Three Berlin Stories
Uncle Tantra
the truth, browsing a few of the messages that have been
posted here in my absence was such a bringdown that I
really don't feel like catching up or finishing any conversations
that were left hanging. So I'll let these first drafts of the some
of the things I found myself thinking about in Berlin say it all.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
Like many, I spent some time following the recent American elections feeling
depressed. It's understandable. For four years, again like many, I had been
trying to persuade myself that it wasn't America that was the problem, it was
the Bush administration. Doh.
The problem wasn't the Bush administration. It was the American people. The
election proved that. A little more than a third of them either voted for
George W. Bush and voiced their support for his policies, or passively sat back
and allowed their vote to be stolen, effectively silencing themselves. Another
40% voted by not voting, and thus voiced their silent support for the Neocon
American Dream. One way or another, the vast majority of Americans shouted,
"George is our guy! We are comfortable with what he's doing." The shout
proclaimed to the world that the problem really WAS America. It has become The
Stepford Country.
The shout was followed by dumb shock and pretended outrage, worldwide.
The shock was warranted. The outrage was not. It was, as I suggested above,
pretended. Because on a recent Road Trip to Berlin, the fog lifted for me and
I realized that America really isn't the problem. The world is the problem.
The American people may have expressed their support for the policies of George
W. Bush, but many of the people criticizing those policies are actually paying
for the implementation of them.
The United States of America is the largest debtor nation in human history. As
of this morning, the outstanding US national debt was $7,445,785,909,004.23.
The myth of America's prosperity and wealth is just that. The nation is in
hock up to its eyeballs. Its government, like many of its people, lives in a
fantasy world of too-easily-extended credit. Like a bored housewife on a
credit card binge, America has effectively charged its lifestyle, its image,
and even its wars. "I know I can't really afford to start another sucking
chest wound of a war like Vietnam, but darnit it's really got to be done. The
image of Iraq on its knees would be the perfect addition to my trophy wall.
Put it on the card."
The people who issue the credit cards are the people who are investing their
money in America.
They don't have to. They could put their money elsewhere. They could invest
in countries that share their world view, and in the companies and stock
markets and real estate markets of those countries. In plain language, they
could put their money where their mouth is.
Think of it. What if China and Saudi Arabia and the people of the other
countries who prop up the fragile façade that is America just stopped doing so?
What if they pulled all their money out and put it somewhere else? Would
America be able to continue its present course of Pax Americana? I don't think
so.
The paradigm is clear. America as a country is what George W. Bush is as a
man. George is a spoiled frat boy who has never had to take responsibility for
anything in his life. No matter what stupid thing he did, Daddy and his money
and Daddy's friends and their money were always there to bail him out. Get a
few drunk driving convictions? No problem. Go AWOL from the National Guard?
No problem. Buy a few companies and drive them into the dirt and leave their
shareholders holding the bag? No problem. We'll pay for it. And the frat boy
rages on, not only receiving no negative feedback on his behavior, but
encouraged by his investors to continue it. What, after all, does bad behavior
cost him?
The investors of the world -- countries and individuals -- are pragmatic
people. They're just trying to make a buck. America and its insecurities are
fertile ground right now for making a buck. So they invest in America. But
America just killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the name of democracy, and these
investors' money paid for it.
Me, I've spent the time since the presidential election doing some serious soul
searching and conducting an ethical inventory of my life. I have decided that
I cannot in all conscience invest another penny in America. To do so is to
become an anonymous donor to a fund drive for a supposedly-benevolent
institution that has lost its mind and is going around killing people. And is
paying for the rampage with my money.
The problem, in my opinion, is a lack of honesty with oneself. The pressures
of modern life are such that we become self-obsessed. We put on blinders and
ignore those nasty things that don't immediately affect our day-to-day lives.
We talk big about ethics and the things we believe in. But when it comes to
where we invest our money, do we walk the walk the same way that we talk the
talk? Do we put our money where our mouths are?
The grandfather of the out-of-control frat boy in the White House had his own
ethical issues. While living in the United States and paying lip service to
the things it stood for, he essentially bankrolled Hitler. That is where the
Bush millions came from. Prescott Bush probably never once entertained the
idea that what he was doing was ethically questionable. He was just trying to
make a buck. And in the process he paid for the slaughter of millions of his
fellow human beings.
If the words you want to appear on your headstone are HE WAS JUST TRYING TO
MAKE A BUCK, continue to invest in America. If you hoped for more in the
legacy you leave to your children and your planet, I would suggest conducting
your own ethical inventory and acting accordingly. I think it's the solution.
Uncle Tantra
A few weeks ago I had what was, for me, a pleasant exchange with a gentleman I
consider a friend although we've never met except here in cyberspace. It was
on the subject of progress.
As I remember the conversation, he was supporting the modern notion of progress
as an inherent tendency in nature, an inexorable force that is
always...uh...progressive, always moving in the direction of 'more.' That is,
he was espousing the proposition that change is a flow that is constantly
moving in the direction of greater benefit for humanity, with high tech
replacing low tech, with outdated moral and social values being superseded by
more evolved moral and social values, all of this leading to a generally easier
and more fulfilling way of life. I argued that the word progress is a
sanitized, hopeful, but often misleading euphemism for the real inexorable
force of nature, which is change itself. I tried to make the point that
although change is irresistible, the change is not always for the better, and
that the modern usage of the word progress represents an attempt to ignore or
conceal that fact and pretend otherwise.
We each made our respective points and we dropped the subject. I forgot about
it until last week, when I traveled with an artist friend of mine from our home
in Paris to Berlin, for her first vernissage there.
I had never been to Berlin before. I missed it completely during the days of
The Wall, and its years as the living symbol of the Cold War polarity between
East and West. We stayed in a clean new hotel in East Berlin, a few blocks
from the gallery where my friend was presenting her art. We hung the show and
then had several days free to wander the city -- on foot, on the U-bahn, and
via taxi -- before the actual night of the vernissage.
With every step, every subway ride, every glance out the windows of the taxi,
the subject of progress vs. change came rushing back to me, washing over me
with the force of revelation. So, for my cyberfriend Stu, and for any others
who might be interested, here are a few followup thoughts. Hopefully they will
be progressive. :-)
No two cities on earth could offer more of a stark contrast than Paris and
Berlin. Both are vibrant, modern European cities, the streets filled with
people who are, each in his or her own way, seeking the ideal of 'more' -- a
better life, one that is easier and more fulfilling. And to be honest, the
people of Berlin are probably more outgoing and friendly than the people of
Paris. But these random thoughts are not so much about the people of Paris and
Berlin as they are about the cities themselves -- the look and feel of the
place, and what that says about the issue of progress.
Paris is old. The streets are narrow; they twist and turn, following a logic
designed by nature, largely untouched by the grid-bound minds of modern city
planners. The buildings are old and uniformly Hausmannesque, the majority of
them built before the turn of the last century. Many are even older, standing
silent in the same space in which they were built centuries earlier. And most
are in remarkably good repair, due to somewhat draconian statutes that require
them to be kept in as pristine a condition as possible. The newer
Mitterand-era buildings are the rare exceptions to the rule, and often shock
with their out-of-placeness. Graffiti, except in the newer outskirts of the
city, is conspicuous by its absence. Paris is old, and obviously proud of that
fact.
Berlin is new. The streets are wide and laid out on a precise grid. The
buildings are uniformly modern in appearance. Even in the areas where older
buildings still exist, their exteriors have often been refaced and plastered
over to hide the Hausmann-era architecture and make them look more modern. A
few surviving older buildings have become museums, relics of a culture now
largely passed into the pages of history. Neon and garish advertising abounds.
And graffiti is everywhere. Everywhere. Berlin is new, and obviously more
than a little uneasy about that fact.
The difference, in my opinion, has to do with the nature of change, and the
factor that differentiates mere change from true progress.
In the original conversation between Stu and myself, he made the point that one
of the issues in the current East-West struggle -- the polarity between
primarily Islamic Eastern cultures and primarily Judeo-Christian Western ones
-- is the resistance of the Arab countries to progress, to moving into modern
times and leaving behind values better suited to the 12th century. I argued
that one of the things they were resisting was change for change's sake, change
masquerading as progress. Interestingly enough, this political discussion took
place on a forum that in less heated times discusses Indian philosophy, yoga,
and meditation. Because we both have a background in those subjects, Stu and I
share a common jargon that I should explain a bit before continuing.
The Indian system in which yoga arose sees life as the eternal interplay of
three primal forces -- creation, destruction, and maintenance. This
triumvirate is also reflected in the gods of the Hindu pantheon. Brahma
represents the creative aspect of the universe, that which builds and supports
growth. Shiva represents the destructive force, that which destroys the old
and removes those things that are no longer necessary. And Vishnu, the
sustainer, represents the force that maintains the universe and keeps it
progressing in time. Like a cop on the beat in gang turf, Vishnu keeps the
other two from confronting each other directly, from colliding like matter and
antimatter and destroying the universe in one big flash.
All three are considered equal, because all three are necessary to support life
and change. For a rose to grow, the bud that gave rise to it has to die. The
Shiva energy performs an act of destruction; it destroys the bud, eradicates
that which has outlived its usefulness. With the obstacle removed, the Brahma
energy performs an act of creation, and allows the rose itself to bloom. Both
of these opposing forces are maintained by the Vishnu energy, which allows them
to coexist by trapping them within a stream of time. Events are perceived as
sequential -- the destruction of the bud leading to the growth of the rose,
which in its turn eventually is destroyed by time and becomes nourishment for
the next cycle of growth.
These gods, representing principles of nature, may be equal in the Indian
system, but they are not always equally represented. There are periods of time
in which the creative force is predominant. There are periods in which the
maintaining or sustaining force is predominant. And there are periods when the
destructive force is predominant. We call these last periods wars.
Berlin looks the way it does because of what its own people, and others, did to
it during the last war fought there. Paris looks the way it does because of
what its own people, and others, did to it during the same war.
Perhaps no city on the planet has been as subjected to aerial bombardment as
Berlin. When you ask, "Why does the city look so new?" the obvious answer is,
"Because most of the old city was gone, dummy." Allied bombers rained death
and destruction on Berlin for years and methodically reduced the city to
rubble.
That didn't happen in Paris, largely due to two very human decisions. In the
early months of the war, France found itself outmatched numerically and
technologically in its struggle with Germany. In those first few months of the
war, France lost almost as many soldiers as America lost during the entire
European theatre. To save their culture from destruction, they made a decision
to capitulate, to surrender to the inevitable. Paris was occupied, and thus
spared the saturation bombing that destroyed Berlin. But that's not the only
reason Paris retains its historical look and feel. Towards the end of the war
another decision was made, this time ironically by the German general who had
been ordered by Hitler to burn Paris to the ground before withdrawing his
troops from the city. He disobeyed the order. This one man's ethical
decision, made at great peril to himself and his family, is the primary reason
Paris looks the way it does today.
Berlin did not submit to the inevitable. In his madness, Hitler fed the bodies
of his people and the buildings of his capital city to the beast of war up
until the last possible moment. Because of Adolf Hitler's arrogance, and the
karma of the people who allowed a passing pandemic of insanity to express
itself through him, a once-proud European capital was reduced to piles of
smoking brick and ash, and a once-proud people were stripped of not only their
pride but their heritage as well. Shiva did his dance on Berlin, and crushed
it underfoot.
When the city was rebuilt, it was rebuilt in the image of the modern cities of
its conquerors. Steel and glass replaced the stone and brick. Rectangular
replaced graceful curves. Progress in the American sense -- the worship of the
new replacing the false religion of the old -- arrived unsought and
unquestioned in Berlin. It dwells there still.
In contrast, life in Paris went pretty much back to normal. After cleaning up
the rubble, the French went back to doing what the French do best -- treasuring
and preserving their heritage. Instead of aligning themselves with the Shiva
energy, they had thrown themselves on the mercy of Vishnu, the preserver and
maintainer, and he had come through for them. Their pride may have been
damaged, but their heritage was intact. Parisians could build upon that
heritage when moving into the future, and do their best to move into it
gracefully.
In my opinion, the French still practice that same grace today, and it
epitomizes the difference between mere submission to change and true progress.
The French are big on patrimonie -- that which has been passed down to them by
their forefathers. They have almost an obsession with their own heritage, and
its relative importance. It's an easy obsession to make fun of; I have done so
many times myself. But it's also the very thing that defines true progress for
me.
The French do not embrace something merely because it's new. 'New' and
'improved' are not synonyms to the French. Be it fashion, technology, or
scientific 'advances' like genetically-engineered food and nonbiodegradable
packaging, the French tend to adopt something into their culture only after it
has proved its value. They don't rush to embrace something before it has
proved its value, just because someone says it is 'new and improved.'
A classic example is the Internet. When I used to come to France five years
ago very few people had personal computers. Fast connections to the Internet
were nearly impossible to find. Unlike those in the U.S. who rushed like
lemmings towards the precipice of the dot-com revolution, with its promise of
instant wealth and the good life, the French took their own sweet time and
waited to see whether it really was progress or just a passing fad. They have
made their decision -- today well over a third of the French population is
connected to the Internet, via low-cost, high-speed digital connections. By
waiting, they actually got to skip the bad old days of modems and waiting five
minutes for a simple photograph to download.
