How hard is it to change opinions?
>I am motivated to strive for a >survivable option for the future - so sorry. That's the point Eva. You have a specific agenda in mind, and then reject any information that doesn't support it. We all do that to some extent, but "thinkers" will revisit beliefs when presented with new scientific evidense that opposes them. "Observers" will revisit beliefs when their own senses oppose them. But true idealogues neither "think" nor "observe", and are willing to burn for their beliefs: "An Englishwoman, who was married to a Portuguese named Vasconcellos in Madeira, was accused of heresy in 1704, and sent to the Inquisition in Lisbon. There she was kept in prison for over nine months; she was flogged several times to persuade her to confess, and her breast was burnt in three places with a red-hot iron. At last, she was taken to the torture chamber and strapped into the Spanish chair; an iron slipper, heated in the fire until it was red hot, was placed on her left foot. The flesh was burnt to the bone, and she fainted. When she came to, she was once more flogged until her whole back was a mass of blood, and then threatened with the slipper on her other foot. Unsurprisingly, she signed her confession, and was eventually released." [ pp. 78-79, THE HISTORY OF TORTURE, by Brian Innes, St Martin's Pr., 1998 ] ( Remember that all she had to do to avoid torture was to change her opinion . ) That is precisely why our Founding Fathers left America in the hands of the rich. Americas government was designed to be corrupt because the moneyed class is more "rational" (calculating) than either elected officials or the general public. http://dieoff.com/page168.htm "Irrational" political movements like communism scare the hell out of "rational" people -- except of course, those who have nothing to lose. Jay
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
... > Like it or not we have notions of good and evil, they're > important and we're stuck with them. I don't like the notions of "good" and "evil" as they imply relative (thus non-existent) human values. However there are objectively definable and measurable qualities, such as human rights, including the one not to be treated like a herd animal. > To muddle an aphorism, a purely > scientific solution to intrinsically social problems will likely be > little more scientific than Soviet "scientific socialism" and not much > less evil than this century's rational attempts to make the world safe > for the master race. > Science is a method whereby you analyse all the data from the past/present, you look for pattern and having find one, you make predictions for the workings of this pattern for the future. You design experiments and perfect your pattern. Social science should be the same if it claims to be a science, even if there is no scope for experiments and even if the most important aspect is still making patterns for the future, especially when the present accidental/coincidental social framework has been shown to be inefficient to solve the problems of present and the future and we developed the ability of conscious, collective manipulation of the economic/social structure. I can't see what other way you may call rational. Accordingly, the fascist and the stalinist "thinking" could be hardly called rational or scientific; the fascists claimed a supremacy of a given race, not supported by history or biology, the stalinists claimed (well, assumed) that socialism can succeed without democracy. Both succeeded to power due to specific historical power-gaps; in the fascist case the old capitalist class was to weak to stay in power, in the stalinist case the new working class was to week to take power. Both had a major contempt against most of humanity, one pictured it inferior, one pictured it child-like. Both lead to catastrophy. And worryingly, lots of our privileged scientists etc seem to be returning to these sad ideas - including our Jay. Eva > > - Mike > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html > --- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
From: Jan Matthieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Are billions of people to be condemed to death because of YOUR >> hundreds-of-years-old "beliefs" about "rights"? > >So that's civilisation for you, doing away with everything valuable people >have died FOR in the past, like democracy for example, and indeed rights, Let me make sure that I have this straight. Billions should be willing to die in the future for YOUR beliefs because millions have died in the past? Does that make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me. They are called "sunk costs". The people who died are now dead. So what? Why should I care what someone died for? You are confusing your own personal political ambition with good sense. Try looking forward instead of backwards. Think of it as an IQ test: "We humans no longer rely on the muscle of fight, the speed of flight, or the protective mask of shape and coloring for survival. We have come to depend on intelligence for life. This is a fateful gamble. It has put at stake our collective survival, and that of the whole biosphere. "About five million years ago, the evolutionary line that led to modern humans diverged from African apes, the common ancestors of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Apes are knuckle-walking quadrupeds; Homo is an erect biped. Apes have large jaws and they have small brains (in the range of 300-600 cubic centimeters). Homo has a small jaw, and a fourfold brain size in the range of 1400-1600 cc. Most apes are adapted to life in the trees; Homo is suited to life on the ground. It is this adaptability to terrestrial life that proved to be the decisive factor in the evolution of intelligence. Why some bands of pre-hominids left the trees is still somewhat mysterious (some anthropologists maintain that they were pushed from the forest into the savannah by physically more developed arboreal primates), but once they left the trees their destiny was sealed: they were condemned to a form of intelligence -- or to extinction. The question we now face is whether the kind of intelligence that evolved is sufficient for survival into the twenty-first century. Humanity, as Buckminster Fuller said, is facing its final exam. It is an exam of intelligence: the collective IQ test of the species." VISION 2020 -- Ervin Laszlo, [1994 p. 97] Gordon and Breach 212-206-8900 Jay
