The Golden Penis
Jim...@aol.com
As a concerned gay man, I know that there must be limits to change. Things
like ethics, morals and standards must be held firm and solid, not adapted
on a situational basis.
The basis of that stability to me has always been the golden rule -- do onto
others as you would have them do unto you. That's why I not only speak the
lessons I would want to hear -- that selling out my penis is a path to
destruction of self -- but why I also deal with others without personal
attacks and venom.
For some "transgendered" people, who are willing to sell out their penis for
short term gain, everything seems to be about what is most expedient in the
moment. If someone is saying something that challenges you, let loose a
torrent of filth -- one that you probably wouldn't want let loose against
you. Violate the golden rule, change in a second -- one moment this is an
appropriate response to someone who won't "listen" to you (read: won't agree
with you or be silent), the next moment it is a heinous attack on who you
really are.
Human culture is built not on jelly but on rocks, the rocks between my legs
and between my ears. Rock solid is good, a foundation that is not slippery
or situational, but rather follows clear and unchanging precepts -- precepts
as simple as the golden rule.
If transgender is a matter of expediency, of self interest -- how can I be
opportunistic enough to play fast and loose with the truth, fending off all
challenges to my lack of integrity with glib and facile evasions, and if
that doesn't work, with attacks of political correctness and venom, then
what is it other than a force for destuction? Asking how you sell out
society by claiming the individual "right" to be what you want in the
moment -- history, biology, morality, and social order be damned -- is
asking for the right to not be accountable for your own choices to slaughter
what you find challenging, like your own anatomy,
All too often this is justified by a mantle of victim-hood -- "I have
suffered too much, so now you have to end my suffering by giving me whatever
I demand, no matter how self-indulgent or destructive it may be!" Everyone
in the world has a tale of suffering, and if we were to let the assertion of
victimhood get them off the hook of unethical behavior, we would have a
world where nothing was solid and dependable.
I know what is rock solid in my life and in my pants. I know that the
Golden Rule is key. What do transgender people know?
After flipping around in responding to every idea, somehow they try to
believe that gems, good points made in coming to a conclusion they disagree
with must not then be good points. To claim their own "truth" they act like
Pee Wee Herman, shoving their fingers in their ears and singing
"la-la-la-la-la-la" at the top of their lungs until the challenge passes.
To me, all this posturing is simply a sign that their own delusions are so
fragile that they cannot stand the light of day, the revelation of truth,
the power of the penis. They choose to not engage anything that might
reveal how they live in an untenable position day after day.
Twit my penis, plonk my penis, do what you want to my penis, but there it
will be, strong and solid pointing to the ultimate truth that men are men
and women are women and never the twain shall meet. Stand in your big
shoes, little suit and bow tie singing "la-la-la-la-la-la-la" and you will
just look like a fool.
Question: If you call arms legs, how many legs do you have? Answer: Two.
Calling an arm a leg doesn't make it a leg, no matter how much you want it
to.
If the truth of the penis is to potent for you to look at and stay in your
little play world, then maybe it's your little play world that needs
examining rather than the biological truth that almost every species on
earth and certainly every mammalian species has fixed sex divisions -- males
and females, the way Gaia made them.
You wish my penis would go away as simply as you got rid of your own penis,
one surgical strike to search and destroy the manly meat that marked your
maleness. I know about this, because I grew up in a world before Stonewall
where society wanted to get rid of homosexuals with cures or insututional
repression, the kind we fought at Stonewall, where gay men like Marsha P.
Johnson and gay women like Les Feinberg stood for the freedom to be gender
variant and visible.
Your penis, is not gone, however, no matter how much you have tried to hide
it. It lives in your DNA and your history and in your crotch. Until you
can stand up and face that -- not just sit down and deny it -- you will
never be able to be open about who you are inside, never be beyond the
oppression of society.
To try to silence the penis is to admit the truth that your deceptions can't
stand up to challenges, that inside you are so insecure you must silence and
destroy others to stay deluded. You violate the golden rule to demand
others honor and respect you -- a strategy doomed to failure.
No real man or woman who really knows who they are needs to do that. I hope
that the "transgendered" do speak up, so more people can understand how
their entire existence depends on denial, sickness, self-indulgence and
breaking social codes. You can do what you want in your life, but what you
must not do is allow others to believe that they can become normal simply by
having their crotch repaired, their bodies flooded with synthetic hormones
and pumped full of silicone.
My valid points cannot be swept away by saying "well, I don't like his
conclusions or his attitude, so they can be erased." I speak for many
people who know the truth about sex and gender. Rather than taking my cues
about gender from like "taking cues about blacks from white separatists,"
rather I "take my cues about whites passing as black from strong black
voices" -- the ones who stand up for a strong and separate black identity,
the ones who see race as paramount.
Neither can they be swept away by venomous screed that demonizes, no matter
what the justification claimed.
What level of justification would be acceptable for a screed that demonizes
an individual transgendered people on a personal level? That they are a
liar? That they are moral decay embodied? That they are self-indulgent at
the cost of social stability, order and decorum? That they refuse to listen
to others and just act from their own ego, an ego disguised as a sickness?
That they try to destroy and silence others who challenge their own fatuous
indulgences?
"La-la-la-la-la-la-la! I can ignore and attack you because I don't like what
you say! I can hit you in ways that I would never accept being hit, because
I don't need to follow the Golden Rule, only you do! You have to treat me
with respect but I don't have to treat you that way because I decided that
you don't respect me because you challenge my excuses!"
You may be right. I don't know much about a transgender life. I don't
speak for you. I speak for what it means to live as a gender-variant gay
man in a culture that wants to destroy me, and say the simple truth that
unless you stick to your gun, you are destroyed. I want young gender
variant men to hear that staying firm is what counts, not turning to
sillycone jelly in body and mind to destroy that which challenges you --
other gender-variant people, or destroying your own penis.
It appears that to some, being transgendered is to be willing to sell out,
sell out to a society that demands you be healed, and to sell out to an ego
that says your own indulgence is more important than believing in moral and
ethical behavior, like the Golden Rule. Some do try to find a moral center,
acknowledging that there must be absolutes, like the golden rule and a faith
that not everyone who disagrees with you is making a personal attack on you,
but they appear few and far between.
Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop. Without a solid pillar of
strength to hold onto, you are tossed in every storm, sailing without a
mast.
Attacking anyone who calls you on that reveals the moral inadequacy of your
own position, reflecting more on the the rotating knives of the attacker
than the cow which is the object of your murderous intention.
Deb Marsh
news:8jd556$38g$1...@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
> Hello, I'm Jim Fouratt.
> You wish my penis would go away.....
Yep! Wish that it would take the rest of you with it as well 8-)
Debs
Deb Marsh
Changed my mind (allowed to cos I'm a woman 8-) this is a powerful
document - silly - but powerful nevertheless.
Shame that these issues require to be introduced in this fashion though.
Debs
Claire Jameson
Deb Marsh writes:
> <Jim...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:8jd556$38g$1...@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
> > Hello, I'm Jim Fouratt.
>
> Changed my mind (allowed to cos I'm a woman 8-) this is a powerful
> document - silly - but powerful nevertheless.
>
> Shame that these issues require to be introduced in this fashion though.
I agree. It's hard to distinguish between Mr. Fouratt's actual writings and
the parodies, but they -- and the responses thereto -- are both compelling.
Claire
Rajah_Kamal
*Kamal: I doubt it.
Jim: As a concerned gay man, I know that there must be limits to
change.
*Kamal: and how do you "know" this? How did you discover these
"limits"?
Jim: Things like ethics, morals and standards must be held firm
and solid, not adapted on a situational basis.
*Kamal: these "things" are not things (objects) at all, they’re
concepts. All "ethics" and "morals" are works of fiction that
have
no connection to reality. And "standards" are your silly
subjective relative nonsense.
"Ethics is in origin the art of recommending to others the
sacrifices required for cooperation with oneself." –Bertrand
Russell
Jim: The basis of that stability […]
*Kamal: "bases" are fictional – there are no axioms in reality.
And "stability" is another one of your silly meaningless
subjective relatives. This is evaluative language – and
evaluative
language cannot convey any information about any object.
"We should have a great many fewer disputes in the world if only
words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only,
and not for things themselves."
--John Locke
Jim: […] to me has always been the golden rule -- do onto others
as you would have them do unto you.