There has been an equal resistance to change that is sold as progress in other
areas as well. One of those areas would probably shock most Americans. It
involves an idea that few of them have ever challenged because the phenomenon
is so omnipresent and unquestioned in their culture. They would not be able to
even conceive of the idea being something that another culture could have a
problem with.
The phenomenon is one-stop shopping.
Nothing could be more foreign to the French culture. This is a society where
for centuries one's relationship with life was to some extent defined by one's
relationship with the many shopkeepers with whom one did business. You went to
the patisserie for your bread, to the boucherie for your meat, to the
fromagerie for your cheese, to the marché for your vegetables, to the librairie
for your books, and to the presse for your newspapers and magazines. It would
never occur to you that you could do all of these things in one store, because
you had relationships with all of these shopkeepers. They greeted you by name
and asked how your kids were and how crazy old Aunt Virginie was doing. They
were part of your extended family. In a very real sense, they were family.
Enter the supermarché. It changes everything about how one lives one's life as
a French person. So there was considerable resistance to this particular
new-and-improved way of living in France. How has it been resolved? Well, in
classic French fashion. The supermarchés have flourished, but so have the
individually-owned specialty shops, because the French government has protected
them and tried to make sure that they were not driven out of business by the
invading chain stores. It works, and it offers something really important to
the French consumer -- a choice.
What some see as a resistance to change in the French, and a negative thing, I
really see as a very sensible resistance to change for change's sake. They
don't rush into things and embrace the new simply because it's new. They wait
to see if the new technology or way of life proves itself better before
adopting it. This, to me, is progress.
What America practices is not. What Berlin practices is not. There seems to
be very little discrimination involved in their approach to change. New
technologies and products and ways of life are valued simply because they're
new, and adopted simply because they are new. History teaches us the dangers
of this. Thalidomide was new, a supposed wonder drug, and it bred horrors.
The internal combustion engine was new, and it has made the air in our cities
unbreathable and whole cultures as dependent as drug addicts on the fossil fuel
that feeds the engines and pollutes the air and is, as a result of global
warming, endangering the very future of life on the planet.
Genetically-modified foods are being touted as the Next Big Thing, and we have
no earthly idea what they will do to our bodies over time.
So Stu, does this explain a little bit more what I was talking about with
regard to change vs. progress? I don't believe that everything new really is
improved. And I'm not convinced that the world should believe that, either.
History has certainly proved otherwise.
My little trip to Berlin has taught me something important about myself.
Unlike JFK and his famous one-liner, I am not a Berliner. Je suis Parisien. I
do not embrace the new simply because it is new. I do not assume it is
improved because someone claims it's an improvement. I wait for the new thing
to prove itself. And I honestly believe that this is a more sensible approach
to change than blindly accepting progress for its own sake.
With regard to the real subject of our original discussion, the clash between
Arab and Western cultures, it's the same thing. The United States of America,
a country barely two centuries old and with no significant heritage of its own,
is trying to dictate a style of life to countries that have hundreds, even
thousands of years of patrimonie going for them. People in America call the
people of some of these other countries barbarians because their women don't
have the right to vote, or hold public office. These same people conveniently
forget that their own women didn't have these rights until a little over eighty
years ago, a mere blink of the eye in the centuries-old traditions they are
trying to change.
The Arab cultures ARE resisting change. No question about it. And in some
ways the resistance may be unjustified, a mere clinging to old ways out of fear
of change itself. But in other ways I believe their reluctance is more than
justified.
America is trying to push the benefits of democracy and free elections while
demonstrating to the world that it cannot even hold a free election. America
is touting the superiority of its every-man-for-himself, me-first economy while
leaving millions of its own people homeless, without jobs, and without health
care. America tries to sell the image of the successful, prosperous American
lifestyle as a world standard, while the world looks at the country doing the
selling and sees the greatest debtor nation in the history of the planet. As
of 14 Nov 2004 at 09:54:42 AM GMT, the outstanding US national debt was
$7,445,785,909,004.23. Each American's share of that debt was $25,257.58.
This is success? This is prosperity? This is living beyond one's means.
These Arab countries with thousands of years of heritage of their own to draw
upon look at America, with its puny couple of hundred years of history and say,
"Now wait a minute here! You're trying to tell us that we should live the way
you live and act the way you act and believe in the things you believe in?
Just LOOK at yourselves! You've got the highest crime and murder rates on the
planet. You've got more of your people in prison than the entire rest of the
world combined. One third of your adult population can't get through the day
without resorting to tranquilizers and antidepressants. And you insinuate that
WE are barbarians because we resist adopting your lifestyle simply because you
want us to? Get real."
The thing is, Stu, these people have the right to say this. They have the
right to take the French approach to change and wait for things to prove
themselves valuable before adopting them. They have the right to change at
their own pace. America may not like it, but America simply does not have a
believable platform from which to preach the benefits of change for change's
sake. Look at what this belief system has done for them. The preacher selling
progress from the pulpit of success and prosperity is selling a lie.
I, too, would love to see some of these countries adopt a few of the good
things of the modern world, the things that have proved their value over time.
But I not only grant them the right to do so at their own pace, I respect them
for doing so. Those who call them barbarians for not blindly following the
blind are in my opinion revealing their own barbarity.
Just my opinion,
Unc
Uncle Tantra
This past week I took a Road Trip to Berlin, to help an artist friend of mine
with her first show there. I've known this lady for quite a while. We've
talked for hours about the world and our respective views of it, and I really
respect her vision. I also respect the way she expresses that vision in her
art. So I support her in her endeavors by acting as sort of a patron of the
arts, a mécène.
I'm not a real mécène. I don't have the money to do it right. Merde, I barely
have the money to do it at all. But I do what I can. It makes me happy. It's
one of the true joys in my life.
In Berlin we met a guy who knows that joy. Pablo, the expatriate American who
runs the gallery where my friend was having her vernissage, is a real find. A
talented assemblage artist himself, he took his heartrending experience trying
to break into the gallery scene and, rather than let it discourage him, turned
it on its ear and opened Gallery 24. It's an art space in East Berlin
dedicated to undiscovered and self-taught artists.
The deal is simple. For a very affordable charge, Pablo provides the space --
and it's a lovely space -- to artists who either have been unable to find an
audience for their art or who have chosen to represent themselves. He handles
the publicity and does his best to provide the artists with an appreciate
audience. It seems to be working; a recent assemblage show drew 800 people.
And he smiles a lot. As I helped my friend hang her show, that's one of the
things that struck me about Pablo, and about the simple secret he's stumbled
onto of practicing the art of giving.
It's actually not that big of a secret. Jesus talked about it, as did Mohammed
and Buddha and all those other dudes who seemed to have found a clue. I myself
studied for fourteen years with a spiritual teacher who spelled it all out in
excruciating detail. In this fellow's view, modern society has gotten the
paradigm of happiness backasswards. They've bought into the hype in the movies
and the ads and the financial pages that tells us that the way to happiness is
found in doing as much as possible for ourselves. In his view, this is exactly
the opposite of the truth -- the people who are happiest in life are the ones
who spend more of their time doing nice things for others than they spend doing
nice things for themselves.
Yeah, I know. It sounds naïve. It sounds like hippie bullshit from the
Sixties.
But y'know, it's true.
That which makes you happiest in life is doing something nice for someone else,
with little or no thought of any payoff for yourself. It's a rush, a veritable
rocket ride to ecstasy. That's why some of us spend a little of our time and
our money being patrons of the arts. It's not because we're saints or
anything. We do it because we get off on it.
And we do it because we realize that's what art itself is all about. It's a
very personal and very risky attempt by an artist to capture a vision of What
Life Is or What Life Could Be and share it with those who really need such a
vision. In its purest form, creating art IS giving. Artists delve deeply into
themselves, draw from that source, and then try their best to capture their
vision on canvas, in sculpture, on film, in music or in words. In its purest
form, art is trying to share a vision of timelessness with those who are caught
up in time. It is an attempt to share with those who appreciate your art the
ecstasy you found in a particular moment, or scene, or form, or in the melody
of the wind humming through the trees in the Champs des Mars.
As an artist, you give of yourself and your vision. And you do so knowing that
probably 95% of the people who ever encounter the art will never get that
vision. Your attempt to share will fail. They will stare at the canvas or
listen to the first twelve bars of the song and then rush off to look at
something they do get.
But every so often, as you stand alone at your own vernissage holding a glass
of wine, watching the guests come and go, a magical moment happens. A couple
who hadn't even planned on going to an art opening wanders in and stands in
front of one of your paintings and they just fall into it. It's love at first
sight. They actually get what you were trying to do. Your vision reaches out
from the canvas and draws them into itself, and you see the ecstatic smile that
was on your face as you painted it beginning to form on their faces. And this
brings the same smile back to your own lips. It's just the coolest thing.
It really doesn't matter whether the couple buys the painting or not. It's
enough that they got it, even if for a moment. It makes everything you went
through to be able to hang it on that wall in front of them worthwhile. The
scrimping and saving to be able to buy paints. The late-night panic attacks
when you have to wrestle the
maybe-you-should-just-get-a-job-and-forget-this-art-stuff demons to the ground.
Everything. It really is just the coolest thing.
Seeing the same smile across the room on the face of the artist whose exhibit
you helped to sponsor, and on the face of the gallery owner who made the
exhibit possible, is just as cool.
willytex
> another penny in America.
>
Maybe it's time to drop your AOL account, Moron. ROTFLMAO!!!
Uncle Tantra wrote: news:<20041114155904...@mb-m29.aol.com>...
Stu
I had a some terrific experiences in Berlin before the wall came down.
Though I must say I ran into anti-semitism.
You forgot one point. If it wasn't for the US and British forces that
kicked the germans out of France this "philosophy" of live and let
live, of stasis, of Vishnu energy would have had the French culture
parish under German rule.
The French certainly didn't act this way when they "progressed" by
getting rid of their King. Or when they unified the country under
Napoleon's command.
It is in fact the French embrace of progress that led to them
dominating culture in art, science, politics during the 19th century
and into the 20th.
During this period the French had a real sense of evolution. A look at
French art articulates this cultural evolution rather nicely.
The beauty of Paris exemplifies this evolution. Even a glance at a map
of Paris shows the evolution of the city in the form of rings as the
population grew and it changed to meet and take in the Age of Reason.
Progress with mindfulness.
Good then we agree. Progress must come from intelligence.
BTW don't get me wrong. I love Paris. For many of the reasons you
list. Much of the way of life for the French is to stop and enjoy the
things in life that Americans take for granted like eating, or enjoying
a few moments in a cafe with good conversation.
>
> What America practices is not. What Berlin practices is not. There seems to
> be very little discrimination involved in their approach to change. New
> technologies and products and ways of life are valued simply because they're
> new, and adopted simply because they are new. History teaches us the dangers
> of this. Thalidomide was new, a supposed wonder drug, and it bred
> horrors. The internal combustion engine was new, and it has made the
> air in our cities
> unbreathable and whole cultures as dependent as drug addicts on the fossil fuel
> that feeds the engines and pollutes the air and is, as a result of global
> warming, endangering the very future of life on the planet.
> Genetically-modified foods are being touted as the Next Big Thing, and
> we have
> no earthly idea what they will do to our bodies over time.
>
> So Stu, does this explain a little bit more what I was talking about with
> regard to change vs. progress? I don't believe that everything new really is
> improved. And I'm not convinced that the world should believe that,
> either. History has certainly proved otherwise.
But you acknowledge there is a form of progress that is mindful. Given
proper food and water a plant will grow. In the same way properly
nourished a person grows, a civilization grows.
Every so often a weed-wacker comes along and kills the plant. Or
Hitler or some religious fanatic stop the progress.
But history has shown that over all civilization appears to be
progressing. Greater complexity, diversity, structure. A bad seed may
get in there, or a natural disaster. We may perish due to pollution or
overpopulation. But I believe that eventually the next civilization
will progress beyond us.
>
> My little trip to Berlin has taught me something important about
> myself. Unlike JFK and his famous one-liner, I am not a Berliner. Je
> suis Parisien. I
> do not embrace the new simply because it is new.
That would not be mindful.
> I do not assume it is
> improved because someone claims it's an improvement. I wait for the new thing
> to prove itself. And I honestly believe that this is a more sensible approach
> to change than blindly accepting progress for its own sake.
That is the essence of Patanjali. The sutras outline a system of
analysis to determine if progress is in alignment with the cosmic order.
Yoga is a way to discern intelligent evolution.
>
> With regard to the real subject of our original discussion, the clash between
> Arab and Western cultures, it's the same thing. The United States of America,
> a country barely two centuries old and with no significant heritage of its own,
> is trying to dictate a style of life to countries that have hundreds, even
> thousands of years of patrimonie going for them. People in America call the
> people of some of these other countries barbarians because their women don't
> have the right to vote, or hold public office. These same people conveniently
> forget that their own women didn't have these rights until a little over eighty
> years ago, a mere blink of the eye in the centuries-old traditions they are
> trying to change.
