![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 44 to 68 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by Cass on June 30, 2000, at 18:23:17
In reply to AllTheWorldIsCrazyExceptMeAndThee and you're here!, posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
>
> If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in >a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people >like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
>
Really well put. That is always the nagging question in the back of my mind. As Claire pointed out, Jesus was a social rebel. Iconoclasts who threaten power structures are quickly destroyed. And then once they are out of the way, we can safely "worship false idols" of them.
Posted by shar on July 1, 2000, at 1:39:18
In reply to AllTheWorldIsCrazyExceptMeAndThee and you're here!, posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
Sorry, need to jump in here for a moment.
>
> If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
>
>
This may be true. I remember when Arafat and the PLO were blowing up schools, and school buses, and children and the general consensus was that he was very, very bad and nuts. And, today...well... I am stunned every time I see him welcomed into some political function, handshaking all around, smiling, pats on the back. I shudder.I don't think that any man that could commit such heinous acts, as he did, for any purpose whatsoever is "sane" as I define it. He may walk and talk and act in functional ways, but there is a constitutional defect (my opinion) in such a person that makes him axiomatically out of touch. Perhaps it is "only" megalomania in an extreme form.
I believe killing of the innocents in bulk to be irrational, indefensible, and not the act of a sane person(IMHO). I cannot imagine ever believing that Kosinski and/or McVey were sane, rational, reasonable, or in control of themselves, nor that they furthered their cause.
>
>
Its probably just legend, but some say that if you put a toad in a container of water and heat is slowly enough you can cook the toad without it jumping out. Isn't that what is happening with our environment?To a considerable degree we come here because we are casualties of our society. I remember sitting on a island in Maine a few years back without a single human sound and no human lights. In the peace and quiet I realized that there were probably too many humans on this planet. Also, we are subjected to a lot of stresses that we aren't even aware are stressors and probably aren't designed to handle.
>
>
Re: the environment being passively allowed to self-destruct (or other-destruct), I don't believe so. Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in the 60's and environmental concerns have been in the world consciousness ever since (to varying degrees at various times). Some people do not hesitate to sell out the environment, they take action to make a profit. Others harm (or get harmed) to make a living. Others are unwilling to do harm, and take action to protect the environment. Other people recycle their newspapers and cans.I believe in most of the world, people are slowly becoming aware of what we've wrought over the decades. It's starting to affect people's livelihood now, and that's turning them in to (perhaps unwilling) environmentalists (as in the salmon fishers for one example). And even scientists are hoist with their own petard because their "clean" plastic test tubes contain enough contaminants to interact with the substances they hold.
And, people in cities everywhere are no longer content to let the new company move in so everybody can have a job--when it means the contamination of their environment.
There is a history here that is worth remembering. The mindset of "better living thru chemistry" was true for most people for a while. It did seem that much of what was happening (in the 40's, 50's) was good. But, people had to learn along the way--take DDT for example. It did do an excellent job at pest control, but it took time for people to learn about the other awful things it did. And that knowledge grew a community of people dedicated to protecting people and the earth from DDT.
Or practicing what to do in school if there was a nuclear attack (get under your desk of course). Now we know much better, and we've come a long way from "get under your desk." It will take time for us to learn everything.
There are few angels (and a number of SOB's) in the arena, but I think using such a broad brush to paint the picture about our environment and humanity is just as misleading as saying there is nothing wrong.
>
> >
> Time and again throughout history whole nations snap and stop behaving in their self interest. Maybe relative calm will continue for another hundred years. Or a mess like WW2 only more up to date will engulf us all. Who's crazy then? The "reasonable" Neville Chamberlains? Or the pain in the neck types that we said were over reacting?
>
>
I don't think it's that simple. I think we may well kill off a bunch of ourselves on a massive scale; especially when we try to solve the problems we caused with more chemistry...And, we should remember that there are also problems in existence as a result of efforts on behalf of the environment. Not much in this world is linear.It also depends on how one defines "overreaction" or "crazy." Many accomplishments benefiting the world and the environment have been attained without having to kill children, or mail out incendiary devices, or call out the dogs and night sticks, or hold hostages or blow up jets, or gas people in the subways.
I believe in every era, there have been events that appeared to be leading to the end. Humans (and the earth), however, evolve (learn) and adapt, and there are always people around who will devote their energy to positive change and harm to none.
There is also a whole population of people who are so involved in trying to care for and feed their families, they haven't begun to consider some of the issues.
We won't all of us be reaching the same conclusions at the same time, and we won't all consider the same issues equally important, but I don't plan to kill anyone to make my point, nor will I abandon my efforts to change things.
Shar
Posted by Sara T on July 1, 2000, at 8:58:07
In reply to Seeing the Forest and the Trees, posted by shar on July 1, 2000, at 1:39:18
Shar-
Great post. Very well said. Right on!!!
Sara T.
Posted by dj on July 1, 2000, at 16:17:43
In reply to Re: Seeing the Forest and the Trees » shar, posted by Sara T on July 1, 2000, at 8:58:07
With July 4 coming up it's useful to put some of the BIG LIEs put out by our governments to question. The following very, elegant commencement address outlines the U.S.'s continuing tragic policies in one corner of the world and some of the effects on innocent people there...never mind the longterm ecological damage to us all as pollution respects no borders...
The Canadian government and others, shamefully, walked lockstep with the U.S. government on the hypocritical armed actions that proceeded the current situation. Our governments and corporations should all hang their heads in shame and do something to reverse this travesty of justice instead of continuing to wrongfully portray themselves as the good guys in this PR war...
Just as in the political and media-inspired mania and idiotic hype surrounding Elian Gonzales someone has to cut through the BS and do the decent thing. The hyporcritical black and white, us and them thinking and distortion of reality which leads to these international abuses and travesties of justice only hurt us all in the end, and no-one comes out looking any better than anyone else, except for the folks in Doctors without Borders and other such groups which ignore the politics and focus on the common humanity and deal with the suffering, our societies have contributed to excessively, usually in the searh of profit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
_____________________
>
>Following is the text of Fadia Rafeedie's Cal-Berkeley convocation
>address last Wednesday. For those of you who may be unaware,
>Madeline Albright was the commencement speaker. Fadia, the student
>speaker who earned the distinguished honor of addressing the
>audience, is Palestinian. Because Secretary Albright was invited to
>speak, Fadia put aside her proposed speech (which had already been
>read and approved by the University) and instead spoke from her heart
>about her views of Albright and U.S. policy in Iraq.
> >
>Chancellor Berdahl: Please join me in congratulating our 2000
>University Medalist, Fadia Rafeedie:
> >
>Fadia: Thank you, that was way too generous, Chancellor Berdahl. It
>makes me sound, you know, a lot better than I am. I had a speech and
>it's right here. It took me so long to draft it and I kept re-drafting it,
>and this morning I changed it again, but I'm just going to put it to the
>side and I'm going to talk from my heart because what I witnessed here
>today, I have mixed feelings about.
> >
>I don't know why I'm up here articulating the viewpoints of a lot of my
>comrades out there who were arrested, and not them. It's not because
>I got, you know, straight A's or maybe it is. Maybe that's the way the
>power structure works, but I'm very fortunate to be able to give them a
>voice. I think that's what I'm going to do, so if you give me your
>attention, I'd really appreciate it.
> >
>I was hoping to speak before Secretary Albright, but that was also a
>reflection of the power structure, I think, to sort of change things
>around and make it difficult for people who are ready to articulate their
>voice in ways they don't usually get a chance to.
> >
>So I'm going to improvise, and I'm going to mention some things that
>she didn't mention at all in her speech but which most of the protesters
>were actually talking about. You know, I think it's really easy for us to
>feel sorry for her, and I was looking at my grandmothers who are
>actually in the audience - my grandmother and her sister - who weren't
>really happy with all the protesters, and I think they thought that wasn't
>really respectful of them, and a lot of you didn't, I don't think, because
>you came to hear her speak. But I think what the protesters did was not
>embarrass our university. I think they dignified it.
>
>Because secretary Albright didn't even mention Iraq, and that's what
>they were here to listen to. And I think sometimes NOT saying things
>not mentioning things - is actually lying about them.
