Humanity vs Sexuality vs Gender

[Lutenist]

spoilered, no splats...nothing really major here...just some frank
discussion of gender identity issues and the like...it's long and I kind of
ramble on...
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Hmm...how to start? Well, I suppose that for one thing, for those who
have read any of previous posts, there is probably the expectation of more
conceited, lofty-sounding, quite thoroughly intellectualized, non-committal
tripe coming from me. I would certainly underrated that. It's a great
defense against the world, being the Zen master on high, detached from
everything, everyone. New supplicants are given an audience daily, after
lunch, from 1 to 3. Please refer to the introductory manual you received at
the front gate for proper genuflection technique. Right.
I've been reading the discussions both past and current on gender,
sexual orientation, and stereotyping. Very interesting stuff, particularly
for me, since this is really at the core of my own survival / recovery path.
I was born a biological male. I have been gender dysphoric as long as I
can remember, with most of my alters also being female. My orientation (for
a biological male) has been consistently hetero. Naturally the eternal
internal female in me has seriously impacted my relationships with women,
first with my wife of seven years and later with two serious live-in
relationships, each with a duration of five years. The last one, ending
almost six years ago, was one of the most serious crash-and burn experiences
of my entire life, since the abuse ended.
The combination of subsequent depression and substance abuse led me into
a forced recognition and reassessment of my gender identity, alters, and
overall personality conflicts within myself. Two DUIs within seven months
are a loud wakeup call, assuming you survive the selfish stupidity of drunk
driving without killing or injuring yourself or anyone else. Fortunately, I
neither injured nor killed anyone. The State of Michigan has now rewarded me
with the opportunity to ponder my actions and seek help by revoking my
license and mandating my attendance and participation in two therapy
sessions and three AA meetings a week for the coming year, at the very
least.
My first couple of weeks of no alcohol was a real barn-burner.
Flashbacks, both visual and tactile, alters suddenly popping up and my
coming back hours (or longer) later, wondering what happened to the time,
finding things indicating one of us had had a major temper tantrum (smashed
coffee mug, shoes thrown all over the living room floor, computer desk
cleared off using the "single sweep" method, etc.). Never missed the alcohol
though, but then, physical addiction wasn't what kept me drinking in the
first place.
I've posted here under two of my alters: Robbi and Lizann, both female.
Robbi tends to be the most conciliatory of us all and frequently appears in
my everyday life. Lizann is quite aggressive, being the one who really
pulled us all through the years of abuse, but also incredibly stubborn and
explosive, as well as the one who handles ALL matters involving physical
contact with any other person, regardless of purpose, trust levels, or
magnitude of the contact episode. She fights well too, but yet also knows
when to pull back and wait. She is by far the dominant persona overall, and
has saved this burned-out husk we live in many, many times...she's like the
Xena of our little village...
I have now come to realize that for better or worse, I must accept not
only that I have alters, but that I possess a predominantly female gender
identity and that I have a lot of abuse-related issues in dealing with
everyday life that need a lot more attention than I have been giving them.
Acknowledging my gender identity has been an especially painful process for
me, and I have found little understanding among others of this. Even my gay
friends (both male and female) did not pick up on this, and when they
eventually did, absolutely couldn't relate to it. They were quite happy with
their genders, merely being concerned with being left the hell alone to do
what they knew what was right for them, with their bodies.
Lizann is a rabid feminist; Robbi is quite feminist in her outlook, but
exercises a great deal more circumspection in considering whether to reveal
anything of herself to others, than Lizann does.
I am feminist, but really try to stay humanist. Having had to learn to see
the world from a totally alienated perspective (with regard to gender
identity) I have come realize the value of seeing people without the
trappings of cosmetic status.
So what does this mean? Well, I can agree with Jen's sacred turf
perspective on childbirth and motherhood, yet see that it too, must
ultimately be classified as cosmetic, going back to some of my conversation
with Anik on the subject of motherhood: I really believe it's a state of
being, not just a biological function.
I also see Cal's perspective in being vehemently against any form of
stereotyping. Ultimately, we are all individuals, and stereotyping is
nothing more than an attempt at diminution of that individuality, that
selfhood that is the birthright of every single human being. Period.
I can also see Cliff's perspective: as I indicated above, I have been
gender-bent from Day One. Forget the abuse and other crises of growing up;
that alone is enough to drive you batshit.
I can see Anik's perspective, on feeling genderless. Hmm...now what do I
do? I don't fit here, and I don't fit here, and I don't fit there...let's
see, what does that leave? Oh, I see! None Of The Above...right then, I'll
have one of those, hold the mustard please... The only way to really deal
with the idea of having been excluded by society is to realize that you are
going to have to invent some new concepts and rules, and enforce them,
particularly with yourself. You soon realize in such circumstances that you
really are your own worst enemy.
I see Luke's perspective. The confusion, the swings between self-hatred
and other-hatred, the dismay in realizing that you aren't the way all the
blokes you admire on the telly seem to be. I was really bummed out when I
realized that I wasn't going to grow up looking like Haley Mills or Patty
Duke (yeah, yeah, I'm THAT old...). And I went through a "homosexual panic"
during one stage of early adulthood. I eventually calmed down enough to come
back to my guiding principle of "don't even consider, much less worry, about
physical contact without some sense of love or at least some really serious
lust, and once you try something, especially under those particular
constraints, it's water under the dam."
I also discovered that I was almost totally impotent with any other
human being. That was when I started HAVING to look at myself much more
deeply and with a much greater sense of compassion. I was lost in a world of
sexual and gender equivocality. Didn't know up from down. Got depressed and
started trying not to care. Wow...now that's a realistic way of handling
things.
My eventual (much belated) delving into the abuse revealed to me that I
had a lot more to consider than I had ever realized. Aside from the
socially-conditioned response patterns I had developed (damn, I can sound
like the biggest numbskulled macho that ever propped up a bar, this side of
the Mississippi...), I had a whole plethora of counter-response patterns
that had developed concurrently, probably in no small part due to Lizann's
rather rebellious, aggressive nature. I could out-femme any gay male I ever
met and a lot of women to boot. I could be seductive in any context, with
any person of any gender, of any orientation. Talk about control issues. It
was all like a game to me.
I eventually, of course, crashed. I couldn't ever hold onto a job or a
relationship beyond the "honeymoon period". Then I started looking at some
potential biological factors. My father (who along with my mother, was one
of my perps) had played some dangerous games with thyroid-stimulating drugs
in order to overcome his own impotence and get both his former wife and my
mother preggers. Odd things: my half-brother died of anorexia, after
abruptly terminating his Rhodes Scholarship and returning to this country to
study law...wonder what kinda case histories he was reading up on? My
half-sister, now a major bible-thumper (this is meant irreverently, but not
demeaningly - you'll have to take my word on it, ok?), cannot remember
anything before her twelfth birthday, by which time I believe dear old dad
was busy seeing how much of mine and my mother's souls he could devour. The
point here is that I think his little thyroid experiment could have really
messed my own endocrine system, as well as those of my half-siblings.
So, fast-forward to now: I don't trust my own daddy-begotten
endocrinology. I also don't have the insurance or other resources to take a
leisurely stroll through the gardens of medical inquiry in investigating
this. I won't put it off any longer and I won't be held hostage by the
community of those who, out of sheer humanitarianism and philanthropy,
having taken their hypocritical oath, now charge hundreds of dollars,
sometimes by the minute, for their god-like attentions and inscrutable,
miracle-making thought processes.
Having realized the adequacy of my brain to the task, and done my
homework carefully, I selected an anti-androgen (Aldactone) to reduce my
testosterone levels to roughly that of a healthy adult female. What a
difference! OH MY GOD !!! What a wonderful world I now live in: no alcohol,
no illicit drugs, no sense of physical sexuality whatsoever. I / we exist
with my / our gender identities all intact, and none of the ups and downs
and drives and fallbacks of desire...absolutely NONE. I've never been so
happy or at peace in my life.
I do have other chemicals in my system...been prescribed Ritalin for ADD
and Prozac for depression, OCD, sleep disturbances. Also, after two happy
months on the Aldactone, I'm now experimenting with a small daily dose of
estrogen (Estradiol) to see what that does to / for me. So far, nothing, but
it's only been a couple of days. I'm well aware of what I'm doing and have
no intentions of having to go shopping for bras or such. This is all taking
place internally, all centered around the gender identity issues.
I consider my female identity sacred to me. I don't give a damn if
others accept it or me. I accept it. I accept me. I look at people, not
societally-bestowed roles, stereotypes, or appearances. It's only what's
inside and how YOU feel about it that counts.
Anyway, that's my view and a look at a bit of who I really am. I just
thought it was time to honestly introduce myself to people here. You seem
like a nice bunch. I've gotten a lot out of reading here.

lutenist
(robert/robbi/lizann)

[Lutenist]

typo:

Hmm...how to start? Well, I suppose that for one thing, for those who have
read any of previous posts, there is probably the expectation of more
conceited, lofty-sounding, quite thoroughly intellectualized, non-committal

tripe coming from me. I would certainly underSTAND that.

lutenist
(robert/robbi/lizann)

[Macademia]

<laughter>

I know a little bit about that myself, that separation.

> I was born a biological male. I have been gender dysphoric as long as I
> can remember, with most of my alters also being female.

What does gender dysphoric mean? (two something? not sure haven't seen
it before)

<snip>

> Lizann is a rabid feminist; Robbi is quite feminist in her outlook, but
> exercises a great deal more circumspection in considering whether to reveal
> anything of herself to others, than Lizann does.
> I am feminist, but really try to stay humanist. Having had to learn to see
> the world from a totally alienated perspective (with regard to gender
> identity) I have come realize the value of seeing people without the
> trappings of cosmetic status.

I was thinking this AM that feminist is a misnomer. Humanist though is
used already for ivory tower academics. I want another word.

> So what does this mean? Well, I can agree with Jen's sacred turf
> perspective on childbirth and motherhood, yet see that it too, must
> ultimately be classified as cosmetic, going back to some of my conversation
> with Anik on the subject of motherhood: I really believe it's a state of
> being, not just a biological function.
> I also see Cal's perspective in being vehemently against any form of
> stereotyping. Ultimately, we are all individuals, and stereotyping is
> nothing more than an attempt at diminution of that individuality, that
> selfhood that is the birthright of every single human being. Period.

[as an aside, or on the topic, how do you not have chaos/anarchy if you
only look through an individual lense? Stuff is settling and moving
inside on this but I don't quite see it. I see the value of the
individual having priority over the stereotypes, but I cannot see a
world that does not have them. I think we can use them to be beneficial
not just harmful.]

> I can also see Cliff's perspective

> I can see Anik's perspective,

> I see Luke's perspective.

Now that's seeing different points of view. :) Thanks for the summaries
on your perspective on theirs. Helpful to me.

<snip>

> Having realized the adequacy of my brain to the task, and done my
> homework carefully, I selected an anti-androgen (Aldactone) to reduce my
> testosterone levels to roughly that of a healthy adult female. What a
> difference! OH MY GOD !!! What a wonderful world I now live in: no alcohol,
> no illicit drugs, no sense of physical sexuality whatsoever. I / we exist
> with my / our gender identities all intact, and none of the ups and downs
> and drives and fallbacks of desire...absolutely NONE. I've never been so
> happy or at peace in my life.

Woohoo! Good for you, must have been a little scary doing that not
knowing the outcome. That's awesome though it made such a difference.