>
> The Arab cultures ARE resisting change. No question about it. And in some
> ways the resistance may be unjustified, a mere clinging to old ways out of fear
> of change itself. But in other ways I believe their reluctance is more than
> justified.
From their point of view they are justified. But it is possible to
look at world views as a continuum of conscious expansion. We have
evolved away from a time an agrarian society based on religious myths
guiding military leader-kings.
Though it could be argued that the xtian right has moved us closer to
this form of society. Bin Laden's and Bush's world view are not so
different. They both are operating out of a religious perspective
where might is right. The religious right in the US represents a step
back in progress.
But from an "Age of Reason" world view we understand the importance of
altruism and cooperation as building blocks to an enlightened society.
We don't cut off a thieves hands if they steal. Women have an equal
voice in society. We don't take slaves. These important differences
in a society that has evolved from the "Age of Deities".
>
> America is trying to push the benefits of democracy and free elections while
> demonstrating to the world that it cannot even hold a free election. America
> is touting the superiority of its every-man-for-himself, me-first economy while
> leaving millions of its own people homeless, without jobs, and without health
> care. America tries to sell the image of the successful, prosperous American
> lifestyle as a world standard, while the world looks at the country doing the
> selling and sees the greatest debtor nation in the history of the planet. As
> of 14 Nov 2004 at 09:54:42 AM GMT, the outstanding US national debt was
> $7,445,785,909,004.23. Each American's share of that debt was
> $25,257.58. This is success? This is prosperity? This is living
> beyond one's means.
There is no doubt here. However America's potential is to be a guiding
light of liberty. One of the best ways to achieve this is separation
of Church and State. Too bad the Oligarchy has reversed this trend.
> These Arab countries with thousands of years of heritage of their own to draw
> upon look at America, with its puny couple of hundred years of history and say,
> "Now wait a minute here! You're trying to tell us that we should live the way
> you live and act the way you act and believe in the things you believe
> in? Just LOOK at yourselves! You've got the highest crime and murder
> rates on the
> planet. You've got more of your people in prison than the entire rest of the
> world combined. One third of your adult population can't get through the day
> without resorting to tranquilizers and antidepressants. And you insinuate that
> WE are barbarians because we resist adopting your lifestyle simply because you
> want us to? Get real."
Very true. And we have done a great disservice to progress with our
policy of strike first ask questions later. Countries like Iran and
North Korea fear America and feel justified in adopting similar
policies. Nuclear Preemption. Sad.
>
> The thing is, Stu, these people have the right to say this. They have the
> right to take the French approach to change and wait for things to prove
> themselves valuable before adopting them. They have the right to change at
> their own pace. America may not like it, but America simply does not have a
> believable platform from which to preach the benefits of change for change's
> sake. Look at what this belief system has done for them. The preacher selling
> progress from the pulpit of success and prosperity is selling a lie.
>
> I, too, would love to see some of these countries adopt a few of the good
> things of the modern world, the things that have proved their value
> over time. But I not only grant them the right to do so at their own
> pace, I respect them
> for doing so. Those who call them barbarians for not blindly following the
> blind are in my opinion revealing their own barbarity.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Unc
It is very difficult to see outside one's own world view. In fact
meditation is an important tool in altering consciousness enough to a
get a glimpse outside this box. This is one of meditation's
transformational qualities.
Sure the religious fanatics are suspicious of progress. Suspicious of
science. Suspicious of the moral decay they see in American society.
But what they offer as a solution is steeped in myth and stagnation.
Imagine were the followers of Islam would be today if instead of
building Wahabi schools of hatred and terrorism in the name of the
Koran in areas from the Sudan to Pakistan, they taught language,
culture, trades, ideas. We might see an emergence of an Islamic led
culture unparalleled since the days of mystical sufism.
But instead we see cultures steeped in hatred. It is not the
intelligent way to go. I don't think thats a value judgment.
Real mindful evolution is not really a choice to those with self awareness.
--
~Stu
ColdBluICE
> in message news:<20041114155814...@mb-m29.aol.com>...
-Unc..i thought we were discussing the-- Confused Personsal Ideology
of one Lil MishMashi Mahesh?
> Because we both have a background in those subjects,
> Stu and I
> share a common jargon that I should explain a bit before continuing.
-as confused as it is.
-Unc..you are talking about the three "gunas"-(sattva, raja, tamo)..
as a function of Maya.
Not the three Divine forms of Brahm -(Gods- Sri Shiv, Sri Vshnu, Sri
Brahma).
Perhaps you (and Stu) should study "indian philosphy" from a Divine
Personality.
> <snip>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Unc
Uncle Tantra
> > That didn't happen in Paris, largely due to two very human decisions. In the
> > early months of the war, France found itself outmatched numerically and
> > technologically in its struggle with Germany. In those first few months of the
> > war, France lost almost as many soldiers as America lost during the entire
> > European theatre. To save their culture from destruction, they made a decision
> > to capitulate, to surrender to the inevitable. Paris was occupied, and thus
> > spared the saturation bombing that destroyed Berlin. But that's not the only
> > reason Paris retains its historical look and feel. Towards the end of the war
> > another decision was made, this time ironically by the German general who had
> > been ordered by Hitler to burn Paris to the ground before withdrawing his
> > troops from the city. He disobeyed the order. This one man's ethical
> > decision, made at great peril to himself and his family, is the primary reason
> > Paris looks the way it does today.
Stu:
> You forgot one point. If it wasn't for the US and British forces that
> kicked the germans out of France this "philosophy" of live and let
> live, of stasis, of Vishnu energy would have had the French culture
> parish under German rule.
And you forget that it wasn't just the Americans and the British
who helped defeat that madman. Allied soldiers killed:
Belgium: 13,700 (5.14%)
British Empire: 908,000 (10.20%)
Australia: 60,000
Canada: 25,000
New Zealand: 16,000
South Africa: 7,000
United Kingdom: 715,000
France: 1,300,000 (16.36%)
French colonies: 100,000
Greece: 5,000 (2.17%)
Russia: 1,700,000 (14.17%)
United States: 126,000 (2.89%)
> The French certainly didn't act this way when they "progressed" by
> getting rid of their King. Or when they unified the country under
> Napoleon's command.
True. But Napolean was short, and had a tiny dick.
They felt sorry for him. :-)
> It is in fact the French embrace of progress that led to them
> dominating culture in art, science, politics during the 19th century
> and into the 20th.
Embrace of those things that had proved their worthiness.
Even then.
> During this period the French had a real sense of evolution. A look at
> French art articulates this cultural evolution rather nicely.
If one looks at it with that pair of tinted shades on. There
are art critics who would disagree, and say that French art
has been on a constant downhill slide for centuries. But who
can trust art critics? :-)
> The beauty of Paris exemplifies this evolution. Even a glance at a map
> of Paris shows the evolution of the city in the form of rings as the
> population grew and it changed to meet and take in the Age of Reason.
Unfortuately, they are still waiting for that age to arrive. :-)
<snippus interruptus>
> > In my opinion, the French still practice that same grace today, and it
> > epitomizes the difference between mere submission to change and true progress.
> >
> > The French are big on patrimonie -- that which has been passed down to them by
> > their forefathers. They have almost an obsession with their own heritage, and
> > its relative importance. It's an easy obsession to make fun of; I have done so
> > many times myself. But it's also the very thing that defines true progress for
> > me.
>
> Progress with mindfulness.
EXACTLY!
> > What some see as a resistance to change in the French, and a negative thing, I
> > really see as a very sensible resistance to change for change's sake. They
> > don't rush into things and embrace the new simply because it's new. They wait
> > to see if the new technology or way of life proves itself better before
> > adopting it. This, to me, is progress.
>
> Good then we agree. Progress must come from intelligence.
>
> BTW don't get me wrong. I love Paris. For many of the reasons you
> list. Much of the way of life for the French is to stop and enjoy the
> things in life that Americans take for granted like eating, or enjoying
> a few moments in a cafe with good conversation.
Yup. For some people, that would not be a positive. For me,
it is.
<snippus interruptus>
> > So Stu, does this explain a little bit more what I was talking about with
> > regard to change vs. progress? I don't believe that everything new really is
> > improved. And I'm not convinced that the world should believe that,
> > either. History has certainly proved otherwise.
>
> But you acknowledge there is a form of progress that is mindful.
If we define progress as 'dealing with change in a mindful,
intelligent way,' yes. I was merely reiterating the point
that this is not the common meaning of progress today.
> Given
> proper food and water a plant will grow. In the same way properly
> nourished a person grows, a civilization grows.
>
> Every so often a weed-wacker comes along and kills the plant. Or
> Hitler or some religious fanatic stop the progress.
They never stop the change, merely the progressive aspect
of the change.
> But history has shown that over all civilization appears to be
> progressing. Greater complexity, diversity, structure. A bad seed may
> get in there, or a natural disaster. We may perish due to pollution or
> overpopulation. But I believe that eventually the next civilization
> will progress beyond us.
If there is one. We live, since 1945, in the first era of
human history in which that is not a given.
> > My little trip to Berlin has taught me something important about
> > myself. Unlike JFK and his famous one-liner, I am not a Berliner. Je
> > suis Parisien. I do not embrace the new simply because it is new.
>
> That would not be mindful.
Nope.
> > I do not assume it is
> > improved because someone claims it's an improvement. I wait for the new thing
> > to prove itself. And I honestly believe that this is a more sensible approach
> > to change than blindly accepting progress for its own sake.
>
> That is the essence of Patanjali. The sutras outline a system of
> analysis to determine if progress is in alignment with the cosmic order.
>
> Yoga is a way to discern intelligent evolution.
One way. Yup.
> > With regard to the real subject of our original discussion, the clash between
> > Arab and Western cultures, it's the same thing. The United States of America,
> > a country barely two centuries old and with no significant heritage of its own,
> > is trying to dictate a style of life to countries that have hundreds, even
> > thousands of years of patrimonie going for them. People in America call the
> > people of some of these other countries barbarians because their women don't
> > have the right to vote, or hold public office. These same people conveniently
> > forget that their own women didn't have these rights until a little over eighty
> > years ago, a mere blink of the eye in the centuries-old traditions they are
> > trying to change.
> >
> > The Arab cultures ARE resisting change. No question about it. And in some
> > ways the resistance may be unjustified, a mere clinging to old ways out of fear
> > of change itself. But in other ways I believe their reluctance is more than
> > justified.
>
> From their point of view they are justified. But it is possible to
> look at world views as a continuum of conscious expansion. We have
> evolved away from a time an agrarian society based on religious myths
> guiding military leader-kings.
As should have become apparent dealing with our token Xtian (who
seems to have moved on to greener pastures lately) and others who
feel the same way about the Hindu pantheon, the use of the term
"religious myth" is not necessarily the best way to get a peaceful
dialogue going. :-)
I'm down with that term, but the very essence of many religious
beliefs is that they don't, and can't, acknowledge the possibly
mythical nature of their belief system.
> Though it could be argued that the xtian right has moved us closer to
> this form of society.
Yes, it certainly has. Fundamentalists battling fundamentalists.
> Bin Laden's and Bush's world view are not so
> different. They both are operating out of a religious perspective
> where might is right. The religious right in the US represents a step
> back in progress.
I agree.
> But from an "Age of Reason" world view we understand the importance of
> altruism and cooperation as building blocks to an enlightened society.
> We don't cut off a thieves hands if they steal. Women have an equal
> voice in society. We don't take slaves. These important differences
> in a society that has evolved from the "Age of Deities".
There have definitely been advances in America. I share your
admiration of them. It's just that these days I don't see every-
thing about the culture as an advantage, and the sales pitch of
America is that you kinda have to accept the whole package. The
whole package has created a country of essentially unhappy people,
as far as I can tell.
> > America is trying to push the benefits of democracy and free elections while
> > demonstrating to the world that it cannot even hold a free election. America
> > is touting the superiority of its every-man-for-himself, me-first economy while
> > leaving millions of its own people homeless, without jobs, and without health
> > care. America tries to sell the image of the successful, prosperous American
> > lifestyle as a world standard, while the world looks at the country doing the
> > selling and sees the greatest debtor nation in the history of the planet. As
> > of 14 Nov 2004 at 09:54:42 AM GMT, the outstanding US national debt was
> > $7,445,785,909,004.23. Each American's share of that debt was
> > $25,257.58. This is success? This is prosperity? This is living
> > beyond one's means.
>
> There is no doubt here. However America's potential is to be a guiding
> light of liberty.
As Charlie Brown used to say, "There is no greater burden than
having a great potential." I'd like to see America live up to
theirs.
> One of the best ways to achieve this is separation
> of Church and State. Too bad the Oligarchy has reversed this trend.
I could not agree more. And I feel the same is true for the
Arab countries as well. Keep religion out of politics, and if
possible, vice versa.