>
>And what I was going to tell her while she was sitting on the stage with
>me, I was going to remind her that four years ago from this Friday
>when we were freshmen, I heard her on 60 Minutes talking to a reporter
>who had just returned from Iraq.
> >
>The reporter was describing that a million children were dying [died]
>due to the sanctions that this country was imposing on the people of
>Iraq. And she told her, listen, "that's more.. children than have died in
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think the price is worth it?" [Albright]
>looked into the camera and she said, "the price is worth it.
>
>"Since that time, 3 times that number of people have died in Iraq. And I
>was going to tell her, "do you really think the price is worth it? " We
>are about 5000 here today, next month, by the time we graduate, that's
>as many people who are going to die in Iraq because of the sanctions.
>This is what House Minority Whip David Boniors calls 'infanticide
>masquerading as policy.'
> >
>Now, I don't want to make the mood somber here because this is our
>commencement, but commencement means beginning, and I think it's
>important for us to begin where civilization itself began, and where it's
>now being destroyed. [applause]
>
>Let me talk to you a little bit a little bit more about the sanctions,
>because I think it's very important. Now, I'm a Palestinian, I would
>really love to talk about the struggle for the liberation of my country,
>and to talk about a whole bunch of other things and I see some people
>maybe rolling their eyes, and other people nodding these are
>controversial issues, but I need to speak about Iraq because I think
>what's happening there is a genocide. It's another holocaust.
> >
>And I'm a history major, and sometimes I look back at history and I
>see things like the slave trade, the Holocaust you know, I see I see
>people dropping atomic bombs and not thinking what the ramifications
>are, and I don't want us to think about Iraq that way. It's already a
>little too late because 2.5 million people have died and yet these
>sanctions
>continue.
> >
>For the last 10 years, you wouldn't imagine the kinds of things that
>aren't being let into this country: heart machines, lung machines,
>needles, um infrastructural parts to build the economy. Even cancer
>patients sometimes some of the medicine will be let in, but not ALL of
>the medicine.
> >
>It's very strategic what's let in at what time, because what it does is it
>prolongs life, but it doesn't save it.
>
>In Iraq, the hospitals they clean the floors with gasoline because
>detergent isn't even allowed in because of the sanctions.
>
>These are all United States policies.
>
>And Secretary Albright - I have no conflict with HER, as an individual. I
>don't happen to RESPECT her, but she belongs to a larger power
>structure. She's a symbol.
>
>And when the protesters are protesting, it's not because they want to
>pick a fight with the woman who you guys all happen -well, many of
>you - happen to love. She was introduced as the 'greatest woman of
>our times.' Now see, to me that's an insult. [applause] This woman is
>doing HORRIBLE things. She's allowing innocent people to suffer and
>to die.
>
>Iraq used to be the country in the Arab World that had the best
>medical services and social services for its people, and NOW look at
>it. It's being OBLITERATED.
> >
>And a lot of times you might hear it's because of Saddam Hussein and
>I'd like to talk a little bit about that. He's a brutal dictator - I agree
>With her, and I agree with many of you. But again, I'm a history major, and
>history means origins. It means beginnings. We need to see who's
>responsible
>for how strong Saddam Hussein has gotten.
> >
>When he when he was gassing the Kurds, he was gassing them using
>chemical weapons that were manufactured in Rochester, New York.
> >
>And when he was fighting a long and protracted war with Iran, where 1
>million people died, it was the CIA that was funding him. It was U.S.
>policy that built this dictator. When they didn't NEED him, they started
>imposing sanctions on his people. Sanctions - or any kind of policy -
>should be directed at people's governments, not at the people.
> >
>The cancer rate in Iraq has risen by over 70 percent since the Gulf
>War. The children who are dying from these malicious and diseases,
>weren't born when the Gulf War happened. The reason that the cancer
>rate is so high is because every other day our country is bombing Iraq
>STILL. We're still at war with them. They have no nuclear capabilities.
>In fact, just last week, the United Nations inspectors found [again] that
>Iraq has no nuclear capabilities and yet WE are BOMBING them every
>other day with depleted uranium. And what this does is it releases a
>gas that the people breathe. It's making them ill, and they're dying and
>they don't have medicine.
> >
>I saw some of my friends, even, being arrested here today. One of
>them was Lillian. Her aunt did a documentary about this depleted
>uranium, and it showed that it's being MINED by Native American
>populations in the United States. THEY'RE getting sick. Their children
>are getting sick. And that depleted uranium is going from HERE, to our
>MILITARY, to Iraq, and it's decimating populations. This is a big deal.
> >
>And I'm embarrassed that I don't even get to talk about Columbia,
>because I saw a few signs about that, too. And my colleague here,
>Darren Noy, who's also a Finalist, is very interested in these issues.
>We don't stand alone. I'm on stage with allies, I'm looking out at allies,
>we need allies, my allies have been taken away [today].
>
>But in general, I mean, I'm speaking to a crowd that gave a standing
>ovation to the woman who typifies everything against which I stand,
>and I'm still telling you this because I think it's important to
>understand.
> >
>And I think, that if I achieve nothing else, if this makes you think a
>little bit about Iraq, think a little bit about U.S. foreign policy, I've
>succeeded.
> >
>I don't want to take too much of your time, but I want to end my
>speech with a slogan that hangs over my bed in Arabic. It says, "La
>tastaw7ishu tareeq el-7aq, min qilit es-sa'ireen fihi" and that translates
>into, "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." I
>think our future is going to be the future of truth, and we're going to
>walk
>on that path, and we're going to fill it with travelers.
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>[Standing ovation from the stage, with the faculty members, the senior
>class council, and the student award-winners. And, of course, standing
>ovation from a cheering section in the crowd.]
>
> >**********
>Reprinted under the fair use doctrine
>of international copyright law:
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Posted by claire 7 on July 1, 2000, at 20:49:52
In reply to Seeing Forest and Trees in another light..., posted by dj on July 1, 2000, at 16:17:43
Thank you, dj, for posting that.
Sincerely, Claire
Posted by claire 7 on July 1, 2000, at 21:00:20
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski » Oddzilla , posted by Cass on June 30, 2000, at 18:14:58
>Dear Cass:
Just wanted to say that when I was shrink shopping 10 or so years ago, one of the questions I asked of potential employees was, "What do you think of Alice Miller?' If the doc didn't have an interesting or at least somewhat knowledgable answer, I politely excused myself and continued my search.
(Amazingly, several of those I interviewed just looked completely BLANK.)
Best wishes, Claire
Posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 0:36:58
In reply to Re: Seeing the Forest and the Trees » shar, posted by Sara T on July 1, 2000, at 8:58:07
Sara,
Thank you. After I posted it I thought "Jeez, that had nothing to do with Psych or Babble!! How irrelevant."I feel better after your remarks. Thanks--
Shar
> Shar-
>
> Great post. Very well said. Right on!!!
>
> Sara T.
Posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 1:55:19
In reply to Seeing Forest and Trees in another light..., posted by dj on July 1, 2000, at 16:17:43
DJ:
You have brought up another important issue in the myriad of issues we face. LIES.
I came of age in the BIG LIE era of Vietnam, Cambodia, Nixon, LBJ, Watergate, etc. It still continues to amaze me when another BIG LIE is uncovered. I don't think they will stop happening.
The young woman who spoke at Cornell talked about the tragedy that was closest to her heart, and the evolution of the truly awful events transpiring. She was willing to take a stand then and there, and pour out what she considered more important than her planned speech.
The military-industrial complex is larger than Ms. Albright's power to change international policy, and since we are looking at the forest and the trees, I'm sorry Ms. Albright was the subject of derogatory comments as she sat there after making an invited address.
Hardly anything in the real world is linear.
The young woman's commencement remarks probably provided information to the crowd that they (the crowd) did not already have. Perhaps someone in that crowd will end up doing something that will radically change the situation.
Someone could asassinate Ms. Albright feeling justified because she has let this go on and needs to be made an example of. Or someone could organize and educate the public, and "the people" could effect a change in the policy.
There are, of course, an infinite number of possible outcomes.
IMHO it comes down to personal responsibility on a global scale--what one chooses to do with our personal power, what action we will take, letters we will write, voting we will do, stands we will make--for some, who will they kill and how many and how often?