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
> The problem of health, commodities, the left vs. > the right, or the mental models that we bring to > these discussions seems to be making people angry > everywhere .The future of work is an > interesting thought except everyone only seems to > want to discuss the future of their work or their > favorite philosopher/economist. > > Is there any hope for a discussion on what work > means and what kind of multiplicity there must be > to create a humane, happy future together?Well > probably not, but maybe the following will be of > interest. > > You can work out your futurework aims real well, but if you don't pay attention to the social/economical conditions that are able to supply your noble aims, you might as well don't bother. > John you assume a hell of alot about their ability > to understand, don't you think? After all there > were all of those circles on "Another World" in > the Soaps of the 1950s-60s and they didn't get it > then. If it's too hard for the soap operas to > teach then what hope is there on the net? > nothing teaches better than a good helping of experience... people are able to get understanding in 24 hours as they did in a lot of historical events. > I'm having a terrible discussion with a H C who > lives in England on another list. You would think > she was a right winger or something. No > practicality anywhere, just "make work" to prove > that the lack of a need of workers is not > real. Anyway, you are one smart fellow and > much more optimistic than myself in this > instance.I couldn't even bring myself to reply > to At on the last post and that must mean I'm > depressed. > I hope you are not describing me here, I have never argued for "make work" and I am immensely practical... Eva > Ray Evans Harrell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
I wrote to my friend John: > > The problem of health, commodities, the left vs. > > the right, or the mental models that we bring to > > these discussions seems to be making people angry > > everywhere .The future of work is an > > interesting thought except everyone only seems to > > want to discuss the future of their work or their > > favorite philosopher/economist. > > > > Is there any hope for a discussion on what work > > means and what kind of multiplicity there must be > > to create a humane, happy future together?Well > > probably not, but maybe the following will be of > > interest. > > Durant wrote: > You can work out your futurework aims real well, but if you > don't pay attention to the social/economical conditions that > are able to supply your noble aims, you might as well > don't bother. Eva, this is obvious. Why would you think that those of us who have worked with people in both public and private sectors all of our lives, including as private impresarios, would not pay attention to "social/economical" and cultural issues?We would have starved long ago here, unlike the musicians who have state jobs in the socialist countries.I have experienced that as well when I was a singer in the White House Army Chorus where we were paid salaries. It was a regular six year job. Nice, but I prefer creating my own work and developing my own audiences even though I don't have the health care or retirement plan and my daughter will go to school as I did, paying her way and earning scholarships. I said: > > John you assume a hell of alot about their ability > > to understand, don't you think? After all there > > were all of those circles on "Another World" in > > the Soaps of the 1950s-60s and they didn't get it > > then. If it's too hard for the soap operas to > > teach then what hope is there on the net? > > > Eva said: > nothing teaches better than a good helping of experience... > people are able to get understanding in 24 hours as they did > in a lot of historical events. I believe that experience is the only developer of real knowledge. Do you all have soap operas on the television in the UK? How about "Another World" with all of the inter-connected circles opening the program? > I said: > > I'm having a terrible discussion with a H C who > > lives in England on another list. You would think > > she was a right winger or something. No > > practicality anywhere, just "make work" to prove > > that the lack of a need of workers is not > > real. Anyway, you are one smart fellow and > > much more optimistic than myself in this > > instance.I couldn't even bring myself to reply > > to At on the last post and that must mean I'm > > depressed. > > > Eva surmised: > I hope you are not describing me here, I have never > argued for "make work" and I am immensely practical... I have observed that people both on the left and right politically on these lists advocate "make work." Most work in the private sectors in Capitalism is like the fat on a good sirloin. On the other hand I believe Jay's complaint about Democratic Socialism being bureaucratic is accurate as well. I think the problem has to do with an addiction to competition and speed in the workplace. Rather than high quality workmanship in either case we often get shoddy products that are merely acceptable and use up precious resources. There is a problem in the practical