*Kamal: that’s only one out of millions of ethical "rules"… and
not necessarily an efficient one.
"Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-
waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others,
because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty." --
Aldous Huxley
Jim: That's why I not only speak the lessons I would want to hear
-- that selling out my penis is a path to destruction of self –
[…]
*Kamal: these words you have written are nothing but your
whimsical thoughts, they are not lessons. "Selling out" is
subjective. You seem to have no clue what "self" is, you need to
go study psychology and neurosciences.
"The difficult part in an argument is not to defend one's
opinion,
but rather to know it."
--André Maurois
Jim: […] but why I also deal with others without personal attacks
and venom.
*Kamal: some people may consider these words to be a "personal
attack" because that is subjective. And "venom" is your
meaningless subjective language.
Jim: For some "transgendered" people, who are willing to sell out
their penis for short term gain, everything seems to be about
what
is most expedient in the moment.
*Kamal: your fallacies of "doubtful evidence" and
"generalization". First, you don’t have a clue what some people’s
motivations for SRS are. Second, there is no such thing as a
"transgendered person" – that’s your silly generalization – only
particulars exist in reality.
Jim: Human culture is built not on jelly but on rocks, the rocks
between my legs and between my ears.
*Kamal: there are many cultures (not only one) and you appear to
have no clue what any of them are "built" on.
"A culture is in its finest flower before it begins to analyze
itself."
--Whitehead, A.N.
Jim: Rock solid is good, a foundation that is not slippery or
situational, but rather follows clear and unchanging precepts --
precepts as simple as the golden rule.
*Kamal: "good" is meaningless evaluative language, solidity is
not
necessarily "good"; in fact, a culture that is perfectly stable
is
doomed to a very short existence. And "precepts" are fictional,
there are no precepts in reality.
Jim: If transgender is a matter of expediency, of self interest
[…]
*Kamal: self-interest is the only desire that a person may ever
know. All people act in their own self-interest because that’s
all
they will ever know.
"Every science and every inquiry, and similarly every activity
and
pursuit, is thought to aim at some good."
--Aristotle
Jim: […] -- how can I be opportunistic enough to play fast and
loose with the truth, […]
*Kamal: "fast" and "loose" are meaningless subjective language.
And you wouldn’t know what "truth" was even if you tripped over
it
because you are a first-class fool.
Jim: [..] fending off all challenges to my lack of integrity with
glib and facile evasions,
*Kamal: "integrity" is subjective and meaningless, "evasions" are
your meaningless evaluative language.
Jim: […] and if that doesn't work, with attacks of political
correctness and venom, then what is it other than a force for
destuction?
*Kamal: more meaningless subjectives… what in the name of God is
a
"force for destruction"??? Could you please explain that?
Jim: Asking how you sell out society by claiming the individual
"right" to be what you want in the moment […]
*Kamal: "sell out" is meaningless evaluative language. And there
is no such things as "rights" in reality, all "rights" are
created
and maintained by physical force or the realistic threat of
force.
"Most libertarians ignore the fact that all rights (including
property rights) are created, maintained, and constrained by
force
or the credible threat of forceful retaliation."
--Mike Huben
Jim: […] -- history, biology, morality, and social order be
damned
– is asking for the right to not be accountable for your own
choices to slaughter what you find challenging, like your own
anatomy,
*Kamal: your conceptions of history and biology are simple-minded
and irrelevant. And your understandings of morality and "social
order" are infantile.
"Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning
is perilous."
-- Confucius (551-479 B.C.)
Jim: All too often this is justified by a mantle of victim-hood
[…]
*Kamal: all human actions and desires are accompanied by
justifications and rationalizations. In fact, there is a part of
the brain that neuroscientists have identified as being
responsible for creating rationalizations… and it is obvious to
me, by reading your words, that you’ve been stupidly relying on
this part of the brain way too much because what you have written
is truly foolish.
"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since
it
enables one to find a reason for everything one has a mind to
do."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography
Jim: […] -- "I have suffered too much, so now you have to end my
suffering by giving me whatever I demand, no matter how self-
indulgent or destructive it may be!" Everyone in the world has a
tale of suffering, and if we were to let the assertion of
victimhood get them off the hook of unethical behavior, we would
have a world where nothing was solid and dependable.
*Kamal: no, not everyone in the world has a tale of suffering,
that’s just your fallacy of "generalization". And the "assertion
of victimhood" is your fallacy of "strawman". And no behavior is
"unethical" because the are no "ethics" in reality. And "solid"
and "dependable" is more of your meaningless evaluative language.
Jim: I know what is rock solid in my life and in my pants. I know
that the Golden Rule is key. What do transgender people know?
*Kamal: what you "know" is irrelevant. I know that unicorns are
white horses that have one horn extending from their foreheads,
but so what??? Knowledge obviously doesn’t necessarily need any
connection to reality… and everything you "know" may very well be
pure fantasy (your words would indicate that this is the case).
"When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do
not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it -- this is
knowledge."
-- Confucius (551-479 B.C.)
Jim: After flipping around in responding to every idea, somehow
they try to believe that gems, good points made in coming to a
conclusion they disagree with must not then be good points. To
claim their own "truth" they act like Pee Wee Herman, shoving
their fingers in their ears and singing "la-la-la-la-la-la" at
the
top of their lungs until the challenge passes.
*Kamal: your fallacy of "strawman"…and a little bit of "ad
hominen" (?) as well. You don’t have a clue how people come to
conclusions.
Jim: To me, all this posturing is simply a sign that their own
delusions are so fragile that they cannot stand the light of day,
the revelation of truth, the power of the penis. They choose to
not engage anything that might reveal how they live in an
untenable position day after day.
*Kamal: your fallacy of "doubtful evidence". Is this why all that
"posturing" is going on? Or maybe you are simply living in a
fantasy world of your own creation.
Jim: Twit my penis, plonk my penis, do what you want to my penis,
but there it will be, strong and solid pointing to the ultimate
truth that men are men and women are women and never the twain
shall meet.
*Kamal: you really are a silly fool, aren’t you? There is no such
thing as "men" or "women" in reality, it is just simply logically
impossible. Those are concepts that exist only in your mind. Only
particulars exist in reality. Only insane people confuse fantasy
(thoughts) with reality.
Jim: Stand in your big shoes, little suit and bow tie singing
"la-la-la-la-la-la-la" and you will just look like a fool.
*Kamal: you don’t even know what a fool is, do you? You should
learn the meaning of that word.
Jim: Question: If you call arms legs, how many legs do you have?
Answer: Two. Calling an arm a leg doesn't make it a leg, no
matter
how much you want it to.
*Kamal: word labels are arbitrary, you are confusing WORDS and
THINGS, a foolish mistake.
Jim: If the truth of the penis is to potent for you to look at
and
stay in your little play world, then maybe it's your little play
world that needs examining rather than the biological truth that
almost every species on earth and certainly every mammalian
species has fixed sex divisions -- males and females, the way
Gaia
made them.
*Kamal: this is not a biological truth at all. You have no clue
what the truth is because you’re a fool. You need to study
biology
before making foolish statements like this. And "Gaia" is a
concept that has no connection to reality. "Gaia" makes nothing.
Jim: You wish my penis would go away as simply as you got rid of
your own penis, one surgical strike to search and destroy the
manly meat that marked your maleness.
*Kamal: your fallacy of "srawman". Who has expressed these
"wishes"?
Jim: I know about this, because I grew up in a world before
Stonewall where society wanted to get rid of homosexuals with
cures or insututional repression, the kind we fought at
Stonewall,
where gay men like Marsha P. Johnson and gay women like Les
Feinberg stood for the freedom to be gender variant and visible.
*Kamal: all analogies are false and this particular one is also
silly.
Jim: Your penis, is not gone, however, no matter how much you
have
tried to hide it. It lives in your DNA and your history and in
your crotch. Until you can stand up and face that -- not just sit
down and deny it -- you will never be able to be open about who
you are inside, never be beyond the oppression of society.
*Kamal: once again you confuse things (penis) with concepts
(history or memory). A lot of crap is on our DNA, so what???
Jim: To try to silence the penis is to admit the truth that your
deceptions can't stand up to challenges, that inside you are so
insecure you must silence and destroy others to stay deluded. You
violate the golden rule to demand others honor and respect you --
a strategy doomed to failure.