How will we (each one of us) deal with the horrors in Iraq? The other horrors that exist all over the world? The atrocities that take place in our own home towns?
We all of us have a choice about what we will take on, and how much energy we can/will put into that area of our lives.
You provided a good example of this.
Shar
Posted by bbob on July 2, 2000, at 1:59:04
In reply to Re: Seeing the Forest and the Trees » Sara T, posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 0:36:58
This discussion is right on topic. Scientific American has a great essay, with charts and stats, on the psychological impacts of war. (Invisible Wounds by Richard F. Mollica, and The Human Cost of War by Walter C. Clemens, Jr., and J. David Singer June, 2000) Unfortunately, neither article is on-line.
According to the articles, and studies cited there-in, the psychological damage of war often lasts for generations. To quote the American Indian Movement spokesman from the Alcatraz Island take-over, Wounded Knee era, poet and musician John Trudell, "Hell man, two world wars in a row is really crazy man." (Baby Boom Che from AKA Graffiti Man)
In agreement with sara's general position, that the world is not doomed and things are getting somewhat better, there is an interesting article at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/story/86.html about the social policy implications of the new happiness research. It is pro-Prozak (i'm not) and pro-population growth (hmmm...) but it is a fair assessment of what research seems to indicate. Of particular interest to those of us who are environmentally oriented is the part that says:
"Popular culture is dominated by advertisements that offer the
following promise: buy our good or service, and your subjective
well-being will increase. The happiness research demonstrates that
most such promises are empty. Perhaps all advertisements for
non-essential goods should be required to carry the warning:
"Caution: scientific research demonstrates that this product will
increase your subjective well-being only in the short term, if at all,
and will not increase your happiness set-point".Regarding McVeigh, Kazinski and the insanity of all that...
The media, self included, did not have words to deal with the correlation between the tense days in Kazinski's trial when he was wrestling with whether to comply with a court ordered mental examination, he not wanting to make a insanity defense that would weaken the message of his acts, and the record ice storm that shut down the east coast during those three critical days of the trial. This is x-files stuff for which I could be commited for even suggesting a correlation. To that all I can say is well said down in CarolAnns "quotable quotes for $200" post.
Regarding McVeigh, he was trained to kill and killed a person for the first time in his life in Iraq as a gunner on a Bradley fighting vehicle, using the 25 mm cannon at a fairly long range. He was reportedly elated. Three days later, he was taking pictures of the massacre on the highway to Bahrain, where George Bush (I'm MAD at Sadam) ordered the bombing of anything and everything that moved on the highway occupied by retreating Iraqi's. McVeigh was reportedly apalled.
Returning home with mixed emotions, he was less than determined to continue his military career. Traveling the country, sniffing aminergines with a psychotropic profile similar to Ritalin (meth, actually) he drifted down to the Waco standoff. There, he was aware that federal police invaded a religous facility on Sunday morning, on a flimsy warrant (read No More Waco's for a balanced assessemnt - they had a license to assemble AR-15s from parts, but a pre-emptory ATF action resulted in the license being pulled after they already had the merchandise, which he was selling to take advantage of a Brady-bill inflated market, and a box of dummy grenades reported by a UPS employee, which he ATF likely knew were routinely legally sold among military enthusiasts) without bothering to follow routine dynamic entry protocals - no phone number or phone for contacting those inside in the event of stalemate, no procedure for pulling back, and firing indiscriminatley at a building with no clear target. The first shots were apparently fired at the heretics dogs. The raid, planned by Reagan and Bush admistration ATF execs during the first days of the Clinton administration, seemed more timed to the upcoming ATF budget hearings than to the need to apprehend the gun dealer.
He knew the raw details of the April 19 action far sooner than most of the public did - fire trucks barred from the scene, flammable CS gas lobbed by the pound into a building full of children, autopsy photos of children dead of cyanide poisoning reflecting the pathology of death by the cyanitic fumes of burning CS gas.
Think what we will about the facts he was facing, we end up with a confused, war-scarred, well-trained killer. I could add more to the intrigue that led to his participation in a conspiracy to bomb, but I just want to suggest the psychological injury that was apparent - the evident erosion of boundaries that was not entirely self-inflicted and that seems to have arose from his desire to serve his country. His letters to the editor suggest a mind able to see both sides of a picture.
Now, whehter these people were sick, sociopathic, or just on the wrong side of a political battle is anybody's call. My thinking, from a social psychology perspective, is that people like this tend to express what we as a society repress. We understand the severity of some contradictions in our collective unconcious, but are unable to articulate the entrenched contradiction sufficiently to act decisively. Individual, small groups, or secretly instigated acts such as these named acts of terror might let us, as a society, vent the conflict and form new positions before the repressed conflict erupts into an even greater conflagration. A book about the OKC bomb advances (oklahoma city bombing and the politics of terror) advances the crazy idea that some leaders understand the need for occasional mass violence as part of our collective social construct. Never mind the author was jailed for stalking a victim of the bombing who was formerly his friend and also for jury tampering, there is some intriguing food for thought about the role of violence in our society.
I could say more, about the ongoing war in Irag and Kosovo, or the bombing of the Chinese embassy, but I don't want to make a political speach. My point is that war is a mental health issue. We are injured when we perpetrate war and we are injured if wars are fought around us. Improving mental health conditions worldwide sufficient to make the planet a tolerable residence for more than 10 billion people (coming soon to a planet near you) will involve finding ways to resolve conflict without creating a spiral of mental injury.
One other note, consumer/industrial Western society did not just happen because everyone wanted consumer goods. There are written strategic plans, dating to the 19th century and the creation of a dominant merchant marine, wherein America's status as a world power was built on a consumer society, the industries created therein making for a cheaper source of war-fighting materiel. Consumer society, environmental degradation, militarism and mental health are intricately interwoven issues that need to be collectively addressed as social/cultural issues.
> Thank you. After I posted it I thought "Jeez, that had nothing to do with Psych or Babble!! How irrelevant."
>
> I feel better after your remarks. Thanks--
> Shar
>
>
> > Shar-
> >
> > Great post. Very well said. Right on!!!
> >
> > Sara T.
Posted by dj on July 2, 2000, at 11:37:20
In reply to Seeing Forest and Trees: An example. » dj, posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 1:55:19
> You have brought up another important issue in the myriad of issues we face. LIES.
>As bobb rightfully points out in his posting this is an insidious one and the impact, as you both pointed out, plays out on many fronts and can have expected and unexpected consequences.
Closer to the realities that most people on this list deal with are the lies that surround mental health issues and the efficiacy of some ADs over others and the negative impacts of ADs, which is too often glossed over by 'official sources' and those who buy their marketing.
For instance, many people on this list can attest to the varying negative impacts of some ADs. Bob, not Dr. wrote months ago about initially feeling very good but then finding himself raging on one AD, Wellbutrin I think.
An extreme case of someone who may have been tipped over the edge by the impact of ADs, combined with a de-humanized management approach and not being listened to or believed by various folks was that of Joseph Weisbecker who on Sept. 14, 1989: "returned to Standard Gravure, his former place of work in Louisville, Kentucky, and shot twenty of his co-workers...before committing suicide..."
I say may because there are many factors involved. However, as is detailed in "The Power to Harm: Mind, Medicince and Murder on Trial" by John Cornwell (1996) and touched on more recently in "Prozac Backlash" by a Harvard Psych., Eli Lilly bought off the famlies of those who were massacred by JW, whose habits and personality changed considerably and drastically due to changes at work and his drug regime, in combo...
Far too much detail, and it's been a while since I read it, for me to go into but if you go to Amazon.com there are doubtless some overviews there...
Which is not to say that ADs made him do it or that ADs are inherently bad. The distinction is that negative impacts can be excessive with some individuals, and the Eli Lilly felt the case against them was potentially harmful enough to their image that they spend BIG dollars (though not compared to what they make from Prozac and other pills) to kill the case and silence those who were taking them on...
Apparently B.F. Skinner, the father of Behaviourism, said shortly before his death in 1990, “The worst mistake my generation has made is to treat people as if they were rats>" Many organizations, including governments, still fall that Behaviourist model it seems for those they deal with...
