the civil contract

until they are adults?

Morality is a sometimes thing.

We allow ourselves immorality or amorality...but by G-d our

children will do it right...the neighbors must be satisfied at all

costs.

 

Why not give those strict so

called moral people a choice? Sex is not dirty, poverty may be,

sickness may be, and a secure future is a dream that cannot hold in our

age.

 

Well, I've done it, now. Where

is the confessional? Let's beat ourselves up because we didn't realize

years ago that we are not good at permanent commitment, or

understanding the other,and just see how it will be.

Morality changes over the

ages, and what was good once is not necessarily good always and

everywhere. In my opinion, a moral person is one who can actually love,

and understands human weakness.

 

Of course, I say this after an

extremely good and happy marriage of almost 50 years. But we were

adults. We were ready to take the bad with the good,and the

responsibility for children. Something inside us ( G-d) or whatever

,knew we would love in spite of conflicts,problems, sickness and war.

 

Lets stop castigating everyone

for divorce. If we will just admit to our humanity, and our ability to

get things wrong, we could stop beating ourselves up, dismiss the act

as a failure of life, and love our children by showing them that

parents are not perfect and it is OK to admit a mistake and learn from

it.

 

Shame has no place if we would

not be so consumed with our pride. Let's admit to human fallibly.....promises

to love for 75 years can never be assured human beings being as they

are and a world of constant uncertainty. No one should be ashamed of

trying to love.Or of admitted failure from which to learn.

 

Sam, you got it right! Dan,

easy divorce is not a disaster..it is an admission that we are too

human to make lifelong commitments until we grow up. Why add more

suffering to what in Everyman's lot?

 

perhaps if we judged others

less we would be more forgiving to ourselves.

 

Toni

 

 

 

From: Dan and Watkins

To:

JUNG-FIRE

Sent:

Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:57 PM

Subject:

Re: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

sampatronaol

wrote:

In a message dated 12/17/2006 8:54:26 A.M. Central Standard

Time, grailsnail

writes:

 

 

[sam:  Dan previously wrote]:

>>Heterosexual shacking has already lost most of the

shame attached to it

(though I do note that many people still describe their shack-up

partners as "fiance's", although they may have been together for many

years, with no real plans to marry - that suggests at least a residuum

of shame)<<

Just an interjection here that I can't resist.  FWIW, I

refer to SO's and my liaison of nearly 30 years as "the world's longest

shack job" (and by the laws of TX that doesn't automatically make us

common law wed) and I refer to him as my partner (sometimes my

"consort" LOL). Hey, my marriage lasted seven years, my non-marriage,

OTOH...

Dear Sam,

Easy divorce has certainly been a disaster.

Best,

Dan

 

[Guest guest]

Oh dear, Sam am I so One-way?

No, Toni, I don't think you're one-way. You're just very passionate and I admire that. Sometimes I even envy it. Perhaps your passion simply makes you more determined to make your point than you realize, sort of as if you can just say enough long enough in enough ways, surely common sense would make your correspondent come around. All they have to do is "understand."

As I've said several times, we agree on a lot more than it seems like we do on the surface.

By the way what does W E G stand for?

Wide Evil Grin.

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

, my friend,

Right you are. This is no time for debates.

Please have a joyous and happy Christmas. We are so blessed in a land without bombs falling or starvation beckoning.

With love,

Toni

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>Talk all around each case as you do, it is full of assumptions, judgments, shoulds and coulds. When you speak for others you have no idea.<<

--I'm going to ask you to hold that thought, and allow it to have an effect on your conversations with others. This debate does not have to end with me, and I have some other things happening that are starting to cut into my email time. Merry Christmas, Toni.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Oh dear, Sam am I so One-way?

"

Wow, Toni! Never did I expect to hear/read those words from you. *WEG*

I apologize...sometimes, I try too hard to convince everyone that my way is the way to go...yet I know that isn't true except for me.

By the way what does W E G stand for?

A blessed Christmas

Toni

Re: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Sam, you got it right!

Wow, Toni! Never did I expect to hear/read those words from you. *WEG*

A little bit more about this not-marriage that I think is important to realize. Because there are no legal contracts binding us from year to year or even day to day, we have to make the commitment to each other over and over, by our actions, by our words, by our caring. I think that this is necessary in the best of marriages, too, but too often it seems, as you said, Toni, that we make promises to love someone for the next 75 years and as anybody who's ever been in a 12-step program learns, this is nearly impossible to do. However, we can take it day by day and make it.

Doesn't mean there aren't inherent legal issues around property, medical care, etc, but that can be worked with.

