Subject:
Re: trust, community, sustainability
Date:
Fri, 12 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

WingdWolf:
>
> Actually, no. An instinct is a hardwired behavior--a behavior that does not
> need to be taught, but is innate in a species. This is why instincts are so
> difficult to overcome. No matter how good your program is, it is bound by
the
> limitations of your hardware.

forest wrote:
>
it's possible that the DNA hardware structure in each cell of living organisms
is not completely used or expressed and that the remaining unused portions
are built in to provide for unlimited adaptations that may occur, therefore
instinct may remain unchanged for a long time or change overnite under
harsh
or variable conditions. also it may be not a fixed rate of evolution but may
speed up and slow down depending on circumstances and the individual
intelligence of each animal within the species. there is much we don't know
about instincts and their relation to intelligence and adaptation.

Subject:
Deer fencing
Date:
Thu, 18 Feb 1999
From:
michael

For Winged Wolf, I think, who wanted to "talk to the deer", for
fencing.

There was a Southwestern tribal group that would have a ceremony once
a year, in a kiva, where the hunters would meet the spirits of each
animal they would kill, in the upcoming year. Invariably, that was
what they got. The tribe even said that animals would report into
camp at their appointed time, even during snowstorms, when hunters
wouldn't go out. A friend of mine in Arizona gathered that one.
Well, probably this was just coincidence, and this culture was just
making it up, because there is no way that could happen.
[Southwestern cultures put great stock on truthtelling,: some tribal
groups would banish liars, but we judge others by our own standards,
and assume that they must be lying if they say something we don't
like. We are so used to our leaders and media lying to us, it doesn't
phase us, we expect it.]

In an Anthropology class, one professor noted that the local
Curanderos in one area of the Phillippines figured out what recently
introduced South American medicinal plants were good for, within 2
years. Illiterate, they had no access to scientific literature, and
no funds for animal experimentation, yet they figured it out. They
were asked how they did it, and they said, "Oh, we asked the plants,
and they told us what they were good for." But hey, that's
impossible, these are just barefoot shamans who don't know anything,
and it's all placebo effect anyway, as they get cure rates higher than
that of Western doctors. It's all coincidence, superstition, and
mythology, that's it.

Machaelle Small Wright basically had all of her staff agree that deer
weren't to come in to her garden. They don't come in, or so she says.
Once, a new staffer came on board, didn't understand that, and deer
started coming in; the matter was explained to the staffer, the staff
were re-aligned, and it was over. The Shutesbury, Massachusetts
offshoot of Findhorn, Sirius Community, did the same thing, 10 years
ago, according to an instructor of mine who dealt with them. I have
never been to Findhorn, and can't say anything authoritative on it.
Well, probably this is just coincidence, or she made it up. After
all, that is impossible.

Do you remember "The Gods must be Crazy"? Where the hunter apologizes
to the antelope for killing it, and explains that his family needs its
flesh, skin, and bones? This kind of indigenous attitude, as in
"Journey to the Ancestral Self", by Tamarack Song, is very much at
odds with how we see things in our materialist culture. Tom Brown was
sent on his first deer hunt at 11, by his teacher. He tracked his
deer, which had a hip deformity which would keep it from surviving
winter, for months. The deer accepted him as part of its environment,
he knew everything about that deer. Finally the day came for the
hunt, he was so excited. He waited in ambush. He missed, with his
spear, and ended up having to strangle the deer. He was so totally
disgusted that he was ready to leave the woods forever. His teacher,
knowing precisely what had happened, said to him, "When you feel the
same way about a single blade of grass, as you do about that deer, you
will have achieved wisdom." But hey, these are crazy people who don't
understand the blessings of Western civilization, and since they are
in indigenous groups that are dying out, we can tolerate their
idiosyncrasies for a little while.

I know a farmer, in Arkansas, who does something somewhat different.
Anthropological literature is rife with stories about people that
"call" animals, there is a story about Hawaiians calling dolphins, and
even sharks, for example. Well. This fellow decided he didn't like
the disrespectful way that deer were hunted in his area, so he
"called" the deer to take shelter on his farm, from hunters, during
hunting season. He says they are lined up every yard or so, during
hunting season. He got tired of fleas and ticks in his back yard, so
he did the Findhorn thing of seeking the "ruler" of those critters
out, and asking them to keep out of his back yard. They have a right
to exist, too, he just didn't want them in his yard, which at that
time was infested. After his, umm, visit, the flea and tick
infestation cleared up. Well, it probably would have happened anyway,
right? No, it was just coincidence, and besides, he just made that
up, probably. After all, it is impossible.