> The military-industrial complex is larger than Ms. Albright's power to change international policy, and since we are looking at the forest and the trees, I'm sorry Ms. Albright was the subject of derogatory comments as she sat there after making an invited address.
>
> Hardly anything in the real world is linear.I believe Ms. Albright needed to hear that message in that forum from that young women and if she was paying attention and was to do something about it, she could make a real difference.
As the greatest president the U.S. never had said, in reference to Vietnam and the protests of the day I belive, before he was assasinated:
“The first task of leadership, the first task of concerned people, is not to condemn or castigate or deplore; it is to search out the reason for disillusionment and alienation, the rational for protest and dissent – perhaps indeed to learn from it. And we may find that we learn most from all those political and social dissenters whose differences with us are most grave; for among the young, as among adults, the sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism…”
- Robert F. Kennedy as quoted in Make Gentle the Life of This World: The Vision of Robert F. Kennedy, edited by Maxwell Taylor Kennedy, pg. 114
>
> Someone could asassinate Ms. Albright feeling justified because she has let this go on and needs to be made an example of. Or someone could organize and educate the public, and "the people" could effect a change in the policy.
>Hopefully the latter will prevail!
> There are, of course, an infinite number of possible outcomes.
>
> IMHO it comes down to personal responsibility on a global scale--what one chooses to do with our personal power, what action we will take, letters we will write, voting we will do, stands we will make--for some, who will they kill and how many and how often?
>Very much and one of the most eloquent spokespeople on this today is Marianne Williamson who in her earlier book "Return to Love" wrote a statement often falsly attributed to Nelson Mandela and that is:
"...'our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.'
We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel
insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone.
And as we let our light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission
to do the same.
As we're liberated from our own fear, our prescence automatically liberates
others."In a more recent book called: "Healing the Soul of America", she deals further with our roles in changing the system(s) for the better of all, how and why.
Sante!
dj
Posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 23:18:15
In reply to Re: Saving the Forest and the Trees, posted by bbob on July 2, 2000, at 1:59:04
> Bbob wrote:
> According to the articles, and studies cited there-in, the psychological damage of war often lasts for generations.Yes, too true. You yourself may have experienced life with a Vietnam vet. Certainly, the vets from that war, who have high rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, are passing that right along to the next generation.
The Vet to whom I was married came back from Nam after being a Medic. He had lost most of his ability to control his rage, and was very violent, engaged in significant risk-taking behavior, had physical symptomology from what the VA denies could hurt anyone, and generally was on alert at all times. Multiple perimeter checks through the night. He also used about any drug he could find.
We (society) have at least one and maybe two generations who will probably grow up under the direct influence of the men and women who survived Vietnam. Most of the vets I know struggle with demons that are so beyond the understanding of the 30 year old therapist, it's hard to take therapy seriously. I've seen more catharsis during a vet's group barbecue, where they can (and do) laugh and cry and wonder what will become of them. It is a serious business.
>
...those of us who are environmentally oriented is the part that says:
>"Popular culture is dominated by advertisements that offer the following promise:
buy ... and your subjective well-being will increase. The happiness research demonstrates that
most such promises are empty.I believe this is just known as marketing. I think we have the capacity to learn over time that, by and large, the things we buy don't make us happy (but some do). Whether everyone has the interest or capacity to take that further as introspection or worthy of analysis, is the individual's responsibility. Some people will just keep buying, and feeling empty. Others won't.
>
Regarding McVeigh, Kazinski and the insanity of all that...
>
> Kazinski's trial when he was wrestling...with a court ordered mental examination, he **not wanting to make a insanity defense that would weaken the message of his acts.**Emphasis mine (asterisks mine). I find that a breathtaking remark. It assumes there was a strong message to be weakened, and the acts (murders) sent this strong message (from my reading).
Suffice it to say that there must be many interpretations of "the message of his acts." The message I got was that he chose to kill/maime innocent people in order to make a point. Whether or not one agrees with the point, it seems rare to me that a mere mortal would have an idea or set of ideas worth the surreptitious killing of innocent people.
>> Regarding McVeigh, he was trained to kill>
> we end up with a confused, war-scarred, well-trained killer .... his participation in a conspiracy to bomb.> I just want to suggest...the evident erosion of boundaries that was not entirely self-inflicted and that seems to have arose from his desire to serve his country.
No doubt his war experience eroded his boundaries, exposed him to horror, shocked his sensibilities, and left him with unearthly memories and ideas. And, he may have held strong beliefs, going in, that he wanted to serve his country. He is not alone, I am sure there are thousands and thousands like him in the U.S. I'm glad they aren't blowing up buildings, killing children, men and women, who were also serving their country (government work, you know). Certainly the survivors of his acts have a life that will never be the same, and probably share some of the same shell-shocked reaction that Tim had.
>
My thinking, from a social psychology perspective, is that *people like this* tend to express what we as a society repress.(Asterisks mine) People like this meaning those who choose to "send a message" by harming innocent people? I am thinking those people are terrorists. If terrorists express what we as a society repress, I don't recall a concomitant "feel-good" cathartic response from society in general after Ted and Tim did their business. That is what one would expect if societal repression had been expressed (set free, if you will) and thus society is relieved (at the moment).
>We understand the severity of some contradictions in our collective unconcious, but are unable to articulate the entrenched contradiction sufficiently to act decisively. Individual, small groups, or secretly instigated acts such as these named acts of terror might let us, as a society, vent the conflict and form new positions before the repressed conflict erupts into an even greater conflagration.
I don't really understand the point here. There seem to be some oxymorons (understanding the severity of contradictions in our collective unconscious). I think the Jungians believe that it is unconscious, not in our heads to be understood, but I may be wrong.
However the thinking that violence observed vents the conflict and brings some form of relief or regrouping goes against the social psychological work that has for years studied violence on TV and the resultant behavior of children. They don't get calmer, or more centered, they become more violent.
I do believe riots (also violent acts) are that way too. After the Rodney King verdict, you could watch people being drawn into the ever-growing crowd; some people were interviewed and said they had never intended to participate--they went to see what was going on, and got caught up in it.
>
> My point is that war is a mental health issue. We are injured when we perpetrate war and we are injured if wars are fought around us. Improving mental health conditions...will involve finding ways to resolve conflict without creating a spiral of mental injury.I agree totally. One aspect of war is how it damages people. There are other aspects as well. I agree that finding ways to resolve conflict without mental injury is a worthy goal. If we take personal responsibility for our own ways of resolving conflict in the here and now, that is a start.
And, if we teach our children to do that, we've influenced another generation. Mental health is present in every possible configuration of our lives. Going to war, going to work, killing the guy in the car who is going too slow, insulting the waitress who may not speak English very well (in front of the children)--all of these will shape our mental health.
I can't change "war" but I can do something about my own comportment, and actions I take to let others know what is important to me (ie, the ones in power), and become active in groups who want to create change and where I won't have to kill anyone. Especially a child.
It starts with me, one person. And then you, one more. And then one more...IMHO
>
> Consumer society, environmental degradation, militarism and mental health are intricately interwoven issues that need to be collectively addressed as social/cultural issues.
>
Could not agree more!
Posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 23:34:37
In reply to Re: Seeing Forest and Trees: An example., posted by dj on July 2, 2000, at 11:37:20
DJ:
I disagree with you that Albright needed educating/castigating in that venue. It may be my age, but I do believe in respectful behavior. I have a hunch Albright already knows much about what is going on in Iraq, from other impassioned people like the young woman who spoke.
I LOVE the quote from Marianne Williamson! Wow! I wish I hadn't crashed my printer so I could print out a copy. I'll get it one way or the other, though.
Peace, man
Shar (a child of the 60's)
Posted by dj on July 3, 2000, at 1:21:59
In reply to Re: Seeing Forest and Trees: An example. » dj, posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 23:34:37
Shar,
I believe in respect as well, and I also believe in karma and that the cause of the public dissing that Albright received was the effect of what goes on in Iraq. Sometimes I think we are too polite to those who could make a real difference if they are speaking up honeslty in their venues of influence...and perhaps today's generation is more willing to take the risk because they see the danger of not doing so...