*Kamal: this is just silly psychologizing on your part. You have
no clue what motivates people. And "honor" and "respect" are
meaningless subjectives.
Jim: My valid points cannot be swept away by saying "well, I
don't
like his conclusions or his attitude, so they can be erased."
*Kamal: "validity" is a logical word game that has no connection
to reality. Even if your "points" are "valid" it wouldn’t matter
at all because in the game of logic gibberish and noise can very
easily be made "valid".
Jim: I speak for many people who know the truth about sex and
gender.
*Kamal: your foolish words indicate that you don’t even have a
clue what the truth is. You’re still having serious problems
discerning reality from your fantasy.
Jim: Rather than taking my cues about gender from like "taking
cues about blacks from white separatists," rather I "take my
cues
about whites passing as black from strong black voices" -- the
ones who stand up for a strong and separate black identity, the
ones who see race as paramount.
*Kamal: a bizarre bundle of fallacies.
Jim: Neither can they be swept away by venomous screed that
demonizes, no matter what the justification claimed.
*Kamal: is that some sort of religious testament? It must be
since
it has no bearing on reality.
Jim: What level of justification would be acceptable for a screed
that demonizes an individual transgendered people on a personal
level?
*Kamal: does this make any sense to anybody?
Jim: That they are a liar? That they are moral decay embodied?
That they are self-indulgent at the cost of social stability,
order and decorum? That they refuse to listen to others and just
act from their own ego, an ego disguised as a sickness? That they
try to destroy and silence others who challenge their own fatuous
indulgences?
*Kamal: these are all fallacies of "strawman" and
"generalization".
Jim: "La-la-la-la-la-la-la! I can ignore and attack you because I
*Kamal: okay, that is the only part where you even begin to make
any sense. But you still use way too many generalizations and too
much "unsane" (--Korzybski) thinking. You confuse your fantasy
(what exists in your mind) with reality (what exists outside your
mind). You must learn to distinguish between the two if you wish
to communicate ideas that have some connection to reality.
"Children, immature adults and animals 'identify'. Whenever a
person reacts to a new or changing situation as if it were an old
and unchanging one, he or she is said to be identifying. Such an
approach to life is Aristotelian."
--A. E. van Vogt, Null-A writer(1948)
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
TRUEVOICE4
I wrote a few parodies, and I do hope that everyone recognized them for
being that. Well, everyone except for Claudia did, I believe.
What I have just read goes beyond parody. It is an expression of hatred.
Whoever wrote this post is quite knowledgable about the community, and about
gender discussion. It appears that this person has a deep hatred of Mr.
Fouratt. You are to be the weapons that are to be aimed at him.
This post appears to be coming from Germany. But I would not rule anyone
out. The writer is attempting quite cleverly to hide her identity.
Jim Fouratt's views are revolting. But even his views are not as
naseuating as that which I have read here.
These forgeries are quite well written. Fouratt's style has been imitated
very sucessfully. But they are not his words, nor are they his thoughts.
I know this because I am one of many who have been recieving Fouratt's
mass-mailings, his attempt to play for sympathy. Not once in any of the
mailings I have recieved have I read such dribble as this.
Fouratt has not accepted our legitimacy. But he does so in the mistaken
belief that doing so would endanger his community. Claire Jamieson's parodies
about TS proseltyzing represent a real situation in his eyes. That he is quite
paranoid should be obvious to anyone who has read his running e-mails. Everyone
is against him, and they are plotting to ruin his repuation. Someone should
inform him that his worst enemy is himself.
But reading the words of this so-called parodist is even more hurtful
than that of Fouratt himself. I advise killfiling this person immediately.
Say hi to Claudia from me!
Not Jim Fouratt
Deb Marsh
news:395A3BA1...@my-deja.com...
> > Changed my mind (allowed to cos I'm a woman 8-) this is a powerful
> > document - silly - but powerful nevertheless.
> >
> > Shame that these issues require to be introduced in this fashion though.
>
> I agree. It's hard to distinguish between Mr. Fouratt's actual writings
> and the parodies, but they -- and the responses thereto -- are both
> compelling.
Now, now, my dear, multi-faceted, Ms Jameson 8-) If this were the case
then Uncle Jim would be more of a worry than he his. The post in
question is quite brilliant - which is a quality I doubt Mr Fouratt's
friends, even when in their cups, would attribute to the man himself.
Back door into group psyche stuff - clever, tangential, almost subliminal
and hovering on the cusp of something rather important - can you see
it 8-) Almost forensic really, I shouldn't be at all surprised 8-)
Deborah
Deb Marsh
news:20000628174626...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> Hello Everyone, I'm not Jim Fouratt
> Fouratt has not accepted our legitimacy. But he does so in the
> mistaken belief that doing so would endanger his community.
> Claire Jamieson's parodies about TS proseltyzing represent a
> real situation in his eyes. That he is quite paranoid should be
> obvious to anyone who has read his running e-mails. Everyone
> is against him, and they are plotting to ruin his repuation. Someone
> should inform him that his worst enemy is himself.
Tried that - he ain't listening - can't here above his own propaganda.
Someone should tell him that he's a fossil - oops! already tried that as
well 8-)
> But reading the words of this so-called parodist is even more
> hurtful than that of Fouratt himself. I advise killfiling this person
> immediately.
Yep. Had the dubious pleasure of being on the receiving end of Uncle Jim's
self-justifying myopia myself - and mighty dull it is after a short while.
Disagree with your analysis of 'our' resident parodist though - she is up to
something far more interesting - read this stuff again - then again - who
does it challenge? Does it lack cogent insight into our so called
condition - it does not. Hasn't been about Jim for some time - he's a
convenient foil - this is something else entirely. Brutal maybe (ok, yes)
but not without relevance. Partial, but getting there....... If we cannot
withstand this sort of cloaked polemic then we are in trouble.
Debs
Claire Jameson
Deb Marsh writes:
> Now, now, my dear, multi-faceted, Ms Jameson 8-) If this were the case
> then Uncle Jim would be more of a worry than he his. The post in
> question is quite brilliant - which is a quality I doubt Mr Fouratt's
> friends, even when in their cups, would attribute to the man himself.
>
> Back door into group psyche stuff - clever, tangential, almost subliminal
> and hovering on the cusp of something rather important - can you see
> it 8-) Almost forensic really, I shouldn't be at all surprised 8-)
Debs, my first boss, a brilliant and powerful man, used to counsel that you make
more headway by letting people believe they've reached their own decisions.
I've thought about that a good bit over the years. ;-)
Claire
Deb Marsh
> Debs, my first boss, a brilliant and powerful man, used to counsel that
you make
> more headway by letting people believe they've reached their own
decisions.
> I've thought about that a good bit over the years. ;-)
Can't imagine, dear sister, that you merely confined yourself to thinking
about this really 8-)
Debs
Penny Abbatoir
We don't ignore your wisdom. There's no wisdom to ignore. Your arguements have
no validity except in your own mind.
We don't file attacks on you because we fear your logic, we file attacks because
you're failing repeatedly to understand that no one here is buying into your
bullshit and we just want you to leave because YOUR sick depraved delusional
filth is making us sick.
Grow up, get lost, and for the love of Gaia whom you obviously know nothing to
example her as a defense for your insane views, LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE!!!
TRUEVOICE4
>Tried that - he ain't listening - can't here above his own propaganda.
>Someone should tell him that he's a fossil - oops! already tried that as
>well 8-)
This is Fouratt last stand, perhaps. An activist lost in the crowd of younger
and more relevant voices. Some recent interactions with members of the gender
community in New York have given him the impetus to stage a late comeback. His
interactions with us in the aftermath of the Imperial Court post leak have
enabled to update his rhetoric a little.
But he is being met with stone gazes from some, and with violent attack from
others. Many of those who have raised dissent with his views are comtemporaries
of his. Not everyone in his generation has stayed frozen in 1968.
>> But reading the words of this so-called parodist is even more
>> hurtful than that of Fouratt himself. I advise killfiling this person
>> immediately.
>
>Yep. Had the dubious pleasure of being on the receiving end of Uncle Jim's
>self-justifying myopia myself - and mighty dull it is after a short while.
