Interesting study
Rachelle Moore
2003 13:49:14 -0700 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<eTXkb.71496$vj2.54022@fed1read06>:
>His team has identified 54 genes in mice that may explain why male and
>female brains look and function differently. Since the 1970s, scientists
>have believed that estrogen and testosterone were wholly responsible for
>sexually organizing the brain. Recent evidence, however, indicates that
>hormones cannot explain everything about the sexual differences between
>male and female brains.
>
>Published in the latest edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research,
>the UCLA discovery may also offer physicians an improved tool for gender
>assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.
>
>Mild cases of malformed genitalia occur in 1 percent of all births --
>about 3 million cases. More severe cases -- where doctors can't inform
>parents whether they had a boy or girl -- occur in one in 3,000 births.
>
>"If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous
>genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment,"
>Vilain said. Using two genetic testing methods, the researchers compared
>the production of genes in male and female brains in embryonic mice --
>long before the animals developed sex organs.
That will be a relief. It's just too bad when doctors can't inform a
mother whether she had a boy or girl. Assignment of birth-gender
should never be left up to the individuals involved. <end irony:>
-
Rachelle
k.c.
news:7m49pvorp30k6qcag...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> On 20 Oct 2003 18:47:43 -0700, natasha_...@earthlink.net (Natasha
> Of course it is... they want to reduce this to cookie-cutter diagnosis, in
> which the patient's mental state and spoken wishes are secondary to
biological
> testing... They want a piece of paper to wave in the judge's face,
protecting
> them from litigation and the better interests of the patient will once
again
> take a back seat to "science".
Ok... just a little perspective. They are testing on MICE at this point.
Certainly Ronald Wilson Reagan and Natasha Thompson are going to act a
little paranoid about the matter - afterall it affects them both so
profoundly </sarcasm>
Fortunately, the researchers at UCLA aren't going to shimmy because of
Usenet Kooks making wild assertions of abuse of power based on a press
clipping.
<back to my studies now, but it's refreshing to see nothing much changes on
this newsgroup... life needs its little consistencies>
Courtney
> Assignment of birth-gender should never be left up to the individuals
involved. <end irony:>
Ok Rach, at what age should gender assignment be given? I knew something
was wrong with me by the age of 5, but it wasn't until I was in the 4th
grade when I figured it out.
Courtney
CharliSue
genetalia can be identified at birth and the condition corrected prior
to birth.
His interest in TS people is considerably less. You can find out for
yourself:
Address for correspondence and reprints: Dr. Eric Vilain, UCLA,
Department of Human Genetics, 695 Charles E. Young Drive South,
Gonda Center, Room 6357A, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7088. E-mail:
evi...@ucla.edu.
Nothing like going to the source?
Sue
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:22:06 -0400, L D Blake <Xldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:49:14 -0700, Xanthippe <Xant...@xanthippe.comatose>
>wrote:
>
>>"Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our
>>actual anatomy," said Vilain. "These discoveries lend credence to the
>>idea that being transgender --- feeling that one has been born into the
>>body of the wrong sex -- is a state of mind.
>
>Interesting indeed... but do you see "the mistake" being made here?
>
>The guy talks about possibly finding the seat of *Gender Identity* then hauls
>off and attributes that to "feeling one has been born into the body of the
>wrong sex"....
>
>Yes it does seem likely Gender is an inherrited or inherrent physical state of
>mind... but that has nothing to do with "born into the body of the wrong
>sex"... The former may well be biological, the latter is something we learn
>from growing up in a transphobic society where right and wrong are ascribed to
>gender because of sex.
>
>He's mixing physical realities with learned behaviours.
>
CharliSue
and prove that they did the right thing. THAT lesson they did learn
from John Money.
The whole point of the HBSOC is to cover the collective backsides of
the medical profession. It's not to assure proper care of the TS
individual. It is designed to prevent proper care from being given to
all but the chosen few who can learn to jump through administrative
hoops in an attractive fashion.
I do applaud the part of Dr. Vilain's research where he wants to not
only detect the duplicated gene but to correct it in-utero. Correcting
intersex conditions prior to birth would be far more desirable than
the way we do it now. Particularly with the crap-shoot methodology we
use for making the sex determination!
Sue
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:03:54 -0400, L D Blake <Xldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> <Snip>
CharliSue
Seriously, how much credibility does a pre-school kid have? Zero? Kids
that age are exercising their imagination and dreaming of being a
cowboy or a fireman or a purple dinosaur.. Euww.. But kids that age
are lousy liars. They can have big outrageous fantasies but they can't
keep a lie going for long.
Psych professionals should be able to figure this out. But parents are
not receptive to finding out that their little Johnny is a little
Janey.
Therein lies the big problem. People don't understand that there are
intersex chromosome combinations. This is more than a binary, black
v/s white, XX / YY world!
How to correct this??
I'll work on it as soon as I'm done with world peace, ok?
sue
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:35:13 GMT, "Courtney" <Cour...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Deb Marsh
news:eTXkb.71496$vj2.54022@fed1read06...
> Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics - Study
> Mon October 20, 2003 12:11 AM ET
> "Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our
> actual anatomy," said Vilain. "These discoveries lend credence to the
> idea that being transgender --- feeling that one has been born into the
> body of the wrong sex -- is a state of mind.
One wonders how much research was really needed in order to reach the
stunning conclusion that it "is a state of mind"? Like it could be anything
else really?
Debs 8-)
Deb Marsh
news:23japvsh46f1aj2om...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> Transgender identity is not an abnormal state, nor is it an unexpected
> one.
Inevitable really, within the prevailing climate.
> The concept that something is wrong with being transgendered --the fuel
> behind most sex-changes-- may serve transsexuals well enough in their
> blood lust for SRS.
You are not describing my experience. You have left me out of this equation.
Qualifying this blanket assertion with the word "most" just simply will not
do. You cannot predicate your political stance upon something so blunt.
Well, you can but its going to be flawed. So, you have to start somewhere,
and this is understood, but to go about dismissing the motivation of those
who didn't do any "blood lusting" is just going to provoke tension and
alienate those who might not be unsympathetic to some of your more cogent
insights. Why do this?
Debs
Deb Marsh
news:YY1lb.839976$uu5.149621@sccrnsc04...
> <back to my studies now, but it's refreshing to see nothing much changes
> on this newsgroup... life needs its little consistencies>
8-)
Debs
Courtney
World peace? As long as people interpret religious doctorine as to justify
whatever their actions we will never see it. Bin Laudin said "Ala is with
us", Bush said "God is with us" the abortion bombers say "God is with us".
Hmmm, maybe we should put a ban on God? Nawwwww, that would never work.
Someone would find some other way.
Courtney
Jennifer Usher
> L D Blake wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:49:14 -0700, Xanthippe
> >
> >> our actual anatomy," said Vilain. "These discoveries lend credence
> >> to the idea that being transgender --- feeling that one has been
> >> born into the body of the wrong sex -- is a state of mind.
> >
>
Yes, but then, a blind person could see that one coming....
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
news:23japvsh46f1aj2om...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> Transgender identity is not an abnormal state, nor is it an unexpected
> one.
That is like saying that diabetes is not an abnormal state. Of course
transgender identity is an abnormal state. Anything that happens in a
relatively small segment of the larger population is abnormal. That
ONLY means that it is not within the norms that are statistically
accepted. You see, the problem is not with the fact that something is
abnormal. The problem is with people who are so bloody ignorant that
they think that "abnormal" automatically translates to bad, and the
worst of those are the ones who really do feel abnormal, and keep
trying to tell themselves, and everyone else, that they are normal.
The point should not be that being transgender, or more specifically,
transsexual, is "normal" but that it is not immoral, sinful, bad,
evil, wrong, perverse, etc.
> The concept that something is wrong with being transgendered --the fuel
> behind most sex-changes-- may serve transsexuals well enough in their
> blood lust for SRS.
Now that is one I hope someone preserves for posterity... Whoops, I
guess I just did. <g> Blood lust for SRS? Lyle Blake Classic. The
Real Thing! Unlike that phoney watered down New Blake...
Jennifer Usher
Rachelle Moore
12:35:13 GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<5K9lb.5386$8x2.2...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>:
Preferably "at no age - never," would be my preference.