From a karmic, cause and effect, point of view the young medal winner was speaking from a historic and systemic point of view and was condemning the systemic actions of the U.S. and allies in Iraq and the role Albright played in it... Frankly I would have loved to be in the audience...!!
The speaker, from what I recall, also emphasized that she didn't have a personal beef with Albright because she is but part of a larger system, though she does not respect her for reasons which were skillfully higlighted...
Now, Marianne Williamson or the Dalai Lama might choose a different path or approach. M. W., whose quote (more at http://www.marianne.com and in her books and tapes - some digital samples on-line)I'm glad you enjoyed, is Jewish but bases many of her insights on something called A Course in Miracles - ACIM, which is a modern interpretation of Christian principles from a more compassionate persepctive than some. On her tapes and in her books she empathizes that even Hitler is innocent, at some divine level and until we all get that we are still groping in the dark.
And she's a 60's child as well who focuses on the role of forgiving those we perceive to be our enemies, including Republicans (if you come from the Democratic side of the fence), those whom we've felt slighted by, etc... And she also focuses on being very honest, even when grappling with emotions which are distasteful and challenging to oneself. She's very good at citing personal examples such as when she's been p.o.ed at her Mom or an ex., until she's grappled with what underlies that emotion.
So as far as Ms. Albright being dissed in public, I guess we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree on that one. As M.W. points out in "Healing the Soul of America", well directed anger and acts of rebellion are not necessarily a bad thing in and of themselves. That's how your country started overall, as she addresses in the book. And that's also why people loved R.F.K. so, because his genuine anger, despair and passions were focused on making a difference, even if he had to reluctantly, it seems, take on his own party and history. And he was a deeply honest and compassionate man, who touched many with both qualities and still does.
Sante!
dj
Posted by Cass on July 3, 2000, at 1:43:14
In reply to Saving?? the Forest and the Trees » bbob, posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 23:18:15
The message I got was that he chose to kill/maime innocent people in order to make a point. Whether or not one agrees with the point, it seems rare to me that a mere mortal would have an idea or set of ideas worth the surreptitious killing of innocent people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Innocence is sometimes a relative term that depends on your perspective. To a man like Kosinski who is intent on saving Nature and therefore the world, a leader of industry is not considered innocent. To mainstream society which is eager for more of the comforts and conveniences created by technology, Ted Kosinski is not considered innocent. Although I do not condone his methods, I think he is looking at a larger picture than most people.
Posted by dj on July 3, 2000, at 14:30:30
In reply to Saving?? the Forest and the Trees » bbob, posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 23:18:15
> > Bbob wrote:
> > According to the articles, and studies cited there-in, the psychological damage of war often lasts for generations.
>
> Yes, too true. You yourself may have experienced life with a Vietnam vet. Certainly, the vets from that war, who have high rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, are passing that right along to the next generation.
>
> > Consumer society, environmental degradation, militarism and mental health are intricately interwoven issues that need to be collectively addressed as social/cultural issues.
> >
> Could not agree more!
Following is a prime example from today's CBC-Radio Broadcast and web-site link (http://www.radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/dall_ltr.htm) of the truth of all the fore-going discussion here and elsewhere and how the BIG lies continue to contribute to internatinoal and individual tragedies, on a global basis:
"General Romeo Dallaire: Romeo Dallaire served for nearly 36 years in the Canadian Forces, rising to the rank of General. In conversation with Michael Enright, General Dallaire shares his incredible story that nearly destroyed him. Read the letter from Romero Dallaire to This Morning July 1, Canada Day.General Romeo Dallaire was, unfortunately, back in the news in the last week of June. He was hospitalized after being found drunk on a park bench in Hull, Quebec. After that story was published, we wrote to General Dallaire to send him our best wishes and to tell him we were planning to replay our interviews. We asked him if he had any message he would like to send to our listeners. Here is his reply ...
Canada DayJuly 3, 2000
Thank you for the very kind thoughts and wishes.
There are times when the best medication and therapist simply can't help a soldier suffering from this new generation of Peacekeeping injury. The anger, the rage, the hurt and the cold loneliness that seperates you from your family, friends and society's normal daily routine are so powerful that the option of destroying yourself is both real and attractive. That is what happneed last Monday night. It appears, it grows,it invades and it overpowers you.
In my currrent state of therapy, which continues to show very positive results, control mechanisms have not yet matured to always be on top of this battle. My doctors and I are still building my prosthesis that will establish the level of serenity and productivity that I yearn so much for . The therapists agree that the battle I waged that night was a solid example of the human trying to come out from behind the military leader's ethos of "My Mission first, My personnel, then Myself". Obviously the venue I used last Monday night leave a lot to be desired and will be the subject of a lot of work over the next while. I must say that the incident in question toke place, for the first time, outside of my dwellings.
I do not wish to be seen as pretentious enough to speak to your listeners on the day of our national holiday. However, everyone of those in military uniform who have served outside our magnificent country, come home with a stronger desire to defend it, to love it, to protect it and to live within it with dignity and respect. Many are casualties of this last decade of world disorder. There will be new casualties amongst our ranks during the next decade and beyond. I believe that the cause for enforcing respect for individual human rights and the campaign for the establishment of human security for all are worthy missions for this country on the world stage.
This nation, without any hesitation nor doubt, is capable and even expected by the less fortunate of this globe to lead the developed countries beyond self-interest, strategic advantages and isolationism, and raise their sights to the realm of the pre-eminence of humanism and freedom. The youth of our nation, "volunteering" to serve as soldiers, sailors and airpersons today and into the future are capable of facing up to, with their families in support, the sacrifices, the injuries and the complex moral and ethical dilemmas of Peacekeeping or Conflict Resolution around the world. They must however believe that their families and themselves are being treated fairly and with dignity by a nation well aware of what is at stake for them.
I believe that we are on the verge of a new "Social Contract" between the members of the Canadian Armed forces and our citizenry. A new contract for a whole new generation of dangerous and at times devastating operational missions where Canada is not at risk, but where humanitarism is being destroyed and the innocent are being literally trampled into the ground. The soldiers, sailors and airpersons, committing themselves and ""their families"" to carry our values, our respect for the dignity of men and women independent of any differences, supported by fellow countrymen who recognize the cost in human sacrifice and in resources, will forge in concert with our politicians, our diplomats, our resource managers and our fast growing humanitarian agencies, a most unique and exemplary place for Canada in the league of nations, united under the United Nations Charter.
I hope this is OK. Thanks for the opportunity.
Warmest regards
Dallaire"
Posted by bbob on July 3, 2000, at 17:12:15
In reply to Saving?? the Forest and the Trees » bbob, posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 23:18:15
(this is way long, but on-topic for some of us)
As long as we are all getting along, yet disagreeing about some things, I will venture to hang in a bit longer with this thread, which I almost avoided, for perhaps obvious reasons.
I am replying to shar but don't mean to imply I wholesale agree or disagree with anyone else here. CIM and Krishnamurti don't really bake my cookies, and I could say why, but I try not to bash spiritual paths unless they become authoritarian and hurtful.
and I really don't mean to dishoner anything you wrote, shar... we might have marched somewhere together if your are the marching kind.
So, that said, in response exchange to below, I want to say the psychological damages of war (you might agree, shar) are hardly limited to Vietnam. As dj posted from the CBC comments of a Canadian general veteran of recent "peacekeeping" operations, even the most recent wars are having their impact. US forces learned, from the vietnam experience, how to mask some of the impacts, by bringing units home together as a unit and allowing them time to recover before reintegrating into community situations. But masked symptoms might be more insidious in the long run than overt symptoms such as were recognized after vietnam. McViegh is the best case I know of post-Iraq symptomology. I know some others, though.On the other hand, to be fair to those who serve, among the ranks veterans of most wars, perhaps even the majority of their ranks, are some of the most disciplined, duty minded, civic minded people in our communities. World War II veterans, especially combat veterans of some of the most gruesome battles, consistently involved themselves in charitable activities for the rest of their lives. The same is true for Vietnam veterans. Even in the peace movement, it was veterans who returned from battle to oppose the war that gave the movement some of its direction and most effective edge. At pow-wows, one of the first songs sung at every event is a veterans song. We do well to honor those who are willing to suffer and die for a cause.