Of course, all of this is impossible, in the reductionist,
materialist, Newtonian Universe we were brought up in, which we know
to be the One True Way. Some would say your very attention has power
and force. It's easy to prove: stare at the back of someone's neck,
for a few minutes. They will turn around, and if you keep staring,
they will meet your eyes, even through telescopic sights. Marine and
Navy Seal snipers used to be taught not to use foveal vision until the
last minute, for this reason. But we know that is impossible. I
remember telling a professor in college- in 1980- about gene splicing,
and he assured me it was quite impossible. I was citing a Science
magazine article, and now we have an entire industry based on that,
but, hey, it was impossible.

Maybe there is something more to the universe than mere matter, but
probably not. Energy paradigm people tell me the Beta brain wave
state, where Western people live, is a state of the pure material.
Energy paradigm phenomena, I'm told, become possible in a small way in
the Alpha, and more so in the Theta and Delta states. Some indigenous
cultures used Theta and Delta, though we don't in our culture. Alpha
is the state of vacations, and relaxation, you note that you are more
creative in that state, and there is much less stress. The rational,
thinking, conscious mind is 5-10% of the brain, at best, or so I was
told in school. In my experience, it is more like 1%. But these
people don't know what they are talking about.

None of this has to matter. Yet, as part of my job, I have studied
highly effective people, because that is the only way I can learn to
do what they do. Every single one of them- ALL of them- use more than
just their conscious mind. They may not be able to describe it
consciously- and then again, only 10% of phenomena can even be
modelled in language- but they are. The Apache had 4 states of
consciousness, very similar to the Brain wave states. Their name for
Beta was "Land of the Living Dead". And this precisely describes
Western culture. Einstein said you can't solve problems from the
level they were created at. What does this leave us with? The Silva
Mind Control people teach students to scan a body for medical problems
by "grokking", an exercise used for over 2,000 years in Chinese Chi
Kung, but hey, that's impossible, something with a made-up name, even.

I am interested in results. Materialist paradigm people are boring,
and do not have good results, as a rule, at least in my experience.
Energy paradigm people have results. If a WWII veteran claims that,
as he was fleeing a German machine gunner, he suddenly got 360 degree
vision, and could even feel the gunner trying to hit him, or an
infantryman in Vietnam, pinned down, in fear for his life, made
himself "invisible", and Viet Cong troops marched right by him a yard
away without seeing him, I don't just immediately dismiss such stories
any more, though of course everyone knows that this is impossible, and
cannot have happened as described. Energy paradigm folks I've run
into see beliefs are tools. The Universe simply responds to their
beliefs about it. Materialistic people simply shut out all evidence
contrary to their paradigms. It works for them. I've learned to read
publications I would normally avoid, just to see what I filter out.

>From a community point of view... I know a fellow in New York state,
who was having all kinds of problems with the city government getting
his community projects going. He tried similar energy methods, and
all of a sudden, city government loves him, they want him to do more
than his agency can handle, he now has a problem of picking and
choosing what he will be involved with due to staff limitations. But,
probably it would have happened anyway, and it's all just a
coincidence. It is a coincidence he likes, and he likes even further
the illusion of having control over his environment, but let's face
it, that's impossible, he's just fooling himself, as he spends the
next consecutive 24 hours getting a grant application ready, which the
mayor personally invited him to submit, the mayor that tried to defund
his agency last year. I was at a seminar last weekend, where the
woman running it just quit her job of 14 years to be a counsellor,
with no credentials, because she intuitively felt she had to, and is
doing just fine. One must see the invisible to do the impossible, and
those who must do the impossible will do what they must. But
intuition is just an illusion, we know it doesn't exist.

As for the fellow who wanted to talk to the deer. This is what I have
heard, from those who do similar things: speak to them just as if they
were in front of you, and can hear and understand you. Get
spiritually centered, first, that helps a lot. Speak from your heart.
Deer can't read signs, by way, you have to speak with them. You can,
in your imagination, fool yourself by seeking out the "ruler" of the
deer, but that isn't necessary. Just do it. There is nothing
esoteric about this, indigenous peoples all over the world fooled
themselves doing this for many thousands of years. Just let it
happen. If you have apple cores, or something similar, you might put
them on the other side of the fence, for them, sort of a win-win
thing. If there are other crazies out there, well, you might talk to
your community, and see what kind of responses you get; talk to the
land, see what it needs, Rudolf Steiner-style. Fool yourself. I
haven't talked to the deer, nor do I expect to need to. I just listen
to those with results. In fact, I don't endorse anything in this
message, I just pass it on as I heard it. It's all impossible,
anyway.