>Disagree with your analysis of 'our' resident parodist though - she is up to
>something far more interesting - read this stuff again - then again - who
>does it challenge? Does it lack cogent insight into our so called
>condition - it does not. Hasn't been about Jim for some time - he's a
>convenient foil - this is something else entirely. Brutal maybe (ok, yes)
>but not without relevance. Partial, but getting there....... If we cannot
>withstand this sort of cloaked polemic then we are in trouble.
>
For some, this contrived dialogue is an intersting intellectual exercise. Such
people are sure of their identities. Is it a necessary one, even for them? I
cannot say with certainty. As for myself, I have grown quite weary over the
years of defending my own self-insight. I have no doubts, and many of the
points are old ones. But yes, they do indeed dig deep into the recesses of the
mind.
For the one still looking for answers these post might indeed be a good tool
for self-examination. But the very persons who might gain the most from these
posts are the very ones who would be angered the most by them.
Diane can laugh at these parodies because she has grown past the fear of
them. You and some others can indeed examine their premises and find fault in
them. I see the sublime maliciousness in them, a member of our community not
only at war with Fouratt, but also the rest of us as well. And, also at war
with herself.
Deb Marsh
news:395A7D8D...@home.com...
> Grow up, get lost, and for the love of Gaia whom you obviously know
nothing to
> example her as a defense for your insane views, LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE!!!
Penny, my sweet, huddle with your sisters - look this one in the face. Face
it down, you can do it. This is designed to challenge your self-knowledge.
See, learn, laugh - see this shadow of our fears - cast the light of what
you feel - watch it go away.
It pains me to see you so distressed my sister.....
lotsaluv (to you both 8-)
Deborah
TRUEVOICE4
The posts that you have been reading are mere satire. The writer may not
believe any of the points that she is postulating. Her intention is merely to
cause Jim Fouratt much discomfort from people like yourself who are angered by
it.
Do not allow any of this to upset you. Kill file all of these posts if that is
going to be the effect they have on you. I do suspect that the poster does not
even read the replies, so you may well be wasting your precious and excellent
talents on these replies.
You are much better than this person. Just let it go, and move on to more
positive topics of discussion here.
Deb Marsh
> For some, this contrived dialogue is an intersting intellectual exercise.
> Such people are sure of their identities. Is it a necessary one, even for
> them? I cannot say with certainty. As for myself, I have grown quite weary
> over the years of defending my own self-insight. I have no doubts, and
> many of the points are old ones. But yes, they do indeed dig deep into
> the recesses of the mind.
Don't be weary sister - not a luxury allowed to the wise 8-)
> For the one still looking for answers these post might indeed be a good
> tool for self-examination. But the very persons who might gain the most
> from these posts are the very ones who would be angered the most by
> them.
Yes, agreed, I am conscious of this irony - disturbed by it as well.
> Diane can laugh at these parodies because she has grown past the fear
> of them. You and some others can indeed examine their premises and find
> fault in them. I see the sublime maliciousness in them, a member of our
> community not only at war with Fouratt, but also the rest of us as well.
> And, also at war with herself.
Can see this also. However, we all come to ourselves in different ways. Some
cling to the beliefs which drove them in the first place. Some crumble
because their vision was slanted and they could not adapt to an unexpected
reality. Some continue to grow and evolve into a new condition and, for some
of these, the process is painful. This group should be able to accommodate
every variation of *our* becoming because the process is ongoing. I can see
what is going on here and find it difficult to choose sides because we are
'species' and - if we have not each other, then who have we got?
Cannot be selective - tried really hard, believe me - can't do it..........
Deborah
Diane
wrote:
>
> This post appears to be coming from Germany. But I would not rule anyone
>out. The writer is attempting quite cleverly to hide her identity.
They are coming from(as I pointed out a couple weeks earlier) an ISP
offerring a free trial of a web/usenet posting service. Anyone in the
world could and can sign up for it.
-----------------------------------------
Diane
Diane
wrote:
>Whoever wrote this post is quite knowledgable about the community, and about
>gender discussion
Yup I'd have to agree - this one has ceased to be funny and it does
look like a truer intent is appearing. Too bad though...potentially
good humor turns out to be just another sour grapes wannabe. Oh well
...not the first and won't be the last. Nothing unique here.
<plonk!>
-----------------------------------------
Diane
Diane
wrote:
>
> Diane can laugh at these parodies because she has grown past the fear of
>them. You and some others can indeed examine their premises and find fault in
>them. I see the sublime maliciousness in them, a member of our community not
>only at war with Fouratt, but also the rest of us as well. And, also at war
>with herself.
Hmmm...I think you're right on all counts there. It's not lost on me
that it's been the younger ones (in terms of experience) who are
taking this all too seriously.
In the big picture I see things just not moving Jim's way so I kind of
write him off as a mildly pesky irrelevancy.
-----------------------------------------
Diane
Valerie Anne
our own self knowledge. Those of us who are new and are still discovering
ourselves are likely to be destroyed by the sheer maliciousness of the
underlying message, those who are still defensive are likely to be disuaded
from introspection because of this persons abusive misuse of unreality.
Those of us who know who we are and have our own reality to sustain us can
see the ranting for what it is -- a discourse on a subjective experience
applying only to the writer. However, there is no challenge but that which
we accept. See what a disturbed mind can leverage against a combined
reality. A single subjective reality may be shaken, a combined subjective
reality cannot be swayed.
@}---}-----}----------
Valerie Anne
(Note to myself)
"If one's mouth is shut, no quarrel arises."
--Japanese Proverb.
"The real menace in dealing with a five-year-old is that,
in no time at all, you begin to sound like a five-year-old."
-- Jean Kerr
Deb Marsh <DebM...@gtbardfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8jdv9r$vii$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Deb Marsh
news:QeB65.13961$kK.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The problem as I see it is this -- it appears to be a direct challenge to
> our own self knowledge. Those of us who are new and are still discovering
> ourselves are likely to be destroyed by the sheer maliciousness of the
> underlying message, those who are still defensive are likely to be
> disuaded from introspection because of this persons abusive misuse of
> unreality. Those of us who know who we are and have our own reality to
> sustain us can see the ranting for what it is -- a discourse on a
> subjective experience applying only to the writer. However, there is no
> challenge but that which we accept. See what a disturbed mind can
> leverage against a combined reality. A single subjective reality may be
> shaken, a combined subjective reality cannot be swayed.
I agree with you substantially Val.
Now, those of us who are new and in discovery (that bit never ends by the
way) will find ourselves being challenged by all manner of things, some from
unexpected quarters, but, mainly, by ourselves.
Don't know if this is malice or pain or some combination - goes beyond this
though. Speaks to our insecurities and pokes at a fragile self knowledge
which can fall easy prey to doubt and cleverly constructed assault.
However, and this is my point (well, one of them) some of us have moved
through and beyond this. If I'm honest, went through this phase pre-op -
recognised the inaccuracies of any model which attempted to contain us - saw
the uncertainties which would keep me company before, during and after -
wasn't mistaken in my expectations either.
Did it anyway - would do it all again because I had identified the path for
me to take. Alternative perspectives will challenge us - and we should be
challenged because choices are as important for the possibilities which they
go on to deny as the are for the ones which they come to endow.
For myself, think that there is some virtue in this sort of thing being
played-out in an environment (ie here) inhabited by a breadth of experience
and survival where these dangers can be held up to the light and, also,
where the occasional passing stroppy cow can demonstrate that such views are
no more "the truth of it" than anything else is.
Besides, as I'm always saying, support can take many forms and, perhaps,
some go about seeking it in ways slightly mysterious to others - yes 8-)
Let's face it Val, the likes of us ain't going anywhere are we? Here for
many reasons really. Me? Survived - am surviving - prospering - living proof
that it ain't all doom and gloom. Another "besides" we rage sister. Rage
against circumstance and a sense of betrayal. Rage against a situation which
seems intent upon denying who we are - against those who would fix us for
their own security - or out of 'kindness'. Sister, we are annoyed and we are
hurt - and - bloody watch out when we focus this anger and this pain and
utilise it for our purpose cos then we are formidable because we drive
towards ourselves.