-
Rachelle
CharliSue
genocide?
Routinely correcting cleft palate is eliminating a whole class of
people - with out whom the world loses some diversity? (I can actually
see just a flicker of that argument, actually..)
This is a quality of life issue here, LD!
If IS and TS people could have their conditions corrected prior to
birth, wouldn't that be better for all?
It's not as if I'm advocating the termination of any pregnancies. Far
from it. I'm all about putting things right as quickly as possible in
the lives of the individuals who have these anomolies in there genetic
structures for no fault of their own.
>
>Rather than undertaking a goal to change all transgendered people, we, the
>shrinks, doctors and the world should undertake to understand and accept the
>transgendered for what they are... a statistically infrequent part of human
>normalcy, as a minority group not unlike sinistralists, gays or geniuses.
>
>
The goal of transgendered people is, by definition, to change? So why
not implement that change at a time when there is minimum physical and
emotional scarring?
I think you're missing out on an opportunity to improve the lives of
people here.
Sue
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:31:05 -0400, L D Blake <Xldb...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:07:17 GMT, CharliSue <char...@qate.not> wrote:
>>I do applaud the part of Dr. Vilain's research where he wants to not
>>only detect the duplicated gene but to correct it in-utero. Correcting
>>intersex conditions prior to birth would be far more desirable than
>>the way we do it now. Particularly with the crap-shoot methodology we
>>use for making the sex determination!
>
>So... you would find it preferable to eliminate transgender identity before
>birth... to make sure nobody is ever born transgendered?
>
>Hon, in all due respect, that borders on a class based form of genocide.
>
>Transgender identity is not an abnormal state, nor is it an unexpected one.
>Transgendered people have been part of the human experience from the very
>beginning. If we set aside the deprecation and fear (transphobia) with which
>our modern society treats the transgendered something very interesting
>emerges... We discover that other and transgender identity these are
>perfectly ordinary and healthy people and even with transgender identity there
>is no legacy of incapacity or physical ailment. Absent transphobia, TGID is a
>complete "so what" both socially and personally. It is only through a
>transphobic filter --commonly applied in to day's world-- that we see anything
>wrong with being transgendered at all.
>
>The concept that something is wrong with being transgendered --the fuel behind
>most sex-changes-- may serve transsexuals well enough in their blood lust for
>SRS. But for the much larger majority of non-cisgendered people who come to
>accept and understand what being transgendered is all about it is
>**sabotage**, costing them relationships, jobs, homes, access to services...
>and sometimes even their lives. In effect it is not unlike the treatment of
>gays mid-last-century: "If we can zap 'em and make 'em straight we don't need
>to worry about accommodating them"... it was elimination, gay genocide and
>what we got going on with SRS isn't all that different. For transsexuals it
>feels like an absolute need in their lives; for the shrinks etc. it sounds for
>all the world like a way to eliminate these icky people by re-making them in
>the cisgender image. Get rid of transphobia and suddenly we see the carnage.
>As with the gays, SRS is merely an enforcement of the "out of sight out of
>mind", "nimby" mentality that underlies most bigotry.
>
>The very notion that a child's gender would be changed, medically or
>otherwise, to suit their body amounts to the destruction of a *person*. If
>they changed my gender before birth, I would not be ME... they would have
>killed the person I was supposed to be and, by god-like interference,
>substituted the person they want in my place. This goes way beyond social
>tampering... it's all the way into crimes against the soul.
>
>Each person is a genetic accident, a combination of their parent's genes.
>Each of us is a social accident, a combination of learned experiences. We are
>the culmination of physical and emotional and that is what makes each of us an
>individual... Medicine -- *mankind* -- has no right to tamper with that
>especially when the outcome would be something as benign as transgender
>identity.
>
>Rather than undertaking a goal to change all transgendered people, we, the
>shrinks, doctors and the world should undertake to understand and accept the
>transgendered for what they are... a statistically infrequent part of human
>normalcy, as a minority group not unlike sinistralists, gays or geniuses.
>
>
>
>
CharliSue
Sue
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:57:29 GMT, "Courtney" <Cour...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Deb Marsh
news:5vadpv09823dhq6kl...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> I have to laugh at these stupid doctors and their "magic pills"...
The whole thing would be funny were it not so busy being tragic. The planet
is groaning under the weight of humanity. The ecosphere is increasingly
polluted by the short-termism of a species unable to even feed itself
adequately. It might well be that "we" are a naturally occurring response to
a success story likely to end in tears if we carry on being "successful" at
such a rate?
Debs
Courtney
Courtney
"CharliSue" <char...@qate.not> wrote in message
news:pl3dpvk987e6lr6e1...@4ax.com...
k.c.
news:5vadpv09823dhq6kl...@news1.sympatico.ca...
>
> And you endorsing them just makes me want to hurl.
>
Laura just because you enjoy living in a place that hardly anyone accepts,
doesn't mean the rest of the world should be subjected to it. But keep
right on promoting your love of the cock-in-hand for yourself, leave the
rest of us out of it.
Deb Marsh
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:20:01 GMT, "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >It might well be that "we" are a naturally occurring response to
> >a success story likely to end in tears if we carry on being "successful"
> >at such a rate?
>
> people in cultures existing when the human population was likely
> under 10 million.
Which, of course, fails to take into account the pressures which any such
culture was under at the time 8-)
> I'm amazed at how low our regard is for the transgender heritage. We've
> been a part of every culture of mankind at least as far back as the
> historical record takes us... and probably well beyond that. We, the
> transgendered, have as much claim on heritage and history as any
> cisgendered person. We were, after all right there beside them...
Who's arguing? Besides, "heritage" implies identity and identity is ascribed
according to dominant prevailing values.
Debs
Jennifer Usher
> Jenny, I really liked your following post to Laura,
> except for the last few lines. I so wish you would
> stop doing that dear. Because although normal for
> here, it being a callous remark. It is just plain,
> well, B A D.
In the case of Blake, I think it is justified. He has NO business
here, especially making remarks about transsexual's "blood lust for
SRS." Granted, I think that says something about where his mind is.
Talk about extreme castration anxiety...Freud would have a field day
with that one.
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
Isn't that the truth....
Jennifer Usher
Rachelle Moore
23:07:00 -0400 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<i7hepvsm1glhdpg8n...@news1.sympatico.ca>:
>On 22 Oct 2003 19:11:00 -0700, natasha_...@earthlink.net (Natasha
>Thompson) wrote:
>>Jennifer why can't you see that such commentary from
>>Laura only upsets you, because it frightens you,
>>and your referring to her as Larry or he, is also a
>>reflection of that same insecurity, on your part?
>
>Ech... don't worry about it. Fucknuts is just trying to keep the niggers out
>of her all white neighborhood.
You've set a new mark of insensitivity here, Laura. I'd ask "are all
people with penises like that?" but I already know they're not.
Trying to toady up to Natasha is an interesting ploy, though. It'll
be interesting to see how *that* works out. :)
-
Rachelle
CharliSue
somewhere!
Sue
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:21:04 GMT, "Courtney" <Cour...@nospam.com>
wrote:
BernadetteTS
>Bush said "God is with us"
Is it just me or shouldn't the next line in this little playground
scenario be, "Well, my God can beat up your God."
Bernadette
Jennifer Usher
> Being L D Blake <Xldb...@sympatico.ca> on or about Wed, 22 Oct 2003
> 23:07:00 -0400 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
> <i7hepvsm1glhdpg8n...@news1.sympatico.ca>:
>
> >of her all white neighborhood.
>
> You've set a new mark of insensitivity here, Laura. I'd ask "are all
> people with penises like that?" but I already know they're not.
Nope, not even close to the first time that Lyle has chosen that
particular term to refer to blacks. It seems to be one of his
favorites.
> Trying to toady up to Natasha is an interesting ploy, though. It'll
> be interesting to see how *that* works out. :)
It won't. Natasha has been around long enough to know better.
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Jennifer why can't you see that such commentary from
> Laura only upsets you, because it frightens you,
> and your referring to her as Larry or he, is also a
> reflection of that same insecurity, on your part?