Blissings,

Sam

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan,

I am afraid you will have to define elitism....I imagine you mean it "morally" not powerful. Others seem to think elitism is something others confirm for the elite, instead of elites being people who are morally upright and not consumed by ego.we modern Americans, unschooled in Plato etc, clothe elitism something one assumes oneself to have power over others. What nonsense. We are getting too Politically Correct to notice that nature is full of "elitism" in natural ways.

We must strive to be better in one sense...to care more for the welfare of others and to have the goodwill and brain-power to accomplish things for the common good. The Bible used to call those who were "righteous" not as we usually think of for example the Pharisees of Christ's times, but in the old Biblical terms.

No one designates oneself as "elite"....richer, brighter,more endowed with talents, whatever....only those so taken by ego that they think the world revolves around themselves, and find themselves powerful fits the meaning as and most others use the term.

I have nothing to do with to whom I am born, how much good upbringing I have as concerns love, how my intelligence begins to developed, or even my hereditary characterizes.

I have no idea why some are "favored" in worldly terms and others not...it certainly has nothing to do with "intrinsic" value. To therefore exclude the word, and make a mockery out of it by applying it only to the power-hungry degrades the word...like much of our lovely English language is being polluted everyday by inflated terms and ignorance.

I cannot agree with you that bad marriages must suffer and stick together. I know about the atmosphere in a house with a constant battle, or "suffering in silence" because the woman has no means of her own until recently to live apart. Children "should" not have to grow up in a poisoned atmosphere...not even knowing it isn't the normal course of behavior.

Unfortunately the word "equality" has suffered in its original meaning by our fathers of the state, and by some Romantic notions of our "philosophers". We are not equal except for those who believe everyone is born in the image of G-d and therefore has dignity...the same for all.

No, we use the term to beat each other over the head with... the hoi poloi use it to justify whatever they want to bring down, especially in our society.

Those who actually are the "elite" must hide from the general public so not to be stoned. Whatever power they are endowed with will have to be used for good. Elite, as I see it has nothing to do with ego...it may or may not depending on the meaning of the current usage of the word.

In past ages, or among other societies, we differentiate by speaking of "old souls".

Why is America the place where we do not rejoice in special talent, brains, beauty or whatever and must bring down everyone to the same low level? Morality and ethics and the ability to care are available to everyone.....I agree with your quote:

">>Oh, mercy. I will only say that ethics requires elitism. Abandonment of elitism puts us on the road to social disintegration.<<

Toni

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Dan says:

>>What I mean, of course, is that it is generally better if parents are "encouraged" by strict divorce laws to go ahead and tough it out instead of divorcing. "Staying together for the sake of the children," this used to be called in better times.<<

--Better times, for whom? If I were a child, I'd be hurt to know my parents stayed together not out of love for each other, but out of fear of hurting me. I'd feel guilty. It would ruin my concept of marriage. Let's not forget that those marriages that stayed together without love produced kids who grew up so disillusioned with marriage that they went to the opposite extreme, then back, and so on. Doing aything out of fear of what people will think or fear of hurting someone whose needs totally replace your own, eventually leads to burnout. I'd rather my parents be happy, together or not together, and I think it's most important that kids know they are loved and taken care of, whether or not the parents can stand living together.

But if protecting marriage is your first priority, then by all means, support with your time or money any marriage counselling program that works, so that people with no money can get the help they need to stay together. Don't just use the issue to bash liberals or liberal beliefs, as some conservatives have. One beautiful irony of the gay marriage debate is that conservative Protestants have one of the higher divorce rates. Perhaps the same righteous indignation that energizes the religious right is not terribly conducive to good communication in marriage?

>>Of course, for this to work, it presupposes a basic decency on the part of the parents that is these days evidently often lacking.<<

--Or maybe our entire social system is just so full of anger and indignation that we no longer know how to listen to each other. Hence, failed marriages. >>Falling out of love is irrelevant.<<

--To a thinking type. Not everyone is a thinking type, and not everyone shares your belief in loveless marriage. >>Following their heart is irrelevant. What matters is duty.<<

--Marriage is not quite the same as boot camp (insert obligatory joke). The problem here is that if you were to be honest and say, "I am in this marriage out of duty. I feel nothing for you, but be reassured I won't leave you, because I don't want to be one of those lousy, no-good bums who leave their marriages", your spouse might not feel so impressed by your sense of duty. If it

>>The answer, it seems to me, is to bring up children not to behave badly, so that, as adults, they will not behave badly.<<

--That's a great idea. Unfortunately, a lot of parents who believe kids need to be "good little girls and boys" behave violently, verbally or physically, toward their kids in attempting to teach them manners. That doesn't work well. Kids imitate the actions of their parents, and they imitate the language of their parents, but the two don't have to be consistent. Good parenting is more than having a set of beliefs about what it means to be good... it means being good, and it's so easy to justify abuse under the banner of "discipline". >>It is just this sort of flippancy about one of the two or three most important problems currently facing us (vastly more important than global warming, for example) that makes me inclined to despair of this issue, and just to circle the wagons.<<

--Circle the wagons if you want, but you'll just find yourself out of the loop. You could always join one of those underground militias that bunker in for Armageddon because they see the world as such a corrupting, sinful place. I'll accept that you feel divorce is more of a problem than global warming... perhaps you could start a program to develop floating, solar-powered marriage counselling centers?