There are none like us - we can withstand so much - can we withstand
ourselves though when we focus upon ourselves? We must because this is the
real test. Don't have to do all of this alone though - do we?
lotsaluv
Deborah (who is, suddenly, feeling rather old 8-)
grrl*@*petal
<krysta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Those of us who know who we are and have our own reality to sustain us can
>see the ranting for what it is -- a discourse on a subjective experience
>applying only to the writer. However, there is no challenge but that which
>we accept. See what a disturbed mind can leverage against a combined
>reality. A single subjective reality may be shaken, a combined subjective
>reality cannot be swayed.
How do we know our freedom if only one path is available to follow? If
only affirmation is offered?
Cindy
Deb Marsh
news:395b1ae...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> How do we know our freedom if only one path is available to follow? If
> only affirmation is offered?
hmmm!!
Only one pathway I'm interested in these days - wide enough for two and
threading through a gentle cosmos. Sigh!
Deborah x x x
--------------------------------------------
Trust I seek and I find in you
Every day for us something new
Open mind for a different view
And nothing else matter
-------------------------------------------
TRUEVOICE4
, >Don't be weary sister - not a luxury allowed to the wise 8-)
Nor to anyone who wishes to survive. Our countinuance among the living
requires a cnstant regathering of our strengths.
>> For the one still looking for answers these post might indeed be a good
>> tool for self-examination. But the very persons who might gain the most
>> from these posts are the very ones who would be angered the most by
>> them.
>
>Yes, agreed, I am conscious of this irony - disturbed by it as well.
Some are still working through their doubts. and fear an underlying truth in
words that oppose their still forming determination to control their own
destinies. They are like children walking therough a house said to be haunted,
every creak in the floor causes them to react in terror. Of course, the other
children must not know of their fear, so they yell out angrily in a loud voice.
We are the adults that must realize that it is natural for children to be
afraid of the dark. We must speak in soothing tones, and assure them that the
ghosts and goblins are merely figments of one's imagination. And hope that they
learn from their fear.
I am just being analogous, of course. The comparsion to children should not be
seen as a belitttling one.
>Can see this also. However, we all come to ourselves in different ways. Some
>cling to the beliefs which drove them in the first place. Some crumble
>because their vision was slanted and they could not adapt to an unexpected
>reality. Some continue to grow and evolve into a new condition and, for some
>of these, the process is painful. This group should be able to accommodate
>every variation of *our* becoming because the process is ongoing. I can see
>what is going on here and find it difficult to choose sides because we are
>'species' and - if we have not each other, then who have we got?
Those of us who have survive this process have found the means of keeping
ourselves from totally going down as a result. Some have done better than
others in this, but most have managed to find adequate coping stratergies. A
few, such as our Fouratt clone, have found themselves boxed into a corner, they
have chosen a solution which troubles them. Constant second guessing in secret.
That our mad poster is a post-op makes this situation an even sader one.
Fouratt's words trouble her, and she nows uses them as a counterspell against
the very doubts that Fouratt's words have reopened in her mind.
Should our disturbed poster of Fourattisms wish to openly discuss her own
issues we should embrace her. I suppose that is why we are here.
>Cannot be selective - tried really hard, believe me - can't do it..........
Same here. There are two sides to any coin, and both are part of the same piece
of currency. And all coins of the same denomination are the same in the end.
TRUEVOICE4
>Hmmm...I think you're right on all counts there. It's not lost on me
>that it's been the younger ones (in terms of experience) who are
>taking this all too seriously.
It is a necessary part of their growth to attack shadows. In time they will
learn to trust their own judgements and feelings, and naysayers like Fouratt
can leave but little impression on them.
Our parodist can be seen on a number of different levels. Each one according to
the path of our own internal development.
>In the big picture I see things just not moving Jim's way so I kind of
>write him off as a mildly pesky irrelevancy.
This is a cat who has had a number of lives already. But the aging cat has to
recognize that his limbs are not as limber as they were when he was younger. If
he falls, he might hurt himself pretty badly. From what I have heard it appears
that Jim has been pretty scratched up by his fellow cats. A number of his
comtemporaries have made a lot of distance from him.
Lisanne Anderson
This is really what I have been speaking about for weeks. The writer of
these parodies not only hates Fouratt, she hates all of us. Her aim was to stir
of the fire of hatred, and then, not satisfied with merely doing just that, has
turned up the heat.
>Yup I'd have to agree - this one has ceased to be funny and it does
>look like a truer intent is appearing. Too bad though...potentially
>good humor turns out to be just another sour grapes wannabe. Oh well
>...not the first and won't be the last. Nothing unique here.
><plonk!>
>
TRUEVOICE4 has pegged her as a post-op. This is true, and her history is
rather a strange one. I shall of course refrain from particulars. But this is
an especially unhappy person who still has identity issues. Her name would be
quite unfamilar to most of you, and it would serve no purpose to reveal it
anyway. But in the end, it is not at all about Fouratt, it is not about us, it
is indeed really about herself. Self-hatred projected unto all of us.
Lisanne
grrl*@*petal
wrote:
>Hello Deborah,
>
>, >Don't be weary sister - not a luxury allowed to the wise 8-)
>
> Nor to anyone who wishes to survive. Our countinuance among the living
>requires a cnstant regathering of our strengths.
Suicidal ideation?
>
>>> For the one still looking for answers these post might indeed be a good
>>> tool for self-examination. But the very persons who might gain the most
>>> from these posts are the very ones who would be angered the most by
>>> them.
>>
>>Yes, agreed, I am conscious of this irony - disturbed by it as well.
>
>Some are still working through their doubts. and fear an underlying truth in
>words that oppose their still forming determination to control their own
>destinies. They are like children walking therough a house said to be haunted,
>every creak in the floor causes them to react in terror. Of course, the other
>children must not know of their fear, so they yell out angrily in a loud voice.
>
>We are the adults that must realize that it is natural for children to be
>afraid of the dark. We must speak in soothing tones, and assure them that the
>ghosts and goblins are merely figments of one's imagination. And hope that they
>learn from their fear.
And so what are *you* selling? What is yours to allocate, and your to
divine?
>
>I am just being analogous, of course. The comparsion to children should not be
>seen as a belitttling one.
>
>>Can see this also. However, we all come to ourselves in different ways. Some
>>cling to the beliefs which drove them in the first place. Some crumble
>>because their vision was slanted and they could not adapt to an unexpected
>>reality. Some continue to grow and evolve into a new condition and, for some
>>of these, the process is painful. This group should be able to accommodate
>>every variation of *our* becoming because the process is ongoing. I can see
>>what is going on here and find it difficult to choose sides because we are
>>'species' and - if we have not each other, then who have we got?
>
>Those of us who have survive this process have found the means of keeping
>ourselves from totally going down as a result.
As opposed to partially going down? Why the qualification?
>Some have done better than
>others in this, but most have managed to find adequate coping stratergies. A
>few, such as our Fouratt clone, have found themselves boxed into a corner, they
>have chosen a solution which troubles them. Constant second guessing in secret.
>That our mad poster is a post-op makes this situation an even sader one.
>Fouratt's words trouble her, and she nows uses them as a counterspell against
>the very doubts that Fouratt's words have reopened in her mind.
>Should our disturbed poster of Fourattisms wish to openly discuss her own
>issues we should embrace her. I suppose that is why we are here.
>
>>Cannot be selective - tried really hard, believe me - can't do it..........
>
>Same here. There are two sides to any coin, and both are part of the same piece
>of currency. And all coins of the same denomination are the same in the end.
So what is the currency? I ask you because you presume we are all
alike. How can you be sure? There are these hoops. We jump through
to get what we want. But the question is what do we get out of what
we want? Do we all get the same thing? Do we really seek the same
thing? Is it a satisfactory answer? Or isn't it *just* part of the
process? If just a milestone in a process what is the ultimate goal
of the process?
Perhaps the currency is fiat because we never get to adequately define
our needs- the language is given to us, imposed upon us, but if you
note discussions amongst ourselves there is a variety of meanings for
the same word, the same "coin." We claim self-definition against
those who would define us if they move against us. But *do* we
self-define as we move towards those who will help us? Or don't we
check off the appropriate boxes because we know the language of the
ones who hold power over our process, and will deploy it to get what
we want? If so, do we lose our sense of self and instead intern a
self that is deemed appropriate to the process? And in this process
lose sense of actualities and therefore authenticity?
Wouldn't we then rail against creaky floor boards? Or rant against
predations upon our humanity?
Or see similarities that may be just superficial?