Nope. Lyle does not remotely upset me, or frighten me. Disgusts,
maybe. Irritates mildly, perhaps. Amuses me, definitely. But there
is nothing to be afraid of there. He is a toothless tiger. But he
does have a knack for sucking in newbies, and they need to be warned.
> Answer is. Because you have been distracting yourself
> from resolving your own personal issues, by paying
> attention to other peoples issues instead of your own.
Uh, Natasha, I am currently in school, have a place to live, and in a
week I will have a nice fat check from my Pell Grant. I am involved
in a relationship with a man, who I am increasingly fond of. I happen
to live in one of the greatest, if not the greatest, cities on earth.
I plan to visit my daughter for the birth of my grandchild at the end
of this year, and possibly for Thanksgiving also. I am finally
getting some closure on my relationship with Carl, who I remain
friends with. I see one of the top specialists in gender issues
weekly. I poke Lyle because, I guiltily admit, it amuses me. Not
because he is any sort of threat to anyone.
> If you want to wind up remaining stuck in trannyland
> forever, regardless of where you live or how you look,
> then you are on course.
Well, let's see. When I finish my training, I hope to go to work for
the City of San Francisco. That means that after one year, my surgery
is covered. If I cannot get on with the City, I will still be in an
excellent position to get a job that will pay more than enough to save
up the cost of surgery in a year. Either way, one year after
graduation and licensure, I will have my surgery.
And Natasha, I'm not remotely in "trannyland" now. I have no problems
being accepted as a woman by my friends. Most don't even know. A few
do, because I choose to participate in a mailing list for LGBT
Episcopalians (in case you haven't heard, I am no longer a Baptist,
but am now part of the Anglican Communion) which is administered by
one of my best friends from church. Oh, and I am EXTREMELY active in
my church. I serve as an acolyte, I serve on two committees (one I am
chairperson of), assist with providing a weekly meal for the homeless,
will soon by editing the weekly church newsletter, as well as other
activities. In fact, one member has already suggest I stand for the
vestry in the next election. I'm not sure I am ready for that, but if
enough people ask, yes, I will serve.
I am happier than I have ever been in my life. I am a woman socially,
and I will be one physically as soon as possible. If, by chance, I do
get a decent job soon, I plan to start saving for surgery even
earlier. So, no, I am not stuck in, or even a resident of,
"trannyland."
Jennifer Usher
Rachelle Moore
2003 09:25:54 -0700 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<93fa4d2a.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>Rachelle Moore <moo...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:<=WCXP9yk6jiTR5...@4ax.com>...
>> Being L D Blake <Xldb...@sympatico.ca> on or about Wed, 22 Oct 2003
>> 23:07:00 -0400 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
>> <i7hepvsm1glhdpg8n...@news1.sympatico.ca>:
>>
>> >Ech... don't worry about it. Fucknuts is just trying to keep the niggers out
>> >of her all white neighborhood.
>>
>> You've set a new mark of insensitivity here, Laura. I'd ask "are all
>> people with penises like that?" but I already know they're not.
>
>Nope, not even close to the first time that Lyle has chosen that
>particular term to refer to blacks. It seems to be one of his
>favorites.
Perhaps it's just that I'm not an attentive enough "fan."
Let's go over this one more time, so I can maybe get clear in my fuzzy
little woman's brain what your major malfunction actually is:) why is
it (again) that you insist on referring to people according to your
own notion of what their gender is, instead of pretending to respect
the nebulous, delicate, so-easily-transgressed norms of "support"?
>> Trying to toady up to Natasha is an interesting ploy, though. It'll
>> be interesting to see how *that* works out. :)
>
>It won't. Natasha has been around long enough to know better.
Phht. Never underestimate the power of human contrariness... because
that's what they *expect!* :)
-
Rachelle
Paulinev01
no, the next line should be; We believe in the same God, what can we do to be
brothers again?
WHEN ITS TIME ITS TIME
The hardest step of any journey is the first,
The most satisfying is the last.........
www.TAVAUSA.org
www.TSTGSociety.org
REV Pauline Overby
www.churchofopenassumptions.org
PAULINE/Paula
Rachelle Moore
GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<20031023133214...@mb-m13.news.cs.com>:
>>Bin Laudin said "Ala is with us",
>>>Bush said "God is with us"
>>
>>Is it just me or shouldn't the next line in this little playground
>>scenario be, "Well, my God can beat up your God."
>>
>>Bernadette
>
>no, the next line should be; We believe in the same God, what can we do to be
>brothers again?
People weren't actually birthed by the same mother are "brothers" only
within the fantasy of protective connection with an invisible
all-powerful, all-knowing, utterly remorseless father-figure.
Who they continually aspire to be. <shrug>
-
Rachelle
CharliSue
desert-based religions is that "we're the best, the other tribes are
infidels". And never the twain shall they meet..
But they should.
Perhaps after order is established on Usenet..
Sue
Paulinev01
>>brothers again?
>
>you
>think they can still be friends?
>
>Whew... go figger.
>
>-----
>
>Laura
>
And for how many years have I been turning the other cheek here?
Yes, I will always offer to make pease.
and nuke the hell out of those who do not wish to have it.
P/B
Courtney
> > "Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our
> > actual anatomy," said Vilain. "These discoveries lend credence to the
> > idea that being transgender --- feeling that one has been born into the
> > body of the wrong sex -- is a state of mind.
>
> One wonders how much research was really needed in order to reach the
> stunning conclusion that it "is a state of mind"? Like it could be
anything
> else really?
>
> Debs 8-)
It makes me wonder if they thought of little things like hmm, like
EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES, BIASES, etc, etc!
Courtney
Courtney
> >
> >> Assignment of birth-gender should never be left up to the individuals
> >involved. <end irony:>
> >
> >Ok Rach, at what age should gender assignment be given? I knew something
> >was wrong with me by the age of 5, but it wasn't until I was in the 4th
> >grade when I figured it out.
> >
> >Courtney
>
> Preferably "at no age - never," would be my preference.
>
> -
> Rachelle
Are you suggesting that boys and girls share the same locker room at gym
class? I hated gym class, (especially in high school) but I sure did enjoy
guy watching from the inside of the showers. :)
Courtney
Rachelle Moore
03:06:35 GMT did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<%G0mb.6554$8x2.3...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>:
If I had two cents for every time somebody tried to seduce me into
doing the faux-adult thing, I would now have at least two cents.
That's what I get for being ironic, I suppose. :)
Children "since time immemorial" have been communally herded here and
there to do this and that without regard for their individuality.
Nobody should have to be naked with others at any age if they don't
desire to. And that's how I wiggle away from *that* question! :)
-
Rachelle
Rachelle Moore
Oct 2003 13:02:40 -0700 did post or cause to be posted in
alt.support.srs <cbd527a.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>Rachelle Moore <moo...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:<=WCXP9yk6jiTR5...@4ax.com>...
>Unlikely, since Laura and Jennifer have the same
>problem. They are both terrified of "the others"
>for the same reason, and they are likewise stuck
>in place, for the same damn reason also.
>
>When and if either of them focus on their own
>issues, instead of distracting themselves by
>focusing on the issues of others, and grow up
>a bit. Then they are both going to really be
>something though.
>
>Fingers crossed here.
Do, please, keep in mind that the personae we construct from words and
memory aren't identical with the living, breathing people on the other
side of those words. The trick is to allow enough space for them to
grow, without little tendrils working their way into the center of
your own brain.
But now that you mention it, there *are* a lot of seeming parallels
between Laura and Jennifer. On the other hand, Laura has an
absolutely reptilian rhetorical flexibility in the service of the
Party- excuse me, of her Cause, while Jennifer seems utterly and
joylessly sincere in her prejudices. Two different personalities and
sets of experience altogether.
-
Rachelle
Deb Marsh
news:cbd527a.03102...@posting.google.com...
> "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<TRzlb.189316$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > Who's arguing? Besides, "heritage" implies identity and identity is
> > ascribed according to dominant prevailing values.
> Nonsense.
Must be, if you say so.
> Identity is both personal and subjective. Labels are what are "ascribed
> according to dominant prevailing values", labels.