>>Oh, mercy. I will only say that ethics requires elitism. Abandonment of elitism puts us on the road to social disintegration.<<

--If that's how you want it, fine. I'm the elite. I think faster than you, and I am connected to dozens of others who collectively have more influence than you ever will. How does that feel? I'm prepared to be equal to you, but if you push for elitism, what makes you think *your* people will be the elites? Rethink your position, because if elitism is the game, the players who win won't be the ones wearing your team shirt. Fortunately, the people who would even remotely qualify in my mind as "elites" don't believe in elitism. They're a bit wiser than that.

Elitism is ego. Real power exists in social networks and the quality of information they channel. Individuals only surf on the power that existed before they arrived. Anyone who realizes that is likely to give up elitism, and work toward better information distribution and social software. Alpha males who think it's all about being king are disempowered by free distribution of information, because when they're wrong, everybody can see it. J>>Regarding the Middle East, it is for the elites to understand, and to lead the people.<<

--That's how we got to this point. Dictators thinking they knew what was best for people they had no personal connection to. Those dictators gravitated to positions of wealth and power, and the United States supported many of them with money, weapons and collaboration in regional power games. Therefore, we are hated. Not because of our freedoms (Arabs like American TV and music as much as we do) but because of our elitism and unwillingness to support popular democratic movements in the Middle East. We feared giving up tyrants in Arab nations would lead to chaos. Then we removed Saddam (after supporting him against Iran) and there was chaos. Tyranny builds up pressure. In the US, after we broke from England, we did a lot of nasty things, owned slaves, killed indians, fought each other. Democracy is better because it harnesses decentralized power, the opposite of elite power. When we have supported elite power, it's backfired. Now we say democracy must come to the Middle East. And that may be true... but it's going to be messier than it would have been if we hadn't been so elitist in our foreign policy.>>All the more reason for the family to be a refuge from an (inevitably, forever and ever amen) uncaring world, don't you think?<<

--It's those without families I'm concerned about. I have a great family. Not worried about myself.

>>You are attacking a straw man. One worthless anthropos threatens a rabbi, and suddenly he is representative of Christiandom? Come on.<<

--It was several death threats, and if they had come from extremist Muslims, what do you think the reaction would have been? There are Christians who actually "walk the walk", love their enemy, forgive debts and so on. I just don't meet a lot of them... instead I meet people who CALL themselves Christian while insulting their opponents, working for material gain, or accusing secularists of destroying civilation. >>The gods have to support the city. Introduce strange, foreign gods, and who knows what will happen?<<

--Democracy? Freedom of religion is one of the first basic rights acknowledged in the Constitution. I think I can get behind that freedom, and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I believe people who serve in various institutions of duty take an oath to that effect. Good for them! But I like your "foreign gods dilemma". Almost like the introduction of foreign species to ecosystems that can't handle them. But I think xenophobia cannot be blamed on religious beliefs, it is a reaction to the fear of being displaced or suffocated by people who don't share your priorities. That can happen between two groups allegedly following the same deity, like Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq. Even with the same deity, there are arguments about what that deity wants, and who should have power in said deity's name. It's not about gods, it's about which group gets to use which gods to enforce their will and their agenda. The Founding Fathers seem to have understood that problem and took steps to prevent it.>>It is not weird to acknowledge that we have enemies, or to be suspicious of those who look like them and come from the same places and follow the same faith.<<

--But it is weird to think your immediate emotional reaction is necessarily reliable. Most people have racial bias, probably most of it unconscious. That does not mean they are going to endorse racism or make it into law. We have enemies (that is, people who want to punish us for our sins, real or imagined), but we will lose against them if we don't learn enough about Islamic and Arab cultures to distinguish potential allies from potential enemies. We Americans tend to be ignorant about other cultures, but we learn fast and have the capacity to change our beliefs when they no longer serve us. At the moment, most terrorism is probably carried out by extremist Arabs and/or Muslims, but racial or religious profiling will only produce terrorists who use unexpected carriers, planting bombs on unsuspecting old ladies, or whatever they come up with. It won't work for us to get paranoid about anyone wearing a burqa or carrying a quran. That will just tell the terrorists that they're doing a good job, since their goal is to turn ordinary Muslims against the US, convincing them that we don't care about their needs, don't respect their gods, and won't make peace. We've been giving terrorists a propaganda advantage, and shame on us for that.