> I do have other chemicals in my system...been prescribed Ritalin for ADD
> and Prozac for depression, OCD, sleep disturbances. Also, after two happy
> months on the Aldactone, I'm now experimenting with a small daily dose of
> estrogen (Estradiol) to see what that does to / for me. So far, nothing, but
> it's only been a couple of days. I'm well aware of what I'm doing and have
> no intentions of having to go shopping for bras or such. This is all taking
> place internally, all centered around the gender identity issues.
> I consider my female identity sacred to me. I don't give a damn if
> others accept it or me. I accept it. I accept me. I look at people, not
> societally-bestowed roles, stereotypes, or appearances. It's only what's
> inside and how YOU feel about it that counts.
> Anyway, that's my view and a look at a bit of who I really am. I just
> thought it was time to honestly introduce myself to people here. You seem
> like a nice bunch. I've gotten a lot out of reading here.

Thanks. :-) I'm glad you felt safe enough to post all that.

Take care,
Jen

[Anik]

Hi there :-)
my first spontaneous reaction is: "gosh Lizann is going to be mad, because
she wants and like to make love and feel love....:-))
Lizann agressive ??? for some shoe around the room or the mug broken??? no,
not at my opinion, she has a strong character but is loving and gentle and
caring.....
she can be angry but not agressive at my feelings :-)
but did you had some discussions about al that ??

Anik
..

[Lutenist]

I think that's a reasonable remark...I'll tell you what I think: Lizann has
had a lot to do with the decision to shut off the male hormones and try the
female hormones for awhile...she and Robbi and others have been rescued from
a testosterone bog, where they were drowning, and are now sunning themselves
on the beach of a beautiful, still lagoon of estrogen, bathing themselves in
it, regenerating themselves in it...healing...I don't feel anger from
anybody, and haven't for a while now...that's one of the things driving the
continuation of the experiment...

r/r/l

"Anik" <robin....@free.fr> wrote in message
news:003901c08c7e$fba47180$8209e4d5@oemcomputer...

[Anik]

i wish i was there with them in this lagoon......
only those meds might not be good for me at all....

Anik
..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lutenist" <LUTE...@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.moderated

[pri...@my-deja.com]

In article <95c4t7$2pk8$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
"Lutenist" <LUTE...@prodigy.net> wrote:

I've read your post but not carefully...sorry.
I cannot.
I cannot read any of these posts thoroughly.
I do and feel my inner Lego parts yelling...they begin jockeying for
position...trying to get out...so I go away...physically from the ng
and think.

I..we flow from one to the other to the other.
I try to keep this flow going and not stop unless one of the
pieces struggles away from the whole and tries to present only his/her
side of the whole...this is being out of synch...*I* am out of synch
when this happens.

I get frustrated and somewhat scared to read the posts altho I know I'm
not totally alone in how I associate with others. It is not that I
don't know who or what I am in terms of sexual orientation, gender,
age, type of nurturer. It is many tho...not just one or the other.
(feeling sooooo sad when I write this...why is that??)
It is that it can flow from being one to being another one and
another...all me...depending on
what sort of cues I am getting from the other individual. I can be the
nurturer...either sort as might be defined by normal people....or the
friend or lover...I can try and give you want you want and need by
going on feel alone...if you cannot tell me...maybe you don't know?
If I can keep my hyper parts from getting too persistent, I can listen
well. Sometimes I have to go away and calm those parts before I can
continue to feel more whole. It sorta puts a damper on the
conversation...

"sorry I just have to leave for a bit"
"huh? but we were in the middle of something!"
"ya but someone in *my* middle is shreiking and I can't hear well"
"what the hell are you talking about?"

It's not a conversation I could have with most people ... 'cept some
from here and maybe one sister and my hubby...

I sometimes can't ask for what I want ... like "I want you to mother
me" but I can feel it when you do. The little ones that want it the
most come to the fore and bask in what you are sending me.

Sometimes I can ask in words...sometimes the hyper ones demand and then
it can be scary. I can't see how scary they can be. I only see the
reflected reaction in your face. I go "uh oh..."

Sometimes I can ask quietly....
and listen well...

But I digress...
I see the need for groups but there are all sorts of them.
I observe them...wish I was part of some...like the g*d believing
people... for the peace of mind it brings those who believe for
the right reasons...but don't think I'll ever join them
for there is a part screaming inside me right now about how much
bullshit there is in that group and how would I ever know real from
fake....ok ok ok...calm down ... it was just a frigging example!

Gender? genderless?....nope...more whatever the opposite of that would
be....I am happy to be this way...

so why do I feel so sad at the moment?
I will go away and try to sort it out?
or just go away and feel sad and leave it at that?

sheesh!
talk about a ramble

Prismr

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

[Anik]

you want to know why I am sad???
well, even if you don't want to know....
i am sad, because i am so tired of hurting, so tired to realize that how
much i tried to deal with so much violences, physical, sexual, emotional, i
am a transformer, i did that thousands of times, i have to fight so hard for
a single breath, for making me smile, for allowing me to look at the color
of the sky......
47 years alone on this planet is so long, and i hate myself because inside
somewhere i am still carrying the stupid hope of some love, caring,
understanding, real nice touching - but this is only a terrible illusion
!!!!
there is a lot of sexism talk here, i am tired of that too, the men, they
can at least wish or dream to be a woman, i can't, i don't like being a
woman, i have not been allowed to me a mother, even when i tried to be a
woman the abuse and the rape stole me everything, so what is left for me??
being in touch with the spirit, the heart, because the body is ill and
dead.......
i have shared as well with men as women, somewhere i don't mind either, but
nobody ever has been able to touch me in both my body and my heart and soul
and nobody will........lately i have asked myself if i could go into some
kind of relationship and sharing or if that is totally finish for me, and i
have been hurted.....
there is a tremendous nonsense in my life, and i am glad i am seeing the end
of it, i have no strengh anymore, there is much too much fight for nothing
at all.......
people are asking too much of me, not seeing that i am at my end, only
because i do have some experience of life and death, they think i am strong,
but i am not, i am not.....

sorry; i know i an even unable to express what i feel or am, there is too
much inside..

A.

..
----- Original Message -----
From: <pri...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Humanity vs Sexuality vs Gender

[Lutenist]

"Macademia" <jkt...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3A79B0B5...@pobox.com...
1) What does gender dysphoric mean? (two something? not sure haven't seen it
before)

Dysphoria means a feeling of generalized ill-being, an abnormal feeling of
anxiety, discontent, physical discomfort, etc. That's pretty much the
Webster's definition of it. Gender dysphoria is really the feeling for me,
of not being in the right body, of in my case having a female gender
identity while physically occupying a male body. There is much disagreement
among the few interested researchers as to the possible causes of this, and
much of the "science" published about it is laughable. Basic understanding
of the concept depends on being able to understand the difference between
sexuality and gender identity. It has nothing to do with who you want to
sleep with (if anyone) and everything to do an irreconcilable difference
between what you feel and see in your mind's eye and what you feel and see
physically and visually in the mirror.

2) I was thinking this AM that feminist is a misnomer. Humanist though is

used already for ivory tower academics. I want another word.

I used the term (Webster notwithstanding) to indicate that the world views
of Robbi and Lizann are through eyes that tend to genderize everything
perceived by them, with respect to femininity, or their views of it. They
tend to challenge male-dominant perspectives, dissecting them down to their
usual power propaganda intent, and then move on to dissecting the
motivations of the person or persons presenting them, regardless of gender.
I see this,call it feminism or whatever you like, really, as the natural
response of a woman or even some men to seeing the ridiculous, communistic,
and at times, utterly destructive effects of male dominance in the history
of civilisation. Maybe women wouldn't need so much "sacred turf" if men
didn't claim so much of it for their own insecure little egos. Men tend to
see the world through almost exclusively male eyes. The way they have set up
and maintained their male-dominant institutions, women are lucky to have
survived to the present day as anything more than servants and concubines,
and it generally appears that they wouldn't have, if the choice had been
left up to the majority of males in the world.
Incidentally, if you haven't figured it out yet, this is Lizann speaking
now. Do I sound pissed off? Ya think? What else should
this survival perspective be called? Ideally, yes, it should have an
all-humanity scope. Unfortunately, reality intervenes here. Most women and
some men may want some utopian, universalistic way of looking at things, but
a lot of women and most men don't. So how about female survivalist?
[And for all those poor honeys out there with all that testosterone and
no place to go, pleading for a little peace, I'll go you one better, to
quote Eleanor of Aquitaine, from the play, The Lion In Winter, "A little?
Why so modest? Why not eternal peace? Now there's a thought."]
If we're so much less useful and worthy, let them try making babies with
each other for a couple of generations. Call it what you will, whatever word
you choose, particularly if it carries with it the meaning of true equality,
I promise you most men won't like it.

3) [as an aside, or on the topic, how do you not have chaos/anarchy if you

only look through an individual lense? Stuff is settling and moving inside
on this but I don't quite see it. I see the value of the individual having
priority over the stereotypes, but I cannot see a world that does not have
them. I think we can use them to be beneficial not just harmful.]

This is Robert again now. I see the natural order of things as chaotic.
Mathematical chaos is actually found everywhere in the universe, and
represents not anarchy or entropy, but rather a very subtle and delicate
balance of all matter and energy. Entropy (anarchy) is a natural state
towards which all systems progress spontaneously. I can't see that the
so-called order that the human race has historically attempted to impose on
nature and itself, often with catastrophic results, has any real value in
this instance. Nature doesn't stereotype. Each individual animal, plant,
whatever, has a very specific set of characteristics, audio, visual,
olfactory, tactile, taste. Sets (including stereotypes)are for the
convenience of statistical modeling, not for nurturing the continuing
adaptive evolution of the several thousand species of life that are found on
this planet. Surely there's a better way to do that than stereotyping. At
the rate we're going, the next evolutionary generation will be thrown out
(with the bathwater), rejected, because they won't fit into our stereotypes
of what they should be.

take care and thanks for replying,

r/r/l

[cal]

Lutenist <LUTE...@prodigy.net> wrote...

> I've posted here under two of my alters: Robbi and Lizann, both
> female. Robbi tends to be the most conciliatory of us all and

> frequently appears inmy everyday life. Lizann is quite aggressive,

> being the one who really pulled us all through the years of abuse,
> but also incredibly stubborn and
> explosive, as well as the one who handles ALL matters involving physical
> contact with any other person, regardless of purpose, trust levels, or
> magnitude of the contact episode. She fights well too, but yet also knows
> when to pull back and wait. She is by far the dominant persona overall,
> and has saved this burned-out husk we live in many, many times...she's
> like the Xena of our little village...

thanks for this. i'm glad to know you a little better.
is your name because you're the one who plays the lute?

cal

[pri...@my-deja.com]

In article <008d01c08c99$196e0720$8209e4d5@oemcomputer>,

"Anik" <robin....@free.fr> wrote:
> you want to know why I am sad???

yes Anik I want to know

> well, even if you don't want to know....
> i am sad, because i am so tired of hurting, so tired to realize that
how
> much i tried to deal with so much violences, physical, sexual,
emotional, i
> am a transformer, i did that thousands of times, i have to fight so
hard for
> a single breath, for making me smile, for allowing me to look at the
color
> of the sky......

hmmm...that sentence...I am a transformer.
yes I can relate to that.
All electrical references
I can relate to them.
I feel like a parallel circuit in a series world.

> 47 years alone on this planet is so long, and i hate myself because
inside
> somewhere i am still carrying the stupid hope of some love, caring,
> understanding, real nice touching - but this is only a terrible
illusion!!!!

ohhhh...
We are the same age...you and I...
or I will be 47 this year...on the 4th day of the 4th month
I will keep searching for love, caring, understanding and will keep
reaching out to touch and to invite touch hopefully for as long as I
exist on this earth.
I have found some.
I have been rejected sometimes but I will keep searching.