Context, context, context? The personal and subjective are luxuries afforded
us by our proximity to some sort of "order." Lord! How is the personal
possible at all without an environment which furnishes both the
artefacts of structure and the time for self reflection? Against what might
the "subjective" judge itself if identification was something yet to be
determined? What does anything mean without referents? What is thought
without the concept bearing terms which constitute it? Simplistic notions of
an entity capable of self-defining in a vacuum are obviated by the lack not
only of sensory input but, also, by the absence of definition explicit to
any conceptualisation of "self" as some individual being - let alone some
"specific" sort of individual being. Indeed, the very possibility of our
being able to posit the alternative to anything at all is contingent upon
the consensus that that being sought is, somehow, counterpart to something
else already agreed upon in general terms.
Thought that everybody knew this 8-)
> PS
>
> Bears do shit in the woods, and their shit does stink.
Erm! What shall we do with a drunken sailor - early in the morning?
Debs
Deb Marsh
news:jD0mb.6551$8x2.3...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> > One wonders how much research was really needed in order to reach the
> > stunning conclusion that it "is a state of mind"? Like it could be
> > anything else really?
> It makes me wonder if they thought of little things like hmm, like
> EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES, BIASES, etc, etc!
The problem with studying the "human condition" is that the only folk
capable of doing it are human. Analogous to the mind studying itself really.
Self consciousness is the highest form of consciousness and leads, in an
inevitable circle of evolution, to the heightening of this "facility" once
it sets about the knotty business of being actively aware of itself going
about the task of examining its own awareness. General theories deal in
generalities and the science of statistics allows for the discounting of
peripheral phenomena to the degree that nothing "specific" is being
addressed at all.
The world is manufactured in the mind's image and the terms which we employ
to grasp it are the products of ancestral grasping. Of the stumbling
creativity of creatures able to recognise the extrinsic because they have
evolved the means to sense themselves doing just that. To postulate
themselves as "separate" from that being encountered and, in this very
postulation, becoming observers as well as participants.
The fracture of "self" from environment is pivotal here. The discomfort and
isolation prompted by our "being in the world" provokes a sort of duality
where there is "us" and there is everything else: Whether encountered or
capable of being imagined (where neither condition can be neutral nor
unpolluted).
Community is, in a sense, an attempt to regain an innocence irrecoverably
lost.
Freedom is scary, and its stormy out here 8-)
Debs
Rachelle Moore
Oct 2003 15:33:00 -0700 did post or cause to be posted in
alt.support.srs <cbd527a.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>Rachelle Moore <moo...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:<lq2YP0FtT6kVW+...@4ax.com>...
>> Being natasha_...@earthlink.net (Natasha Thompson) on or about 23
>> Oct 2003 13:02:40 -0700 did post or cause to be posted in
>> alt.support.srs <cbd527a.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>>
>
>> >>
>> >> Trying to toady up to Natasha is an interesting ploy, though. It'll
>> >> be interesting to see how *that* works out. :)
>> >>
>> >
>> >Unlikely, since Laura and Jennifer have the same
>> >problem. They are both terrified of "the others"
>> >for the same reason, and they are likewise stuck
>> >in place, for the same damn reason also.
>> >
>> >When and if either of them focus on their own
>> >issues, instead of distracting themselves by
>> >focusing on the issues of others, and grow up
>> >a bit. Then they are both going to really be
>> >something though.
>> >
>> >Fingers crossed here.
>>
>> Do, please, keep in mind that the personae we construct from words and
>> memory aren't identical with the living, breathing people on the other
>> side of those words. The trick is to allow enough space for them to
>> grow, without little tendrils working their way into the center of
>> your own brain.
>>
>> But now that you mention it, there *are* a lot of seeming parallels
>> between Laura and Jennifer. On the other hand, Laura has an
>> absolutely reptilian rhetorical flexibility in the service of the
>> Party- excuse me, of her Cause, while Jennifer seems utterly and
>> joylessly sincere in her prejudices. Two different personalities and
>> sets of experience altogether.
>
>The first part of your message. Well, ah, what can I
>say? Perhaps you are a better one than I.
>
>Yet yes, and well said too. They are individuals, and
>so of course very different. I am sure I would like
>Laura in person, far more than I do Jennifer though.
>IF they are remotely as they seem to be here. Big if
>granted.
I wish it were as simple as "like" and "dislike"...
>Jennifer, that IF again, she remains as she appears
>to be here, after becoming a nurse. Well let us say,
>such are in 'small part' why the medical community is
>not held in high regard by me. Like every other of
>life's walks, it is populated by people of all kinds.
Well. If she persists in that occupation, and if it were to become
her profession, I have... some small reason to believe her jagged
edges will become softer and rounder. :)
>Now it takes all kinds, they say, and they also say
>that love makes the world go round. If true though,
>then there would be, baring any sort of magic, neither
>night or day, or even day or night.
>
>Yes 'it' takes all kinds, and perhaps 'this' is exactly
>why 'it' sucks. In fact fact can this explain why outer
>space is mostly if not all, hard vacuum? Who knows? Not
>I, as I know very little. But I do know that 'it' most
>certainly does suck.
Vacuum sucks, wind blows, and gravity is a continual downer, yes, yes.
:) Various of the invisible entities called "words" seem central at
various times, but I haven't yet discerned any coherant taxonomy.
Conventional grammatical conventions work quite well, though the map
they make is incomplete. Lately pronouns have seemed central, and
they have a special relationship with "indicative adjectives" such as
"this" and "that." Just some thoughts... but the fact that the
falseness of the Whorff Hypothesis {roughly, "language in some sense
limits or determines thought"), even though (or perhaps because) it's
never been coherantly stated, is a central tenet of linguistic theory,
indicates that linguistics has far to go as a science. And the quiet
acceptance of Alan Sokol's (supposed) "quantum gravity" hoax by his
peers indicates physics is in a roughly similar state. <shrug> So I
take "words" to be the spoor of an invisible "something" or
"somethings" that at times seems semi-autonomous and at all times
devolves to the sparse, harsh, hardly-rational "rules of grammar."
Investigating the "nature" of their relationship with each other and
with human being probably accurately characterizes the core of my
"independent multidisciplinary research." It all starts with the
assumption that "human being" or "being human" somehow results from a
collision or encounter between "nature" and "being," with a nice,
juiceless, totally abstract "creation myth" to go along with it. It's
not much, but it suits me, and I like it. :)
Word-mantras can only help one go so far, and no farther: apparently,
mainly by distracting speech and language centers, which can actually
be done any number of ways. I think of it as "the intelligence of
motion," which is an idea that a biographer of Josephine Baker wrote
that she had about dance. (I was just flipping through, looking for
pictures of exotic dancing for another project, and I just happened to
read some text! Honest! :)
The same goes for acting, I imagine. Total surrender to the moment,
with the proviso that much preparation and living reflection is
present, too. But not primarily *words* per se.
-
Rachelle
Deb Marsh
news:cbd527a.03102...@posting.google.com...
> "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Thought that everybody knew this 8-)
> >
>
> Yes, as usual all very wonderful Deb. No really.
>
> Yet as usual it is all predicated upon abstract IF's,
> which are non existent in actuality.
Really? Must be the case then, if you say so.
> For, as you put it, "an environment which furnishes
> both the artefacts of structure and the time for self
> reflection", is really just the way it is.
Ah! Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
Comes complete and intact then - straight from the mind and mouth of God eh?
Presented with the permanent and reduced to accepting the names imparted by
the maker of all things? One way of looking at it. "Just the way it is" -
immutable and not subject to the evolutionary pressures one had once
supposed? We know things and we know these things without benefit of
indoctrination, education or social osmosis. We intuit from the base of our
ignorance and, oh happy day, our intuiting just happens to coincide with the
isolated intuitions of everyone else. Prodigious really 8-)
> As well, as you put it "notions of an entity capable of
> self-defining in a vacuum", is likewise a simplistic
> notion, though highly complex and abstruse granted.
Pay attention. Mere nay saying ain't gonna cut it here.
> Such are predicated upon the abstraction of what IF's,
> regarding extrapolation of further what if's, of the
> effects upon the very development of consciousness of
> human kind, within said vacuum.
We don't "happen" in a vacuum. We develop within the social context.
Knowledge is furnished through the nomenclature of the current "real."