> > These Arab countries with thousands of years of heritage of their own to draw
> > upon look at America, with its puny couple of hundred years of history and say,
> > "Now wait a minute here! You're trying to tell us that we should live the way
> > you live and act the way you act and believe in the things you believe
> > in? Just LOOK at yourselves! You've got the highest crime and murder
> > rates on the
> > planet. You've got more of your people in prison than the entire rest of the
> > world combined. One third of your adult population can't get through the day
> > without resorting to tranquilizers and antidepressants. And you insinuate that
> > WE are barbarians because we resist adopting your lifestyle simply because you
> > want us to? Get real."
>
> Very true. And we have done a great disservice to progress with our
> policy of strike first ask questions later. Countries like Iran and
> North Korea fear America and feel justified in adopting similar
> policies. Nuclear Preemption. Sad.
Very sad.
> > The thing is, Stu, these people have the right to say this. They have the
> > right to take the French approach to change and wait for things to prove
> > themselves valuable before adopting them. They have the right to change at
> > their own pace. America may not like it, but America simply does not have a
> > believable platform from which to preach the benefits of change for change's
> > sake. Look at what this belief system has done for them. The preacher selling
> > progress from the pulpit of success and prosperity is selling a lie.
> >
> > I, too, would love to see some of these countries adopt a few of the good
> > things of the modern world, the things that have proved their value
> > over time. But I not only grant them the right to do so at their own
> > pace, I respect them
> > for doing so. Those who call them barbarians for not blindly following the
> > blind are in my opinion revealing their own barbarity.
>
> It is very difficult to see outside one's own world view. In fact
> meditation is an important tool in altering consciousness enough to a
> get a glimpse outside this box. This is one of meditation's
> transformational qualities.
I agree.
> Sure the religious fanatics are suspicious of progress. Suspicious of
> science. Suspicious of the moral decay they see in American society.
> But what they offer as a solution is steeped in myth and stagnation.
They are a very vocal minority, the same as their counterparts in
America. They do not represent the thinkers of the Islamic world.
> Imagine where the followers of Islam would be today if instead of
> building Wahabi schools of hatred and terrorism in the name of the
> Koran in areas from the Sudan to Pakistan, they taught language,
> culture, trades, ideas. We might see an emergence of an Islamic led
> culture unparalleled since the days of mystical sufism.
I agree. Hopelessness breeds hate, not an increase of hope.
> But instead we see cultures steeped in hatred. It is not the
> intelligent way to go. I don't think thats a value judgment.
I don't think so, either. As in America, a handful of religious
fanatics have ruined the entire image of the Arab world.
> Real mindful evolution is not really a choice to those with self awareness.
I think it's still a choice; it's just one that doesn't require
a lot of pondering. :-)
Good to chat with you, as always.
Unc
Judy Stein
I'm sure we're all relieved to know Barry isn't a jelly doughnut.
J.Rocha
<Snip>
>The beauty of Paris exemplifies this evolution. Even a glance at a map
>of Paris shows the evolution of the city in the form of rings as the
>population grew and it changed to meet and take in the Age of Reason.
A little side step svp.
A friend of mine who is an astrologer once pointed to me that some
cities seem to grow "organically", from a center.
In Paris that would probably be the "Place d'Étoile".
From there one can draw 12 straight lines to the perimeter of the city,
(easier done on a map ;--) that divide the city in 12 sectors of about
equal size.
Each one of these sectors stays under influence of a sign in de Zodiac,
in the common order (Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc.)
It's sometimes possible to determinate where they all are starting from
the traditional correspondences.
The Aries sector is often the one with the sport stadium(a), or the city
parks, Athletic fields, Horse races
The Taurus the one with the old solid and *expensive* and beautifull
mansions. "Big and stable money"
Gemini contains the big roads to the center, and the market and theater
Often one part of the "red district" (without the misery).
Cancer is the "cosy", romantic sector, often with lakes and/or channels
Leo is the sector with the prestigious objects, and the glammour and
mode. Also the shows and dancings.
Virgo is often where the Academic Hospital(s) are placed, the city
police headquarters, and is often the less "spontaneously" build.
Libra is the sector for the artists, galleries, and sometimes the
(lower) (reconciliation) tribunal(s)
Scorpio has often an "oppressed vicious underworld", and the institutes
of Nuclear R&D, sometimes the crematory
Sagitarius has the University, and the buildings of the University
dealing with Astronomy, the roads to "leave the city".
Capricornius has the buildings of the city elders, the traditional Mayor
residence, very old monuments, antiques, higher tribunals, oldest
churches and cemeteries
Aquarius has the "freaky side", University, sometimes humanistics,
language institutes (for foreigners), Sociology, Social service
(together with Piscis). High-tech laboratories, Genetics.
Pisces has the city lake(s) (together with Aries, different ambience),
the Chemical (often "secretly" poisonous industries), the sex and drug
trade, that doesn't belong to Gemini. The hidden non-revolutionary
"underground".
----------------------------------------
With some wisdom, and knowing one's Horoscope it's possible to choose
the "best" place to live, to work and to have fun, even the places one
must be very carefull with, and the "very lucky places", (!) the "Power
spots" (!) ;--)
Good luck with your research !
willytex
> Perhaps you (and Stu) should study "indian philosphy" from a Divine
> Personality.
>
read "indian philosophy" like you do! Good one, except you've got no
"Brahman thingy".
ROTFL!!!
willytex
> FWIW, "Ich bin ein Berliner" actually means "I am a jelly doughnut."
>
speak or read German.
> I'm sure we're all relieved to know Barry isn't a jelly doughnut.
>
You're sure that I'm relieved? Speak for yourself.
Uncle Tantra
Thanks. Yours, too.
It's an interesting theory, except for one thing. L'Étoile would be
considered the center of Paris only by someone who was unfamiliar with
the history of the city. I'd like to see a similar "mapping" done
with the Ile de la Cité as the center point. That is where Paris
really started, and the center from which it expanded.
And thanks for maintaining the spirit of cool discussion --
springboarding from one person's ideas to those of your own,
essentially playing "word jazz." Stu does this well, as do you. I
think you'll have to admit it's a stark (and pleasant) contrast to the
prevailing trend here of conversation as thought-stopper. :-)
How's it *feel* in Amsterdam these days? You guys are going through
it.
Unc
Dave Livingston
When we're kidding other people, Barry finds us 'players'.
When we're kidding Barry, his sense of humour finds itself in paralysis.
No kidding, Unc.
Uncle Tantra
> FWIW, "Ich bin ein Berliner" actually means "I am a jelly doughnut."
>
> I'm sure we're all relieved to know Barry isn't a jelly doughnut.
That's clever, but not quite accurate:
"Ich bin ein Berliner" is a famous phrase by John F. Kennedy. On June
26, 1963 in Berlin, he made a speech containing the sentences:
"Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was civis Romanus sum.
Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein
Berliner."
"All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and,
therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein
Berliner!."
According to the context of the speech, Kennedy meant that he stood
together with West Berliners in their struggle to maintain their
freedom against Communist aggression.
Jelly doughnuts are called "Berliner" outside Berlin (but usually
referred to as "Pfannkuchen" in Berlin itself). This has led some
people to believe that the phrase Kennedy uttered was amusingly
ambiguous ("I am a jelly doughnut"), which is, for the most part,
incorrect. While the phrase could possibly be understood that way,
both the context of the quotation and the fact that jelly doughnuts
are not actually called "Berliner" in Berlin made this unlikely.
Normally a Berliner would say "Ich komme aus Berlin" ("I come from
Berlin"), but because Kennedy wanted to emphasize the common identity
among people of the "world of freedom", that usage would have been
misleading. "Ich bin Berliner" (cf. "Ich bin Amerikaner", "Ich bin
Deutscher" etc.) would be preferred in common usage. This sentence is
about as likely to be misinterpreted as the following analogous
example: suppose that the speech had taken place in Frankfurt instead,
and Kennedy had said "I am a Frankfurter." While it is possible that a
native English speaker would mistake his meaning for "I am a hot dog,"
given the context most would understand the president to have meant,
"I am a citizen of Frankfurt."
The jelly doughnut urban legend apparently arose in Florida in the
1980s and culminated in a letter to the editor to the New York Times
in 1987 which claimed that the error was embarrassing and resulted in
laughter. The context made the meaning very clear, though, so nobody
misunderstood Kennedy when he delivered his speech. He did however
pronounce the sentence with a very strong American accent, reading
from his note "ish bin ine bear-LEAN-ar". Contrary to the urban
legend, it was not followed by a roar of laughter. Audio and film
recordings show the remark was followed by applause and cheers, as was
witnessed by television audiences in Europe and the United States at
the time.
Interestingly, Kennedy did get a laugh a moment after he first used
the phrase, but deliberately. His speech was being translated into
German for the crowd phrase-by-phrase. "Ich bin ein Berliner" was
"translated" to itself, resulting in the interpreter parroting what
Kennedy had just said a moment before. As the applause died down,
Kennedy paused for a moment, then said: "I appreciate my interpreter
translating my German", a quip which did receive a solid laugh from
the crowd.
But you can eat me anyway, babe. :-) :-) :-)
Unc
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote:
> > FWIW, "Ich bin ein Berliner" actually means "I am a jelly doughnut."
> >
> It's worth nothing, Snarkey Girl. You are lying and you probably can't
> speak or read German.
In fact (surprise!) it's Willytex who's lying. Again.
ColdBluICE
> > Perhaps you (and Stu) should study "indian philosphy" from a Divine
> > Personality.
> >
> So, they can become fluent in Sanskrit like you are and be able to
> read "indian philosophy" like you do!
-Yo "tex" wassup?..you are correct.. i cannot "read indian
philosphy"... i live "indian philosphy"..it is Vedic Sanatan Dharm.
So we are agreed-- Stu & Uncle Tantra have *no clue* of that inwhich
they write.
> Good one, except you've got no
> "Brahman thingy".
-"No brahman thingy"... you say...indeed and niether do you (nor
anyone else)
>
> ROTFL!!!
-Yo "tex" wassup?..
Judy Stein
> jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in message news:<19b3c03e.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > FWIW, "Ich bin ein Berliner" actually means "I am a jelly doughnut."
> >
> > I'm sure we're all relieved to know Barry isn't a jelly doughnut.
>
> That's clever, but not quite accurate:
Barry falls for it hook, line, and sinker. And still gets it
wrong.
<snip>
> Jelly doughnuts are called "Berliner" outside Berlin (but usually
> referred to as "Pfannkuchen" in Berlin itself).
Actually Pfannkuchen are jelly omelets or crepes, not jelly
doughnuts. A Berliner is like a French beignet, a fried
yeast bun filled with jam or jelly, or a jelly doughnut.
This has led some
> people to believe that the phrase Kennedy uttered was amusingly
> ambiguous ("I am a jelly doughnut"), which is, for the most part,
> incorrect. While the phrase could possibly be understood that way
In fact, that is *exactly* how one would say "I am a jelly
doughnut" in German--not just "could possibly be understood
that way."
> both the context of the quotation and the fact that jelly doughnuts
> are not actually called "Berliner" in Berlin made this unlikely.
> Normally a Berliner would say "Ich komme aus Berlin" ("I come from
> Berlin"), but because Kennedy wanted to emphasize the common identity
> among people of the "world of freedom", that usage would have been
> misleading. "Ich bin Berliner" (cf. "Ich bin Amerikaner", "Ich bin
> Deutscher" etc.) would be preferred in common usage.
Actually a Berliner would not say "Ich komme aus Berlin" if he
were expressing solidarity with the city. He'd say "Ich bin
Berliner." "Ich komme aus Berlin" is what he'd say if he were
offering information, rather than making a rhetorical statement.
The distinction is contextual, not a matter of preference or
common usage.
Someone like Kennedy, who was *not* a Berliner but wanted to
express solidarity with the city, would say exactly what he
did say, "Ich bin ein Berliner." The indefinite article makes
that subtle linguistic distinction in German.
However, "Ich bin ein Berliner" ALSO means "I am a jelly doughnut."
Of course nobody misunderstood him to be saying that, nor did
I suggest they did.
Did you have fun Googling, Barry?
I notice you forgot to credit Wikpedia for the essay you lifted
from it verbatim. Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner
But it got several points wrong, as noted.
> But you can eat me anyway, babe. :-) :-) :-)
Teach not thy parent's mother to extract
The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
The good old lady can that feat enact,
Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.
Uncle Tantra
>
>Teach not thy parent's mother to extract
>The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
>The good old lady can that feat enact,
>Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.
It may date me, but when I was growing up
and first heard that phrase, the morsel
being offered to the prospective diner was
rump steak, not the organ you seem to
have in mind. That meaning of the term
has always stuck with me when invoking
it as an epithet.
And I understand that you are probably
stilled jizzed up from learning that Shemp
calls his hookers Judy, but I can assure
you that the other connotation of the term
never...uh...raised its ugly head in regard
to you. I am drawn to younger women. I
like to hike and go on adventures and
they're generally up for all that. Most of
the older women I've dated were nice, but
it seemed like they had this thing about
wanting to curl up somewhere cozy and
wait to die. I just wasn't into waiting there
with them. The younger women give better
blowjobs, too.
:-)
Unc
J.Rocha
>J.Rocha <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote in message news:<a2fip0pue6e9hva54...@4ax.com>...