> there is a lot of sexism talk here, i am tired of that too, the men,
they
> can at least wish or dream to be a woman, i can't, i don't like being
a
> woman, i have not been allowed to me a mother

I have read your posts and have felt in the only way I can, my way, how
this appears to pain you.
I have read some things from people who say perhaps you already are a
mother...one does not have to have a living being pass thru their loins
to be a mother...likewise, just because one *has* passed a living being
thru their loins does not make them a mother.

sorry Anik but isn't what you say also sexist?
for I allow my husband to mother me sometimes
it is the only word I can use for it
for it feels like what I do when I am in mothering mode
the voice is soft
he is comforting me
or gently admonishing me
or looking out for me
I feel...the little parts feel ummmmm...parented?
yuck sounds cold and clinical
but mothering...being mothered...
ahhhhh...I likes how that sounds :))
some of us likes being mothered lots!

> even when i tried to be a
> woman the abuse and the rape stole me everything, so what is left for
me??

being raped...such a brutal thing
I can not talk about the subject much...I am already beginning to type
incorrectly...but it is less about being a woman or a man...it is about
somebody taking...somebody losing
it is a deed done by both genders to both genders
who is to say which loses more?
who cares to debate such a thing...
it is a lack of humanness
I despair when I see it
or hear of it...

> being in touch with the spirit, the heart, because the body is ill and
> dead.......

Anik Anik
there is so much beauty in you...
you have shared so many wonderous thoughts with me
It is your body that transmits these magnificent ideas and feelings to
me..your eyes...your fingers...send these messages.

> i have shared as well with men as women, somewhere i don't mind
either, but
> nobody ever has been able to touch me in both my body and my heart
and soul
> and nobody will....

you sound like you are feeling so let down
by your body
by other people
by life in general
but life is not over
your words have touched my heart
they have touched my soul
how can it be that one who is capable of thinking in such terms
feels untouchable?
I don't believe that you are unreachable...untouchable...

>....lately i have asked myself if i could go into some
> kind of relationship and sharing or if that is totally finish for me,
and i
> have been hurted.....
> there is a tremendous nonsense in my life, and i am glad i am seeing
the end
> of it, i have no strengh anymore, there is much too much fight for
nothing
> at all.......
> people are asking too much of me, not seeing that i am at my end, only
> because i do have some experience of life and death, they think i am
strong,
> but i am not, i am not.....

ohhhh...
I can understand how that feels...
I would get so tired of people thinking I was so strong when I felt
like I was melting right out of my skin...
you sound tired Anik...weary
I try to send you words of comfort and hope.

>
> sorry; i know i an even unable to express what i feel or am, there is
too
> much inside..
>
> A.

well I got quite a few ideas about how you are feeling from what you
have said here...
Please take care beautiful Anik
if you feel safe enuf, please accept my ehugs

Susan

[Lutenist]

"cal" <c...@asarian-host.org> wrote in message
news:007801c08cd8$f05809e0$a4a6c5d1@pandora...
Lutenist <LUTE...@prodigy.net> wrote...

thanks for this. i'm glad to know you a little better.
is your name because you're the one who plays the lute?

Yes, it is. I started playing classical guitar right at about the same
point in time that I discovered early music. When I noticed that Bream had
lute albums out, I was really fascinated, particularly with the notion that
someone who was such a wonderful exponent of 20th century music would also
have an interest in old music. I fell in love with the lute, not to mention
16th century lute music. The very first piece I ever heard Bream play, in
fact the very first time I ever heard of Bream was on a recording of
Benjamin Britten's beautiful Op. 70, "Nocturnal". A set of variations based
on the theme of John Dowland's lute song, "Come Heavy Sleep", the piece is
quite unusual in that it works backwards towards the theme: something of a
theme in itself in my own life. Also, the section titles are wonderful and
again, very reflective for me, not only of my sleep states, but many times
my waking states as well: "Musingly", "Very agitated", "Restless", "Uneasy",
"March-like", "Dreaming", and "Gently rocking". A very powerful, moving
piece. If you're interested, it's on the cd Nocturnal by Julian Bream, EMI
Classics, 7 54901 2.

lutenist
r/r/l

[Macademia]

Lutenist wrote:
>
> "Macademia" <jkt...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A79B0B5...@pobox.com...
> 1) What does gender dysphoric mean? (two something? not sure haven't seen it
> before)
>
> Dysphoria means a feeling of generalized ill-being, an abnormal feeling of
> anxiety, discontent, physical discomfort, etc. That's pretty much the
> Webster's definition of it. Gender dysphoria is really the feeling for me,
> of not being in the right body, of in my case having a female gender
> identity while physically occupying a male body. There is much disagreement
> among the few interested researchers as to the possible causes of this, and
> much of the "science" published about it is laughable. Basic understanding
> of the concept depends on being able to understand the difference between
> sexuality and gender identity.

It sounds like then your experience would suggest there are fundamental
differences between the two genders?

> 2) I was thinking this AM that feminist is a misnomer. Humanist though is
> used already for ivory tower academics. I want another word.
>
> I used the term (Webster notwithstanding) to indicate that the world views
> of Robbi and Lizann are through eyes that tend to genderize everything
> perceived by them, with respect to femininity, or their views of it. They
> tend to challenge male-dominant perspectives, dissecting them down to their
> usual power propaganda intent, and then move on to dissecting the
> motivations of the person or persons presenting them, regardless of gender.
> I see this,call it feminism or whatever you like, really, as the natural
> response of a woman or even some men to seeing the ridiculous, communistic,
> and at times, utterly destructive effects of male dominance in the history
> of civilisation.

I really find feminist misleading for it's not simply about women, but
everyone. I am certainly sympathetic to much of what you're saying,
Lizann.

> 3) [as an aside, or on the topic, how do you not have chaos/anarchy if you
> only look through an individual lense? Stuff is settling and moving inside
> on this but I don't quite see it. I see the value of the individual having
> priority over the stereotypes, but I cannot see a world that does not have
> them. I think we can use them to be beneficial not just harmful.]
>
> This is Robert again now. I see the natural order of things as chaotic.
> Mathematical chaos is actually found everywhere in the universe, and
> represents not anarchy or entropy, but rather a very subtle and delicate
> balance of all matter and energy. Entropy (anarchy) is a natural state
> towards which all systems progress spontaneously.

Hi Robert. :)

Remember those glass-encased fluid bars that tip back and forth like a
see-saw? I think of entropy and order like that, constantly moving
(Buddhist changing) back and forth between the two. To function, to
create reality (which in my understanding is not an option for
humanity), we must order the universe. For us to talk, we must order the
universe. Language has layers of hidden meanings, assumptions buried in
it for us to pick something out of the muck and say, "Here, lookee at
this thing, whaddya think?" to another.

> I can't see that the
> so-called order that the human race has historically attempted to impose on
> nature and itself, often with catastrophic results, has any real value in
> this instance. Nature doesn't stereotype.

So you live without stereotypes?

I feel like I am being dense here with both you and Cal. I don't get it.
I see the harm from stereotypes. I see how nature doesn't stereotype. I
cannot see how human beings can function without it. In order for me to
exist in the world, I feel I need to stereotype. I really need to be
aware of the pitfalls of stereotypes and not apply them to individuals,
but I still need them to make sense of my world, regardless if it has
"objective" value or not. (FYI I think reality is made-up of our own
impositions and something else, and is neither subjective nor objective)

> Each individual animal, plant,
> whatever, has a very specific set of characteristics, audio, visual,
> olfactory, tactile, taste. Sets (including stereotypes)are for the
> convenience of statistical modeling, not for nurturing the continuing
> adaptive evolution of the several thousand species of life that are found on
> this planet. Surely there's a better way to do that than stereotyping.

To do what?

Maybe we're not in disagreement, maybe we are. Maybe both and none. :) I
agree stereotypes are for statistics, for a meager attempt at looking at
the whole. I agree that stereotypes fall short. I do not agree that they
are useless and avoidable.

Did you ever read Saussure's book on linguistics? He presented two
models which I apply to many things, including my fragmentation. The
first is diachronic, studying language and its evolution across time.
The second is synchronic, looking at language in a moment. They both
have their pluses and their minuses as they're each others opposite and
together make the whole. Diachronic has less depth on language, but more
of the change. Synchronic has much depth, but no relations to what comes
before and after. (I feel synchronic sometimes as if my history is
simply slices disconnected from one another with little relationship.)
Anyhow, it's much like the differences between correlative and causal
studies right? The first cannot show any cause for there are too many
factors but can show what things are often together, while the latter
shows cause but has no bearing on reality. The tension between these two
elements is to me what drives mystery and change. Stereotypes for me
fall into the causal or synchronic category; certainly with its
limitations but the only tool we have for dealing with groups.

> At
> the rate we're going, the next evolutionary generation will be thrown out
> (with the bathwater), rejected, because they won't fit into our stereotypes
> of what they should be.

No way. Stereotypes are not the driving force. Reality is. And reality
is an unknown mix of what we perceive (stereotypes) and what is.

> take care and thanks for replying,

Thanks to all of you. This is an important discussion to me; one that's
been putzing around in my head for years.

Jen

[Anik]

> > you want to know why I am sad???
>
> yes Anik I want to know

*********************************
and that surprises me....
what should someone who doesn't know me would want to know or listen ?
is this net stuff a fake ??? am i lying to myself, expressing myself only
here and living in a total silence in reality....

>
> > well, even if you don't want to know....
> > i am sad, because i am so tired of hurting, so tired to realize that
> how
> > much i tried to deal with so much violences, physical, sexual,
> emotional, i
> > am a transformer, i did that thousands of times, i have to fight so
> hard for
> > a single breath, for making me smile, for allowing me to look at the
> color
> > of the sky......
>
> hmmm...that sentence...I am a transformer.
> yes I can relate to that.
> All electrical references
> I can relate to them.
> I feel like a parallel circuit in a series world.

*****************************
a transformer has for me nothing to do with electrical references, even if
lately it surely could, but the truth is that i am a snake, so it is in my
behavior to transform things or myself......i go into the changes, dying
everytime, how deep is the transforming how painful it
becomes.....apparently i am in one of those difficult transformation and
there is much pain, lost of control, much is coming above as to be dealt
with and allow the change and to take a new "skin".......

>
> > 47 years alone on this planet is so long, and i hate myself because
> inside
> > somewhere i am still carrying the stupid hope of some love, caring,
> > understanding, real nice touching - but this is only a terrible
> illusion!!!!
>
> ohhhh...
> We are the same age...you and I...
> or I will be 47 this year...on the 4th day of the 4th month
> I will keep searching for love, caring, understanding and will keep
> reaching out to touch and to invite touch hopefully for as long as I
> exist on this earth.
> I have found some.
> I have been rejected sometimes but I will keep searching.

****************************
I have been 47 last year the 26th day of the 8th month...
i never searched for love, always come to me, i have enjoyed a lot the
touching and i consider that i have been very lucky with the persons
involved with me......
i still wonder why they wanted me ????
maybe that was my settings, my patterns.....
so i never had the rejection effect really,
but this time is different because this time i want, i know all of me will
be there.....
but i am more and more crazy because in reality i don't even shake hands
!!!!
but the whisperer called the woman before the rape, and slowly i started to
remember who i was, how i was feeling, acting, strange to discover oneself,
one part that has nothing to do - at first sight- with the person of now
which might well be only a temporary person..........

>
>
> > there is a lot of sexism talk here, i am tired of that too, the men,
> they
> > can at least wish or dream to be a woman, i can't, i don't like being
> a
> > woman, i have not been allowed to me a mother
>
> I have read your posts and have felt in the only way I can, my way, how
> this appears to pain you.
> I have read some things from people who say perhaps you already are a
> mother...one does not have to have a living being pass thru their loins
> to be a mother...likewise, just because one *has* passed a living being
> thru their loins does not make them a mother.