Identity is ascribed through and by the context and application of the
previously understood. We inherit and it is what we make of this inheritance
which endows the spark of self we come to call ourselves. The subjective is
us in action, playing with the toys which we happen to find laying around or
which are forced upon us by the circumstances of social expectation. The
"personal" is an abstraction itself predicated upon the existence of an
"order of things." We cannot even speak our name without the appropriate
training.
> Now although I grant that 'it' sucks, such a vacuum as
> your philosophy hinges upon, never has existed. So your
> point is moot.
Oh no! Not the thought terminating ploy. Declared "moot" and therefore
inaccessible - and therefore not worth the enterprise. Ignorance is bliss,
so let's get everyone to do it 8-)
> Perhaps a hike in the woods. One such as bears really do
> frequent. Said hike, during which you ever so carefully
> search for the rarely seen and smelt bear shit of lore?
> It may do you a world of good.
Ebrio quid faciamus nauta,
Ebrio quid faciamus nauta,
Ebrio quid faciamus nauta
Hora matutina?
Euge! Et spumat salum,
Euge! Et spumat salum,
Euge! Et spumat salum
Hora matutina.
Debs };->
k.c.
> The fracture of "self" from environment is pivotal here. The discomfort
and
> isolation prompted by our "being in the world" provokes a sort of duality
> where there is "us" and there is everything else: Whether encountered or
> capable of being imagined (where neither condition can be neutral nor
> unpolluted).
Where "us" is a variable assumption? It's really a matter of what group you
identify with, where identity is mutual, and you are a part of said group.
For some it's honory. For others, it's not. And for some more, they
themselves abstract their presense and defy literal identification.
>
> Community is, in a sense, an attempt to regain an innocence irrecoverably
> lost.
I prefer the coffee-shop community.... sipping a variety of blends and
roasts, but it's all still coffee.
> Freedom is scary, and its stormy out here 8-)
>
> Debs
:-)
Deb Marsh
> "Deb Marsh" <raptor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ONbmb.13255$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > The fracture of "self" from environment is pivotal here. The discomfort
> > and isolation prompted by our "being in the world" provokes a sort of
> > duality where there is "us" and there is everything else: Whether
> > encountered or capable of being imagined (where neither condition
> > can be neutral nor unpolluted).
>
> Where "us" is a variable assumption? It's really a matter of what group
> you identify with, where identity is mutual, and you are a part of said
> group. For some it's honory. For others, it's not. And for some more,
> they themselves abstract their presense and defy literal identification.
Where "us" is a rhetorical plural attempting interface between "me" and
other subjective beings where, even they, constitute part of the external.
Group identity shifts right along with its contextual relevancy, thus:
Democrat, Conservative. Catholic, Atheist, Child, Nordic, Young, Woman,
British, Tall, Dead..... 8-)
Self is that mosaic which interacts according to circumstance. Understands
according to experience or faith. Relates according to intuition, sympathy
or empathic response. Manufactures from the available and explores where the
available just will not do. Expands beyond itself in the attempt to make
some sense of its own poly-personality. Meta-being is not something to be
attained, rather it is something inevitable - to be eluded when it come to
communication - it is eluded. The highest form of self expression is to
move beyond the need to do it.
> > Community is, in a sense, an attempt to regain an innocence
> > irrecoverably lost.
>
> I prefer the coffee-shop community.... sipping a variety of blends and
> roasts, but it's all still coffee.
Meaning what we say would be easy, if only we knew how to say what it is
that we do mean 8-)
I enjoy the company of the curious and irreverent - and communities are such
illusory things anyway.
love
Debs
Jennifer Usher
> Yet yes, and well said too. They are individuals, and
> so of course very different. I am sure I would like
> Laura in person, far more than I do Jennifer though.
> IF they are remotely as they seem to be here. Big if
> granted.
Oh well... I guess I was wrong about you not being dumb enough to
fall for Lyle's sucking up.
> Jennifer, that IF again, she remains as she appears
> to be here, after becoming a nurse. Well let us say,
> such are in 'small part' why the medical community is
> not held in high regard by me. Like every other of
> life's walks, it is populated by people of all kinds.
Actually, how I react HERE to people like Lyle, and another Canadian
male I will not name, has nothing to do with how I would do as a
nurse. First off, this is NOT a medical care situation. Second, I
seriously doubt I am that likely to meet anyone who is quite that big
a jerk, or at least not who acts that way, over the issues discussed
here.
Simply put, I see NO reason to treat Lyle Blake with anything but the
contempt he has earned for himself. There comes a point where
political correctness is no longer a viable option. To be quite
honest, I don't think anyone has the right to act as he does, and
still demand any consideration. Your mileage may well vary, but I
have my limits.
Jennifer Usher
Rachelle Moore
Being jenni...@earthlink.net (Jennifer Usher) on or about 25 Oct
2003 15:20:49 -0700 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<93fa4d2a.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>Oh well... I guess I was wrong about you not being dumb enough to
>fall for Lyle's sucking up.
That's important to you, isn't it: being wrong.
>Actually, how I react HERE to people like Lyle, and another Canadian
>male I will not name, has nothing to do with how I would do as a
>nurse. First off, this is NOT a medical care situation.
But it *is* a "support" context, whether you accept that
responsibility or not. You apparently don't. You'll find if you
pursue your medical training, that you'll have less choice than you
imagine about discerning and accepting such responsibility. You won't
be this arrogant forever.
>...There comes a point where
>political correctness is no longer a viable option.
No there doesn't. There comes a time when filtering relations with
others through a disintegrating, pulverizing sieve of male-fashioned
"principle" doesn't work anymore.
>...To be quite
>honest, I don't think anyone has the right to act as he does, and
>still demand any consideration.
Who *cares* how you construct the social "rights" of others? Why in
the *world* would you believe that makes a bit of difference in the
perception of how mean you've been?
"Mean" is an interesting word here; along with "sullenly cruel" it
also means "despicably small," which is what your insistence on
"accurate" pronouns at all costs actually is: "to be quite honest,
despicable."
-
Rachelle
Deanna
comes to mind.
Rachelle wrote in part and context preserved I believe:
> "Mean" is an interesting word here; along with
> "sullenly cruel" it also means "despicably
> small," which is what your insistence on
> "accurate" pronouns at all costs actually is: "to
> be quite honest, despicable."
Oh, and thank you, Rachelle, for your thoughtful comments and insights
towards extemporaneous writing :)
Debs, your amazing gifts to me.......have made me strive and
reach.....and acquiesce to the "unspeakable intimacy" that words bare to
me, and continue to write....your gifts have always left me touched as
if by glowing sparks....
Tasha, I've come a long way from that mestasizing abyss. Thank you for
your wellness wishes.
Amanda, there is an important, very, difference between informed
criticism or critiquing and crassly disparaging a work, especially when
the last is blandly founded on a seeming petite bourgeoisie and
narcissistic lack of comprehension as the justification for the
disparagement. It also helps if you can flesh out your comments by
presenting your own works in kind.
It's even more telling that one would act as and allege to be both
credible as an artist and a critic. This is not possible. Ever. You are
one or the other. Only. Always. Or one is a forgettable hack, slovenly
and ridiculous at best in two simultaneously, illegitimately worn
garments.
As one or the other you should know this.
If your remarks, such as they were, were offered in the women's writers
groups I participate in by invitation and by the perceived value of my
works by and to the groups, you would have silenced the room and its
vibrant eddies and nests of at times very informed and animated
exchanges, readings, critiques and rolling conversations.
If two writers of Debs' and Rachelle's calibre had found my work
accessible and with merits, let's say, and had sat with you - you still
somewhat new but not newly-come, or as would have been mostly likely
during the group's gathering and after your initial remarkable comments,
taken you somewhat aside and socialized with you to talk about their
writings, mine, other members, the group itself, and then after during a
second and third and even fourth round of readings and comments you each
time repetitiously continued on as idiotically and smugly and
meaninglessly as you initially did, you would mostly likely find
yourself facing the embarrassed for you averted glances or blanks looks
of a roomful of very diverse, easily and openly communicative and
talented women writers.
And you would find yourself unable to find a way into the the flow of
talk again.
A return to the next meeting of the group would require the negotiations
of a third-party on your behalf and a solid portfolio of writings from
you.