<Snip> (A theory about "sectors" of cities being ruled by the
<Snip> astrological signs)
>> Good luck with your research !
>Thanks. Yours, too.
>It's an interesting theory, except for one thing. L'Étoile would be
>considered the center of Paris only by someone who was unfamiliar with
>the history of the city. I'd like to see a similar "mapping" done
>with the Ile de la Cité as the center point. That is where Paris
>really started, and the center from which it expanded.
There's no reason why L'Étoile should be considered "the center",
it could very well be that there are "several centers" :--)
In the case of the city where I live (Groningen) there is the "Grote
Markt" the "great market" that is clearly the center .
Where I was born (Lisbon) one of those "several centers" is
IMHO in the middle of the Tagus river :-o) and only "half city"
exists "yet" (!)
It could be that sectors (drawn from different centers) intercept
each other, and some are a strange mixture of influences (cosmical,
historical, (un)conscious, etc.
There is still lots of serious research being done in Astrology
nowadays (!)
<Snip>
>How's it *feel* in Amsterdam these days? You guys are going through
>it.
Well, I can't say much about Amst. these days, because I rarely go
there and I have not much in common with the city.
I think that "how it feels these days" is much related to how "it felt
before these days" and how it "is" with how it "was".
I've been somehow avoiding to give my opinion about what is happening
because that would have to be a long relate with lots of historical
sociological and political considerations, often polemical, sometimes
strongly critical too, and I wouldn't want my opinion to be the only
one to be heard (mmm.. read ;-) .
If there are Dutch people reading and (if eventually only) willing to
participate I would feel much more free to give my opinions and
criticize theirs. ...
*** Zijn er nederlanders in de zaal ? ***
See ? nothing yet :-(
>Unc
J. Rocha
Judy Stein
> >> But you can eat me anyway, babe. :-) :-) :-)
> >
> >Teach not thy parent's mother to extract
> >The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
> >The good old lady can that feat enact,
> >Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.
>
> It may date me, but when I was growing up
> and first heard that phrase,
Wrong phrase, bozo.
Judy Stein
> I notice you forgot to credit Wikpedia for the essay you lifted
> from it verbatim. Here's the link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner
Oh, and by the way, how much of the rest of your writing do
you crib from other people?
Shemp McGurk
> >> But you can eat me anyway, babe. :-) :-) :-)
> >
> >Teach not thy parent's mother to extract
> >The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
> >The good old lady can that feat enact,
> >Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.
>
> It may date me, but when I was growing up
> and first heard that phrase, the morsel
> being offered to the prospective diner was
> rump steak, not the organ you seem to
> have in mind. That meaning of the term
> has always stuck with me when invoking
> it as an epithet.
>
> And I understand that you are probably
> stilled jizzed up from learning that Shemp
> calls his hookers Judy, but I can assure
> you that the other connotation of the term
> never...uh...raised its ugly head in regard
> to you. I am drawn to younger women.
Could you elaborate a bit on that, Unc.
I am 49 and have recently found myself attracted to someone WAY
younger (but of legal consent age, thank God). I have not done
anything about it because of MY discomfort with the age differences.
May I ask what your experiences in this area are and what the age
differences have been?
Uncle Tantra
>>It's an interesting theory, except for one thing. L'Étoile would be
>>considered the center of Paris only by someone who was unfamiliar with
>>the history of the city. I'd like to see a similar "mapping" done
>>with the Ile de la Cité as the center point. That is where Paris
>>really started, and the center from which it expanded.
J.Rocha:
>There's no reason why L'Étoile should be considered "the center",
>it could very well be that there are "several centers" :--)
I was speaking strictly historically. I have
this neat map of Paris in 1550. All that
there is of the city is the area around the
Ile de la Cité. St. Germain is literally out
in 'des Pres,' in the countryside. L'Etoile
isn't even on the map.
>In the case of the city where I live (Groningen) there is the "Grote
>Markt" the "great market" that is clearly the center .
Historically? That's the issue I was trying
to point out. If the astrological theory is
as you stated, it would make sense to
base the center at the place where the
city actually started and from which it
expanded, not what might be considered
the center today. In the case of Amster-
dam, I don't know where that would be,
but I suspect it would have to be smack
in the middle of the Centrum.
>There is still lots of serious research being done in Astrology
>nowadays (!)
I remain unconvinced. The problem with
astrology is the problem with all forms of
divination or prediction -- the "seer" or
interpreter himself, and what he brings to
the table. Unless that person is enlight-
ened, even the most exact science is
going to be interpreted inexactly.
>>How's it *feel* in Amsterdam these days? You guys are going through
>>it.
>
>Well, I can't say much about Amst. these days, because I rarely go
>there and I have not much in common with the city.
>
>I think that "how it feels these days" is much related to how "it felt
>before these days" and how it "is" with how it "was".
>
>I've been somehow avoiding to give my opinion about what is happening
>because that would have to be a long relate with lots of historical
>sociological and political considerations, often polemical, sometimes
>strongly critical too, and I wouldn't want my opinion to be the only
>one to be heard (mmm.. read ;-) .
I understand. There is much that is positive
one can say about Dutch society. And a
few things on the other side.
>If there are Dutch people reading and (if eventually only) willing to
>participate I would feel much more free to give my opinions and
>criticize theirs. ...
A wise choice.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
>> >Teach not thy parent's mother to extract
>> >The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
>> >The good old lady can that feat enact,
>> >Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.
Unc:
>> It may date me, but when I was growing up
>> and first heard that phrase, the morsel
>> being offered to the prospective diner was
>> rump steak, not the organ you seem to
>> have in mind. That meaning of the term
>> has always stuck with me when invoking
>> it as an epithet.
>>
>> And I understand that you are probably
>> stilled jizzed up from learning that Shemp
>> calls his hookers Judy, but I can assure
>> you that the other connotation of the term
>> never...uh...raised its ugly head in regard
>> to you. I am drawn to younger women.
Shemp:
>Could you elaborate a bit on that, Unc.
>
>I am 49 and have recently found myself attracted to someone WAY
>younger (but of legal consent age, thank God). I have not done
>anything about it because of MY discomfort with the age differences.
That's the major drawback to May-
December relationships. The problem is
usually on the side of the older person.
>May I ask what your experiences in this area are and what the age
>differences have been?
Well, I have in the past dated women 20
years or more younger than I am, and that
was interesting. What I was specifically
talking about in this post was more recent
experience with women in their 40s. I
honestly seem to have more in common
with them than I do with older women.
It's certainly *not*, at that age, that they're
dazzled by my bullshit or anything. I just
don't *do* unintelligent women, of any age.
It's primarily that, on the whole, they are
not as OLD and CYNICAL as women my
own age (58) or older. I live for laughter,
and the younger women still laugh; the
older ones seem to have forgotten how to
laugh. And the older women tend also not
to think positively; most things they say
and think tend to be critical. Where's the
fun in that?
Look at this newsgroup. When was the
last time Judy Stein posted anything that
anyone could consider *positive*? That is,
something that wasn't critical of some
person or institution or proposed a solution
rather than a putdown? You'd have to go
back a long time to find any. She herself
realized this about a year ago, when she
declared that she was "leaving the news-
group' because it was "turning her into a
hater." It was already too late; she never
left; the realization occurred after the fact.
Life's too short to spend it with people who
don't spend more of their time laughing
than bitching. In my opinion, of course.
Unc
J.Rocha
<Snip>
>J.Rocha:
>>There's no reason why L'Étoile should be considered "the center",
>>it could very well be that there are "several centers" :--)
>I was speaking strictly historically. I have
>this neat map of Paris in 1550. All that
>there is of the city is the area around the
>Ile de la Cité. St. Germain is literally out
>in 'des Pres,' in the countryside. L'Etoile
>isn't even on the map.
Yes, that's one of the interesting points of research, to check if
the "historical", the "mythical", the "emotional", the "geographical"
"political" etc. etc. "centers" of the city (or cities ;--) coincide
Further it is sometimes possible to see that some cities have
"overgrown", "swollen" sector(s), and other sectors "missing"
that make them "unbalanced".
Very funny --- I saw that happen in Groningen --- Is to see how
the city planners make (costly) mistakes, trying for instance to
build the casino at the "Capricornius sector", when it clearly
belongs to the "Leo sector" (where it finally moved to) :--)
Do you know btw that Paris traditionally is supposed to fall
under Virgo, at 15 degrees Virgo, to be exact ? :--)
France itself is supposed to belong to Leo
("La grandeur de la France") ;--)
Spain would belong to Sagittarius, Portugal to Piscis
(We have had lots of "fun" together, like you and Judy) ;--)
>>In the case of the city where I live (Groningen) there is the "Grote
>>Markt" the "great market" that is clearly the center .
>Historically? That's the issue I was trying
>to point out. If the astrological theory is
>as you stated, it would make sense to
>base the center at the place where the
>city actually started and from which it
>expanded, not what might be considered
>the center today.
I think Groningen (like Amsterdam btw) is a rather "powerfull"
and perhaps "magical" city, in the sense that many centers fall
together ...
It's not easy to say where cities (or anything, including people)
really "start" astrologically.
There is a very, very important sort of "axis of creation" that crosses
the Zodiac, at 30 degrees Capricornius (or 0 Aquarius), that is
supposed to be the "mirror", or the "line of symmetry".
It's a sort of "center of the cyclone", where Yang and Yin are
(still) united, and that couples all the signs and their corresponding
"ruler planets".
That means:
Capricornius -- Aquarius (Saturnus<->Uranus)
Sagittarius -- Piscis (Jupiter<->Neptunus)
Scorpio -- Aries (Pluto<->Mars)
Libra -- Taurus (Proserpina(?)<-> Venus)
Virgo -- Gemini (Vulcanus(?)<->Mercurius)
Leo -- Cancer (Sun<->Moon)
There is a "Yang" ruler and "Yin" ruler for every sign, and they are
"inverted" in these 6 couples --- The direction and force of the "cosmic
winds" changes to the opposite after passing the eye of the storm...
Failure to harmonize own's yang and yin ( to integrate the "shadow",
"yin") is often expressed in conflicts between these couples ;--)
>In the case of Amster-
>dam, I don't know where that would be,
>but I suspect it would have to be smack
>in the middle of the Centrum.
Yes, I think Amsterdam has several "conjunctions", making
it a "magical city" too ....
>>There is still lots of serious research being done in Astrology
>>nowadays (!)
>
>I remain unconvinced. The problem with
>astrology is the problem with all forms of
>divination or prediction -- the "seer" or
>interpreter himself, and what he brings to
>the table. Unless that person is enlight-
>ened, even the most exact science is
>going to be interpreted inexactly.
There is not much "exact" in "prediction", I guess ...
Still, when I make "predictions", it's not "me" doing them,
what brings me often to (near)-exasperation
<Snip>
>>If there are Dutch people reading and (if eventually only) willing to
>>participate I would feel much more free to give my opinions and
>>criticize theirs. ...
>
>A wise choice.
I think so ... ;--)
Of course anyone who might think to "pretend to be Dutch" will
have to be thoroughly examined ... by me (!) ;--) ;--)
>Unc
J. Rocha
eki
>
>It's certainly *not*, at that age, that they're
>dazzled by my bullshit or anything. I just
>don't *do* unintelligent women, of any age.
>It's primarily that, on the whole, they are
>not as OLD and CYNICAL as women my
>own age (58) or older. I live for laughter,
>and the younger women still laugh; the
>older ones seem to have forgotten how to
>laugh. And the older women tend also not
>to think positively; most things they say
>and think tend to be critical. Where's the
>fun in that?
Hormones? When this feller gets a testosterone
boost from bullish stockmarket, he's in a definitivelily
better mood.
Uncle Tantra
>>>There's no reason why L'Étoile should be considered "the center",
>>>it could very well be that there are "several centers" :--)
Unc:
>>I was speaking strictly historically. I have
>>this neat map of Paris in 1550. All that
>>there is of the city is the area around the
>>Ile de la Cité. St. Germain is literally out
>>in 'des Pres,' in the countryside. L'Etoile
>>isn't even on the map.
J.Rocha:
>Yes, that's one of the interesting points of research, to check if
>the "historical", the "mythical", the "emotional", the "geographical"
>"political" etc. etc. "centers" of the city (or cities ;--) coincide
>
>Further it is sometimes possible to see that some cities have
>"overgrown", "swollen" sector(s), and other sectors "missing"
>that make them "unbalanced".
Or, in my view, "out of touch with nature." As I said,
I'm not completely convinced of the astrological thang
with regard to cities, but I've spent a great deal of
my life studying the nature of "places of power." Most
modern cities grew from primitive cities, founded by
primitive cultures, many of whom were more in touch with
the "vibe" of the land. The lay lines, the particular
energy that makes a certain place what it is, the types
of activities and the types of thought that are supported
or unsupported by that particular place.
In Europe it is common to find places that are still con-
sidered "places of power," and that have been considered so
for thousands of years. Dig underneath modern cathedrals,
churches and chateaus in Paris and Rome and other places
and, more often than not, you will find three or four
*older* sites that were previously built on the same
spot. Many of these older sites date back to pagan or
prehistoric times. In my opinion, the older cultures, for
whatever reason, were more in touch with the "energy of
places," and picked a cool place of power in which to build
a church or a religious site. Time passed, that culture or
religion faded, and the successor culture or religion built
on exactly the same spot, taking advantage of a "previously
identified" place of power.