**********************************
it's just that this word is for me the name of my tortionair, she tries to
kill me and almost succeed twice, and i can't identify with her in any way,
i need another word........the worst insult for me would be to tell me that
i look like her....!!!

>
> sorry Anik but isn't what you say also sexist?
> for I allow my husband to mother me sometimes
> it is the only word I can use for it
> for it feels like what I do when I am in mothering mode
> the voice is soft
> he is comforting me
> or gently admonishing me
> or looking out for me
> I feel...the little parts feel ummmmm...parented?
> yuck sounds cold and clinical
> but mothering...being mothered...
> ahhhhh...I likes how that sounds :))
> some of us likes being mothered lots!

*****************************
i am not use of that, when someone took me in his/her arms i had to make a
joke, open the arms, push away....jail and cage for me..... i felt
surrounded , possessed, captured and i had to fly away.......
lately i let the whisperer came closer for the last months and this was so
nice and new, but this was in another level, in another dimension, but there
i did let me be hold and touch, and very slowly it called back or offered
some feelings and sensations the body has forgotten......but i didn't felt
parented and even if the parts of me who are hurt and small inside there
were listening and feeling too, they couldn't allow an adult come
closer.......
by chance there are other dimensions, other levels where the smalls can talk
and share and learn to play.....we are there now, slowly, and a connection
is created.....

>
>
>
> > even when i tried to be a
> > woman the abuse and the rape stole me everything, so what is left for
> me??
>
> being raped...such a brutal thing
> I can not talk about the subject much...I am already beginning to type
> incorrectly...but it is less about being a woman or a man...

********************************
i don't know, for me even if one part of me always considered that very
stupid but i am mad at me for being a woman, i know men are raped too as
adults, but this is where my feelings of guilt are working; the body is
guilty and condemned....

it is about
> somebody taking...somebody losing
> it is a deed done by both genders to both genders
> who is to say which loses more?
> who cares to debate such a thing...
> it is a lack of humanness
> I despair when I see it
> or hear of it...

******************
sometimes i don't know if i despair about it, i just feel wrong, unable,
stupid...i suppose i must have my denials too, i thought of that lately and
tried to see them, to define them, but until now i came to the point that i
"feel" - intuitional intelligence; so not 100% reliable - so i feel that
denial cames from the guilt......i recognize the guilt but i don't see the
denial except that i deny my body.......

>
> > being in touch with the spirit, the heart, because the body is ill and
> > dead.......
>
> Anik Anik
> there is so much beauty in you...
> you have shared so many wonderous thoughts with me
> It is your body that transmits these magnificent ideas and feelings to
> me..your eyes...your fingers...send these messages.

*******************************
i don't see the beauty at all, don't have much mirrors......
but also most of the times, i am in other dimensions, or i am at work in
reality just acting and not being there.....

>
> > i have shared as well with men as women, somewhere i don't mind
> either, but
> > nobody ever has been able to touch me in both my body and my heart
> and soul
> > and nobody will....
>
> you sound like you are feeling so let down
> by your body
> by other people
> by life in general
> but life is not over
> your words have touched my heart
> they have touched my soul
> how can it be that one who is capable of thinking in such terms
> feels untouchable?
> I don't believe that you are unreachable...untouchable...

******************************
maybe i must be untouchable or unreachable because those who has touch has
been hurted.....and are still hurting.....
maybe you shouldn't let my words touch your heart or your soul.....
i don't know if life is not over, this is what i am searching for the last 2
years, difficult to come in life again really........

>
>
>
>
> >....lately i have asked myself if i could go into some
> > kind of relationship and sharing or if that is totally finish for me,
> and i
> > have been hurted.....
> > there is a tremendous nonsense in my life, and i am glad i am seeing
> the end
> > of it, i have no strengh anymore, there is much too much fight for
> nothing
> > at all.......
> > people are asking too much of me, not seeing that i am at my end, only
> > because i do have some experience of life and death, they think i am
> strong,
> > but i am not, i am not.....
>
> ohhhh...
> I can understand how that feels...
> I would get so tired of people thinking I was so strong when I felt
> like I was melting right out of my skin...
> you sound tired Anik...weary
> I try to send you words of comfort and hope.

**********************************
yes, i know that, i feel them and let them come, some parts of me welcome
them and feel the warmth, but other sides just put them in a box: a grey
box; black words on the white screen, i go and read them again, but run away
because i might destroy and hurt......nobody - man or woman - has ever been
able to cope with the full of me; how could they? i can't even myself.......

> >
> > sorry; i know i an even unable to express what i feel or am, there is
> too
> > much inside..
> >
> > A.
>
> well I got quite a few ideas about how you are feeling from what you
> have said here...
> Please take care beautiful Anik
> if you feel safe enuf, please accept my ehugs
>
> Susan
>

I don't know who you see....
maybe only you in there.....

thanks, i will keep your words, but protect yourself, you might not be
safe......A.

[pri...@my-deja.com]

Hello again Anik,
I was going to go away and come back to reply but I do that too much
lately and I don't have the luxury at the moment of being near a
computer at all times. So I will take the chance and be more
spontaneous. The only difficulty I may have is that I might not take
enuf time to consider several different internal points of view...but
I'll try my best.

Susan

In article <000d01c08d62$6b533320$410be4d5@oemcomputer>,

"Anik" <robin....@free.fr> wrote:
> > > you want to know why I am sad???
> >
> > yes Anik I want to know
> *********************************
> and that surprises me....
> what should someone who doesn't know me would want to know or listen ?

I have been corresponding with you for many weeks and find much of what
you write interesting and/or helpful or puzzling but intriguing. It
seems you understand my metaphors when others take me literally...and I
understand yours in my own way. That is why I want to know what you
have to say here about sadness...it may be a clue for me about my
own...and if not, I still want to try and understand yours.

> is this net stuff a fake ??? am i lying to myself, expressing myself
only here and living in a total silence in reality....

some of it is fake
I try very hard not to be fake
for I lived almost 40 years in a fake existence of my own creation.
I try very very hard to find reality.
It can be elusive some days.
I accept that today this is as close as it will get for me.
It also happens that some people begin to find it easier or have
perhaps always found it easier to communicate only or mostly via black
marks on a white screen. There is safety in that distance.
I am one of those who craves to see and hear and touch those I talk
with. But that is mostly the little one in white. I am more accepting
that sometimes I will only be able to exchange words with these other
people...like you. I enjoy this interaction as much as I can. But I
also try to take what I learn from others about myself and interacting
in general and apply it to my life in the real world.
Some I think withdraw from real life interactions more and more and
exist only in black and white? here on the net? that is their
reality...It is not for me to say if that is a good thing or not so
good.

>
> >
> > > well, even if you don't want to know....
> > > i am sad, because i am so tired of hurting, so tired to realize
that
> > how

> > > much i tried to deal with so much s, physical, sexual,

> > emotional, i
> > > am a transformer, i did that thousands of times, i have to fight
so
> > hard for
> > > a single breath, for making me smile, for allowing me to look at
the
> > color
> > > of the sky......
> >
> > hmmm...that sentence...I am a transformer.
> > yes I can relate to that.
> > All electrical references
> > I can relate to them.
> > I feel like a parallel circuit in a series world.
> *****************************
> a transformer has for me nothing to do with electrical references,

I knew this Anik but I couldn't resist saying what it meant for me but
I know you meant it in the way of a chameleon.

> even if
> lately it surely could, but the truth is that i am a snake, so it is
in my
> behavior to transform things or myself......i go into the changes,
dying
> everytime, how deep is the transforming how painful it
> becomes.....apparently i am in one of those difficult transformation
and
> there is much pain, lost of control, much is coming above as to be
dealt
> with and allow the change and to take a new "skin".......

that sounds like it could be a frightening thing
but it could be a beautiful thing...like a caterpillar into a butterfly?
who knows what the end result will be?
this is exciting too?
>
> >
> > > 47 years alone on this planet is so long, and i myself

because
> > inside
> > > somewhere i am still carrying the stupid hope of some love,
caring,
> > > understanding, real nice touching - but this is only a terrible
> > illusion!!!!
> >
> > ohhhh...
> > We are the same age...you and I...
> > or I will be 47 this year...on the 4th day of the 4th month
> > I will keep searching for love, caring, understanding and will keep
> > reaching out to touch and to invite touch hopefully for as long as I
> > exist on this earth.
> > I have found some.
> > I have been rejected sometimes but I will keep searching.
> ****************************
> I have been 47 last year the 26th day of the 8th month...
> i never searched for love, always come to me, i have enjoyed a lot the
> touching and i consider that i have been very lucky with the persons
> involved with me......
> i still wonder why they wanted me ????

we are all blind to differing degrees it seems?
I read it here every day....blind when it comes to appreciating
ourselves...our uniqueness..we often seem to be sad that we are odd but
perhaps we are using the wrong word?

> maybe that was my settings, my patterns.....
> so i never had the rejection effect really,
> but this time is different because this time i want, i know all of me
will
> be there.....
> but i am more and more crazy because in reality i don't even shake
hands
> !!!!

hmmm...I don't know what to say about this Anik.
In this respect we are very different.
I reach out to touch if the other responds.
I do it most every day.
I enjoy this contact with others...even shaking hands.
To be rejected is no longer shattering for me.
It is an experience.
I learn from it as I do the positive ones.

> but the whisperer called the woman before the rape, and slowly i
started to
> remember who i was, how i was feeling, acting, strange to discover
oneself,
> one part that has nothing to do - at first sight- with the person of
now
> which might well be only a temporary person..........

I understand what this means.
At least in my own mind it means very definite things.
a temporary person...
a cause for fear and frustration for me...
nothing seemed to be certain in me from day to day
now I say , "So? Today I will be *this* way as fully as I possibly
can!"

yes Anik
I have d my mother.
sorry...I must skip this section right now for not all of me can
respond very well...lots of yelling from parts

It varies with the time and circumstance.
I feel it...what I am offered...
If it's mothering from a man and I feel that I wish to accept this
gift, I will let the little ones rise to the surface and dance.
If it's soft stroking and warm cuddles, it is often all of us who
delight in this.
If the intimacy turns to a more sexual nature, it is the mature adult
parts that participate and I tell the little ones to go and play
somewhere else...and they do...

I would have to agree with you here.
For me to suggest you are wrong to feel stupid and guilty would be very
improper. I suffer from these feelings that are in themselves very
destructive. I try to find the salve to soothe these wounds. I find
some sometimes and other days I hurt and moan and cry.

>
> >
> > > being in touch with the spirit, the heart, because the body is
ill and
> > > dead.......
> >
> > Anik Anik
> > there is so much beauty in you...
> > you have shared so many wonderous thoughts with me
> > It is your body that transmits these magnificent ideas and feelings
to
> > me..your eyes...your fingers...send these messages.
> *******************************
> i don't see the beauty at all, don't have much mirrors......

I have this problem with my vision.
Perhaps we can learn together why this is?
Why I can't see myself very well at all.
I do not see the good and often can't appreciate how scary I can be.
I minimize...minimize...

> but also most of the times, i am in other dimensions, or i am at work
in
> reality just acting and not being there.....

hmmm...I sometimes go thru the motions of living...using my generic
conversations and thinking totally out of this world stuff. I do not
like to do that. I prefer to connect...truly and deeply.

>
> >
> > > i have shared as well with men as women, somewhere i don't mind
> > either, but
> > > nobody ever has been able to touch me in both my body and my heart
> > and soul
> > > and nobody will....
> >
> > you sound like you are feeling so let down
> > by your body
> > by other people
> > by life in general
> > but life is not over
> > your words have touched my heart
> > they have touched my soul
> > how can it be that one who is capable of thinking in such terms
> > feels untouchable?
> > I don't believe that you are unreachable...untouchable...
> ******************************
> maybe i must be untouchable or unreachable because those who has
touch has
> been hurted.....and are still hurting.....
> maybe you shouldn't let my words touch your heart or your soul.....
> i don't know if life is not over, this is what i am searching for the
last 2
> years, difficult to come in life again really........