I wonder if you understand why that would be so and why you would be so
unwelcome thereafter?
I think you just have a lack of experience and time in some situations
and spaces, among other things, to be discreet about this.
However, since it's about art, I don't have to be that discreet. You're
no Howard Bloom or a Susan Sontag. Hell, you're not even a Camille
Paglia on a very bad hair day, you over-leavened, under-rivened, oafish,
drawling loaf.
I imagine you sleepily shocked from the deep bowl you'd impressed for
yourself into an overstuffed "recliner", feeling yourself somehow left
shoeless by a ricocheting diaspora, and then reaching nervously for the
remote and the cozy safety of BBC1 before it should return to render you
knickerless as well.
D
-- "Criticism is prejudice made plausible" ~ H.L. Mencken
k.c.
news:1205-3F9...@storefull-2298.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> If your remarks, such as they were, were offered in the women's writers
> groups I participate in by invitation and by the perceived value of my
> works by and to the groups, you would have silenced the room and its
> vibrant eddies and nests of at times very informed and animated
> exchanges, readings, critiques and rolling conversations.
>
> If two writers of Debs' and Rachelle's calibre had found my work
> accessible and with merits, let's say, and had sat with you - you still
> somewhat new but not newly-come, or as would have been mostly likely
Sidenote to self, recalling when in a moment of boredom I posted a poem by
Bukowski on a "writer's group" newsgroup, and watched as all these "usenet
'poets'" tore it to shreds. And what have they published? Not one had a
single published work outside of their college literary magazines. I think
everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine was that Bukowski was a
genious (in a beatnik, rough trade sort of way), and while so very different
from other influential writers that I love (a few off hand because I can't
resist the shameless plug for them: baudelaire, chenier, rimbaud, verlaine,
chaucer, frost, brown... i won't even start on contemporary writers).
I offer no critique of Deanna's work - other than to say I found it so
chillingly real that after reading it brought some very real tears to my
eyes of the pain endurred, a pain I know, and that I intentionally distance
myself from when in this place. If words can do this, imagine what delivery
from spoken, and I hope she shares her work in public venue, real life and
3d, and not just some writer's group on the 'net - for it is worth the
listen.
Deanna
rooms & stuff, sometimes almost always with good food afterwards, which
is important because lifting and pushing pencils around uses up many
more calories than writing to a virtual group would ;>~
D
-- "I want to be the girl with the most cake....someday you will ache
like I ache..." ~ CL & Hole
Rachelle Moore
22:39:36 -0400 (EDT) did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<1205-3F9...@storefull-2298.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
>Criminally obtuse, blindly brawling, mendacious braying jackass also
>comes to mind.
To paraphrase someone or other, "Easy injury makes damned hard
rehabilitation," or something like that. (I think he was a publisher,
so it was probably much more... direct, heart-felt, simple. Something
like that.)
Long story short: I wish you hadn't saw fit to excoriate Amanda so.
Facility of verbal self-expression in visually-oriented people is to
be nurtured: it's not their strength. (As, for instance, drawing
isn't mine.) Oh, well! :)
>Rachelle wrote in part and context preserved I believe:
>
>> "Mean" is an interesting word here; along with
>> "sullenly cruel" it also means "despicably
>> small," which is what your insistence on
>> "accurate" pronouns at all costs actually is: "to
>> be quite honest, despicable."
>
>Oh, and thank you, Rachelle, for your thoughtful comments and insights
>towards extemporaneous writing :)
>
>Debs, your amazing gifts to me.......have made me strive and
>reach.....and acquiesce to the "unspeakable intimacy" that words bare to
>me, and continue to write....your gifts have always left me touched as
>if by glowing sparks....
>
>Tasha, I've come a long way from that mestasizing abyss. Thank you for
>your wellness wishes.
>
>Amanda, there is an important, very, difference between informed
>criticism or critiquing and crassly disparaging a work, especially when
>the last is blandly founded on a seeming petite bourgeoisie and
>narcissistic lack of comprehension as the justification for the
>disparagement. It also helps if you can flesh out your comments by
>presenting your own works in kind.
It's apples and oranges. There's literally no reasonable comparison
possible possible between the disciplines.
>It's even more telling that one would act as and allege to be both
>credible as an artist and a critic. This is not possible. Ever. You are
>one or the other. Only. Always. Or one is a forgettable hack, slovenly
>and ridiculous at best in two simultaneously, illegitimately worn
>garments.
>As one or the other you should know this.
I do hope Amanda takes this to heart, as she seems serious about the
"art" of it. But I'd point out that the purest of art would have us
be purely and simply naked. Yes, this is a quality of the highest
order. Almost inhuman, in fact. Almost unendurable.
Yes. I've become *very* sensitive to the possibility of such absences
of experience, myself.
>However, since it's about art, I don't have to be that discreet. You're
>no Howard Bloom or a Susan Sontag. Hell, you're not even a Camille
>Paglia on a very bad hair day, you over-leavened, under-rivened, oafish,
>drawling loaf.
"Loaf" is good. But I *know* you can do better than that,
insult-wise. Though Amanda's good-nature I think would make her an
infuriatingly unsatisfactory foil than, p'rhaps, others...
>I imagine you sleepily shocked from the deep bowl you'd impressed for
>yourself into an overstuffed "recliner", feeling yourself somehow left
>shoeless by a ricocheting diaspora, and then reaching nervously for the
>remote and the cozy safety of BBC1 before it should return to render you
>knickerless as well.
"...the remote and the cozy safety of BBC1..." is nice, but "... left
shoeless by a ricocheting diaspora..." is totally unjustified by the
circumstances. Too much is asked, imo. Consider another of the
compromises of art, between the voice of the work itself and popular
apprehension. And consider the context.
I like "Tree in the Park." Wonderfully composed, light and mass
enticing a flow from higher to lower, and in a roundabout way.
Pleasing and thoughtful: consider that p'rhaps "art" might sneak up on
one! (And that writers aren't necessarily extremely visually oriented
in any case.)
I was looking for a photo I took that "Tree" reminded me off, years
ago, found it, and discovered it was nothing like it. But I did find
another picture, a still life on the order of onions and tomatoes and
things. Photos, yeh yeh, take enough of them and some of them will be
good simply as the result of simple chance. It's *easy* to take good
pictures: if you take enough of them.
-
Rachelle
Deanna
I wanted to quickly say that in matters of art I'm definitely not a
mentor, and speak as often as a fury as a muse, with few regrets because
it is over art and when presented with the type of display given.
Although I will take one or give a vehement string of colorful, precise
mouthful of oaths that I have never struck the regretfully Heroic pose
of my under-travelled reviewer when speaking so.
In my past studios, the table-side conversations especially in regard to
critics or perhaps a certain deficient form of the loping beast were
knowledgeably solvent-rich and aromatic, and to me, then as now,
appropriate to abstracting what I find worth enabling, "authentic
presence".
Let her write, let her open up, and let her dare a revealing voice. Let
her abide in women artists' spaces as a visual artist or writer or
self-described critic with that degree of self-invalidating enculturated
alienation and sophomoric, hierarchal intellectual habit (and as an
aside, while remaining oblivious to providing an highlightable example
of what I was writing to and against about solar norms of literacy
etc.).
Let her make the efforts to examine and explore and return, and to work
to mature as a writer, and in situation-delineated part as a woman
writer, and as it was at those studios' table-sides as well as now my
interactions will match that key.
It's very much a peer-to-peer sense of expression and exchange; and one
needs to establish oneself as such a peer, and then perhaps of a
simpatico apprehension towards the creation of art.
Many artists were both visual artists as well writers. There's too many
to name. So I disagree on the savorless fruits of her too casually
dropped comments.
I began as a visual artist who wrote for my own needs. I don't call
myself a visual artist now because I don't have a working studio. I
don't necessarily call myself a "writer" either. But I do write as my
chosen form of authentic expression over any other comparable activity.
The ruth requested for a ruthless child is denied; if you make art the
rest that would follow on its coattails trying to guess its way into
some of the creator's skill or talent or just their expression needs to
be shaken off. It contaminates any authenticity or pure voicing. It is
profoundly immaterial.
Well, let me read your post more thoroughly; I value your voice.