So for me any study that deals with "mapping" modern cities
to some sort of model like astrology should go back to the
*original* plan for the city, and start from there. In
most cases there were *reasons* why the city first appeared
in that spot.
>Very funny --- I saw that happen in Groningen --- Is to see how
>the city planners make (costly) mistakes, trying for instance to
>build the casino at the "Capricornius sector", when it clearly
>belongs to the "Leo sector" (where it finally moved to) :--)
Whether you completely buy the astrological thang or not,
what you seem to be talking about here is the very thing Stu
and I were talking about in the original thread. The issue
of true progress (dealing with change in a mindful manner),
as opposed to mere acceptance of change for its own sake.
The former "grows" graceful cities around the original nucleus;
the latter creates mindless sprawls like Los Angeles.
>Do you know btw that Paris traditionally is supposed to fall
>under Virgo, at 15 degrees Virgo, to be exact ? :--)
No, but if you hum a few bars, I'll try to fake it. :-)
Seriously, it wouldn't surprise me. I seem to have karma
with Virgos.
>France itself is supposed to belong to Leo
>("La grandeur de la France") ;--)
That might explain their overemphasized attachment to "pride." :-)
>Spain would belong to Sagittarius, Portugal to Piscis
>(We have had lots of "fun" together, like you and Judy) ;--)
Don't know about that. Don't know any Pisces people really,
and didn't know Judy was one. Don't much care. :-)
>>>In the case of the city where I live (Groningen) there is the "Grote
>>>Markt" the "great market" that is clearly the center .
>
>>Historically? That's the issue I was trying
>>to point out. If the astrological theory is
>>as you stated, it would make sense to
>>base the center at the place where the
>>city actually started and from which it
>>expanded, not what might be considered
>>the center today.
>
>I think Groningen (like Amsterdam btw) is a rather "powerfull"
>and perhaps "magical" city, in the sense that many centers fall
>together ...
That is *certainly* one of the things that makes Amsterdam
so special. I liken walking in Amsterdam, especially late
at night, to walking in a serious desert place of power like
Grand Canyon or Chaco Canyon or Canyon de Chelly. That is,
it's not a constant vibe -- as you walk, you encounter radic-
ally different realities every 30 meters or so. A good novel
that captures a little of this is the end of Roger Zelazny's
"Eye of Cat," which is set in Canyon de Chelly. I've been
there, and think that he definitely captured the essence of
the place in his book. That's basically how it feels to me
when I walk around Amsterdam. It's like surfing the Bardo.
>It's not easy to say where cities (or anything, including people)
>really "start" astrologically.
I'm not convinced, for the reasons I went into above.
>There is a very, very important sort of "axis of creation" that crosses
>the Zodiac, at 30 degrees Capricornius (or 0 Aquarius), that is
>supposed to be the "mirror", or the "line of symmetry".
>
>It's a sort of "center of the cyclone", where Yang and Yin are
>(still) united, and that couples all the signs and their corresponding
>"ruler planets".
>
>That means:
>
>Capricornius -- Aquarius (Saturnus<->Uranus)
>Sagittarius -- Piscis (Jupiter<->Neptunus)
>Scorpio -- Aries (Pluto<->Mars)
>Libra -- Taurus (Proserpina(?)<-> Venus)
>Virgo -- Gemini (Vulcanus(?)<->Mercurius)
>Leo -- Cancer (Sun<->Moon)
>
>There is a "Yang" ruler and "Yin" ruler for every sign, and they are
>"inverted" in these 6 couples --- The direction and force of the "cosmic
>winds" changes to the opposite after passing the eye of the storm...
>
>Failure to harmonize own's yang and yin ( to integrate the "shadow",
>"yin") is often expressed in conflicts between these couples ;--)
There are theories for everything. :-)
And that's fine, but I have to be honest in that I'm really
not as dazzled by theories as some people seem to be. It's
why I find Ken Wilbur and Fritjof Capra...uh...kinda boring.
I *understand* the desire to come up with a good theory, an
intellectual *model* for How Things Work. It's comforting;
it allows the person who believes in the model to believe
they actually *know* How Things Work. They don't. They know
what the model says about How Things Work.
This bias on my part has partly to do with my basic predilection
in life. I'd rather surf reality than try to figure it out.
But it also has a great deal to do with spending time in places
of power with beings of power, and being able to see my own
concepts of "reality" blown to bits before my very eyes. All
your life you've been taught that people can't fly and that
mountains are solid. When you see someone walking on air five
feet in front of you or see the mountain you are sitting under
just *go away* and disappear, it kinda loosens the hold that
the models of How Things Work have on you.
That basically describes my approach to astrology as well. I
think it's an interesting trip, and I'm happy to learn from it
when it seems applicable, but I don't take it too seriously.
Astrologers, as with Wilbur and Capra and many who have come
up with a really cool model of How Things Work sometimes have
a tendency to try to make reality "fit" into their model rather
than adapt the model to the reality that doesn't quite fit. Or
they *ignore* the aspects of reality that don't quite fit.
I know a lot of people like intellectual models. And if we were
talking Claudia Schiffer with an IQ of 180, I'm there. :-) But
when we're talking intellectual models for How Things Work, I'm
more comfortable enjoying them as entertainment and allowing
others to take them seriously.
>>In the case of Amster-
>>dam, I don't know where that would be,
>>but I suspect it would have to be smack
>>in the middle of the Centrum.
>
>Yes, I think Amsterdam has several "conjunctions", making
>it a "magical city" too ....
Yup. Dealt with above.
>>>There is still lots of serious research being done in Astrology
>>>nowadays (!)
>>
>>I remain unconvinced. The problem with
>>astrology is the problem with all forms of
>>divination or prediction -- the "seer" or
>>interpreter himself, and what he brings to
>>the table. Unless that person is enlight-
>>ened, even the most exact science is
>>going to be interpreted inexactly.
>
>There is not much "exact" in "prediction", I guess ...
>
>Still, when I make "predictions", it's not "me" doing them,
>what brings me often to (near)-exasperation
I remain unconvinced. Nothing personal. I feel the same
skepticism with the most famous astrologers on the planet.
Fun topics, in my opinion. Thanks for bringing them up...
Unc
Judy Stein
> Judy:
> >> >Teach not thy parent's mother to extract
> >> >The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
> >> >The good old lady can that feat enact,
> >> >Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.
>
> Unc:
> >> It may date me, but when I was growing up
> >> and first heard that phrase, the morsel
> >> being offered to the prospective diner was
> >> rump steak, not the organ you seem to
> >> have in mind. That meaning of the term
> >> has always stuck with me when invoking
> >> it as an epithet.
> >>
> >> And I understand that you are probably
> >> stilled jizzed up from learning that Shemp
> >> calls his hookers Judy, but I can assure
> >> you that the other connotation of the term
> >> never...uh...raised its ugly head in regard
> >> to you. I am drawn to younger women.
>
> Shemp:
> >Could you elaborate a bit on that, Unc.
I'm sure Barry is thrilled to elaborate on his various
sexual exploits, Shemp, but be aware that his comments
above have nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
I figured that little bit of anonymous doggerel would be
obvious, but lo and behold Barry went whooping off in
pursuit of a red herring he plucked straight out of his
own fantasies. What a hoot.
> I live for laughter
Now, *that's* the funniest thing Barry's said in a long,
long time.
<snip>
> Look at this newsgroup. When was the
> last time Judy Stein posted anything that
> anyone could consider *positive*?
Barry's reading of my posts is distinctly, how shall we say,
selective.
Shemp McGurk
Great post. Thanks for the feedback.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Most modern cities grew from primitive cities, founded by
> primitive cultures,
Actually in many cases they weren't even primitive cities;
the locations were known long before there were any cities.
many of whom were more in touch with
> the "vibe" of the land. The lay lines
That's ley lines, not lay lines, O lifetime scholar of
"places of power."
<snip>
> for thousands of years. Dig underneath modern cathedrals,
> churches and chateaus in Paris and Rome and other places
> and, more often than not, you will find three or four
> *older* sites that were previously built on the same
> spot. Many of these older sites date back to pagan or
> prehistoric times.
I mentioned here awhile back that New York City's Riverside Church
was built (in the early 20th century) over an underground spring on
one of the highest points on the island, overlooking the Hudson
River at its most majestic. The baptismal font is fed by water from
the spring. It would have almost certainly been an Indian holy site.
Riverside's architects based the church on the plan of the Chartres
Cathedral; it even has a replica of the labyrinth. Chartres Cathedral
is built on many layers of previous holy sites, including an
underground spring, that go back at least as far as the Druids.
Some of the lowest crypts haven't yet been explored.
I like to think when they were choosing the site for Riverside, they
deliberately picked a "place of power" in emulation of Chartres in
that respect as well.
Has nothing to do with the pattern of growth of NYC, though...
<snip>
> And that's fine, but I have to be honest in that I'm really
> not as dazzled by theories as some people seem to be. It's
> why I find Ken Wilbur and Fritjof Capra...uh...kinda boring.
Wilber isn't really a theorist, though, he's an organizer, a
compiler, a drawer of parallels, an explicator. His work is
very much experientially based (as you'd know if you'd actually
ever read him).
> I *understand* the desire to come up with a good theory, an
> intellectual *model* for How Things Work. It's comforting;
> it allows the person who believes in the model to believe
> they actually *know* How Things Work. They don't. They know
> what the model says about How Things Work.
Funny, that's one of Wilber's big points. What works of his
did you say you'd read?
<snip>
> Astrologers, as with Wilbur and Capra and many who have come
> up with a really cool model of How Things Work
You can take Wilber off that list now.
Uncle Tantra
> > Most modern cities grew from primitive cities, founded by
> > the "vibe" of the land. The lay lines
Judy:
> That's ley lines, not lay lines, O lifetime scholar of
> "places of power."
Just a reminder of a recent quote:
"There are NO writers who are so good they don't need an editor."
-- Judy Stein, who posted the following link, saying
it was her "true form" http://tinyurl.com/5yvfu
Gaze upon the photo (which really is cute), think of Judy Stein
and how she envisions her "true form," and then think back to the
discussion about editors and their value or lack thereof, and
then consider this particular editor's comments with regard to
the three stories I posted recently.
I was giving her a shot at proving her contention above. What
I posted were FIRST DRAFTS, not even polished or sent through
a spell checker.
So how did the editor repond?
Well, the only direct comment she made on the stories was to
pass along an urban legend about jelly doughnuts in yet another
attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message.
It was clever; I'll give her that. But she didn't really *say*
very much by posting it, did she? Except about herself.
In this post, she does the same thing in a followup discussion,
challenging one common spelling of a term (check for yourself --
both are found interchangably in books on the subject, even if
one might technically be more correct), in what I suspect most
people can see is yet another desparate attempt to put someone
she doesn't like down and lower the conversation to the only
level on which she seems capable of functioning lately.
Rather than do that, might I suggest either of two alternative
courses of action to Ms. Stein:
1. To parrot the same phrase you've been posting so often to
Shemp and Willytex, "Do you have anything meaningful to say
about the subjects of change vs. progress, using economic
pressure to influence America, or the benefits of giving?"
If so, do tell. So far, all you've done is act petulant
and indulge in character assassination, *very much* in the
same fashion as the people you've been using this line on.
2. Put your money where your mouth is with regard to your claim
that there is no writer who could not benefit from editing
and do your editorial thang on my first drafts. I specifically
left them in first draft form so that you could go to town on
them. Do so. Prove your quote above. I probably won't even
comment on your comments, and if you make useful corrections
I might even use them. Here's your chance to prove your
statement, if you really believe it's true.
In my opinion, EITHER path would be "higher vibe" and better for
your image here than continuing to nitpick just to start a fight.
Unc
Shemp McGurk
> > > Most modern cities grew from primitive cities, founded by
> > > primitive cultures, many of whom were more in touch with
> > > the "vibe" of the land. The lay lines
>
> Judy:
> > That's ley lines, not lay lines, O lifetime scholar of
> > "places of power."
>
>
> Just a reminder of a recent quote:
>
> "There are NO writers who are so good they don't need an editor."
>
> -- Judy Stein, who posted the following link, saying
> it was her "true form" http://tinyurl.com/5yvfu
>
> Gaze upon the photo (which really is cute), think of Judy Stein
> and how she envisions her "true form,"
...the balls aren't big enough...
Judy Stein
> > > Most modern cities grew from primitive cities, founded by
> > > primitive cultures, many of whom were more in touch with
> > > the "vibe" of the land. The lay lines
>
> Judy:
> > That's ley lines, not lay lines, O lifetime scholar of
> > "places of power."
>
> Just a reminder of a recent quote:
>
> "There are NO writers who are so good they don't need an editor."
>
> -- Judy Stein, who posted the following link, saying
> it was her "true form" http://tinyurl.com/5yvfu
>
> Gaze upon the photo (which really is cute), think of Judy Stein
> and how she envisions her "true form,"
I gather that photo has succeeded in making Barry's nightmares
about me worse than usual.