I don't think it's something I can stop tho?
I read them and they were there...deep inside.

well that sounds sort of scary
So I will remember to be careful.
For I keep your words as well.

[cal]

Lutenist <LUTE...@prodigy.net> wrote...

> Yes, it is. I started playing classical guitar right at about the same
> point in time that I discovered early music. When I noticed that Bream had
> lute albums out, I was really fascinated, particularly with the notion
> that someone who was such a wonderful exponent of 20th century
> music would also have an interest in old music.

i mostly know him as an exponent of elizabethan music, which i love. i
don't think i was older than 18 when i heard him for the first time. i've
had a few of his recordings over the years, but as such things go, they
went. now i'm down to just one, an elizabethan/jacobean hit parade of tunes
with him and his consort. i think i'll order the one you mentioned.

i was at a solo recital he gave at stratford (ont) some years ago. he
played for 2 hours, alone on the stage where they do all the shakespeare and
it normally gets so busy. he played guitar and lute. it was memorable,
both the music and the atmosphere.

> I fell in love with the lute, not to mention 16th century lute music.

i did too, although i don't play. i started out on the violin and viola and
that's where i stayed, with most of my playing experience in quartets and
small ensembles. chamber music. some symphony stuff too, but i never
enjoyed that much.

> The very first piece I ever heard Bream play, in
> fact the very first time I ever heard of Bream was on a recording of
> Benjamin Britten's beautiful Op. 70, "Nocturnal". A set of variations
> based on the theme of John Dowland's lute song, "Come Heavy
> Sleep", the piece is quite unusual in that it works backwards towards
> the theme: something of a theme in itself in my own life.

makes me think it's kind of a universal theme :-)
i guess we find out when we get there.

cal

[Lutenist]

"Macademia" <jkt...@pobox.com> wrote in message

news:3A7B10B4...@pobox.com...

1) It sounds like then your experience would suggest there are fundamental

differences between the two genders?

How are you defining gender? I am defining it biologically, as a physical
state, in the context of asserting the presence of a psycho-sensory
perceptive malfunction, or least, anomaly, within myself.

2) I really find feminist misleading for it's not simply about women, but

everyone. I am certainly sympathetic to much of what you're saying, Lizann.

True, but until a new convention is defined, that new word is going to be
the contextual equivalent of "sanitation engineer" instead of janitor, and
"ecdysiast" instead of strip-teaser. I'd certainly be open to suggestions.
: )

3) Remember those glass-encased fluid bars that tip back and forth like a

see-saw? I think of entropy and order like that, constantly moving (Buddhist
changing) back and forth between the two.

Hmm...Buddhist changing? I see those as Not Two. Your mind is changing, not
the device or the environment you see it in.

4) To function, to create reality (which in my understanding is not an

option for humanity), we must order the universe.

You synonomize "function" and "create reality" at the same time you assign
the property to "create reality" of "not an option for humanity". You
therefore create the following logical construct:

premiss: "function" = "create reality"

statement: "create reality", "...in my understanding is not an option for
humanity"

conclusion: therefore, "function", "...in my understanding is not an option
for humanity"

5) For us to talk, we must order the universe.

This would seem to be a premiss of the discussion, the argument itself
concerning the definitions of "order" and "universe", and the methodology
for arriving at those definitions.

6) Language has layers of hidden meanings, assumptions buried in it for us

to pick something out of the muck and say, "Here, lookee at this thing,
whaddya think?" to another.

You imply here that linguistic eqiuvocality is deliberate. Outside of the
realm of artistic expression, there is much evidence that it is not; it has
been and continues to be the focus of major efforts to reduce or ideally, to
eliminate it. The allusion you make here, to the sense of mystery about the
nature of meaning in language, is a good example, in my opinion, of late
19th and early 20th century neo-romantic / impressionist / surrealist
thought. Further historical examination towards the present reveals
significant bifurcations from those lines of thought. Empiricism tends to
drive evolution in the social sciences, I believe.

7) So you live without stereotypes?

To the extent that I can find them and eliminate them from my perceptual
filtering processes, yes.

8) I feel like I am being dense here with both you and Cal. I don't get it.

I see the harm from stereotypes. I see how nature doesn't stereotype. I
cannot see how human beings can function without it. In order for me to
exist in the world, I feel I need to stereotype. I really need to be aware
of the pitfalls of stereotypes and not apply them to individuals, but I
still need them to make sense of my world, regardless if it has "objective"
value or not. (FYI I think reality is made-up of our own impositions and
something else, and is neither subjective nor objective)

I don't think you're being dense. There is a lot of research in the field of
physiological speech pathology that has recently come to light, suggesting
that a portion of the physical structure of the brain is developmentally
linked with the onset of specific linguistic acquisition modes, many of
which are of course, culturally defined. I mention this here as a means of
pointing to an area of inquiry of which I believe the present debate is a
subset: the influence of environmental versus genetic factors in human
development. The debate ranges from the microscopic to the macroscopic in
scale. Reality has yet to be acceptably defined.

9) To do what?

There must be a better way to nurture the continuing adaptive evolution of
the several thousand species of life that are found on this planet, than by
streotyping. Rather than nurturing it, I think that stereotyping impedes it
at best, if not outright countering it.

10) Maybe we're not in disagreement, maybe we are. Maybe both and none. :) I

agree stereotypes are for statistics, for a meager attempt at looking at the
whole. I agree that stereotypes fall short. I do not agree that they are
useless and avoidable.

Stereotyping has been a methodology, useful in the past, as a means for
establishing some of the basic premises for the apprehension of set theory,
particularly as it applies to marketing and "pop" social science. I see it
in the present as an anachronism.

11) Did you ever read Saussure's book on linguistics? He presented two

models which I apply to many things, including my fragmentation. The first
is diachronic, studying language and its evolution across time. The second
is synchronic, looking at language in a moment. They both have their pluses
and their minuses as they're each others opposite and together make the
whole. Diachronic has less depth on language, but more of the change.
Synchronic has much depth, but no relations to what comes before and after.
(I feel synchronic sometimes as if my history is simply slices disconnected
from one another with little relationship.) Anyhow, it's much like the
differences between correlative and causal studies right? The first cannot
show any cause for there are too many factors but can show what things are
often together, while the latter shows cause but has no bearing on reality.
The tension between these two elements is to me what drives mystery and
change. Stereotypes for me fall into the causal or synchronic category;
certainly with its limitations but the only tool we have for dealing with
groups.

I found that I disagreed with the Saussurean model, particularly from my Zen
Buddhist perspective, wherein the symbol third of the semiotic triangle
(Thought or Reference, Referent, Symbol) is eliminated. I also found a
critique of the use of semiotic analysis that I thought was interesting. I
offer an excerpt of it here, but the text, Semiotics for Beginners, by David
Chandler, can be viewed in it's entirety at:

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem11.html

[begin excerpt]

Sometimes semioticians present their analyses as if they were purely
objective 'scientific' accounts rather than subjective interpretations. Yet
few semioticians seem to feel much need to provide empirical evidence for
particular interpretations, and much semiotic analysis is loosely
impressionistic and highly unsystematic (or alternatively, generates
elaborate taxonomies with little evident practical application). Some
semioticians seem to choose examples which illustrate the points they wish
to make rather than applying semiotic analysis to an extensive random sample
(Leiss et al. 1990, 214). William Leiss and his colleagues argue that a
major disadvantage of semiotics is that 'it is heavily dependent upon the
skill of the individual analyst'. Less skilful practitioners 'can do little
more than state the obvious in a complex and often pretentious manner'
(Leiss et al. 1990, 214). Certainly, in some cases, semiotic analysis seems
little more than an excuse for interpreters to display the appearance of
mastery through the use of jargon which excludes most people from
participation. In practice, semiotic analysis invariably consists of
individual readings. We are seldom presented with the commentaries of
several analysts on the same text, to say nothing of evidence of any kind of
consensus amongst different semioticians. Few semioticians make their
analytical strategy sufficiently explicit for others to apply it either to
the examples used or to others. Structuralist semioticians tend to make no
allowance for alternative readings, assuming either that their own
interpretations reflect a general consensus or that 'their text
interpretations are immanent in the sign structure and need no
cross-validation' (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, 194). Semioticians who reject the
investigation of other people's interpretations privilege what has been
called the 'élite interpreter' - though socially-oriented semioticians would
insist that the exploration of people's interpretive practices is
fundamental to semiotics.

Some semiotic analysis has been criticised as nothing more than an abstract
and 'arid formalism' which is preoccupied with classification. Susan Hayward
declares that structuralist semiotics can lead to 'a crushing of the
aesthetic response through the weight of the theoretical framework' (Hayward
1996, 352). Semiotic analysis often shows a tendency to downplay the
affective domain - though the study of connotations ought to include the
sensitive exploration of highly variable and subjective emotional nuances.

In structuralist semiotics the focus is on langue rather than parole
(Saussure's terms), on formal systems rather than on processes of use and
production. Structuralist studies have tended to be purely textual analyses,
and it has been suggested that even when semioticians move beyond textual
analysis, 'they subordinate other moments to textual analysis' (Johnson
1996, 98). Semiotics can appear to suggest that meaning is purely explicable
in terms of determining textual structures. Such a stance is subject to the
same criticisms as linguistic determinism. In giving priority to the
determining power of the system it can be seen as fundamentally
conservative. Purely structuralist semiotics does not address processes of
production, audience interpretation or even authorial intentions. It ignores
particular practices, institutional frameworks and the cultural, social,
economic and political context. Even Roland Barthes, who argues that texts
are codified to encourage a reading which favours the interests of the
dominant class, confines his attention to the internal textual organization
and does not engage with the social context of interpretation (Gardiner
1992, 149-50). It cannot be assumed that preferred readings will go
unchallenged (Hall 1980). The sociologist Don Slater has criticised the
functionalism of structuralist semiotics, arguing that material practices
such as the 'reading of texts' must be related to the social relations which
give rise to the 'politics of cultural practice'. Functionalism, he
comments, 'admits of thoroughly internal solutions to problems of
determination' (Slater 1983, 259). David Buxton also argues that
structuralist approaches 'deny... social determination' and he insists that
'the text must be related to something other than its own structure: in
other words, we must explain how it comes to be structured' (Buxton 1990,
13). We must consider not only how signs signify (structurally) but also why
(socially); structures are not causes. The relationships between signifiers
and their signifieds may be ontologically arbitrary but they are not
socially arbitrary. We should beware of allowing the notion of the sign as
arbitrary to foster the myth of the neutrality of the medium.

Sometimes semioticians present their analyses as if they were purely
objective 'scientific' accounts rather than subjective interpretations. Yet
few semioticians seem to feel much need to provide empirical evidence for
particular interpretations, and much semiotic analysis is loosely
impressionistic and highly unsystematic (or alternatively, generates
elaborate taxonomies with little evident practical application). Some
semioticians seem to choose examples which illustrate the points they wish
to make rather than applying semiotic analysis to an extensive random sample
(Leiss et al. 1990, 214). William Leiss and his colleagues argue that a
major disadvantage of semiotics is that 'it is heavily dependent upon the
skill of the individual analyst'. Less skilful practitioners 'can do little
more than state the obvious in a complex and often pretentious manner'
(Leiss et al. 1990, 214). Certainly, in some cases, semiotic analysis seems
little more than an excuse for interpreters to display the appearance of
mastery through the use of jargon which excludes most people from
participation. In practice, semiotic analysis invariably consists of
individual readings. We are seldom presented with the commentaries of
several analysts on the same text, to say nothing of evidence of any kind of
consensus amongst different semioticians. Few semioticians make their
analytical strategy sufficiently explicit for others to apply it either to
the examples used or to others. Structuralist semioticians tend to make no
allowance for alternative readings, assuming either that their own
interpretations reflect a general consensus or that 'their text
interpretations are immanent in the sign structure and need no
cross-validation' (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, 194). Semioticians who reject the
investigation of other people's interpretations privilege what has been
called the 'élite interpreter' - though socially-oriented semioticians would
insist that the exploration of people's interpretive practices is
fundamental to semiotics.