workings of all of the human systems thus far with quality and creativity. Neither Capitalism, the world religions, the various Socialisms, or even Science are very comfortable with radical change. I will give you an example from my own background. I was a researcher for an educational library being developed for the teaching of children. We were far more capable of developing radical educational procedures, with their requisite materials, than the teachers, parents, publishers and administrations could absorb. They wanted stability that they could feel comfortable with, we were interested in pedagogical progress. The students loved what we did, and were highly successful in the performance of it, but we were terminated by the University because we were too aggressive in our enthusiasm and because they couldn't afford to change the publishing on a yearly basis as well as train the teachers to teach the new material.The head teacher/researcher moved out into the community and started a school with 300 students the next year. She has been very successful but now does not recommend that students study the piano as a living. She feels that the society is uncomfortable with the Arts and that their lives would be miserable so she teaches them for their growth and enjoyment but does not encourage them in it as a vocation. The society claims to be interested in change but is locked in the mud while she taught change and the children became alienated from their parents. The same is true with
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
> >I am motivated to strive for a > >survivable option for the future - so sorry. > > That's the point Eva. You have a specific agenda in mind, and then reject > any information that doesn't support it. > > We all do that to some extent, but "thinkers" will revisit beliefs when > presented with new scientific evidense that opposes them. "Observers" will > revisit beliefs when their own senses oppose them. But true idealogues > neither "think" nor "observe", and are willing to burn for their beliefs: > I arrived to that "agenda" through some thinking over the years, and your evidence just might be unsatisfactory. I had the chance to experience both capitalism and the failed attempt at socialism from the side of a "grassroot" person bringing up a family, so I am ahead of you in the observation department, thank you very much. As usual - I fail to see the relavence of your quote. It wasn't her opinion, but reality or even truth she was clinging to, probably because his church ordered her not to lie the first place. I would have confessed to everything especially with the forsight of being released as a consequence... Thinking that the "rich" are more rational than other humans is a piece of information I find reasonable to reject. (Do I really have to bother with explanation??) Socialism is a very practical idea, and in the course of the last year (feels like a few decades...) I listed numerous reasons to underly this statement, you are the one who failed addressing these arguments, but crawled back to repeat the strawman arguments and the fallacies. To sum up: we cannot solve the population problem that is your main concern based on the present market economy system, and you cannot solve it in any undemocratic/elitist/fascist manner that treats people as cattle, because people don't only want to survive, they also want to live human lives complete with intellectual and emotional satisfaction that can only come from conscious and responsible self-government. Eva > "An Englishwoman, who was married to a Portuguese named Vasconcellos in > Madeira, was accused of heresy in 1704, and sent to the Inquisition in > Lisbon. There she was kept in prison for over nine months; she was flogged > several times to persuade her to confess, and her breast was burnt in three > places with a red-hot iron. At last, she was taken to the torture chamber > and strapped into the Spanish chair; an iron slipper, heated in the fire > until it was red hot, was placed on her left foot. The flesh was burnt to > the bone, and she fainted. When she came to, she was once more flogged until > her whole back was a mass of blood, and then threatened with the slipper on > her other foot. Unsurprisingly, she signed her confession, and was > eventually released." [ pp. 78-79, THE HISTORY OF TORTURE, by Brian Innes, > St Martin's Pr., 1998 ] > > ( Remember that all she had to do to avoid torture was to change her > opinion . ) > > That is precisely why our Founding Fathers left America in the hands of the > rich. America's government was designed to be corrupt because the moneyed > class is more "rational" (calculating) than either elected officials or the > general public. http://dieoff.com/page168.htm > > "Irrational" political movements like communism scare the hell out of > "rational" people -- except of course, those who have nothing to lose. > > Jay > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
Jay wrote: > "An Englishwoman...was accused of heresy in 1704... > [splatter details elided] > Remember that all she had to do to avoid torture was to change her > opinion. You leave us to infer that so doing would have been "rational". The scare quotes are intentional because rationality is much misconstrued, I think. Rationality -- the ability to reason or understand -- offers no guidance for action without some axioms for what may be that is good to do or attempt. Colloquially, we say that an act or a choice of course is resonable -- rational -- using default axioms of what's good in the context. Typically we don't state those axioms explicitly. That ending excruciating pain is a good -- even best -- thing to do is such a default axiom. Two difficulties emerge when we try to talk about the rationality of actions or propose rational a course. One is that default axioms