My cut on this is that I tend to not read closely unless someone is
disagreeing in a forthright manner. I am sorry if I offend, and try not
to, but lack of talent doesn't seem to slow me down.
Barbara Bliss
On Sat, 29 Apr 1995, Kylie Matthews wrote:
>
> >As for feeling better about the communications, I would like to respond
> >to that. I think we are too sensitive sometimes (my perception). I
> >constantly see on this list as well as others, references to how some
> >particular comment affects how we 'feel'. To be honest, I'm not sure I
> >know what that means. Should we all be concerned about how our ideas
> >may make someone 'feel' at the expense of exchanging ideas? I can't think
> >of a safer forum to discuss ideas, even those that may affect ones feeling
> >than on the internet. Every time someone makes a slightly provocative
> >comment they have to opologize ahead of time and promise its not a flame.
> >I'm more interested in the ideas...yes even those that may offend MY
> >morals and MY feelings. Otherwise, we can just preach to the converted
> >(so to speak). I was responding to a comment you made about Wood Lee's
> >comments (or the many perceptions about the meanings of his comments)
> >and you related that mentality to perhaps a list like Rachel. As I
> >remember your comment, I didn't think it was appropriate. My opinion. Do
> >we really want everyone to agree with eveything we say?
> >
>
> >-michael
> >
>
> I agree with you Michael. Too many times do I get people telling me I've
> offended them. When i don't like what someone says I don't post them and
> tell them to be more careful next time. I want disagreement. I'm too busy
> to waste my time on list with people who all agree with one another. I
> want to be made to think, to clarify my arguments. I can best clarify my
> arguments to someone who does not agree with me. Also, I would prefer when
> people disagree wiht me they would say why and give their argument, not
> just tell me I've offended them which does nothing to add to anyones
> thought.
>
> Respectfully,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries,
> but you imprison those who employ it privately."
> Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
>
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 1 14:32:04 MDT 1995
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FWD: RACHEL #348: Warning on Male Reproductive Health
To: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950430154101.9677E-100000@case>
On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, Faith Freewoman wrote:
>
> I've always expected that people who have been marginalized would be the
> LAST ones to inflict this on others, and yet so often this is exactly
> what happens. Perhaps this is just a learning process ... your first
> step into a new "position" in the hierarchy of power usually being to try
> out what was used on you. Is this clear? Could this be a dynamic which
> is, if not natural, at least understandabl? If so, what could be done
> to help people avoid spending a lot of time repeating the sins of the
> conqueror when it's their turn at the microphone (forgive the garbled
> metaphor ...)
I've seen some research that argues affirmative action "failed" because,
instead of raising the overall well-being of blacks, it just promoted a
small number of black (usually) men to high-paying jobs. Overall, racism
still thrives. So, I suspect Faith is observing a dynamic based on
emulating what was modelled. Remember how you swore you'd never be like
your mother? Well, what other choices did you have?
I think subordinates who have long struggle for the power of the dominant
act just like the dominant when initially given power, unless a clear
alternative choice exists. Kylie has been speaking strongly about this
in some of her recent posts, about women not acting just like men and
about not focusing as much on changing them as in doing what is right,
now.
I think it is useful to name, identify, and isolate what we do NOT want,
but only as we turn to a new direction to see, and be, what we do want
to manifest in the world now, and in times to come.
(for our b-a-a-b-e-e-z, she wails)
Barbara Bliss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 1 14:37:55 MDT 1995
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: nature of the work, and the problem
To: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950430163221.9677O-100000@case>
Whose idea was it that we were separate from nature and from other
peoples? I have an acquaintance who has a poster on her wall that reads
"Humans have a funny kinship system - They think there are people they're
not related to"
How can we influence, in a political realm, the notion that nature is to
be conquered, that we can always live beyond nature's limits with more
technology, that we can spend a few third world people for cheaper
toaster ovens in middle America?
On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, Faith Freewoman wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
>
> > I agree with you that we cannot change men, but I guess I don't see men
> > as the "problem"... I see a system of beliefs, which women as well as men
> > have colluded in upholding, as the problem. Seems to me we can only
> > change them *together*...
>
> This may have been a dangerous thing to say on a feminist list ... but
> maybe not. In any case, I completely agree with Jayne in her analysis,
> and I might add that I believe that as long as any of us classes anyone
> else as "other" there will be no real solution to the world's ills.
>
> Faith
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 1 14:38:17 MDT 1995
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 13:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lorraine Pozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reds
To: Sue vanHattum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There are a lot of resources on the Internet for people interested
in home schooling, I'm told. Can't give you the exact locations,
but I'm sure someone on this list can.
Lorraine
__
On Mon, 1 May 1995, Sue vanHattum wrote:
> if your child likes to read, then she can learn plenty, regardless of the
> schools. you might consider home schooling if the schools do look bad
> enough. or get together with other progressive parents on this issue.
>
> sue
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 1 15:07:34 MDT 1995
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reds
To: Lorraine Pozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9505011309.B646-0100000@scn>
I'm not particularly interested in home schooling. I am not made up of
preschool/elementary teacher stuff, not qualified to do the job. When Ruth
needs help with calculus, however, I'll be there for her.