(Notice that I posted the URL in response to Shemp and Barry
repeatedly having called me a pig. Actually it represents
*their* vision of my "true form.")
and then think back to the
> discussion about editors and their value or lack thereof, and
> then consider this particular editor's comments with regard to
> the three stories I posted recently.
>
> I was giving her a shot at proving her contention above.
Barry was doing no such thing. Obviously I wouldn't edit
anyone's work without an invitation.
What
> I posted were FIRST DRAFTS, not even polished or sent through
> a spell checker.
>
> So how did the editor repond?
>
> Well, the only direct comment she made on the stories was to
> pass along an urban legend about jelly doughnuts in yet another
> attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message.
> It was clever; I'll give her that. But she didn't really *say*
> very much by posting it, did she?
Nope. Didn't intend to. The intention was to get Barry to jump
through hoops to try to prove me wrong, which is exactly what he
did (and as a bonus, he demonstrated his complete lack of
inhibition about plagiarizing from the work of others).
It's not clear what kind of "dealing with the message" Barry
thinks is called for. Paris is mostly old; Berlin is mostly
new; and Barry prefers Paris. So nu? Barry amused himself by
expanding on these premises at considerable length. Whatever
floats his boat. (Assuming he actually wrote those pieces,
that is.)
Except about herself.
>
> In this post, she does the same thing in a followup discussion,
> challenging one common spelling of a term (check for yourself --
> both are found interchangably in books on the subject, even if
> one might technically be more correct),
Just for fun, I did a search on "ley lines" and "lay lines" at
Amazon. There were a dozen or so books with the former in the
title and only two with the latter, both books in a fantasy
series, and it wasn't clear the "Lay Lines" in the title had
anything to do with ley lines. A Google search turns up many
times more hits for "ley lines" than "lay lines," and a quick
scan of some of the hits shows that "lay lines" is a mariner's
term, quite different from "ley lines."
in what I suspect most
> people can see is yet another desparate attempt to put someone
> she doesn't like down and lower the conversation to the only
> level on which she seems capable of functioning lately.
Of course, there was considerably more to my post than that,
speaking of attempting to shoot the messenger rather than
"dealing with" the message.
> 1. To parrot the same phrase you've been posting so often to
> Shemp and Willytex, "Do you have anything meaningful to say
> about the subjects of change vs. progress, using economic
> pressure to influence America, or the benefits of giving?"
> If so, do tell.
Doesn't seem like anybody else found much of anything to comment
on in those three pieces either, except for one response from Stu
on the Berliner piece, a tangential discussion initiated by
Joao about the astrology of cities, and a yet more tangential
discussion of May-December relationships with Shemp inspired by
a comment Barry made in the course of wildly misconstruing a bit
of doggerel I posted remarking on his frantic attempt to rebut
my "jelly doughtnut" comment. So maybe there isn't much of
anything meaningful *to* be said about Barry's little pieces.
So far, all you've done is act petulant
> and indulge in character assassination, *very much* in the
> same fashion as the people you've been using this line on.
Wow. Character assassination, according to Barry, now extends
to correcting a spelling error and making a joke about a jelly
doughnut. That sure does say a lot about where Barry's head
is at.
> 2. Put your money where your mouth is with regard to your claim
> that there is no writer who could not benefit from editing
> and do your editorial thang on my first drafts. I specifically
> left them in first draft form so that you could go to town on
> them.
Well, no, he didn't. He came up with that notion just for the
occasion of this post.
And no, I'm not going to do any editing of Barry's writing; as
I said in our earlier discussion, it isn't the sort of material
I'd enjoy working on for money, so I'm certainly not going to do
it for free.
More importantly--as I also pointed out before--I never said
there is no writer who could not benefit from *my* editing. So
there's no issue of "putting my money where my mouth is." I'm
sure there are editors who could improve Barry's writing a great
deal if they wanted to bother, but he'll have to look elsewhere
for them.
<snip>
> In my opinion, EITHER path would be "higher vibe" and better for
> your image here than continuing to nitpick just to start a fight.
I'd suggest Barry worry about the height of his own vibe and image.
Me, I'm having great fun inspiring Barry to publicly explore the
depths of his vibes and demonstrate to us all how phony is the
image he tries to portray of himself as a person whose vibes are
exalted over those of the rest of us.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Shemp and Willytex, "Do you have anything meaningful to say
> about the subjects of change vs. progress, using economic
> pressure to influence America, or the benefits of giving?"
P.S.: I do that in response to a very specific type of post, as I'm
sure Barry is well aware, that is entirely different from my recent
comments to Barry. Apples and oranges.
Uncle Tantra
> >
> > "There are NO writers who are so good they don't need an editor."
> >
> > -- Judy Stein, who posted the following link, saying
> > it was her "true form" http://tinyurl.com/5yvfu
> >
> > Gaze upon the photo (which really is cute), think of Judy Stein
> > and how she envisions her "true form,"
>
> ...the balls aren't big enough...
Now THAT made me chuckle, Shemp. :-)
It was nigh unto subtle, something I don't necessarily
associate with your humor.
I was thinking the other day that the trans-gender thang
you bring up, and Judy's consistent reactions to jibes
about sex, might be easiest explained by unfamiliarity.
Think about it. Given her style of presentation here, and
the level of human compassion she is able to demonstrate
(that is, only in the abstract, almost never to individuals),
how likely is it that she actually *has* a sex life?
Although we'll never know, just for the fun of speculation,
I'll pose the question: "When was the last time Judy Stein
had sex with an animate being, hopefully of the same species?"
I think ten years is the starting point for guesses, sorta
like the "minimum bid" on Ebay. Me, I'd vote for over twenty.
If true, it explains a lot. How snarky would you be if you
hadn't had sex since 1984?
:-) :-) :-)
Unc
Judy Stein
<snip>
> > > Gaze upon the photo (which really is cute), think of Judy Stein
> > > and how she envisions her "true form,"
> >
> > ...the balls aren't big enough...
>
> Now THAT made me chuckle, Shemp. :-)
>
> It was nigh unto subtle, something I don't necessarily
> associate with your humor.
>
> I was thinking the other day that the trans-gender thang
> you bring up, and Judy's consistent reactions to jibes
> about sex
For the record, my consistent reaction to "jibes about sex"
is to point out how predictable it is that when pseudo-tough
guys like Shemp and Barry fail to prevail in a debate with a
woman, their instant knee(?)-jerk reaction is to insult the
woman's sexuality. That really shows how tough they are,
doesn't it?
(Interestingly, another of the pseudo-toughs here, Willytex,
has never displayed that kind of juvenile behavior. At
least in that respect, he seems to have attained a sexual
maturity lacking in Shemp and Barry.)
<snip>
> Although we'll never know, just for the fun of speculation,
> I'll pose the question: "When was the last time Judy Stein
> had sex with an animate being, hopefully of the same species?"
>
> I think ten years is the starting point for guesses, sorta
> like the "minimum bid" on Ebay. Me, I'd vote for over twenty.
> If true, it explains a lot. How snarky would you be if you
> hadn't had sex since 1984?
No, you won't ever know, because it's my policy not to discuss
my personal life unless it's relevant.
However, I can tell you that your speculation occasioned quite
a bit of hilarity here by the ocean.
Shemp McGurk
Well, if it's been that long, she should do what I apparently do on a
regular basis: see a prostitute. Of course, she would have to see a
male prostitute which I have no idea whether they exist outside of
movies or not.
Uncle Tantra
>> > > "There are NO writers who are so good they don't need an editor."
>> > >
>> > > -- Judy Stein, who posted the following link, saying
>> > > it was her "true form" http://tinyurl.com/5yvfu
>> > >
>> > > Gaze upon the photo (which really is cute), think of Judy Stein
>> > > and how she envisions her "true form,"
Shemp:
>> > ...the balls aren't big enough...
Unc:
>> Now THAT made me chuckle, Shemp. :-)
>>
>> It was nigh unto subtle, something I don't necessarily
>> associate with your humor.
>>
>> I was thinking the other day that the trans-gender thang
>> you bring up, and Judy's consistent reactions to jibes
>> about sex, might be easiest explained by unfamiliarity.
>>
>> Think about it. Given her style of presentation here, and
>> the level of human compassion she is able to demonstrate
>> (that is, only in the abstract, almost never to individuals),
>> how likely is it that she actually *has* a sex life?
>>
>> Although we'll never know, just for the fun of speculation,
>> I'll pose the question: "When was the last time Judy Stein
>> had sex with an animate being, hopefully of the same species?"
>>
>> I think ten years is the starting point for guesses, sorta
>> like the "minimum bid" on Ebay. Me, I'd vote for over twenty.
>> If true, it explains a lot. How snarky would you be if you
>> hadn't had sex since 1984?
>>
>> :-) :-) :-)
Shemp:
>Well, if it's been that long, she should do what I apparently do on a
>regular basis: see a prostitute. Of course, she would have to see a
>male prostitute which I have no idea whether they exist outside of
>movies or not.
Not necessarily, Shemp. Not necessarily.
We are, after all, talking about someone
who chose a wrathful deity to represent
her "true form" without noticing that he
was sporting a sizeable package. :-)
Just in the spirit of speculation, I suppose
it's possible that she assumed it was a
strap-on. But either way, ya gotta admit
it's funny.
I tried to phrase my question precisely, to
eliminate the possibility of...uh...household
appliances or disembodied entities as
potential sexual partners. Given her
answer, I suspect that I was wise to do so
in the latter case. I've never met a vibrator
that chuckles. :-)
Unc
Uncle Tantra
to snip from the posts she's replying to?
> Think about it. Given her style of presentation here, and
> the level of human compassion she is able to demonstrate
> (that is, only in the abstract, almost never to individuals),
> how likely is it that she actually *has* a sex life?
I'm not saying anything about this snip
one way or the other, except that I think
it's fascinating.
Unc
Shemp McGurk
> <snip>
> > > > Gaze upon the photo (which really is cute), think of Judy Stein
> > > > and how she envisions her "true form,"
> > >
> > > ...the balls aren't big enough...
> >
> > Now THAT made me chuckle, Shemp. :-)
> >
> > It was nigh unto subtle, something I don't necessarily
> > associate with your humor.
> >
> > I was thinking the other day that the trans-gender thang
> > you bring up, and Judy's consistent reactions to jibes
> > about sex
>
> For the record, my consistent reaction to "jibes about sex"
> is to point out how predictable it is that when pseudo-tough
> guys like Shemp
What "pseudo"? I am a totally fake tough guy.
Indeed, I am a self-admitted girlie-man, just like the postal
employee.
>
and Barry fail to prevail in a debate with a
> woman, their instant knee(?)-jerk reaction is to insult the
> woman's sexuality. That really shows how tough they are,
> doesn't it?
...and when the heat is too hot in the kitchen, women who can't take
it fall back on the tired-old "you're picking on girls" argument.
>
> (Interestingly, another of the pseudo-toughs here, Willytex,
> has never displayed that kind of juvenile behavior. At
> least in that respect, he seems to have attained a sexual
> maturity lacking in Shemp and Barry.)
Oh, I'll be the first to admit I have a maturity level (that, by the
way, extends WAY beyond just my sexuality!) of about age 16 or 17...
>
> <snip>
> > Although we'll never know, just for the fun of speculation,
> > I'll pose the question: "When was the last time Judy Stein
> > had sex with an animate being, hopefully of the same species?"
> >
> > I think ten years is the starting point for guesses, sorta
> > like the "minimum bid" on Ebay. Me, I'd vote for over twenty.
> > If true, it explains a lot. How snarky would you be if you
> > hadn't had sex since 1984?
>
> No, you won't ever know, because it's my policy not to discuss
> my personal life unless it's relevant.
>
> However, I can tell you that your speculation occasioned quite
> a bit of hilarity here by the ocean.
I think Barry is quite sure of your non-existent sex life because of
all the time you spend posting here...you wouldn't have time for
anything else!
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Not necessarily, Shemp. Not necessarily.
> We are, after all, talking about someone
> who chose a wrathful deity to represent
> her "true form" without noticing that he
> was sporting a sizeable package. :-)
Uh, that was the main reason I posted it.
Judy Stein
There didn't seem to be much that warranted comment,
given that it's such an absurdly apples-and-kiwi fruit
linkage (and factually inaccurate to boot, on both
counts).
But I'll raise Barry one. I think his failure to
respond to this from my post is quite revealing:
Judy Stein
> > For the record, my consistent reaction to "jibes about sex"
> > is to point out how predictable it is that when pseudo-tough
> > guys like Shemp
>
> What "pseudo"? I am a totally fake tough guy.
>
> Indeed, I am a self-admitted girlie-man, just like the postal
> employee.
> >
> and Barry fail to prevail in a debate with a
> > woman, their instant knee(?)-jerk reaction is to insult the
> > woman's sexuality. That really shows how tough they are,
> > doesn't it?
>
> ...and when the heat is too hot in the kitchen, women who can't take
> it fall back on the tired-old "you're picking on girls" argument.