Some semiotic analysis has been criticised as nothing more than an abstract
and 'arid formalism' which is preoccupied with classification. Susan Hayward
declares that structuralist semiotics can lead to 'a crushing of the
aesthetic response through the weight of the theoretical framework' (Hayward
1996, 352). Semiotic analysis often shows a tendency to downplay the
affective domain - though the study of connotations ought to include the
sensitive exploration of highly variable and subjective emotional nuances.

In structuralist semiotics the focus is on langue rather than parole
(Saussure's terms), on formal systems rather than on processes of use and
production. Structuralist studies have tended to be purely textual analyses,
and it has been suggested that even when semioticians move beyond textual
analysis, 'they subordinate other moments to textual analysis' (Johnson
1996, 98). Semiotics can appear to suggest that meaning is purely explicable
in terms of determining textual structures. Such a stance is subject to the
same criticisms as linguistic determinism. In giving priority to the
determining power of the system it can be seen as fundamentally
conservative. Purely structuralist semiotics does not address processes of
production, audience interpretation or even authorial intentions. It ignores
particular practices, institutional frameworks and the cultural, social,
economic and political context. Even Roland Barthes, who argues that texts
are codified to encourage a reading which favours the interests of the
dominant class, confines his attention to the internal textual organization
and does not engage with the social context of interpretation (Gardiner
1992, 149-50). It cannot be assumed that preferred readings will go
unchallenged (Hall 1980). The sociologist Don Slater has criticised the
functionalism of structuralist semiotics, arguing that material practices
such as the 'reading of texts' must be related to the social relations which
give rise to the 'politics of cultural practice'. Functionalism, he
comments, 'admits of thoroughly internal solutions to problems of
determination' (Slater 1983, 259). David Buxton also argues that
structuralist approaches 'deny... social determination' and he insists that
'the text must be related to something other than its own structure: in
other words, we must explain how it comes to be structured' (Buxton 1990,
13). We must consider not only how signs signify (structurally) but also why
(socially); structures are not causes. The relationships between signifiers
and their signifieds may be ontologically arbitrary but they are not
socially arbitrary. We should beware of allowing the notion of the sign as
arbitrary to foster the myth of the neutrality of the medium.

Dominic Strinati notes:

How can we know that a bunch of roses signifies passion unless we also know
the intention of the sender and the reaction of the receiver, and the kind
of relationship they are involved in? If they are lovers and accept the
conventions of giving and receiving flowers as an aspect of romantic, sexual
love, then we might accept... [this] interpretation. But if we do this, we
do so on the basis not of the sign but of the social relationships in which
we can locate the sign... The roses may also be sent as a joke, an insult, a
sign of gratitude, and so on. They may indicate passion on the part of the
sender but repulsion on the part of the receiver; they may signify family
relations between grandparents and grandchildren rather than relations
between lovers, and so on. They might even connote sexual harrassment.
(Strinati 1995, 125).

Feminist theorists have suggested that despite its usefulness to feminists
in some respects, structuralist semiotics 'has often obscured the
significance of power relations in the constitution of difference, such as
patriarchal forms of domination and subordination' (Franklin et al. 1996,
263).

Synchronic analysis studies a phenomenon as if it were frozen at one moment
in time; diachronic analysis focuses on change over time. Insofar as
semiotics tends to focus on synchronic rather than diachronic analysis (as
it does in Saussurean semiotics), it underplays the dynamic nature of media
conventions (for instance, television conventions change fairly rapidly
compared to conventions for written English). It can also underplay dynamic
changes in the cultural myths which signification both alludes to and helps
to shape. Purely structuralist semiotics ignores process and historicity -
unlike historical theories like Marxism.

As Hodge and Tripp note, there can hardly be 'an exhaustive semiotic
analysis... because a "complete" analysis... would still be located in
particular social and historical circumstances' (Hodge & Tripp 1986, 27).
This is reinforced by the poststructuralist stance that we cannot step
outside our signifying systems. Semioticians seek to distance themselves
from dominant codes by strategies aimed at denaturalization. The notion of
'making the familiar strange, and the strange familiar' is now a recurrent
feature of artistic and photographic manifestos and of creative
'brainstorming' sessions in many fields. The phrase itself has been
attributed to the German poet Novalis (1772-1801, aka Friedrich von
Hardenberg), who declared that the essence of romanticism was 'to make the
familiar strange, and the strange familiar'. The concept is found amongst
other Romantic theorists such as Wordsworth and Coleridge. The notion is
also closely associated with Surrealism and with Brechtian 'alienation'.
However, its adoption by semioticians probably owes most to Russian
Formalist criticism (Lemon & Reis 1965). Victor Shklovsky argued in 1916
that the key function of art was estrangement, defamiliarization or 'making
strange' (ostranenie) - i.e. renewing our perception of everyday things and
events which are so familiar that our perception of them has become
routinized (Hawkes 1977, 62-67). Russian Formalism was a key influence on
the development of semiotics in Eastern Europe, and the legacy of 'making
the familiar strange' is an important one for semiotics. However, as Simon
Watney notes, the strategy of defamiliarization is itself, of course,
ideological and has been associated with the notion that the tactic of
surprise may serve to banish 'distortions' so that we may 'objectively'
perceive 'reality' (Watney 1982, 173-4). Clearly the strategy of 'making the
familiar strange' needs to be coupled with an awareness that whilst we may
be able to bypass one set of conventions we may never escape the framing of
experience by convention.

[end excerpt]

12) [At the rate we're going, the next evolutionary generation will be

thrown out (with the bathwater), rejected, because they won't fit into our
stereotypes of what they should be.]

No way. Stereotypes are not the driving force. Reality is. And reality is an
unknown mix of what we perceive (stereotypes) and what is.

Hmm. The structuralistic viewpoint you have adopted (which I admittedly view
as anachronistic) would seem to be the driving force in your perception of
reality, and unfortunately, seems to be the case for much of human society.

Thanks to all of you. This is an important discussion to me; one that's been
putzing around in my head for years.

It's important to me / us too, and a real pleasure to be able to have a
discussion at this level with you.

lutenist
r/r/l

[Lutenist]

My apologies for the three repeated paragraphs of the excerpt from Chandler.

- lutenist

[Macademia]

Woohoo for this conversation. Excited to see you knew Saussure (and
better than I do now :). I'm leaving town right now, but will return to
this when I get back.

Jen

[Lutenist]

Hundreds of years ago, before the dawn of history, there was...Jen...??
OOPS - wrong thread...

Bon Voyage - have a safe trip - I look forward to your return!

lutenist

"Macademia" <jkt...@pobox.com> wrote in message

news:3A7C4084...@pobox.com...

[Anik]

and here i am again too :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: <pri...@my-deja.com>

object: Re: Humanity vs Sexuality vs Gender

> Hello again Anik,
> I was going to go away and come back to reply but I do that too much
> lately and I don't have the luxury at the moment of being near a
> computer at all times. So I will take the chance and be more
> spontaneous. The only difficulty I may have is that I might not take
> enuf time to consider several different internal points of view...but
> I'll try my best.

**********************
i do like spontaneous much more, there is lots that can come from it, more
than too much thinking, i always like to miss some points, then i still have
something to discover, it would be real boring otherwise......
>
> Susan
>
>sniped<

>
> > is this net stuff a fake ??? am i lying to myself, expressing myself
> only here and living in a total silence in reality....
>
> some of it is fake
> I try very hard not to be fake
> for I lived almost 40 years in a fake existence of my own creation.
> I try very very hard to find reality.

******************************************
yes; i can believe that, but as reality is the concretization of our dreams,
you might more search inside of you than in the societal world......
you will find only sheeps there mostly.....trying to past to some models,
not understanding that we are creating our own life and reality each second,
each breathing, reality is creativity, not identifying with patterns and
models imho.....

> It can be elusive some days.
> I accept that today this is as close as it will get for me.
> It also happens that some people begin to find it easier or have
> perhaps always found it easier to communicate only or mostly via black
> marks on a white screen. There is safety in that distance.
> I am one of those who craves to see and hear and touch those I talk
> with. But that is mostly the little one in white. I am more accepting
> that sometimes I will only be able to exchange words with these other
> people...like you. I enjoy this interaction as much as I can. But I
> also try to take what I learn from others about myself and interacting
> in general and apply it to my life in the real world.

*******************************
i usely use it to think, not to apply directly in my life....but the
thinking and the reflexion does influence my daylife even if it is not to
see at the eyes of the few others that are around me...
but i must recognize that when i share more with someone i notice that i
like to know more in a "spontaneous" way; and that bring me in some
surprising situations - as going in greece for 3 weeks :-)

>
> that sounds like it could be a frightening thing
> but it could be a beautiful thing...like a caterpillar into a butterfly?
> who knows what the end result will be?
> this is exciting too?

*************************
yes, this is both death and life and changing into the unknown.......
most people are scared of all of that....
yes butterflies are beautiful and yes this is exciting.....

> >
>
> we are all blind to differing degrees it seems?
> I read it here every day....blind when it comes to appreciating
> ourselves...our uniqueness..we often seem to be sad that we are odd but
> perhaps we are using the wrong word?

***************************
or perhaps words are just not enough.....they are only boxes to play with,
but are they really able to carry what is inside ???.....and who can say
what is inside really???
once i wrote a page for fun, then i rewrite it with the same basis, but i
change only the aspects of the descriptions and i just throw all away
because i wrote the same thing in 8 differents ways.....that was funny and
absurd in the same time.....
words are not wrong, people don't understand them on the same way mostly and
each go into his own illusion of reality......

> > maybe that was my settings, my patterns.....
> > so i never had the rejection effect really,
> > but this time is different because this time i want, i know all of me
> will be there.....
> > but i am more and more crazy because in reality i don't even shake
> hands !!!!
>
> hmmm...I don't know what to say about this Anik.
> In this respect we are very different.
> I reach out to touch if the other responds.
> I do it most every day.
> I enjoy this contact with others...even shaking hands.
> To be rejected is no longer shattering for me.
> It is an experience.
> I learn from it as I do the positive ones.

****************************
no, i don't let anybody touch me, not even for shaking hands, i don't like
it anymore, i did before.......i don't know if i would like that again, this
is one of my conflict right now.......and when someone come closer it just
make me spring......
i don't know why i did that to myself, i know other women has been raped but
don't have that, but i do have it strongly.......
but i have already make some progress......i will see soon.....

> > but the whisperer called the woman before the rape, and slowly i
> started to remember who i was, how i was feeling, acting, strange to
discover
> oneself, one part that has nothing to do - at first sight- with the person
of
> now which might well be only a temporary person..........
>
> I understand what this means.
> At least in my own mind it means very definite things.
> a temporary person...
> a cause for fear and frustration for me...
> nothing seemed to be certain in me from day to day
> now I say , "So? Today I will be *this* way as fully as I possibly
> can!"

***********
all what i do is trying to be as present as i can in the day, in one of my
level or another i am present as fully as possible that is all what
count......