Besides, she's too little to get a job, and college loans won't
last forever, so, I expect I'll be working full-time soon.
However, I will not sit idly by while she
gets disciplined for being disruptive because she's bored to tears by
teachers busy attending to learning disabled, or less intelligent
students (Wash state schools fund the disadvantaged end of special learners,
not the gifted end). As one who grew up in an era and locale of
excellent shools, with programs for gifted as well as disadvantaged children,
I expect that of our public schools, and am disappointed (and angered) by the
lack of it here.
This conversation should probably go offline, however, to benefit Amanda and
other noninterested parties. I would appreciate any info about those
resources Lorraine suggests may exist.
Barbara Bliss
On Mon, 1 May 1995, Lorraine Pozzi wrote:
>
> There are a lot of resources on the Internet for people interested
> in home schooling, I'm told. Can't give you the exact locations,
> but I'm sure someone on this list can.
>
> Lorraine
> __
>
> On Mon, 1 May 1995, Sue vanHattum wrote:
>
> > if your child likes to read, then she can learn plenty, regardless of the
> > schools. you might consider home schooling if the schools do look bad
> > enough. or get together with other progressive parents on this issue.
> >
> > sue
> >
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 1 16:02:50 MDT 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950501170639.480;
From: "Jackie Van Brocklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: UTA Libraries
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kylie Matthews)
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 17:06:32 CST
Subject: Re: Consumerism
Well, Kylie, I'd notice that you weren't American when you even TYPE
the message "Don't vote Republican!" Frankly , I am so sick of those
of us (Americans) who are literally PETRIFIED to be "non-policitally
correct!" Jeez - always stay with the winners seems to be our
theme...
This brings me up to another pet peeve of mine - those Democrats (and
ESPECIALLY the politicians) who are actually ASHAMED (or seemingly so)
at being an "up front" Democrat! Or even "other!" That is the REAL
problem with our political system now - we have allowed ourselves to
be intimidated with the loudmouth (so=called) "conservatives" (who
only want to CONSERVE their own material goods!) who have the
audacity - ill-bred, ill-mannered (to put it nicely) and mostly
just
plain stupid with their "facts" - to put their MOUTHS way before their
brains! (Oh, I'm not angry - am I?????!)
I'm sick of all the back-tracking and "lilly-livered" excuses for the
way we feel and want to live. Until this is corrected, we WILL have
Republicans in office for the rest of OUR lives, at any rate!
[Big brother - if you're "reading in," put THAT in your pipe and smoke
it!] You see, I really don't CARE what "they" think!
So THERE! [:-r]
Jackie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 1 17:32:20 MDT 1995
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 16:33:17 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cuddlemonster/Joy Williams)
Subject: Chaos Theory
Hi all, I sent this to the Barbara, but forgot to include the list. I want
it on the list, momentarily to see if anyone else has a better
interpretation, and also, because I think, that once we hash it out, we
might find that the feminist and environmental movement are connected to
this in some ways...I have more exploration to do on this, but I do think
there is some relevance to the discussion.
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cuddlemonster/Joy Williams)
>Subject: Chaos Theory
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>>
>
>>What is this? I'm ignorant re: Chaos Theory...send refs please
>>
>>Barbara Bliss
>>Whatcom County Washington
>>
>Barbara,
>Talk about synchronicity. I was reading about it today.
>
>The Chaos Theory was formulated in 1975, originally as a new branch of
mathematics that provides models for many intrinsically irregular natural
processes.
>It also shows that out of chaos comes a a sense of order
>Have you ever seen the mandelbrot fractals? Those repeating images are
brought about through a mathematical program based on the chaos theory.
>It kindof represents a revolutionary paradigm shift in math and science
because it looks at the very basis of what we use to think was "reality,"
and throws a real wild curve. It originally came about in about 1973 when
new hynamical models were applied to turbulent fluid motions (such as
boiling water or a dripping faucet), "but it was not until 1975 that these
models were connected with the word *chaos*.(4) The Terms *strange
attractor* and *dynamical systems theory* were replaced by *chaotic
attractor* and *Chaos theory*..."
>
>Ralph Abraham goes on, in explaining this in his new book, _Chaos, Gaia and
Eros_
>that when journalists asked him to explain it he had trouble at first.
>
>"These questions, which I could not easily answer, drove me deeply into the
literature of myths and cultural history. If ound that the word *Chaos*
first appeared in a book called _Theogeny_ by Hesiod, one of the early Greek
poets. His poem is a creation myth telling stories of the origins of the
gods. Here the word chaos does not mean disorder. Instead, it represents
an abstract cosmic principle referring to the source of all creation. It
also appears in connection with the two other fundamental concepts: *Gaia*
(the created universe), and *Eros* (The creative impulse.)"
> p2
>It is part of a new science which connects to the Gaia Hypothesis, Fuzzy
Logic, and Erodynamics, whole systems theory, general evolution theory, the
new cosmologies, all kinds of stuff.
>
>anyway, I'm not sure that I fully understand it. It's rather tough.
>
>>
>
Joy Williams
Scion, Church of All Worlds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thou art God/dess!