of what's good differ between cultures, between subcultures (such as those of economists, artists or saints) and between individuals. A banker friend to whom I talk every year or two remarked, when Gorbachev had just fallen from power, "Hey, tell him to just lose Russia. If he comes here he can make millions on the lecture circuit." Someone on the list may know many more details of Gorbachev's circumstances that I do but it appears to me that he had other default axioms than my friend upon which to base rational choices. (As I write this, I anticipate that Jay will give me both barrels -- the inevitability of the 2nd Law and an argument from biology and survival -- and I'm trying to keep in mind how I'll address at least the latter. I will, I think, :-) get back to it.) The other difficulty that arises when we try to evaluate rationality, is that axioms of the good may be volitionally chosen. Innes's Englishwoman was either neurologically abnormal or had very strong axioms of what was right and good. That isn't intrinically irrational. It is not irrational to choose pain or poverty if the options and consequences are understood and the alternatives subvert ones axioms of what it is that is good to do. About biology and survival: From the (hypothetical) point of view of a species, survival comes first. If rationality is available to the individual, perhaps it can be employed by an individual to decide whether its/his/her survival contributes more or less to species survival than death. But species don't really have viewpoints. Species just have the traits of earlier survivors. If we want to arrogate to ourselves the species viewpoint and make species survival the chief axiom from which we derive our decisions of what's good to do, we can make a pretty good case that the first and most urgent step is to exterminate about 80% of the extant specimens, beginning with billion or so heaviest consumers of resources and generators of pollution (present company, of course, excluded), then moving on to the resurrected zombie of 19th c. eugenics, suitably catechized with the current and putatively scientific conventional wisdom on population dynamics, good and bad genes etc. Eva wouldn't approve. Nor would I. In a slightly roundabout approach, here's why. The classical notion of tragedy was of one who does right, even does well, who suffers nevertheless because of somthing called "fate". We don't believe in the Three Blind Norns who weave our fate anymore but there remains tragedy in loss or suffering as a forseen and accepted consequence of doing right. With human consciousness and abstraction and our other powers of mind comes the ability not to harm another even if we suffer for it. Our knee jerk responses, our hormones, our inclinations may emanate from biology that hasn't changed appreciably since we left the Olduai Gorge but we can *choose* not to behave like protohominids. Especially, when we try to arrange a part of the social system, we can *choose* to arrange it, insofar as our knowlege and wit permit, to avoid exploitation, suffering, cruelty or whatever we like. The Second Law? Yeah, okay. We can't choose magic. Or rather, we can but we can't rationally expect it to work. We can't choose more of the same for us billion greasies and a fresh serving of the same -- cars, indoor plumbing, central HVAC and a lot of animal protein per diem -- for the two or four billion who know they want it. We can't because we're not likely to magic up much more oil and we certainly won't magic up any more good farmland or waterfront real estate. That doesn't mean that the only rational action is a global marketplace in which we exterminate the losers to make room for the winners' beef cattle and and rubbish tips. Is the only way to avoid global catastrophe to do evil? The Second Law and biology may or may not tell us how to avoid catastrophe but it surely won't tell us whether or not it's possible to remain humane and civil persons if we do so. John Ralston Saul quotes Carl-Henning Wijkmark: "[T]he sign of authent
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
Mike raises the issue of human values - individual, cultural, and species wide. The relationship of self-conscious free will and determinism as part of nature is explored in a paper by Tom Clark linked below. A main point I've tried rather unsuccessfully to make for the past two years on this list is that *uncertainty*, although ranging from uncomfortable to unbearable for most of us, is the most reasonable position to hold about the 'big' issues of ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, as well as about the future. Probabilities...opinions... Whenever it is said about human problems that "the only way(or solution) is to..." I am stimulated to rebut. There is an untenable certainty involved with "only" that can be attributed to arrogance, ignorance, or maybe hope...but likely false hope. Enjoy the essay if you've got 10 minutes. Steve http://world.std.com/~twc/morality.htm http://world.std.com/~twc/morality.htm
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