>
> > > > there is a lot of sexism talk here, i am tired of that too, the
> men, they can at least wish or dream to be a woman, i can't, i don't like
> being a woman, i have not been allowed to me a mother
>
> > > I have read your posts and have felt in the only way I can, my way,
> how this appears to pain you.
> > > I have read some things from people who say perhaps you already are
> a mother...one does not have to have a living being pass thru their
> loins to be a mother...likewise, just because one *has* passed a living
> being thru their loins does not make them a mother.
> > **********************************
> > it's just that this word is for me the name of my tortionair, she
> tries to kill me and almost succeed twice, and i can't identify with her
in
> any way, i need another word........the worst insult for me would be to
tell
> me that i look like her....!!!
>
> yes Anik
> I have d my mother.
> sorry...I must skip this section right now for not all of me can
> respond very well...lots of yelling from parts

*********************
don't worry i understand, it's ok...

>
> It varies with the time and circumstance.
> I feel it...what I am offered...
> If it's mothering from a man and I feel that I wish to accept this
> gift, I will let the little ones rise to the surface and dance.
> If it's soft stroking and warm cuddles, it is often all of us who
> delight in this.
> If the intimacy turns to a more sexual nature, it is the mature adult
> parts that participate and I tell the little ones to go and play
> somewhere else...and they do...

:-)

********************************
that could be an interesting research :-)
i would like that....

> Why I can't see myself very well at all.
> I do not see the good and often can't appreciate how scary I can be.
> I minimize...minimize...
>
> > but also most of the times, i am in other dimensions, or i am at work
> in reality just acting and not being there.....
>
> hmmm...I sometimes go thru the motions of living...using my generic
> conversations and thinking totally out of this world stuff. I do not
> like to do that. I prefer to connect...truly and deeply.

****************************
i also connect truly and deeply in each dimension i am in...

> > > > i have shared as well with men as women, somewhere i don't mind
> > > either, but nobody ever has been able to touch me in both my body and
my heart and soul and nobody will....
> > >
> > > you sound like you are feeling so let down
> > > by your body
> > > by other people
> > > by life in general
> > > but life is not over
> > > your words have touched my heart
> > > they have touched my soul
> > > how can it be that one who is capable of thinking in such terms
> > > feels untouchable?
> > > I don't believe that you are unreachable...untouchable...
> > ******************************
> > maybe i must be untouchable or unreachable because those who has
> touch has
> > been hurted.....and are still hurting.....
> > maybe you shouldn't let my words touch your heart or your soul.....
> > i don't know if life is not over, this is what i am searching for the
> last 2
> > years, difficult to come in life again really........
>
> I don't think it's something I can stop tho?
> I read them and they were there...deep inside.

*****************************************
this deep????
>

> > I don't know who you see....
> > maybe only you in there.....
> >
> > thanks, i will keep your words, but protect yourself, you might not be
> > safe......A.
>
> well that sounds sort of scary
> So I will remember to be careful.
> For I keep your words as well.
>
> Susan
> >

good :-)
you said above yourself that you can't appreciate how scary you can be.....
so why being surprise about what i am saying???
as i explained above, i am going through things as a transformer, the snake,
the death..........
so i go until my ends, my limits, when someone is in despair and tells me
that it feels like drowing i say : good, great, jump, go for it !!!!!!
the others ask worried: are you suicidal ???
you have to be strong to deal with me......
i might challenge you while you could be in total despair and in need of
support and warmth........
is that not scary????
it is for most of the persons.....
and there could be more like that, as i don't know much who i am right now
and who i will become......

A.

[Anik]

***********************
my first lover (woman) plays violin beautifully, it was so great to hear
playing there on an italian island sometimes in the heat of the afternoon
while everyone was doing siesta (me included) or in the nights with millions
of stars above our heads .......
the sound of the violin in this immensity was wonderful...
thanks for the nice memory :-)))
A.

[pri...@my-deja.com]

In article <004401c08e1f$a34df720$1b0ae4d5@oemcomputer>,

"Anik" <robin....@free.fr> wrote:
> and here i am again too :-)

:)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <pri...@my-deja.com>
> object: Re: Humanity vs Sexuality vs Gender
>
> > Hello again Anik,
> > I was going to go away and come back to reply but I do that too much
> > lately and I don't have the luxury at the moment of being near a
> > computer at all times. So I will take the chance and be more
> > spontaneous. The only difficulty I may have is that I might not
take
> > enuf time to consider several different internal points of
view...but
> > I'll try my best.
> **********************
> i do like spontaneous much more, there is lots that can come from it,
more
> than too much thinking, i always like to miss some points, then i
still have
> something to discover, it would be real boring otherwise......

haha...well sometimes it's not so much that I miss the point as that I
wish to answer as me not just part of me. I do not ponder for great
lengths of time necessarily but find that I respond in a more complete
way not just with a half-thought

(some snippped)

> > I try very very hard to find reality.
> ******************************************
> yes; i can believe that, but as reality is the concretization of our
dreams,
> you might more search inside of you than in the societal world......
> you will find only sheeps there mostly.....trying to past to some
models,
> not understanding that we are creating our own life and reality each
second,
> each breathing, reality is creativity, not identifying with patterns
and
> models imho.....

but we want to feel we belong don't we?
I do not like being alone for prolonged periods of time. For time to
reflect and purge myself of too much ??? stimulation, I go away from
everyone but soon I come back...looking looking...sometimes finding...

We are all unique but there is a sameness that we recognize and try to
identify with....the core of the human?

I am not really a philosopher and think this sounds rather silly but
you asked for spontaneous :)

I
> > also try to take what I learn from others about myself and
interacting
> > in general and apply it to my life in the real world.
> *******************************
> i usely use it to think, not to apply directly in my life....but the
> thinking and the reflexion does influence my daylife even if it is
not to
> see at the eyes of the few others that are around me...
> but i must recognize that when i share more with someone i notice
that i
> like to know more in a "spontaneous" way; and that bring me in some
> surprising situations - as going in greece for 3 weeks :-)

yes yes
as soon as I feel that I am connecting well with someone, it inspires
me to 'go for it' as you say below. Sometimes the reaction is mutually
great and sometimes, again, as you say below, it can scare the other
person away. I have a difficult time adjusting the amplitude :) that
is another reason why I like to go away for a bit and analyze what I've
said and/or done or was about to say or do.
>
> >

(some snipped)

> > >
> >
> > we are all blind to differing degrees it seems?
> > I read it here every day....blind when it comes to appreciating
> > ourselves...our uniqueness..we often seem to be sad that we are odd
but
> > perhaps we are using the wrong word?
> ***************************
> or perhaps words are just not enough.....they are only boxes to play
with,
> but are they really able to carry what is inside ???.....and who can
say
> what is inside really???
> once i wrote a page for fun, then i rewrite it with the same basis,
but i
> change only the aspects of the descriptions and i just throw all away
> because i wrote the same thing in 8 differents ways.....that was
funny and
> absurd in the same time.....
> words are not wrong, people don't understand them on the same way
mostly and
> each go into his own illusion of reality......

that's very true
this place is very helpful and interesting to me but it has its
limitations because it is only an interaction of words
in the presence of another, much can be said in silence :)

(more snipped)

> > I enjoy this contact with others...even shaking hands.
> > To be rejected is no longer shattering for me.
> > It is an experience.
> > I learn from it as I do the positive ones.
> ****************************
> no, i don't let anybody touch me, not even for shaking hands, i don't
like
> it anymore, i did before.......i don't know if i would like that
again, this
> is one of my conflict right now.......and when someone come closer it
just
> make me spring......
> i don't know why i did that to myself, i know other women has been
raped but
> don't have that, but i do have it strongly.......
> but i have already make some progress......i will see soon.....

I'm glad to hear you have made some progress in this Anik.
It can be scary to have someone try and get close or to become brave
enough to approach another with an open heart and mind.

>
> > > but the whisperer called the woman before the rape, and slowly i
> > started to remember who i was, how i was feeling, acting, strange to
> discover
> > oneself, one part that has nothing to do - at first sight- with the
person
> of
> > now which might well be only a temporary person..........
> >
> > I understand what this means.
> > At least in my own mind it means very definite things.
> > a temporary person...
> > a cause for fear and frustration for me...
> > nothing seemed to be certain in me from day to day
> > now I say , "So? Today I will be *this* way as fully as I possibly
> > can!"
> ***********
> all what i do is trying to be as present as i can in the day, in one
of my
> level or another i am present as fully as possible that is all what
> count......

yes I try to be me which means being aware of the parts as much as
possible and being in contact and hopefully, in agreement (if not in
control) of them. I feel the happiest with myself when this happens.

(snip snip)

> > I have this problem with my vision.
> > Perhaps we can learn together why this is?
> ********************************
> that could be an interesting research :-)
> i would like that....

so would I for I do not understand my blindness

>
> > Why I can't see myself very well at all.
> > I do not see the good and often can't appreciate how scary I can be.
> > I minimize...minimize...
> >
> > > but also most of the times, i am in other dimensions, or i am at
work
> > in reality just acting and not being there.....
> >
> > hmmm...I sometimes go thru the motions of living...using my generic
> > conversations and thinking totally out of this world stuff. I do
not
> > like to do that. I prefer to connect...truly and deeply.
> ****************************
> i also connect truly and deeply in each dimension i am in...
>
> > > > > i have shared as well with men as women, somewhere i don't
mind
> > > > either, but nobody ever has been able to touch me in both my
body and
> my heart and soul and nobody will....

(some snipped)

> > > > how can it be that one who is capable of thinking in such terms
> > > > feels untouchable?
> > > > I don't believe that you are unreachable...untouchable...
> > > ******************************
> > > maybe i must be untouchable or unreachable because those who has
> > touch has
> > > been hurted.....and are still hurting.....
> > > maybe you shouldn't let my words touch your heart or your
soul.....
> > > i don't know if life is not over, this is what i am searching for
the
> > last 2
> > > years, difficult to come in life again really........
> >
> > I don't think it's something I can stop tho?
> > I read them and they were there...deep inside.
> *****************************************
> this deep????

yes deep
it is like sadness, pain ,sorrow, grief, can open channels like tear
ducts and when another offers words of solace, they are able to
penetrate far inside...

>
> > > I don't know who you see....
> > > maybe only you in there.....
> > >
> > > thanks, i will keep your words, but protect yourself, you might
not be
> > > safe......A.
> >
> > well that sounds sort of scary
> > So I will remember to be careful.
> > For I keep your words as well.
> >
> > Susan
> > >
>
> good :-)
> you said above yourself that you can't appreciate how scary you can
be.....
> so why being surprise about what i am saying???

I did not say I was surprised.
I just asked in my email what sort of scary person you become because I
wanted to think about it before I experienced this part.
Lots of me is a scared wimpy thing.

> as i explained above, i am going through things as a transformer, the
snake,
> the death..........
> so i go until my ends, my limits, when someone is in despair and
tells me
> that it feels like drowing i say : good, great, jump, go for it !!!!!!
> the others ask worried: are you suicidal ???
> you have to be strong to deal with me......
> i might challenge you while you could be in total despair and in need
of
> support and warmth........
> is that not scary????
> it is for most of the persons.....

yes it is scary
but if I know that is a possibility,
if I saw it, hopefully I could go away from this scary person and if I
needed to find extrinsic support, I would look elsewhere.

> and there could be more like that, as i don't know much who i am
right now
> and who i will become......
>
> A.