Cindy
>
>
>
Valerie Anne
or to mislead. It can be used to provide entertainment or as argument
railing against someone else's perceived truth. Discourse isn't about either
information or reason except only peripherally. The individual posting is
attempting to give substance to their own internal reality. We can accept
that of the writer or we can choose to deal with our own reality. When we
become vulnerable is when our sense of ourselves is challenged or enticed to
change to something that doesn't fit us. Or, we accept a "truth" that is
nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. The arguments as proposed are
hauntingly close to "truth" but neither my truth nor yours unless you accept
the basic premise of the poster -- that they have greater knowledge of your
situation than you do. Patently false. A basic fallacy wrapped in linguistic
gymnastics is still a fallacy. Combined reality is that which is common to
us all. Individual reality is that which is peculiar to one of us alone. We
all share commonality of experience in some things and differ drastically in
others. This is what makes us each unique and irreplaceable. But, if I tell
you, "I'm color-blind and you are not", then I'm informing you that I have a
different color experience than you do. But still I have no right to tell
you," that you are not " since I have no idea of your perception of color
until you tell me and then I have only your word for it since I can't
perceive with *your* eyes. Then if I say something must be wrong with you
for *not* being color-blind. I have layered a personal judgement on top of
the fallacy. This then is where the danger lies, Your emotional content
focuses on the judgement and not on the fallacious statement. And we get
angry -- denying the judgement but not unmasking the supposition behind it.
Once you unearth the erroneous premise, the anger evaporates of it's own
accord because we then recognize the falsity of the underlying message. Do
you see the basic fallacy of the writer. The hidden assumption that they are
more knowledgeable than you about yourself? If you wish to explore their
suppositions then you have every right to do so. Just remember the story of
the Minotaur's Maze and how the Maze was defeated. Hold a thread of your own
reality, your own truth, close by and be sure not to drop the end when you
explore someone else's reality. It is so terribly easy to lose oneself in
another's madness. See the movie "Silence of the Lambs?" The premise of
this movie is deeply rooted in the human psyche. Tread softly,hon. Your own
truth will emerge in it's own time.
@}---}-----}----------
Valerie Anne
(Note to myself)
"If one's mouth is shut, no quarrel arises."
--Japanese Proverb.
"The real menace in dealing with a five-year-old is that,
in no time at all, you begin to sound like a five-year-old."
-- Jean Kerr
grrl*@*petal <IL...@Debs.cooy.uk> wrote in message
news:395b1ae...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 05:35:44 GMT, "Valerie Anne"
> <krysta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Those of us who know who we are and have our own reality to sustain us
can
> >see the ranting for what it is -- a discourse on a subjective experience
> >applying only to the writer. However, there is no challenge but that
which
> >we accept. See what a disturbed mind can leverage against a combined
> >reality. A single subjective reality may be shaken, a combined subjective
> >reality cannot be swayed.
>
> How do we know our freedom if only one path is available to follow? If
> only affirmation is offered?
>
> Cindy
Valerie Anne
it granted and by whom? Or, must it be seized and held at weapon's point.
Can it be given away or stolen? And to what degree are we free or not free?
Don't speak of freedom but of choice -- *there* is something tangible.
Cerebus, the two headed dog, guards the gates of hell. Freedom and Slavery
are the names of the heads of Cerebrus. One looks east and one looks west.
"Choice" is the name of the leash that contains the beast.
@}---}-----}----------
Valerie Anne
(Note to myself)
"If one's mouth is shut, no quarrel arises."
--Japanese Proverb.
"The real menace in dealing with a five-year-old is that,
in no time at all, you begin to sound like a five-year-old."
-- Jean Kerr
Valerie Anne <krysta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:P9V65.22980$pu6.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Diane
Anderson) wrote:
>Her name would be
>quite unfamilar to most of you, and it would serve no purpose to reveal it
>anyway.
Ohhh I disagree...kinowing the name of the demon often renders it
powerless. Works for lame humans as well. Ohhh go ahead...you know
you want to....
-----------------------------------------
Diane
grrl*@*petal
<krysta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Cindy, the primary goal of discourse is discourse. It can be used to inform,
>or to mislead. It can be used to provide entertainment or as argument
>railing against someone else's perceived truth. Discourse isn't about either
>information or reason except only peripherally.
Yes, thank you for the condescension. Not quite comprehensive but
you do have a flair for the obvious...or perhaps your hackles are too
raised to allow reason to enter into a discourse with me.
> The individual posting is
>attempting to give substance to their own internal reality.
And this is quite permissable- or rather, there is no one here to
disallow it, true?
>We can accept
>that of the writer or we can choose to deal with our own reality. When we
>become vulnerable is when our sense of ourselves is challenged or enticed to
>change to something that doesn't fit us.
Hmmmm...resembles a preamble to a charter on thought policing.
>Or, we accept a "truth" that is
>nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. The arguments as proposed are
>hauntingly close to "truth" but neither my truth nor yours unless you accept
>the basic premise of the poster -- that they have greater knowledge of your
>situation than you do.
Generalizing from the personal is a bad habit of homo sapiens. No
class is immune from it, nor any individual.
>Patently false. A basic fallacy wrapped in linguistic
>gymnastics is still a fallacy.
If truths are individuated then there is no platform for fallacy.
There are no verbal gymnastics. Rather, I see parody in the
generalization of the personal, at least what's been posted by *our*
fouratt.
>Combined reality is that which is common to
>us all. Individual reality is that which is peculiar to one of us alone. We
>all share commonality of experience in some things and differ drastically in
>others. This is what makes us each unique and irreplaceable.
You know, your need to explain this to me is tediously obnoxious.
> But, if I tell
>you, "I'm color-blind and you are not", then I'm informing you that I have a
>different color experience than you do. But still I have no right to tell
>you," that you are not " since I have no idea of your perception of color
>until you tell me and then I have only your word for it since I can't
>perceive with *your* eyes. Then if I say something must be wrong with you
>for *not* being color-blind. I have layered a personal judgement on top of
>the fallacy. This then is where the danger lies, Your emotional content
>focuses on the judgement and not on the fallacious statement. And we get
>angry -- denying the judgement but not unmasking the supposition behind it.
>Once you unearth the erroneous premise, the anger evaporates of it's own
>accord because we then recognize the falsity of the underlying message. Do
>you see the basic fallacy of the writer. The hidden assumption that they are
>more knowledgeable than you about yourself? If you wish to explore their
>suppositions then you have every right to do so. Just remember the story of
>the Minotaur's Maze and how the Maze was defeated. Hold a thread of your own
>reality, your own truth, close by and be sure not to drop the end when you
>explore someone else's reality. It is so terribly easy to lose oneself in
>another's madness. See the movie "Silence of the Lambs?" The premise of
>this movie is deeply rooted in the human psyche. Tread softly,hon. Your own
>truth will emerge in it's own time.
Take a brisk hike. I don't need to declare my truths or lack thereof
to examine the understandings of others.
Oh, this is completely pathetic. You've spent much time here on
something that goes nowhere, except to defend your need to police
expression for the "safety" of others who are supposedly more
vulnerable than you. Where do you obtain such agency if not from the
same process you condemn?
And yet you haven't adressed the question I posed. Rather you place
me at some unenlightened level and in need of your explanations. I
wouldn't call this response discourse.
Madness? says you. And a thought terminating cliche at that. Try
Robert J. Lifton on for size. Then wonder how his observations might
apply to what you and "TrueVoice4" are attempting to do.
But since your so interested in thinks ancient Greek, perhaps you
should examine man more than myth. To wit:
Which philospher drank hemlock because his thoughts or rather his
processes of thought were considered maddening and dangerous to the
community at-large?
Cindy
grrl*@*petal
<krysta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Oh, btw, what is freedom anyway. (philosophic argument). Is it a right or is
>it granted and by whom? Or, must it be seized and held at weapon's point.
>Can it be given away or stolen? And to what degree are we free or not free?
>Don't speak of freedom but of choice -- *there* is something tangible.
>Cerebus, the two headed dog, guards the gates of hell. Freedom and Slavery
>are the names of the heads of Cerebrus. One looks east and one looks west.
>"Choice" is the name of the leash that contains the beast.
The ancient analogy fails. What we have learned since way back when
is that freedom is enabled by choice. Anyway, two headed chickens are
far more common than two headed dogs. Sorry, just don't buy into
atomitism or archetypes.