Realizing that perspective, perhaps one can understand how I would afford some consideration to the message of Kazinski, of McViegh, of the Crips or the Black Guerilla Family or of the New Black Panthers, the PLO and other unmentionable bad guys.
______________ __ _______________
> > Bbob wrote:
> > According to the articles, and studies cited there-in, the psychological damage of war often lasts for generations.
>
shar: > Yes, too true. You yourself may have experienced life with a Vietnam vet. Certainly, the vets from that war, who have high rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, are passing that right along to the next generation.
>
> The Vet to whom I was married came back from Nam after being a Medic. He had lost most of his ability to control his rage, and was very violent, engaged in significant risk-taking behavior, had physical symptomology from what the VA denies could hurt anyone, and generally was on alert at all times. Multiple perimeter checks through the night. He also used about any drug he could find.
>
> We (society) have at least one and maybe two generations who will probably grow up under the direct influence of the men and women who survived Vietnam. Most of the vets I know struggle with demons that are so beyond the understanding of the 30 year old therapist, it's hard to take therapy seriously. I've seen more catharsis during a vet's group barbecue, where they can (and do) laugh and cry and wonder what will become of them. It is a serious business.
___________________ ____ ____________________Re: in the below, it was actually another writer (at the Edge site) to whom shar is responding, but in reply to that, my stance is that marketing is a compliance activity. To an activist, resigning ourselves to a take-it-or-leave-it position regarding marketing is not sufficient. Many of us feel that, if people are persuaded by external influences such as marketing, we need to engage in counter-persuasive activities - anti-marketing - such as that taught at adbusters.
People ARE persuaded by marketing, and many people DONT think past the repeated promises made by marketers. If advertising was not effective, merchants would not spend millions of dollars on it. My position is that marketing is an extension of the military/industrial complex, it is a insidious act of psychological warfare and part of the spectrum of psychological injury that results from a war-based economy. We are facing a time when world leaders are discussing demilitarization (go to the congress Web site and read the language of recent military spending bills...) We will do well to discuss how to carry demilitarization deeper into our culture, and to facilitate the standing-down of some of the more destructive competitive behaviours we have developed during these centuries of continued warfare.
________________________ ____ __________________
bbob: > ...those of us who are environmentally oriented is the part that says:
(from EDGE.ORG:)> >"Popular culture is dominated by advertisements that offer the following promise:
> buy ... and your subjective well-being will increase. The happiness research demonstrates that
> most such promises are empty.
>
> I believe this is just known as marketing. I think we have the capacity to learn over time that, by and large, the things we buy don't make us happy (but some do). Whether everyone has the interest or capacity to take that further as introspection or worthy of analysis, is the individual's responsibility. Some people will just keep buying, and feeling empty. Others won't.
________________ ____ ___________________And then, in reference to:
_______________ ___ _________________
bbob: > Regarding McVeigh, Kazinski and the insanity of all that...
> >
> > Kazinski's trial when he was wrestling...with a court ordered mental examination, he **not wanting to make a insanity defense that would weaken the message of his acts.**
>
shar: > Emphasis mine (asterisks mine). I find that a breathtaking remark. It assumes there was a strong message to be weakened, and the acts (murders) sent this strong message (from my reading).
____________ ----- ___________________Kazinski's message was coherent enough to be published in two national publications. Though we might not agree with the message, or the means of delivery, it is difficult to rationally argue that his written language did not convey a message. As for the ice storm, either it was a coincidence, as DSM-IV requires us to beleive, or the maker of weather (whoever or whatever that might be) had something to say that day. The U.S. Constitution protects my right to believe the maker of weather might become involved in our trivial human affairs.
The use of violence to emphasise a message is obviously not limited to Kazinski. In Vietnam, Pres. Johnson's Rolling Thunder bombing strategy was publiclly represented as intending to send a message, rather than to destroy an enemies military capacity. The difference is a fine distinction to those not versed in military strategy. The practice of terror bombing exploded in the late 20th century after an errant Nazi pilot accidentally dropped a load of bombs on London. He was reportedly disciplined and never flew again, but Britian retaliated by begining the bombing of civilian areas in Berlin, night after night. Before that, both sides had used a doctrine of military targeting only. Well, Germany then responded by bombing London at will and when the U.S. entered the war, we practiced terror bombing of civilian areas at will, up through Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most recently, targeting in Yugoslovia included destruction of civilian facilities, and the same practice was used in Iraq. Bush talked about the "exploitation phase" when he ordered the bloodbath on the highway to Bahrain that seems to have so badly impressed McViegh.
I don't mean to single out U.S. forces for their use of terror bombing, but those are the ones we U.S. psychobabblers are closest too.
_______________________ --- _________________
shar: > Suffice it to say that there must be many interpretations of "the message of his acts." The message I got was that he chose to kill/maime innocent people in order to make a point. Whether or not one agrees with the point, it seems rare to me that a mere mortal would have an idea or set of ideas worth the surreptitious killing of innocent people.
_______________ ---- _________________I can't say I don't sympathize with you, but, as the civil-rights, social-justice-oriented folk group Sweet Honey in the Rock asks, are our hands clean?
50,000 people die in cars and countless more are injured and maimed each year, most of which are totally preventable deaths or injuries. (as the Green Party presidential candidate so well articulates)
The Department of Justice has rarely prosecuted employers for deaths of workers on the job, and acts of environmental crime that result in death by cancer, emphesema, etc. are seldom if ever prosecuted as crimes, though they are recognized as such by law. Only one or two individuals have been jailed in the federal system for environmental crimes or workplace crimes agains employees in the past three decades, though the death toll is in the tens of thousands, if not higher. The same can be said, perhaps to a lesser degree, about the medical community.
Compared to the scope of harm caused by industrial and military aggression, Kazinski's occassional low-grade letter bombings were so inconsequential as to be irrelevant, except they were exagerated in the media, and were clearly violations of law and of our sacrosanct idea of the promised land in America. Millions of poor folks live in urban situations and face greater risks every day, but Kazinski threatened classes who felt they had bought there way out of the fray. I will say, among the literature (yes there is some) on methods of terrorism, letter bombs are considered on the low end of the ethical scale, along with poisoning food supplies.
I am not taking a position regarding Kazinski's acts - I would prefer the use of force to be regulated by a representative democracy, if I had a choice, but I am trying to share how in my mind Kazinski and others appear to act in a context of that tolerates greater acts and other, very similar acts of violence.
____________________ -__- _____________________bbob: > > Regarding McVeigh, he was trained to kill>
> > we end up with a confused, war-scarred, well-trained killer .... his participation in a conspiracy to bomb.
>
> > I just want to suggest...the evident erosion of boundaries that was not entirely self-inflicted and that seems to have arose from his desire to serve his country.
>
shar: > No doubt his war experience eroded his boundaries, exposed him to horror, shocked his sensibilities, and left him with unearthly memories and ideas. And, he may have held strong beliefs, going in, that he wanted to serve his country. He is not alone, I am sure there are thousands and thousands like him in the U.S. I'm glad they aren't blowing up buildings, killing children, men and women, who were also serving their country (government work, you know). Certainly the survivors of his acts have a life that will never be the same, and probably share some of the same shell-shocked reaction that Tim had.
_______________- ---- ----- - _____________Yep. most disturbing is that many of us are pretty well aware there were others involved, and have a fair idea who they are. We live with it. This is all kind-of close to home for me.
_________________- _ - ____________
bbob:> My thinking, from a social psychology perspective, is that *people like this* tend to express what we as a society repress.
>
shar:> (Asterisks mine) People like this meaning those who choose to "send a message" by harming innocent people? I am thinking those people are terrorists. If terrorists express what we as a society repress, I don't recall a concomitant "feel-good" cathartic response from society in general after Ted and Tim did their business. That is what one would expect if societal repression had been expressed (set free, if you will) and thus society is relieved (at the moment).
>
___________________--__--_________________I was not talking about a feel-good catharis. I was talking about a change - more like the way different trees grow after a forest fire.
____________________-_-___________________
bbob> >We understand the severity of some contradictions in our collective unconcious, but are unable to articulate the entrenched contradiction sufficiently to act decisively. Individual, small groups, or secretly instigated acts such as these named acts of terror might let us, as a society, vent the conflict and form new positions before the repressed conflict erupts into an even greater conflagration.