D
-- Paris Was A Woman
Deanna
hyper-dogmatic, transparently (origins, origins, origins... )
transposititioning inquisitor who wears robes much to large, self-soiled
and doctrinairely garish for themselves; and no regrets there either
until the revelation should it happen ;>
Deb Marsh
> Oh, if wasn't clear, the c/o/b/b/m/b/ja was about the resident
> hyper-dogmatic, transparently (origins, origins, origins... )
> transposititioning inquisitor
Was perfectly clear for whom that toxic eloquence was intended.
Debs
k.c.
news:1205-3F9...@storefull-2298.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> rooms & stuff, sometimes almost always with good food afterwards, which
> is important because lifting and pushing pencils around uses up many
> more calories than writing to a virtual group would ;>~
This is goodness. You have much talent - it should be shared in
performance.
>
>
>
> -- "I want to be the girl with the most cake....someday you will ache
> like I ache..." ~ CL & Hole
hmmmmm, memories expound, that of the known resounds
as fair aroma drifting....
Amanda Angelika
news:1205-3F9...@storefull-2298.public.lawson.webtv.net...
|
| criticism or critiquing and crassly disparaging a work, especially when
| the last is blandly founded on a seeming petite bourgeoisie and
| narcissistic lack of comprehension as the justification for the
| disparagement. It also helps if you can flesh out your comments by
| presenting your own works in kind.
Mmm, I probably shouldn't have got into this in the first place, but if the above
paragraph is anything to go by it's not surprising I had trouble following your
writing. You could try learning a language you can use to communicate with properly
before calling yourself a writer.
<snip>
I'm afraid The rest isn't even worth commenting on really, except perhaps this bit
| -- "Criticism is prejudice made plausible" ~ H.L. Mencken
Ah I could see that one coming, you use transgenderism/transsexuality as an excuse
for your seeming lack of talent. How dare you!
--
Amanda
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
AMaÑda AÑge1iKa ßerry
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Web Design Folio - (shameless plug)
----------------------------------------------------------
www.artberry.net or www.angelika.me.uk (own site)
www.cheapaschips.cc *NEW*(Roberts Emporium - Cardiff's finest Flea Market)
www.kink-club.com (Cardiff's Premier Fetish, BDSM and tranny party venue)
----------------------------------------------------------
www.tinyurl.com/q5hx *NEW* - Ebay Listings - Art for Sale
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03
Amanda Angelika
"Rachelle Moore" <moo...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Z1ibP3J2ev35s7...@4ax.com...
| Being deann...@webtv.net (Deanna) on or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003
| 22:39:36 -0400 (EDT) did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
| <1205-3F9...@storefull-2298.public.lawson.webtv.net>:
| >I imagine you sleepily shocked from the deep bowl you'd impressed for
| >yourself into an overstuffed "recliner", feeling yourself somehow left
| >shoeless by a ricocheting diaspora, and then reaching nervously for the
| >remote and the cozy safety of BBC1 before it should return to render you
| >knickerless as well.
|
| "...the remote and the cozy safety of BBC1..." is nice, but "... left
| shoeless by a ricocheting diaspora..." is totally unjustified by the
| circumstances. Too much is asked, imo. Consider another of the
| compromises of art, between the voice of the work itself and popular
| apprehension. And consider the context.
Not to mention I don't have a television let alone one with shoes LOL ;)
Deb Marsh
news:1205-3F9...@storefull-2298.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Debs, your amazing gifts to me.......have made me strive and
> reach.....and acquiesce to the "unspeakable intimacy" that words bare to
> me, and continue to write....your gifts have always left me touched as
> if by glowing sparks....
I'm overwhelmed 8-)
Well, whelmed anyway - very whelmed in fact - whelmed almost to the jagged
edge of excess, but not quite 8-)
"Sparking," I believe one would name it?
Felicitations, coupled with an all too obvious affection
Debs 8-)
Amanda Angelika
| Let her write, let her open up, and let her dare a revealing voice. Let
| her abide in women artists' spaces as a visual artist or writer or
| self-described critic with that degree of self-invalidating enculturated
| alienation and sophomoric, hierarchal intellectual habit (and as an
| aside, while remaining oblivious to providing an highlightable example
| of what I was writing to and against about solar norms of literacy
| etc.).
Mmm maybe if you didn't waste so much of your time trying to "abide in women artists'
spaces" whatever that's supposed to be LOL you might actually start to understand
what it's all about and say something of some real significance. We shan't hold our
breath.
Jennifer Usher
> But it *is* a "support" context, whether you accept that
> responsibility or not. You apparently don't. You'll find if you
> pursue your medical training, that you'll have less choice than you
> imagine about discerning and accepting such responsibility. You won't
> be this arrogant forever.
Let me explain this in very simple terms. This is Usenet. You have
NO authority here. You don't like what I post, you are certainly free
to post all the pompous moralizing silliness you want, but I will
continue to post as I wish to, and continue largely ignoring you.
Jennifer Usher
Rachelle Moore
2003 15:23:09 -0800 did post or cause to be posted in alt.support.srs
<93fa4d2a.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>Rachelle Moore <moo...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:<MQqbP89UJyTGxyAI=wYgWj...@4ax.com>...
You're right. (Words don't lie, much as we might wish.) *This* is
"pompous moralizing":
(Jennifer wrote)
>There comes a point where
>political correctness is no longer a viable option. To be quite
>honest, I don't think anyone has the right to act as he does, and
>still demand any consideration.
I hadn't thought about it before like that. Thank you. :)
-
Rachelle
Deb Marsh
news:bnhgsn$11i94c$1...@ID-172934.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Mmm maybe if you didn't waste so much of your time trying to "abide in
> women artists' spaces" whatever that's supposed to be LOL you might
> actually start to understand what it's all about and say something of
> some real significance. We shan't hold our breath.
Perhaps its just me then? Perhaps I lack the type of understanding to which
you allude here?
Perhaps "significance" isn't just something one can count or weigh or hold
up against the light. Perhaps significance might take more forms than could
be done justice by an examination through the conventional?
I'm holding my breath and asphyxiation is something not feared in this
instance.
Debs
Amanda Angelika
news:ePcnb.16614$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
and didst say:
| "Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:bnhgsn$11i94c$1...@ID-172934.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
|| Mmm maybe if you didn't waste so much of your time trying to "abide
|| in women artists' spaces" whatever that's supposed to be LOL you
|| might actually start to understand what it's all about and say
|| something of some real significance. We shan't hold our breath.
|
| Perhaps its just me then? Perhaps I lack the type of understanding to
| which you allude here?
Great art to me is something that is architypal and universal and goes beyond earth
bound trivialities such as gender sex and even nationality and race. This of course
was the sublime irony in the name Dana International LOL
| Perhaps "significance" isn't just something one can count or weigh or
| hold up against the light. Perhaps significance might take more forms
| than could be done justice by an examination through the conventional?
Maybe, but if one is weighed down with being anything other than yourself, i.e. being
part of a group in this case to "abide in women artists' spaces" and using art to
achieve this I think this is a waste of time and talent there are far greater things
worth doing. Art is about me and my place in the universe, but it ain't about being a
woman or a man it's about being God/Goddess. Why do things by halves ;)
|
| I'm holding my breath and asphyxiation is something not feared in this
| instance.
:) I'm probably wrong about Deanna really. I just get this urge to be bitchy on
occassions and I see it works both ways ;) LOL and I suppose it probably does no harm
really. Well my ego is certainly big enough to take criticism and I'm sure Deanna's
is to :)
Deb Marsh
> Behold Deb Marsh at <raptor...@yahoo.com> Spake unto us in news scroll
> | Perhaps its just me then? Perhaps I lack the type of understanding to
> | which you allude here?
>
> Great art to me is something that is architypal and universal and goes
> beyond earth bound trivialities such as gender sex and even nationality
> and race. This of course was the sublime irony in the name Dana
> International LOL
Not just about inspiration and lofty transcendence. It is also about
communicating the intimate, this, to me, is where art attempts the sublime
at the personal level. No orchestration and sweeping vistas but that quiet
whispering were one soul attempts to touch another. Where language is
strained past breaking because its own inadequacies are all we have with
which to signal our intent or cryptic passion.