- Original Message - From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> "An Englishwoman...was accused of heresy in 1704... >> [splatter details elided] >> Remember that all she had to do to avoid torture was to change her >> opinion. > >You leave us to infer that so doing would have been "rational". In all cases, when I use "rational", I mean in the sense of Homo economicus -- a Machiavellian calculator. >axioms explicitly. That ending excruciating pain is a good -- even >best -- thing to do is such a default axiom. Two difficulties emerge >when we try to talk about the rationality of actions or propose >rational a course. I agree with you. Ending pain is the norm, but some people seem to like it. >About biology and survival: From the (hypothetical) point of view of a >species, survival comes first. If rationality is available to the This is a misconception. Darwinian survival is the survival of the fittest "genes" -- not species or individuals. Rational actions from an evolutionary standpoint are those that tend to propigate genes. >Is the only way to avoid global catastrophe to do evil? The Second >Law and biology may or may not tell us how to avoid catastrophe but it >surely won't tell us whether or not it's possible to remain humane and >civil persons if we do so. How about the "survival of civilization"? We know that if people continue to destroy our life-support system as they have, then our civilization will inevitably collapse (immutable 2nd law arguments). We also know that if civilization collapses, then industrial supply lines will breakdown and then, billions of innocent people will starve. Are billions of people to be condemed to death because of YOUR hundreds-of-years-old "beliefs" about "rights"? How is this any different from the religious nut allowing her children die because she doesn't "believe" in medicine? Do MY grandchildren have to die just because John Locke ate psychedelic mushrooms 400 years ago? Two hundred years ago, Thomas Paine asked whether the Earth belongs to the living or the dead. It's time to ask that question again. Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
I kept out of Jay Hansons way for a long while now, especially since some intelligent and very persevering people like Eva Durant answered him sufficiently, but reading this just made my blood boil again. One wonders if there is no ecological list where these same ongoing crazy discussions are not overshadowing what is really important. -- > Van: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Aan: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: How hard is it to change opinions? > Datum: zondag 21 februari 1999 19:12 > > - Original Message - > From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > jay> In all cases, when I use "rational", I mean in the sense of Homo > economicus -- a Machiavellian calculator. spencer> >About biology and survival: From the (hypothetical) point of view of a > >species, survival comes first. If rationality is available to the > jay> This is a misconception. Darwinian survival is the survival of the > fittest "genes" -- not species or individuals. Rational actions from > an evolutionary standpoint are those that tend to propigate genes. But evolution is not rational, isn't it? Leaves the Machiavellian calculator, who now is going to take the place of evolution and decide what's right? > >Is the only way to avoid global catastrophe to do evil? The Second > >Law and biology may or may not tell us how to avoid catastrophe but it > >surely won't tell us whether or not it's possible to remain humane and > >civil persons if we do so. > > How about the "survival of civilization"? Yea, save the planet, save civilization, like in every bad American movie, > We know that if people continue to destroy our life-support system > as they have, then our civilization will inevitably collapse (immutable > 2nd law arguments). What 'our' civilization will collapse? You could just as well say that the way it's been going for the last century or two, western civilization has been going completely the wrong way. > We also know that if civilization collapses, then industrial supply lines > will breakdown and then, billions of innocent people will starve. Boy, are you ethnocentric. Billions of innocent people are starving right now, while our great civilization stands, and what is more, is mostly responsible for this. What you seem to be so scared of, or scaring other people about, is that the same might happen to the West, and the only way to avert it, is "temporarily" turning off democracy, turning the world over to the 'Uebermenschen', the elite of experts and scientists, who are at this moment co-responsible for what's going on. > Are billions of people to be condemed to death because of YOUR > hundreds-of-years-old "beliefs" about "rights"? So that's civilisation for you, doing away with everything valuable people have died FOR in the past, like democracy for example, and indeed rights, human rights, which the majority of this world is still lacking, and which is actually one of the main reasons they are actually starving. So instead of giving up those rights, that DO make up whatever civilisation we have here, we should see they are extended to everyone else on this planet. This would solve a lot if not all of the so-called overpopulation problems. Not possible? Why would it be easier to sterilize the whole planet, as jay is proposing in one of his crazy schemes? Jan Matthieu Flemish Greens
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
Good subject title! :-) Jan Matthieu wrote: > One wonders if there is no ecological list where these same ongoing crazy > discussions are not overshadowing what is really important. Hope you agree that "what is really important" is 100% OPINION. > who now is going to take the place of evolution and decide > what's right? System properties & characteristics are not "right" or wrong. The latter are value judgements - OPINIONS. > like in every bad American movie, Aesthetic OPINION - "bad" > > western civilization has > been going completely the wrong way. Ethical OPINION - "wrong" > > > We also know that if civilization collapses, then industrial supply > lines > > will breakdown and then, billions of innocent people will starve. I think Jay means starve to death in a matter of a week or so. > Boy, are you ethnocentric. Billions of innocent people are starving right > now, There are perhaps 2 billion that are undernourished & drinking polluted water, but not billions dying each week. > So that's civilisation for you, doing away with everything valuable Economic, aesthetic, ethical OPINION - "valuable". You are entitled to yours as is everyone else. > we should see they are extended to everyone else on this planet.