>
shar: > I don't really understand the point here. There seem to be some oxymorons (understanding the severity of contradictions in our collective unconscious). I think the Jungians believe that it is unconscious, not in our heads to be understood, but I may be wrong.
____________--__--____________________I was not really addressing Jungian notions of collective unconsciousness. We, as a population and as individuals, tend to hold mutually contradictory beliefs. War is Peace, Love is Hate. I am suggesting these acts of violence arise from our writhing with the cognitive dissonace that results from building our society on these deeply contradictory notions. In this context, I am not really recognizing any clear boundary between unconscious and conscious, or between individual and society.
__________________-_-_-_____________________
bbob: > However the thinking that violence observed vents the conflict and brings some form of relief or regrouping goes against the social psychological work that has for years studied violence on TV and the resultant behavior of children. They don't get calmer, or more centered, they become more violent.
>
> I do believe riots (also violent acts) are that way too. After the Rodney King verdict, you could watch people being drawn into the ever-growing crowd; some people were interviewed and said they had never intended to participate--they went to see what was going on, and got caught up in it.
_____________ ____ __________________I probably erred in representing this as a social psychology principle. Violence does seem, in the social millieu, to feed further violence. I tend to agree with your idea that TV violence promotes acts of violence, but that is not the doctrine of the industry. The industry believes as I represented, that observed violence preempts the need to act out violence.
I was really coming from a spiritist perspective, and one that probably can't be debated in terms of language and words. I, and others, see one spectra of an infinate spectrum, and trying to explain this point of view is like trying to explain a color to a color-blind person. I was looking for words to explain a spiritual economy I can't really explain. The idea I was trying to get out is that we as a society act out to bring conflicts from our collective unconsciounsess into a more public understanding.
In political science, we can recognize the effect of provocatuers. Some say the OKC bomb was an orchestrated act of provocation intended to dampen the rise of anti-federal organizations. In that regard it seems to have worked. What the anti-federal organizations who advance that idea fail to understand is that their very existance seems to be a product of nationalist, pro-military provocation. Sorry I don't lay out evidence here, but it is something I have studied quite a lot.
Also from a poli-sci perspective, in The Report From Iron Mountian, an alleged product of a late '60s industrial/military summit, the theory was spelled out that society needs violence. The Wall Street Journal has at times treated the Report as a legitimate document.
This is not to say things need to be or should be this way. This is to say that some leaders plafor it to be this way. Sec. of State James Baker talked about the increasing need to represent power in raw terms, not for any particular effect, but simply to impress the people and the world that our flag and our system reigns supreme.
Noam Chomski and a few other's talk of a social contract, but my understanding is that most other academic social theorists recognize the foundation of our society as being the use of force.
I don't really know who beleives that and who doesn't but I know from casual interviews a lot, if not most, of people do. I consider it important to recognize this as a prevailing philosphy because effecte presuasion involves speaking in terms the target audience undertands, and then moving them toward a new way of understanding.
______________________ ___ __________________
bbob: > > My point is that war is a mental health issue. We are injured when we perpetrate war and we are injured if wars are fought around us. Improving mental health conditions...will involve finding ways to resolve conflict without creating a spiral of mental injury.
>
shar: > I agree totally. One aspect of war is how it damages people. There are other aspects as well. I agree that finding ways to resolve conflict without mental injury is a worthy goal. If we take personal responsibility for our own ways of resolving conflict in the here and now, that is a start.
>
> And, if we teach our children to do that, we've influenced another generation. Mental health is present in every possible configuration of our lives. Going to war, going to work, killing the guy in the car who is going too slow, insulting the waitress who may not speak English very well (in front of the children)--all of these will shape our mental health.
>
> I can't change "war" but I can do something about my own comportment, and actions I take to let others know what is important to me (ie, the ones in power), and become active in groups who want to create change and where I won't have to kill anyone. Especially a child.
>
> It starts with me, one person. And then you, one more. And then one more...IMHO
> >
bbob: > > Consumer society, environmental degradation, militarism and mental health are intricately interwoven issues that need to be collectively addressed as social/cultural issues.
> >
shar: > Could not agree more!
____________ -_-____________So there, we are pretty much on the same page...
I might be able to stand closer than you to some really mean people and still understand what they are trying to say, but we all have our role in life. Maybe you are better able to look them in the eye and tell them their meanness is really out of place in our community.
Thanks, shar for thinking about this with us.
yours truly,
the creator of bbob, who DOES NOT post as Cass, dj, claire7, oddzilla and who is definately not Theodore Rozack
Posted by dj on July 3, 2000, at 19:56:05
In reply to Re: Forests and Trees » shar, posted by bbob on July 3, 2000, at 17:12:15
bobb,
I can attest you are not me, as claire7 and oddzilla have attested to their authenticity. But as the classic NYer cartoon went, showing too canines in front of a computer one commenting to the other: "In cyberspace no-one knows you are a dog", or anything other than what and who we indicate we are...
All comes down to trust...
Regardless, of all that and not being familiar with more than your recent posts I must say that I find them very thoughtful, informed and well written. One of my degrees is in poli.-sci. or poli. studies as it is called at Queen's U. in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, so I appreciate that influence in your postings as well as your overall erudite analysis, which concurs with much of my own, based on extensive readings, viewings and listenings.
R U a prof. perchance?
Sante!
dj
> (this is way long, but on-topic for some of us)
>
> As long as we are all getting along, yet disagreeing about some things, I will venture to hang in a bit longer with this thread, which I almost avoided, for perhaps obvious reasons.
>
> yours truly,
> the creator of bbob, who DOES NOT post as Cass, dj, claire7, oddzilla and who is definately not Theodore Rozack
Posted by dj on July 3, 2000, at 20:01:44
In reply to Re: Forests and Trees - bbob, posted by dj on July 3, 2000, at 19:56:05
For the adventures of Obviousman check out:
http://www.non-sequitur.net/archive/2000/06/np000618.html, addresses some of the above issues with humour... ; )
Posted by bbob on July 3, 2000, at 21:24:43
In reply to Re: Forests and Trees - bbob, posted by dj on July 3, 2000, at 19:56:05
> bobb,
>
> I can attest you are not me, as claire7 and oddzilla have attested to their authenticity. But as the classic NYer cartoon went, showing too canines in front of a computer one commenting to the other: "In cyberspace no-one knows you are a dog", or anything other than what and who we indicate we are...dj - When you mentioned Power to Harm, I thought maybe you were me, because I have mentioned it in other posts. Your perspective is often very close to mine. I can't promise I am not a dog. Occasionally some people call me that, but it is a ebonic term of respect.
> Regardless, of all that and not being familiar with more than your recent posts I must say that I find them very thoughtful, informed and well written. One of my degrees is in poli.-sci. or poli. studies as it is called at Queen's U. in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, so I appreciate that influence in your postings as well as your overall erudite analysis, which concurs with much of my own, based on extensive readings, viewings and listenings.
>
> R U a prof. perchance?
Not a chance. The rub is, I am a high school dropout. Quite autidatic, though, and employed as a really low-paid writer. Some would likely disagree about my posts being well-written - I tend to not spell check these posts, and they are usually not very well edited. (for example I tagged one of shars paragraphs as mine) Maybe someday i will be able to write along these lines for publication, but this guerilla work suits me fine!I have been told more than once that many people do not like me but are very fond of my media work. Go figure...
Posted by shar on July 3, 2000, at 21:25:40
In reply to Somewhat on the lighter side - ObviousMan..., posted by dj on July 3, 2000, at 20:01:44
Well, bless us all and our diverging views.
Some of the comments I've read have been thought-provoking, some have been scary, some confusing, and some clear and touching.
I want to close out my part in this discussion by reiterating what has probably been the point I would want others to be exposed to:
It is very similar to the quote "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." (or that may be a misquote.)
or "To thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day..." etc.
or "The better part of valor is honor"
I believe wholeheartedly that what will "save" us, and the earth, and future generations, is each one of us taking personal responsibility for how we live, who we are, what we want the world to be, how we use our energy, what we do about changing things we believe to be harmful to ourselves and others, how we use our resources.I believe we can't answer the questions "are our hands clean" (as in, are our hands--as a state, country, continent, world--clean?). The only question each one of us can answer is "Are my hands clean?"