> Maybe, but if one is weighed down with being anything other than yourself,
> i.e. being part of a group in this case to "abide in women artists'
> spaces" and using art to achieve this I think this is a waste of time and
> talent there are far greater things worth doing. Art is about me and my
> place in the universe, but it ain't about being a woman or a man it's
> about being God/Goddess. Why do things by halves ;)
I cannot make the distinction. Art is communication or it is private solace.
For there to be a language there must also be a recipient. Identity is such
a fragile thing, and it is well that this is so. Our place in the universe
is assured cos here is where we already are. Our presence, however, is
something known though the way we communicate it. To self define is
important - to have this definition recognised, to speak of kin and to know
the comfort of their company, is priceless.
> :) I'm probably wrong about Deanna really. I just get this urge to be
> bitchy on occassions and I see it works both ways ;) LOL and I suppose
> it probably does no harm really. Well my ego is certainly big enough to
> take criticism and I'm sure Deanna's is to :)
I'm totally biased here. Deanna is a sister of the soul and although I
cannot substantiate this assertion or affinity I feel it nonetheless.
Debs
Deanna
You are still selectively cutting and framing, and either deliberately
avoiding or from a total lack of experiential affinity missing what my
issue was.
I'm not using and did not state or imply that I was using my art to
establish my womanhood.
I did say that your repeated, uninformed written behavior in regard to
my writing and the manner and means of your unsubstantiated dismissal of
it if you did so act in a group of other women who were artists or
writers gathering together to share and discuss their works about their
experiences as women and also as women artists and writers, and to
return to the initial subject matter, through the experiential lens of
women, victimhood and victimization, and the idealization and ideation
of those states especially in literature, would have made you very
negatively stand out and leave you without a meaningful experiential
place within such a group.
And unconvincingly standing impeccably apart and above the group
seemingly by some opaquely-conferred, occult-since-unexplained superior
set of standards that emphatically demand such experiential gender-based
forms and forums regardless the important realities they contain be
judged reprehensible and destructive to those unrevealed but critically
unassailably more important standards.
Do you understand why yet that you would so awkwardly and
unsympathetically in least stand out in this group of other women if you
continued to speak from this illegitimate higher ground of ideal
alienation towards their experience and writings on it, which in the
instance of this group should to varying degree or could/will be to some
degree your own as it comes from part of the ugly and raw edges of the
experiential aspects of a gender role of "woman"?
Now do you understand that if you, after having been so acclimatized to
the group and its focus by fluent members of it, again and again and
again and then yet again after having been so acclimatized, still
imperially and still impassively dismissed and ridiculed, obviously
without that experiential affinity, or demonstrating and validating the
substance of this presumed right of critical over-review of these
experiential works and their acceptibility, nor even demonstrating that
subject comprehension, another woman artist or writer or the group as a
whole, and also the subject matter itself in this group of women
gathered together as women who were artists and writers using that
subject matter of their identities as women and women artists, and the
victimhood, victimization and the ideation and idealization that
surrounds those, even to the point of without qualification invalidating
their experiential base and its legitimacy as subject matter for their
art or writing, and I am struggling somewhat here to not describe that
confiscation, dismissal and ridicule as a type of well-discussed
privilege here but it smacks so much of it except for the final
attribution and would add a provocative note I don't want to imply that
I'll let it be stated as hierarchal, Heroic or sun myth-based criticism
and art forms, referred to this art and writing as lunatic, drivel, and
pretentious you would be seen as illegitimately hostile?
If your own experience in your gender role has left you unacquainted
personally with those states and their pervasive and deeply integrated
relation to the lives of women, as I sense it has, you will at some time
have to deal with them. As an artist, as a woman, and as a woman artist.
I'd suggest for your own further understanding of these issues and their
relevance more writings based on and from them.
For an accessible example - and this is one form of other stylistic
forms of such literature, and importantly women's literature, that
emerged out of a bloodied gender-based necessity for South American
women and women writers - the Magical Realism and Magical writing of
South American women writers.
I might also add that in my initial piece I left an establishing access
and litmus towards all this in the postscript to see if there was any
acquaintance with the issues I wrote in part about.
That was the reference to a series of volumes of collected writings by
women writing as women, and over the series of those collections,
further developing a progression of new and established-forms hostile,
fast-evolving literary forms and works towards their own language and
expressions for these experiences or creative impetus' deliberately
offensive by omission and utterly non-conductive of Sun-myth forms and
demands to dissolve those Sun-myth forms' historical and still-present
constraints on women and women artists and to render immaterial and
irrelevant the Sun-myth-forms demanded and expected form-familiar
responses and voicings from women towards their also expected
relationships and expressions with and about the, at times almost
archetypal, roles of victimhood, victimization, and the ideation and
idealization that encompasses those roles impressed upon women and
women artists.
When you grasp what that "unintelligible writing"'s voice is, and what
it was formed from and why and how it became a major voice in women's
literature, and stands justifiably as both literature and women's
literature, you may understand better why I find your ignoring and
cutting out of thematic sections, and the illegitimate framing and
subsequent judgement of motives, and then sstill yet unsubstantiated
dismissal of my written take on aspects of those issues as a woman and
as a woman writer, and, really, just as writer in the sense of that's
how I expressed myself whether or not I am a to be seen as a "Writer",
wholly and tellingly inappropriate and offensive to me as both an
artist/writer and woman artist/writer.
And also why your still sustained, still-oblivious response can be more
easily seen as an example of what I wrote about and against.
If you don't understand yet, a women's artists' space is a physical
space for women artists only and abide means spend significant time in
such a space.
I don't spend time in those spaces to prove or establish anything. It
has nothing to to with transsexeded or transgenderedness. And you
really you should know better by now than to sling mud like that. I was
invited on the strength and topic of my writings and my interest in
interacting with other women writers about this type of material.
My establishment in my gender role as a woman predates any of this by
quite an extended length of time. I had been a working artist who
established myself well before and well after transition on the strength
of my works on a non-gender relevant basis.
I think you're were stooping rather disgustingly and unproductively low,
still avoiding any expository response, to slime beyond a suggestion but
to an assertion with the implication it carried.
A suggestion, assertion and implication you just don't carry the weight
to play at this time if it's ever appropriate to do so, and if you had
that weight some of what's been written by me, as well as others, about
what was being discussed would have been intelligible and authentic
experientially to you.
I'll say once again, it seems you have much more to experience at this
point in your gender role and what accompanies living as one of that
class.
I don't know who the "we" is who isn't holding its breath and why it
would even want to, that you are standing arms-akimbo with but
apparently that I'm not...
I don't know what the giggling hell "know what it's all about" is
supposed to mean either that you know and I don't....
D
Deanna
sister soul, soul sister, sister, sister, soul, sister ;)
>I'm totally biased here. Deanna is a sister of
> the soul and although I cannot substantiate
> this assertion or affinity I feel it nonetheless.
>Debs
with my always deepening appreciation and proscribed in 67 countries
illicit affection for you,
Deanna
Amanda Angelika
news:9262-3F9...@storefull-2293.public.lawson.webtv.net
and didst say:
| Still wrong on all counts, Amanda. Remember what this started with.
|
| You are still selectively cutting and framing, and either deliberately
| avoiding or from a total lack of experiential affinity missing what my
| issue was.
|
| I'm not using and did not state or imply that I was using my art to
| establish my womanhood.
Then why all this stuff about "women writers groups"? I don't see what relevance it
has at all. One can only ever view the universe as yourself, whatever that may be. It
isn't about conforming to any form of group in my view, one either will fit into a
group because one has the credentials to do so, or one will not fit in, so be it.
There isn't much one can do about that, without compromise of self. Compromise of
ones art for the sake of fitting into a group is not something that I would normally
do, unless it involved making money. To be honest in terms of art I have never been a
group person. What is the point if you have talent, you will get disciples and fans
in any case, based entirely on the merits of your art which is how it should be I
think.
To be honest I took your original implication that I wanted to abide in "women's art
space" as an attempted put down, so I merely twisted it round on you. But ultimately
I Imagine you realise like any other artist if you do good work people will love you
for it, and fall at your feet begging you to be in their group. Fundamentally It is I
think this quest for love and adoration that drives the artist.