(rights) Easier said than done even if we agree via social contract what rights are mutually beneficial to all when universally extended. You forgot to mention responsibilities. > This > would solve a lot if not all of the so-called overpopulation problems. Really? The unlimited right to breed is nearly universal now. > Not > possible? Why would it be easier to sterilize the whole planet, as jay is > proposing in one of his crazy schemes? Fabricated strawman by a sensitive, distressed person. (Never even implied by Jay or by me) We are probably in agreement about concentration of economic & military power, conservation, biodiversity, biotech-agribusiness...But these are all OPINIONS - the subject of this thread. Steve
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
The problem of health, commodities, the left vs. the right, or the mental models that we bring to these discussions seems to be making people angry everywhere .The future of work is an interesting thought except everyone only seems to want to discuss the future of their work or their favorite philosopher/economist. (At this point I would prefer Peter Senge) I wrote a letter to a friend last night and thought I would share it because he seems to be encountering the same issues of those wanting not to explore but to conquer. The boys mentioned are his two sons who he also had to rescue from the system. Is there any hope for a discussion on what work means and what kind of multiplicity there must be to create a humane, happy future together?Well probably not, but maybe the following will be of interest. John wrote: > Which brings us back to the first point. I used a simple declaritive > 'common man/common sense' construction, Fred, to demonstrate how far from > useful some of our dialogues have come. You see, I put down my pen as a > theoretical linguist back in the '70s when I realized that language is the > tool man uses to describe the universe and that for each man or woman in > that universe, there is a separate universe. In order to completely > understand meaning, (in the way in which you and AT are trying to > understand it in this thread) we would have to first understand each of > these separate universes in terms of our own, and then, we would need to > change our own understanding because of it. We would then be in search of > knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Would wisdom ever come? John you assume a hell of alot about their ability to understand, don't you think? After all there were all of those circles on "Another World" in the Soaps of the 1950s-60s and they didn't get it then. If it's too hard for the soap operas to teach then what hope is there on the net? I'm having a terrible discussion with a H C who lives in England on another list. You would think she was a right winger or something. No practicality anywhere, just "make work" to prove that the lack of a need of workers is not real. Anyway, you are one smart fellow and much more optimistic than myself in this instance.I couldn't even bring myself to reply to At on the last post and that must mean I'm depressed. How are the boys? My daughter's doing great, now. I just worked on some Stanislavsky theory with her this weekend and realized how difficult it is compared to the academics. Now I understand why they don't teach performance theory in most high schools, much less music theory and those contrapuntal fugues. If they can't deal with the three Rs or History then this is impossibly abstract. Abstract, what music is, is a dirty word to most of these folks. She's been out of school for a semester with a medical and pesticide issue. (The NYTimes documented what her homeopath stated, in Friday's paper, only to be removed from their net site immediately.) We sent her to MRIs, Neurologists, Gastrointestinal folks, every kind of blood test possible etc. and they all came back negative and healthy (within "acceptable" levels) except that she couldn't perform much less stop her nose bleeds, headaches, nausea, dizziness and fainting spells, chronic red throats or thrush on the tongue and very little memory.I know it sounds adolescent but it was much more. She was a mess, so I took her to an Internist MD trained in France and registered here as a homeopath and nutritionist. I took her because he had helped so many students of mine who had chronic issues as well.You can't perform on the stage if you are chronically ill and if you don't work you don't eat. So they tend to go to people who help. "The show must go on!" The Doctor ordered another battery of tests and then said that she had little wrong except for her digestive issues. He taught her food mixing and put her on a diet to detox for pesticides and no micro-wave. The symptoms are gone except for the throat which he now controls with herbs. He insists that she eat properly and must scrub any non "organically grown" produce as well as cleanse it in a solution he gives her. Some things are also peeled and many things are avoided completely. He encourages the total use of organically grown foods where possible.The change has been radical. She's back in school, happy and working hard It coincides completely with the NYTimes article on pesticide toxicity in Friday's NYTImes from Consumer Reports: "A spokesman for the agency (EPA) said it was 'in the process of implementing the Food Quality Protection Act.'...In addition to choosing foods with lower levels of toxicity, pesticide exposure can be reduced by peeling produce and by buying organically grown fruits and vegetables.'There are plenty of ways parents can get healthy foods into kids without exposing them to high risk stuff.' Nancy Metca