I feel like that :)
I am practising being a person :)

[Anik]

----- Original Message -----
From: <pri...@my-deja.com>
>

> It varies with the time and circumstance.
> I feel it...what I am offered...
> If it's mothering from a man and I feel that I wish to accept this
> gift, I will let the little ones rise to the surface and dance.
> If it's soft stroking and warm cuddles, it is often all of us who
> delight in this.
> If the intimacy turns to a more sexual nature, it is the mature adult
> parts that participate and I tell the little ones to go and play
> somewhere else...and they do...
>
> > >

> > > Susan

this is what stayed in my mind for so long......
this is some words of Cal too......
Let's forget about the gender ok, this is not a major point...
Let's concentrate on the children...on the child......
i don't know if what i am going to write will make sense, it is just coming
up slowly.......
Nikky stop existing when she jump from the bridge, i mean not existing
except than deep inside.....and not as a first identity.......
i suppose that she did show up from time to time......
i created a life for me as much as i could, i know it was a good life
because i know much people would have like to have only a little piece of
what i had in my life.......
yes, maybe i learned a lot of freedom from the abuse, i went into the storm
of life and i had beautiful people to share with.....apparently they were
happy with what i give them, but apparently there was something missing for
me always......
maybe that's why i couldn't stay, but i had found a balance and i was well
in my life as a lesbian......my projects were good, my body was good too, my
heart was feeling loved, i was having fun, i was well.....being whatever i
wanted to be......
The rape broked all that....violently, i would almost say ferocely......
I remember something that was told to me once: if you have not deal with all
what you have to deal, then things will happen again in your life and force
you to deal with it.........gosh life is hard on me....
So i tortured myself for so long, gaining some extra guilt feelings with it,
what is it that i didn't dealt with??? what was it??? or should i say
who????

The violence was so strong that i should say i went "unconscious" for more
than 13 years of my life, unable to be except in pain, nightmaires; forcing
myself most of the time to function to have a roof on my head, mistreating
myself most of the time too, and all those who dare to approach me.......
I remember few seconds who were precious, and those were only what the
nature gives me, some light, some colors, some smells, some music.....no
human could really "come" close to me or was existing to me all this
time.....
It is some time now that i am starting to see that people exists, i, for
sure don't know much to do about that, total strangers.........no sad
feelings about that, for me the danger is there really.......
But the most important of all, is that there is now something totally new
than what existed before: Nikky is here with me, her pain that crashes me
regularly, her questions, her silences, how could i explain what i feel, i
am nothing, she is the real one..........and apparently she is the one who
decide who she wants to approach or let come to her......
it took me months to realize that, as well that one point that has been so
difficult for me to understand: in the other persons she wants to try to
share with; she sees the child within, she relates to the child inside of
that person........
Nikky is trying to make friends again, to know and learn and grow.....
but all is very complicated because she is relating to children in adults
body and mind......
So Nikky wants to learn to play with other children, she wants to be the
child she has never been.....
but there is another point which is very hurtful.....very confuse and
complicated......
Nikky doesn't want to go away if the whisperer talk about love and
touching.......
maybe she knows better than i do that the marks she got will be able to
vanish only throught the love and touching of someone else, maybe those
marks will vanish only if the love that will emane from this person will be
much stronger, real, intense, free, accepted....i am searching for words
here......
it makes me think of Cal, his T couldn't feel the marks because there was no
love, only love can make those evaporated and diseapear, only love and
compassion could make that someone could feel under his/her hands the marks,
barnacles, whatever you can call them.......
and that's mean somehow, being a child in an adult body, being touched again
but that the person who touch will through love feel that the child is there
and will feel what to do, follow and share.......
does that mean that the child has to be as a child into some touching again
from an adult, how could that exist??? maybe not only through love, maybe if
the other adult transform him/herself in a child too ?????

why is it that i am feeling deeply insane right now????
i think i need to rest, feel, think and dream more.......
life has a gift for me that i want to take and there is a gift that i want
to offer too....

A.

[Macademia]

Hi Lutenist,

[As an aside if anyone finds this annoying or off-topic please post. I'm
happy to take it off the list. Likewise if anyone wants to join in,
please do. :]

Lutenist wrote:
>
> "Macademia" <jkt...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7B10B4...@pobox.com...
>
> 1) It sounds like then your experience would suggest there are fundamental
> differences between the two genders?
>
> How are you defining gender? I am defining it biologically, as a physical
> state, in the context of asserting the presence of a psycho-sensory
> perceptive malfunction, or least, anomaly, within myself.

Sure. Seems like your own experience suggests that your hormone/gender
stuff negatively affected your mood and behavior. Which is what led to
my original question. Seems to me all these factors mish-mash together.

My male cat had anxiety when we moved into an apartment. (He didn't like
the neighbor cat.) We gave him estrogen (via the vet) and our cat become
someone else. But he didn't hurt himself anymore (he had been gnawing on
his legs). To me that links hormones (gender) with behavior. From
personal experience I'd say nursing, pregnancy, pms'ing etc. has all
influenced me and my feelings etc. etc. etc. and then my behavior.
<sigh>

> 2) I really find feminist misleading for it's not simply about women, but
> everyone. I am certainly sympathetic to much of what you're saying, Lizann.
>
> True, but until a new convention is defined, that new word is going to be
> the contextual equivalent of "sanitation engineer" instead of janitor, and
> "ecdysiast" instead of strip-teaser. I'd certainly be open to suggestions.
> : )

Hee. If I come up with a better one I'll let you know. (Quite agree on
your summary.)

> 3) Remember those glass-encased fluid bars that tip back and forth like a
> see-saw? I think of entropy and order like that, constantly moving (Buddhist
> changing) back and forth between the two.
>
> Hmm...Buddhist changing? I see those as Not Two. Your mind is changing, not
> the device or the environment you see it in.

Are the two separate for you?

The only thing constant is change, yes? Change of self change of
environment change for all.

> 4) To function, to create reality (which in my understanding is not an
> option for humanity), we must order the universe.
>
> You synonomize "function" and "create reality" at the same time you assign
> the property to "create reality" of "not an option for humanity". You
> therefore create the following logical construct:
>
> premiss: "function" = "create reality"
>
> statement: "create reality", "...in my understanding is not an option for
> humanity"
>
> conclusion: therefore, "function", "...in my understanding is not an option
> for humanity"

Nope, I realized after I sent it it was misleading. I meant that we have
no option in not creating reality; imo we always create reality whether
we want to or not, hence we have no choice or option about it.

> 6) Language has layers of hidden meanings, assumptions buried in it for us
> to pick something out of the muck and say, "Here, lookee at this thing,
> whaddya think?" to another.
>
> You imply here that linguistic eqiuvocality is deliberate. Outside of the
> realm of artistic expression, there is much evidence that it is not; it has
> been and continues to be the focus of major efforts to reduce or ideally, to
> eliminate it.

Not deliberate in the sense of a conscious entity deciding it. But
nonetheless the result is one of meanings and order, at least in my
experience. Does your experience differ? When I took French, limited
time it was, I found myself writing in my journal in French if only
because I could not express it in English. For me that was my first,
"wow" reality shift. Other times I think how in English we capitalize
the "I" and how odd that is, possibly showing the importance of self
over others. I also find that the structure of our language emphasizes
nouns rather than verbs, suggesting to me identification of things which
are separate and static rather than fluid.

What evidence is there that language does not impose an order?

> The allusion you make here, to the sense of mystery about the
> nature of meaning in language, is a good example, in my opinion, of late
> 19th and early 20th century neo-romantic / impressionist / surrealist
> thought. Further historical examination towards the present reveals
> significant bifurcations from those lines of thought. Empiricism tends to
> drive evolution in the social sciences, I believe.

Woohoo for empiricism of which I am a firm advocate. However, what are
you saying? :) What are the "bifurcations from those line of thought"?

> 7) So you live without stereotypes?
>
> To the extent that I can find them and eliminate them from my perceptual
> filtering processes, yes.
>
> 8) I feel like I am being dense here with both you and Cal. I don't get it.
> I see the harm from stereotypes. I see how nature doesn't stereotype. I
> cannot see how human beings can function without it. In order for me to
> exist in the world, I feel I need to stereotype. I really need to be aware
> of the pitfalls of stereotypes and not apply them to individuals, but I
> still need them to make sense of my world, regardless if it has "objective"
> value or not. (FYI I think reality is made-up of our own impositions and
> something else, and is neither subjective nor objective)
>
> I don't think you're being dense. There is a lot of research in the field of
> physiological speech pathology that has recently come to light, suggesting
> that a portion of the physical structure of the brain is developmentally
> linked with the onset of specific linguistic acquisition modes, many of
> which are of course, culturally defined. I mention this here as a means of
> pointing to an area of inquiry of which I believe the present debate is a
> subset: the influence of environmental versus genetic factors in human
> development. The debate ranges from the microscopic to the macroscopic in
> scale. Reality has yet to be acceptably defined.

Yup, but isn't it safe to say it's certainly both nature & nurture? For
me it is. And it seems even safer to think that people are more
culturally influenced than biologically. To consciously shift our
culture into thinking individually rather than stereotypically I get.
But isn't that almost a stereotype too? Getting into subsets of sets of
sets. That maybe what you and Cal have been saying.

> 11) Did you ever read Saussure's book on linguistics? He presented two
> models which I apply to many things, including my fragmentation. The first
> is diachronic, studying language and its evolution across time. The second
> is synchronic, looking at language in a moment. They both have their pluses
> and their minuses as they're each others opposite and together make the
> whole. Diachronic has less depth on language, but more of the change.
> Synchronic has much depth, but no relations to what comes before and after.
> (I feel synchronic sometimes as if my history is simply slices disconnected
> from one another with little relationship.) Anyhow, it's much like the
> differences between correlative and causal studies right? The first cannot
> show any cause for there are too many factors but can show what things are
> often together, while the latter shows cause but has no bearing on reality.
> The tension between these two elements is to me what drives mystery and
> change. Stereotypes for me fall into the causal or synchronic category;
> certainly with its limitations but the only tool we have for dealing with
> groups.
>
> I found that I disagreed with the Saussurean model, particularly from my Zen
> Buddhist perspective, wherein the symbol third of the semiotic triangle
> (Thought or Reference, Referent, Symbol) is eliminated. I also found a
> critique of the use of semiotic analysis that I thought was interesting. I
> offer an excerpt of it here, but the text, Semiotics for Beginners, by David
> Chandler, can be viewed in it's entirety at:

:) Frankly I do not remember the third symbol is, and I am personally
less interested in the effectiveness of semiotics, and more interested
in the filters of synchronic & diachronic. I am not sure if you
responded to that or not; is that something you dismiss, if so why? How
do you see it in conflict with Zen Buddhism?

Excerpt:
<snip>

> This is reinforced by the poststructuralist stance that we cannot step
> outside our signifying systems.

And quantum mechanics, yes? The observor effects the observed. My
conversation with you is influenced by my past experiences, just as
yours is with me.

Which leads me to what I consider a similar dualism--wave/particle.
Seemingly very different entities, and yet simply different sides to the
same coin (as to me are correlative/causal and synchronic/diachronic).

> 12) [At the rate we're going, the next evolutionary generation will be
> thrown out (with the bathwater), rejected, because they won't fit into our
> stereotypes of what they should be.]
>
> No way. Stereotypes are not the driving force. Reality is. And reality is an
> unknown mix of what we perceive (stereotypes) and what is.
>
> Hmm. The structuralistic viewpoint you have adopted (which I admittedly view
> as anachronistic) would seem to be the driving force in your perception of
> reality, and unfortunately, seems to be the case for much of human society.

What leads you to think I have adopted a structuralist view point? That
seems to me the antithesis of what I am saying. My thinking as far as I
can tell is thoroughly post-modern.

> Thanks to all of you. This is an important discussion to me; one that's been
> putzing around in my head for years.
>
> It's important to me / us too, and a real pleasure to be able to have a
> discussion at this level with you.

:) Yah!

I admit that untangling the cords this round was harder than most.

Jen