My interpretation of "clean hands" doesn't mean one has to be perfect to say yes, or abandon feeling anger, rage, torment. It means, to me, am I doing everything I reasonably can to address the issues that concern me (could be environmental, political, feminist, civil rights, hunger, animal rights, homelessness, mental health) in a way that doesn't harm myself or others.
I doubt that I could say "Yes, MY hands are clean" every day or even every week; I have been known to shop when I'm depressed, and I have a typically misspent youth...But, overall, I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't do what I could when I could.
When JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" I think that is how things change on a national level and a world level. What the individual can do, what one will do. It's never my goal to force my beliefs on others (although I will certainly talk about them!) because people will believe what they want. That is why individual action becomes so important. And if there is a like-minded group with which I can pool resources, all the better. I will leave the killing to un-like-minded people (and, I CAN understand the idea of harming others in the name of a cause--talk about Karmic costs....!).
While I'm not familiar with social psych theory on cognitive dissonence at the level of the collective unconscious, I know on the individual level, research shows that it is usually solved by the person taking some fairly immediate action or alignment with others.
On a different note, I believe that people should be respectful of each other to the extent humanly possible. If one agrees with the Wiccan Law of Three, it only makes sense to do so. (And there is also "Harm none, and do as thou wilt")
BTW, on a personal note, I am an Air Force brat, raised in the military, and very familiar with the different types of people one typically finds there, and spent many nights listening to long discussions of wars that have been and those expected to come, and the men and women who served and died, some of whom were as family to me. So, I sort of grew up in the middle of war-thought.
Shar
Posted by dj on July 4, 2000, at 0:21:05
In reply to Re: Forests and Trees » dj, posted by bbob on July 3, 2000, at 21:24:43
> dj - When you mentioned Power to Harm, I thought maybe you were me, because I have mentioned it in other posts. Your perspective is >often very close to mine.It's been said that: "Great minds think alike" and "Fools seldom differ." Maybe we can come down the middle someplace... ; )
>Some would likely disagree about my posts being well-written - I tend to not spell check these posts, and they are usually not very well edited.
>It takes practice, patience and paying attention bbob. Though I have lots of training and experience in writing some of my posts are at times poorly thought out and written because I've lapsed on those fronts for whatever reason.
And when I do pay attention and practice those virutes and others the quality of my contribution is better for it, as am I and my relations with other on and off-line generally.
> I have been told more than once that many people do not like me but are very fond of my >media work. Go figure...
So it would seem that they respect you or at least your media work, even if they don't always like you. As Eleanor Roosvelt once wrote or said (I'm uncertain which): "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". And like most dictums (rules of thumb) the oppostite applies too...
Sante!
dj
Posted by dj on July 4, 2000, at 0:29:18
In reply to Well, alrighty, then....dj, Bbob, cass, et. al., posted by shar on July 3, 2000, at 21:25:40
> I want to close out my part in this discussion by reiterating what has probably been the point I would want others to be exposed to:
>
> It is very similar to the quote "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." (or that may be a misquote.)
>
> or "To thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day..." etc.
>
> or "The better part of valor is honor"Good quotes and context, all, Shar. I've seen and used the former but don't recognize the latter. Would you be kindly cite the source, before you wrap up on this thread, if you know it.
BTW, here's a good one for you from Gandhi: "Be the change you want to happen."
> On a different note, I believe that people should be respectful of each other to the extent humanly possible. If one agrees with the Wiccan Law of Three, it only makes sense to do so. (And there is also "Harm none, and do as thou wilt")
>I'm also curious about this Wicca Law of Three. Would you elaborate on this too, please? I know that in Druidic practices three is supposed to be a sacred number though I am not entirely certain why or why it would apply to this discussion.
Sante!
dj
Posted by CarolAnn on July 4, 2000, at 8:21:01
In reply to Re: Well, alrighty, then....Wicca and wind-up..., posted by dj on July 4, 2000, at 0:29:18
> BTW, here's a good one for you from Gandhi: "Be the change you want to happen."
>>>>
dj, I absolutely LOVE this quote!!! Thank you for posting it, as I'd never heard it before.
Also, (I think I've got this right) the Wiccan law of three is something like: whatever you do to others (whether good or bad) will come back on you three fold. So, if I curse someone, I will suffer three times that curse. Good motivation for the 'Golden Rule', huh?
Take Care, CarolAnn
Posted by dj on July 4, 2000, at 11:31:30
In reply to Re: Well, alrighty, then....Wicca and wind-up... » dj, posted by CarolAnn on July 4, 2000, at 8:21:01
> > BTW, here's a good one for you from Gandhi: "Be the change you want to happen."
> >>>>
> dj, I absolutely LOVE this quote!!!
> Take Care, CarolAnnCA,
Glad you enjoyed that and thanks for the insight on the Wicca law of threes. It is a fine line we tread, by times...
Another quote which I think addresses some of the issues examined above is from Voltaire and goes:
"To the dead one owes only consideration, to the living the truth." Hard to discern what the truth is at times, unfortunately, partially due to all the hyperbole in which our society is awash.However as Antoine St.Exupery, author of "The Little Prince", a gem of a book, wrote there: "It is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others. If you succeed in judging yourself rightfully than you are indeed a man of true wisdosm...It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye."
The heart attuned is the path to cutting through both our own hyperbole and that of the society that surrounds us, it seems. Buddhism is one, but not the only, path to moving through all of this and the seeming negativism, which isn't always so, while the seeming upness of our society is the source of many of our mass delusions and dis-eases I believe.
Buddhism is often portrayed as a negative approach because it is focused on looking deeply at and through the veils of ignorance and sensory tittillation that surround and smother us. As Tim Ward wrote in: "The Great Dragon's Fleas": "...there is a way to escape the suffering, a way discovered by the Buddha. By cutting the cords of desire, hatred and ignorance we can be free. This is the Third Noble Truth. Simple to understand but difficult to practice. The way to cut the cords is by following the Buddha's Eightfold Path." Jack Kornfield's inspiring book: "A Path With Heart" is one well written example of how one devout Buddhist dealt with some of those challenges.
And that is but one way, there are many, much of which get perverted by our interpretations. If we all truly followed the ten commandments, doubtless our society would be better for it....
Sante!
dj
Posted by shar on July 4, 2000, at 14:37:33
In reply to Re: Well, alrighty, then....Wicca and wind-up..., posted by dj on July 4, 2000, at 0:29:18
"The better part of valor is honor"
>
Well, drat. The above quote has a wrong word in it! I guess I just wanted it to be "honor" when it is actually "discretion." Very similar, and I still like the quote because it connotes the idea of respect (to me)."The better part of valour is discretion." Shakespeare
>Wiccan Law of Three. Also known as the Threefold Law. Everything you do comes back to you threefold (some people say three times, but I think it can actually be more times than three to make up threefold; or I may just be nit-picking). This Law (one of the very few that exists within Wicca) really encourages one to think about what they are putting out there in the world. In fact, there is a safety valve: if I say "Her financial trouble is just killing her" I can follow that up with "I take that out of the law" because I don't want anyone to be killed, or to have financial trouble, and I don't want it coming back to me threefold.
The Law is really applied most stringently to spells or Words of Power, when one is actually Working. Not so strongly to an offhand comment. Work and the Law are bound together, and it's always a very good idea to do it for the good of all, according to the free will of all, and keep it positive (white magic only, please).
I came across a quote from the I Ching that seemed relevant to this thread, so I thought I'd go ahead and put it out there:
"Nor must our own passions and shortcomings be glossed over...the struggle must not be carried on directly by force. If evil is branded, it thinks of weapons, and if we do it the favor of fighting against it blow for blow, we lose in the end because thus we ourselves get entangled in hatred and passion. Therefore, it is important to begin at home, to be on guard in our own persons against the faults we have branded."
And, finally, I am willing to accept that I may be completely off-base in what I've said and how I think things work, because....
"What if the Hokey-Pokey really is what it's all about?"
Don't know who said that, except my friend Michelle. I like it, though.
Blessed Be,
Shar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.