Some may. I don't, of course.
<snip>
> I think Barry is quite sure of your non-existent sex life because of
> all the time you spend posting here...you wouldn't have time for
> anything else!
I spend less than an hour a day here on average.
Uncle Tantra
Judy, you never learn. :-) You're fighting
a guerrilla war in Asia. It's Vietnam, and
you're the French, or later, the Americans.
It's Algeria, and you're the French again.
It's Iraq, and you're a bunch of American
troops whining because the folks on the
other side won't "play fair."
You are free to say anything you want
about me. Go to town. I don't need to
reply unless there is some fun to be had
in replying. As to the above, I was merely
demonstrating how easily you can be "got
to" here, *because* you care so much
about "protecting your image."
My "image" here is already fucked. Or
not, depending on who you speak to. It
doesn't matter too much to me either way.
Your image matters to you very much
indeed. You have this compulsion about
trying to force the world to see you the
way you want to be seen. Sorta...um...
like the French and the Americans when
fighting an insurgent action that doesn't
much give a shit about its own image,
merely about getting the other party to
overreact and expend a lot of time and
energy.
The thing is, though, it's grown more than
a little boring. In all honesty, I don't see
that you've said anything new or posted
any of your own thoughts that were inter-
esting in well over a year. So every inter-
action with you has to play itself out within
the same tired old framework. Even John,
who I really do admire for his stick-to-it-
iveness, balances the OT articles he posts
here with his own comments. I really *like*
John's comments, much more than the
articles themselves. He's not afraid to put
himself on the line and say something he
believes is true. I may not agree with all
that he says, but I admire him for handling
himself here in a way that is not *entirely*
reactive.
Compare and contrast to your style here.
Be honest with yourself, now.
When was the last time you had some-
thing to say that was not in reaction to
something that someone else posted?
When was the last time you shared a
solution, even if it's a feeble one like mine
about putting one's money where one's
mouth is, instead of just reposting some-
one *else's* view of the problem?
You've got a great mind, Judy. I just think
you'd be happier if you used it more.
I brought up the sex thang because 1) the
thing Shemp posted struck me as funny
and I wanted to riff on it, and 2) because
it was a quick way of pointing out to you
exactly how reactive and protective of your
image you've become. I'll drop it now. To be
honest, your sex life or lack thereof doesn't
really interest me that much.
Nor, to be equally honest, do you. In the
last week or two, since returning from Ber-
lin and dashing off three quick stories in a
day, I've been fortunate enough to have a
few *real* conversations based upon them, via
email or on other forums. They've reminded me
that life's too short to waste one's time in
conversations that just run in circles, instead
of growing in spirals. I thought that two
such conversations here were of that sort:
the one with Stu and the one with J.Rocha.
And what did you do when you saw them
happening, saw people riffing on each others'
words and having some semblance of fun
with it? You rushed in and tried your best
to bring it back down to the level of thought
stoppers and hurled insults that you seem to
enjoy so much with Shemp and Willytex.
I think I've realized that what I perceived in
the past as an obsession with me really
isn't. It's an obsession with a particular
low state of attention, the plane of argu-
mentation. Your aim is to lower every
conversation here to that level, for little
more reason than that you're familiar with
it. You seek to provoke, to draw someone
into extended arguments in which you can
convince yourself that you've "won." And
when people fail to fall for it, and ignore
the provocation, you declare that you've "won"
anyway. As you just did above.
You've won. I have no desire, nor need, to
defend a "tough guy" status that you project
onto me. I guess in your eyes that makes
me a wimp. I refuse to play by your rules
and get into a point-by-point debate over a
subject that exists only in your mind. I'm
bad. You're good. You won.
I honestly hope that your victory helps to
enable you to experience a little more
happiness, Judy. You haven't exactly been
displaying much of it lately. So if my cap-
itulation made you feel better about your-
self and your carefully-crafted image, both
here and inside your mind, that makes *me*
feel better.
It really IS all about giving, Judy. You
didn't *dare* react to that story, because
it was about the thing you've either lost
touch with in the pursuit of spirituality or
never were in touch with. So was the comment
about compassion. You don't *dare* touch
those subjects with a ten-foot pole. For
what are, in my opinion, obvious reasons.
I give you a victory. I declare you winner.
You whupped my butt, Judy. You pointed
out that both Shemp and I revel at times
in delayed-adolescent humor. It's absolutely
true. And I dare say that neither of us
feels the least bit bad about it, but if it
makes you happy, we'll pretend to, for your
sake. Oh woe, oh woe. :-)
There. Feel better now? :-)
In one post recently I suggested a couple
of topics that I thought might be more
worthy of your intellect and your word
skills than you've been displaying here.
You blew them off. Your call.
But it's mine to go back to ignoring you
*until* you say something interesting,
something you haven't said 20 times
before and which in most cases came from
someone else in the first place. You've
certainly got the mind for it, but you're not
using it. You've settled for what America
has settled for, flapping your gums about
the same old things, over and over, and
mistaking that for actually saying some-
thing, or even worse, for actually *doing*
something. Do that with others, babe.
I'm gonna focus for a while on having
conversations with folks who have more
range.
Unc
Shemp McGurk
...and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm interested in selling to you...
Judy Stein
<snip>
> > > I was thinking the other day that the trans-gender thang
> > > you bring up, and Judy's consistent reactions to jibes
> > > about sex
> >
> > For the record, my consistent reaction to "jibes about sex"
> > is to point out how predictable it is that when pseudo-tough
> > guys like Shemp and Barry fail to prevail in a debate with a
> > woman, their instant knee(?)-jerk reaction is to insult the
> > woman's sexuality. That really shows how tough they are,
> > doesn't it?
>
> Judy, you never learn. :-) You're fighting
> a guerrilla war in Asia.
(Translation: Barry *really* doesn't want to address the
predictability of his descent into sexism when he comes out
the worse in a debate.)
It's Vietnam, and
> you're the French, or later, the Americans.
> It's Algeria, and you're the French again.
> It's Iraq, and you're a bunch of American
> troops whining because the folks on the
> other side won't "play fair."
Oh, goodness, no, I have nothing to "whine" about. It's
to my advantage when you don't play fair.
> You are free to say anything you want
> about me. Go to town. I don't need to
> reply unless there is some fun to be had
> in replying. As to the above, I was merely
> demonstrating how easily you can be "got
> to" here, *because* you care so much
> about "protecting your image."
What you've never learned, Barry, is how badly your lame
attacks reflect on you. It's great that you've convinced
yourself that I need to "protect my image," because that
belief inspires you to keep attacking it, which allows me
over and over again to point out what a complete phony
you are.
> My "image" here is already fucked.
Right. And I intend to keep it that way. Unless you one
day wake up and decide to become real.
<snip>
> here with his own comments. I really *like*
> John's comments, much more than the
> articles themselves. He's not afraid to put
> himself on the line and say something he
> believes is true. I may not agree with all
> that he says, but I admire him for handling
> himself here in a way that is not *entirely*
> reactive.
>
> Compare and contrast to your style here.
> Be honest with yourself, now.
As I've noted, your reading of my posts is quite
remarkably selective.
<snip>
> I brought up the sex thang because 1) the
> thing Shemp posted struck me as funny
> and I wanted to riff on it, and 2) because
> it was a quick way of pointing out to you
> exactly how reactive and protective of your
> image you've become. I'll drop it now.
Oh, don't do that! However will you be able to
demonstrate how reactive and protective of my image
I've become if you don't continue to attack it?
Shemp's comment was funny (especially since he noticed
what you had completely missed in that photo, which was
the reason I had posted it in the first place). And it
was actually something of a backhanded compliment.
Your "riff" on the comment was what started the train of
ugly, juvenile insults to my sexuality. Shemp joined in
with gusto, but his initial comment, unlike your response,
was lighthearted and--as you yourself point out--relatively
subtle.
Or to put it another way, Shemp's comment said something about
me. Your response said something only about you.
<snip>
> Nor, to be equally honest, do you. In the
> last week or two, since returning from Ber-
> lin and dashing off three quick stories in a
> day, I've been fortunate enough to have a
> few *real* conversations based upon them, via
> email or on other forums. They've reminded me
> that life's too short to waste one's time in
> conversations that just run in circles, instead
> of growing in spirals. I thought that two
> such conversations here were of that sort:
> the one with Stu and the one with J.Rocha.
Yeah, too bad those were the only two your three stories
generated, and that they were both inspired by only one
of the stories, and that one was highly tangential and the
other very brief.
> And what did you do when you saw them
> happening, saw people riffing on each others'
> words and having some semblance of fun
> with it? You rushed in and tried your best
> to bring it back down to the level of thought
> stoppers and hurled insults that you seem to
> enjoy so much with Shemp and Willytex.
<giggle> The "insults" I "hurled" consisted of the single
wisecrack about the jelly doughnut. And that was while the
sole substantive response to your "story" was Stu's.
If you want to know who brought things down to the level of
hurled insults and thought-stoppers, go look in the mirror.
You could easily have ignored the wisecrack. But you chose
to start a fight instead.
> I think I've realized that what I perceived in
> the past as an obsession with me really
> isn't. It's an obsession with a particular
> low state of attention, the plane of argu-
> mentation. Your aim is to lower every
> conversation here to that level
Nah. It's to expose the phonies so it's easy to distinguish
their blather from real conversations.
<snip>
> It really IS all about giving, Judy. You
> didn't *dare* react to that story, because
> it was about the thing you've either lost
> touch with in the pursuit of spirituality or
> never were in touch with.
Barry, your great insight into giving, as discussed in that
piece, was that it's better to give than to receive.
I hate to break it to you, but I've heard that one somewhere
before.
I rarely see any original insights in your posts. I see a
lot of self-consciously fancy, artsy-fartsy writing designed
to dress up and present, as if it were new and profound, old
familiar stuff most of us have long since internalized.
So was the comment
> about compassion. You don't *dare* touch
> those subjects with a ten-foot pole.
As I noted, your "compassion" comment was absurd. Not only
was it inaccurate (as I said, your reading of my posts is
exceedingly selective), what I post here and the way I act
in my private life are apples and kiwi fruit: there's no
way you can conclude anything--either way--about the latter
from the former, much less anything about my *sex* life, for
pete's sake.
The point here isn't my sex life or how compassionate I
am in my private life--neither is any of your business--
it's how incredibly full you are of hot air.
I ignored the comment the first time around, but I'm happy
to point out why it made no sense now that you've insisted
on making an issue of it.
<snip>
> In one post recently I suggested a couple
> of topics that I thought might be more
> worthy of your intellect and your word
> skills than you've been displaying here.
> You blew them off. Your call.
>
> But it's mine to go back to ignoring you
> *until* you say something interesting,
> something you haven't said 20 times
> before
This is particularly amusing, given that you've vowed
to ignore me *at least* 20 times before. You never seem
to get that the "threat" that you're going to ignore me
doesn't discourage me in the slightest from continuing to
expose your phoniness.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> When was the last time you shared a
> solution, even if it's a feeble one like mine
> about putting one's money where one's
> mouth is, instead of just reposting some-
> one *else's* view of the problem?
A P.S. on this:
I've been "sharing," and implementing, what I think is the
number-one solution ever since I've been on this newsgroup.
And you know what it is, because a lot of the implementing
has been done in connection with your very ownself.
It has to do with (a) being as honest as one can possibly
be and (b) learning how to see through the dishonesty of
others.
It isn't the *whole* solution by any means. But until we
begin to have a higher regard for honesty and stop
tolerating dishonesty--in ourselves and others--no other
part of the solution has a chance.
I've been explicit about this many times; and probably the
majority of my posts here over 10 years have involved
exposing the dishonesty of people like you and Shemp and
Willytex, and previously including the malicious anti-TM
propagandists like John Knapp and Andrew Skolnick. Most
of the news stories I post have had to do with instances
of dishonesty on the part of right-wingers, the
administration, and/or the Bush campaign.
I prefer to act on my solution in practical ways rather
than writing fancy, self-congratulatory pieces about it.
YMMV.
Judy Stein
> jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in message news:<19b3c03e.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> > shemp...@netscape.net (Shemp McGurk) wrote in message news:<a2578468.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I think Barry is quite sure of your non-existent sex life because of
> > > all the time you spend posting here...you wouldn't have time for
> > > anything else!
> >
> > I spend less than an hour a day here on average.
>
> ...and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm interested in selling to you...
Shemp, you forgot. You're the liar; I'm the one who tells the truth.
Shemp McGurk
> shemp...@netscape.net (Shemp McGurk) wrote in message news:<a2578468.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> > jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in message news:<19b3c03e.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > shemp...@netscape.net (Shemp McGurk) wrote in message news:<a2578468.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> > > > I think Barry is quite sure of your non-existent sex life because of
> > > > all the time you spend posting here...you wouldn't have time for
> > > > anything else!
> > >
> > > I spend less than an hour a day here on average.
> >
> > ...and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm interested in selling to you...
>
> Shemp, you forgot. You're the liar; I'm the one who tells the truth.
Didn't you once write a self-help book back in the '70s called "I'm
perfect, you're OK"?