Cindy
TRUEVOICE4
I must caution Lisanne and any other persons whio might believe that they
know the name of this poster to refrain from doing so. The most obvious reaso
is that they might be wrong. But even if they were right, it may serve no
purpose to do so. The person in question might merely deny the fact, or not
even address it. But her usefulness in other areas may well be affected. My
own thought is that the person posting these trolls is politically active, and
may well be an effective leader in our community.
My advice is killfiling. Publicly disclosing her identity doesn't sit well
with me. As one who is also using a pseudonym, I would hope that my own need
for doing this would be respected.
TRUEVOICE4
>>, >Don't be weary sister - not a luxury allowed to the wise 8-)
>>
>> Nor to anyone who wishes to survive. Our countinuance among the living
>>requires a cnstant regathering of our strengths.
>
>Suicidal ideation?
Why must it go that direction? There are other outcomes that result from
failure. None of them pleasant ones, to be sure, but they are not all roads to
a noose round one's neck.
>>Some are still working through their doubts. and fear an underlying truth in
>>words that oppose their still forming determination to control their own
>>destinies. They are like children walking therough a house said to be
>haunted,
>>every creak in the floor causes them to react in terror. Of course, the
>other
>>children must not know of their fear, so they yell out angrily in a loud
>voice.
>>
>>We are the adults that must realize that it is natural for children to be
>>afraid of the dark. We must speak in soothing tones, and assure them that
>the
>>ghosts and goblins are merely figments of one's imagination. And hope that
>they
>>learn from their fear.
>
>And so what are *you* selling? What is yours to allocate, and your to
>divine?
Are you one of those persons who believes that each one of us is here to
advocate some larger plan? Some of us are just dealing with events as they
occur.
Every statement stands alone. You take from them whatever you see benefical in
their content. Or you don't. Your choice is not my particular concern.
>>Those of us who have survive this process have found the means of keeping
>>ourselves from totally going down as a result.
>
>As opposed to partially going down? Why the qualification?
Because they survive. Some are damaged from their efforts in some way, but they
keep themselves together as well as they are able to.
I would suppose that the suicidal ideation you mentioned earlier may well lead
to totally going down. And yet, it may not. It is possible to learn how to swim
upstream again.
>>>Cannot be selective - tried really hard, believe me - can't do it..........
>>
>>Same here. There are two sides to any coin, and both are part of the same
>piece
>>of currency. And all coins of the same denomination are the same in the end.
>
>So what is the currency? I ask you because you presume we are all
>alike.
I apologize if my remarks were made in a way which lead you to conclude
that.
The currency is that all of us basically seek a state of existence which
is satisfactory. That definition varies, but it is the ultimater goal of all
people. As individuals we often express ourselves in ways that appear to be
self-contradictions. And we may at times act thusly as well.
> How can you be sure? There are these hoops. We jump through
>to get what we want. But the question is what do we get out of what
>we want? Do we all get the same thing? Do we really seek the same
>thing? Is it a satisfactory answer? Or isn't it *just* part of the
>process? If just a milestone in a process what is the ultimate goal
>of the process?
If youi consider it carefully, you may come to the conclusion that ultimates
are constantly changing. So they can never be stated with any degree of
absoluteness
.
>Perhaps the currency is fiat because we never get to adequately define
>our needs- the language is given to us, imposed upon us, but if you
>note discussions amongst ourselves there is a variety of meanings for
>the same word, the same "coin." We claim self-definition against
>those who would define us if they move against us. But *do* we
>self-define as we move towards those who will help us? Or don't we
>check off the appropriate boxes because we know the language of the
>ones who hold power over our process, and will deploy it to get what
>we want? If so, do we lose our sense of self and instead intern a
>self that is deemed appropriate to the process? And in this process
>lose sense of actualities and therefore authenticity?
Isn't that the real big question? Who, in the end, control my destiny. Who
defines it? Am I myself, or the result of all of the interactions that I have
been a part of?
We seek realness. But is there any reality that approaches our ideal of what
ours should be?
These are very powerful questions. Dare we seek the answers?
>Wouldn't we then rail against creaky floor boards? Or rant against
>predations upon our humanity?
>
>Or see similarities that may be just superficial?
The above is the human condition. Perhaps it is what keeps us living and vital
beings. For not to consider, or react to stimuli is certainly a death of the
soul.
>
>
Deb Marsh
> Every statement stands alone. You take from them whatever you see
> benefical in their content. Or you don't. Your choice is not my particular
> concern.
Interesting assertion. The independence of statements could be rather moot
really. The idiom itself, being an evolving construct, could, I will
suggest, predetermine its own expression to a large extent? We cannot pluck
from the bland and select from the neutral - which is the problem.
Independence is vitiated in, and by, the very act of a communication reliant
upon the commonality of terms - upon approximate comprehension and the
transportation of a meaning residing, irresolvable, in the consensual. I
feel that I know what you are saying here - but - this very impression
requires a surrender of independence - a mutual giving up in order for
communication to take place at all. Independence, in this sense, and within
these terms, becomes an inevitable synthesis.
Sigh! Don't ya just hate it when that happens 8-)
> If you consider it carefully, you may come to the conclusion that
> ultimates are constantly changing. So they can never be stated with any
> degree of absoluteness
Which is another way of saying that ultimates are mythical (indeed, the
plural contradicting the condition per se). Fascinating paradox - the
mutability of absolutes - the flexibility and fracture of the ultimate.
Careful consideration displaying that the medium is self-negating and that
reading between lines in more than art - because it is unavoidable.
.
> Isn't that the real big question? Who, in the end, control my destiny. Who
> defines it? Am I myself, or the result of all of the interactions that I
> have been a part of?
Smoke and mirrors. Destiny is what happens, a retrospective consideration,
as intangible as fate - point and run really. The consequence of divorcing
self from the environment which gives it meaning. Cartesian delusion -
denying everything in order to reaffirm it.
> We seek realness. But is there any reality that approaches our ideal of
> what ours should be?
Again, seeking to impose ourselves upon the order imposed upon the chaos:
Bold endeavour which is dependant upon the surrogacy of a furnished
understanding. Self is contingent, irreducibly so.
> These are very powerful questions. Dare we seek the answers?
The mistake is to mistake them for questions at all. Teleological
speculation really - they can't touch you for it though 8-)
> >Wouldn't we then rail against creaky floor boards? Or rant against
> >predations upon our humanity?
> >
> >Or see similarities that may be just superficial?
>
> The above is the human condition. Perhaps it is what keeps us living and
> vital beings. For not to consider, or react to stimuli is certainly a
> death of the soul.
No comment - which, I hope, is sufficiently deafening 8-)
Debs
grrl*@*petal
wrote:
>Cindy,
>
>>>, >Don't be weary sister - not a luxury allowed to the wise 8-)
>>>
>>> Nor to anyone who wishes to survive. Our countinuance among the living
>>>requires a cnstant regathering of our strengths.
>>
>>Suicidal ideation?
>
>Why must it go that direction? There are other outcomes that result from
>failure. None of them pleasant ones, to be sure, but they are not all roads to
>a noose round one's neck.
uhuh. When you say "our continuance among the living requires a
constant reagthering of our strengths" is the language of life and
death struggle. If we do not constantly regather our strengths then
we will not continue among the living. Contrapositive as check
modality. Then we shall die. But how? Disease? Pestilence? Boredom?
And then, why struggle? Some do, certainly, but you say "Our" so I
question your generalizing to me- which opens a need for another
definition: "Who" are "We?"
>>>
>>>We are the adults that must realize that it is natural for children to be
>>>afraid of the dark. We must speak in soothing tones, and assure them that
>>the
>>>ghosts and goblins are merely figments of one's imagination. And hope that
>>they
>>>learn from their fear.
>>
>>And so what are *you* selling? What is yours to allocate, and your to
>>divine?
>
>Are you one of those persons who believes that each one of us is here to
>advocate some larger plan? Some of us are just dealing with events as they
>occur.
You are advocating something larger if you assert there are those who
are somehow lesser- in this case it seems to be gentle guidance from
those who already know- that's your analogy. So I ask again, what do
you know that permits you to assert that you're qualified to be the
larger? One must be, one must have some greater understanding if one
assumes to comfort the way....lest it be the blind leading the blind.
Did you know that in the land of the blind the one-eyed woman is
Queen?
>
>Every statement stands alone. You take from them whatever you see benefical in
>their content. Or you don't. Your choice is not my particular concern.
You develop a context and then demand decontextualization? Wouldn't
it be more appropriate to take responsibility for your words than
ignore implications you have suffused in the totality of your words?
Or don't you consider subtext when manufacturing pretext? Because your
statements have meaning juxtaposed to one another. I doubt your mind
works as a random thought generator, unless you need Risperdal to keep
you grounded. And you operate from the precursive if you take it upon
yourself to lead another, which you have expressed as sometimes
necessary. Dismissive evasion always piques my curiosity.
>
>>>Those of us who have survive this process have found the means of keeping
>>>ourselves from totally going down as a result.
>>
>>As opposed to partially going down? Why the qualification?
>
>Because they survive. Some are damaged from their efforts in some way, but they
>keep themselves together as well as they are able to.
>
>I would suppose that the suicidal ideation you mentioned earlier may well lead
>to totally going down. And yet, it may not. It is possible to learn how to swim
>upstream again.
So this is where *you* pick and choose from your individual
statements? Ahem.....
>
>>>>Cannot be selective - tried really hard, believe me - can't do it..........
>>>
>>>Same here. There are two sides to any coin, and both are part of the same
>>piece
>>>of currency. And all coins of the same denomination are the same in the end.
>>
>>So what is the currency? I ask you because you presume we are all
>>alike.
>
> I apologize if my remarks were made in a way which lead you to conclude
>that.
>
> The currency is that all of us basically seek a state of existence which
>is satisfactory. That definition varies, but it is the ultimater goal of all
>people. As individuals we often express ourselves in ways that appear to be
>self-contradictions. And we may at times act thusly as well.
And.....
>
>> How can you be sure? There are these hoops. We jump through
>>to get what we want. But the question is what do we get out of what
>>we want? Do we all get the same thing? Do we really seek the same
>>thing? Is it a satisfactory answer? Or isn't it *just* part of the
>>process? If just a milestone in a process what is the ultimate goal
>>of the process?
>
>If youi consider it carefully, you may come to the conclusion that ultimates
>are constantly changing. So they can never be stated with any degree of
>absoluteness
>.
>>Perhaps the currency is fiat because we never get to adequately define
>>our needs- the language is given to us, imposed upon us, but if you
>>note discussions amongst ourselves there is a variety of meanings for
>>the same word, the same "coin." We claim self-definition against
>>those who would define us if they move against us. But *do* we
>>self-define as we move towards those who will help us? Or don't we
>>check off the appropriate boxes because we know the language of the
>>ones who hold power over our process, and will deploy it to get what
>>we want? If so, do we lose our sense of self and instead intern a
>>self that is deemed appropriate to the process? And in this process
>>lose sense of actualities and therefore authenticity?
>
>Isn't that the real big question? Who, in the end, control my destiny. Who
>defines it? Am I myself, or the result of all of the interactions that I have
>been a part of?
How about are you the person who fails in responsibility to meanings
you imbue?
>
>We seek realness. But is there any reality that approaches our ideal of what
>ours should be?
>
>These are very powerful questions. Dare we seek the answers?
Or they are useless questions because we always operate within
parameters of what we perceive as being real. In the end, it's we
have as individuals. No faith meeded to cast these questions aside,
really.
>
>>Wouldn't we then rail against creaky floor boards? Or rant against
>>predations upon our humanity?
>>
>>Or see similarities that may be just superficial?
>
>The above is the human condition.
No, it's condition you place upon yourself to police the thoughts of
others. Afterall you call for "us" to pat the lesser on the head,
being the greater, and assume to be greater insofar as your experience
is concerned.
After all this *is* the context upon which I offered questions to you
to begin with. No matter how much you try to avoid it, you made a
series of interlocking statements, not individual ones, and they were
general enough for you to asume they were intelligible.
>Perhaps it is what keeps us living and vital
>beings. For not to consider, or react to stimuli is certainly a death of the
>soul.
Ever do that experiment in garde school where you eviscerate a frog in
science class and then attach an electrical charge to the base of the
spine? The dead froggies legs jump and squirm. Not vital. Reactive.
Cindy
Valerie Anne
at 2 am than it does now.
Big hugs,
@}---}-----}----------
Valerie Anne
(Note to myself)
"If one's mouth is shut, no quarrel arises."
--Japanese Proverb.
"The real menace in dealing with a five-year-old is that,
in no time at all, you begin to sound like a five-year-old."
-- Jean Kerr
grrl*@*petal <IL...@Debs.cooy.uk> wrote in message
news:395cbf36...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Valerie Anne
your earlier post seriously. I suspect you are probably quite a bit more
educated than I am. Obviously the question you posed was more rhetorical
than I'd garnered from the message and I responded inappropriately. I
promise I won't make that mistake again. I really intended no offense.
However I posted a premise in the first paragraph and you reacted with a bit
more hostility than I expected. Perhaps you were already sensitized to the
possibility of attack? That was neither my intent nor my goal.
BTW, wasn't it Socrates who took the hemlock? And exactly what is it
that you think I am attempting to do? And no, you obviously don't have any
need or requirement whatever to declare your "truth" or position or justify
anything to anyone. If you choose to examine or evaluate *anyone's* posts,
position is irrelevant except to give credence to your counter claims should
you make any. I wasn't implying that you should or should not, one way or
the other. Oh, and there is *always* a platform for fallacy -- one's own
mind. (I'm sure you don't want me to explain that.) And, you certainly did
step into my "madness" for a moment and it apparently made you
uncomfortable.
From my own experience, it's difficult for me to distance myself from
something I feel strongly about. Is this true for you as well? If so, I
think that counts as a shared reality. Any thoughts on this?
@}---}-----}----------
Valerie Anne
grrl*@*petal <IL...@Debs.cooy.uk> wrote in message
news:395cbed9...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
grrl*@*petal
<krysta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Oh no, I certainly didn't mean to be condescending, Cindy. I was taking
>your earlier post seriously. I suspect you are probably quite a bit more
>educated than I am. Obviously the question you posed was more rhetorical
>than I'd garnered from the message and I responded inappropriately. I
>promise I won't make that mistake again. I really intended no offense.
>However I posted a premise in the first paragraph and you reacted with a bit
>more hostility than I expected. Perhaps you were already sensitized to the
>possibility of attack? That was neither my intent nor my goal.
Perhaps you didn't realize that your approacch could be deemed as
such.
>
> BTW, wasn't it Socrates who took the hemlock? And exactly what is it
>that you think I am attempting to do?
Protect others from "bad thoughts."
>And no, you obviously don't have any
>need or requirement whatever to declare your "truth" or position or justify
>anything to anyone. If you choose to examine or evaluate *anyone's* posts,
>position is irrelevant except to give credence to your counter claims should
>you make any. I wasn't implying that you should or should not, one way or
>the other. Oh, and there is *always* a platform for fallacy -- one's own
>mind.
Quote wihin context- it saves energy. As in "if truths are
individuated...etc" I was being specific because you were.
Anyway, this reminds me of the whole "ignorance is bliss" thing,
which can lead to two-headed eggless chickens, so you never need to
consider what came first- rather, how.
>(I'm sure you don't want me to explain that.) And, you certainly did
>step into my "madness" for a moment and it apparently made you
>uncomfortable.
Observation, and feedback. Perhaps it's my madness that disallows me
to sense yours...or maybe it's no about madness but about method.
Excuse me while I go sell Yorick's skull.
>
> From my own experience, it's difficult for me to distance myself from
>something I feel strongly about. Is this true for you as well? If so, I
>think that counts as a shared reality. Any thoughts on this?
Actually I've had to do the very thing to survive. So distant that I
didn't know it was there. Until I remembered. Those who forget are
destined to remember- but sometimes this is a way to preserve as much
of one's Self as one can. And so, unfortunately, I can't say I always
share this reality. But there are times....8-)
Cindy
grrl*@*petal
<krysta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Okay, so it was a good try you have to admit. LOL. Anyway it sounded better
>at 2 am than it does now.
>Big hugs,
>
>@}---}-----}----------
>Valerie Anne
I used to live a 2AM life...talk about constant disappointemt ;-)
cindy