So those of you who are materialist, you go right ahead, and keep your
beliefs. That's what you want, and that is the Universe you will
experience. I won't argue with you- we both know you are right. You
know The Truth. Everything you say is correct.

Subject:
Re: string beans (was Re: Raw Nuts & Seeds )
Thu, 18 Feb 1999
From:
kirt

forest:
>hey kirt, i remember you from m2m, how's it goin? i couldn't resist poppin in
>here to give 2 cents worth of opinion. you remind me of the self when i used
>sarcastic humor to humor friends.

Ah, yes, forest. How about we just agree that you are far superior and more
grown up than I am? But I think you are going to be frustrated if you
intend to be the morality/maturity judge here. ;)

>but at least they
>have an open mind toward exploring refinement,

Considering string beans inedible unless sprouted does not, to me, show an
open mind.

Cheers,
Kirt

Subject:
string beans diplomacy daily/weekly intake
Date:
Thu, 18 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

kirt wrote:
>
> Ah, yes, forest. How about we just agree that you are far superior and
more
> grown up than I am?

do you honestly agree to that or is this more of sarcastic humor? if so i may
attempt to explain how it may be unhealthy.

But I think you are going to be frustrated if you
> intend to be the morality/maturity judge here. ;)

it seems to me that the reason i jumped into this dialog is because i felt
someone else being the morality/maturity judge using words like evil, etc.

>> Considering string beans inedible unless sprouted does not, to me, show
an
> open mind.
>
> Cheers,
> Kirt
>
i really don't know much about string beans much but as our species expands
knowledge and consciousness i suspect foods we once thought of as good
may be
found to have limitations that could be injurious. that's what i was thinkin
and findin out now and then, i just got this feeling from reading your text to
the string bean guy that you were picking or poking a little. i also feel that
in your post to me. polarity is common in males, but i'm not sure how healthy
it is unless some form of diplomacy is exercised. i must admit i have a hard
time resisting a debate, but i think people can communicate without the
polarity or with less polarity. this seems to reduce stress for some and allow
extra energy for some other natural pursuit......well i feel the ramblin
energy a bit....i'm outa here aloha kirt........forest for rest for us and
earth re-leaf :-)

Subject:
Re: Raw Nuts & Seeds - recommended daily/weekly intake
Date:
Fri, 19 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

> Hi Carol (and Kirt),
>
> kirt wrote:

> > Carol:
> > >> I, like Kirt, have some trouble with the idea that seeds are not
> > >> meant to be eaten. If they are not, does that mean that animals for
> > >> whom seeds are a major food source are not meant to exist?

i think that seeds are meant to be eaten by animals and people in nature, the
question is what level of energy and life extension do these nuts and seeds
provide and could there be a different diet that would provide more energy
and
life extension. some animals before humans came on the scene became
extinct
possibly due to their limited wisdom of how to optimumly evolve in nature.
the
same thing could happen to our species if we keep thinking a stone age diet is
the ultimate diet approach for people, even tho it is obvious that it is
better than the S.A.D. diet.
> >
> No...it merely means that certain creatures are meant to eat
> certain foods (some of which, as you are no doubt aware, are toxic
> to humans).

maybe seeds are meant to be eaten by animals and humans until they gain
the
knowledge and wisdom of how to refine and extend their life by carefully
examining scientifically and intuitively-instinctively the optimum ways of
getting energy. raw breathairians may find any food objectionable(just jokin
here but who knows the future evolution of our species and how it relates to
foods we eat?)
>
> > Alan:
> > >Which animal eats seeds rather than the "flesh" surrounding some of
> > >them? Which animal gains nutrients from seeds alone and is this
> > >animal supposedly one of our forefathers?

i saw on public tv a nature show where a band of chimps were all under a nut
tree eating nuts. the amazing part was that they used specialized
sticks(tools) to open the hard shells and it required a long teaching process
by the parents. i'm sure that's not the only food they ate but it shows they
instinctively find them eatible............happy wellness evolution......forest
> >

Subject:
Re: Raw Nuts & Seeds - recommended daily/weekly intake
Date:
Fri, 19 Feb 1999
From:
kirt

forest:
>i think that seeds are meant to be eaten by animals and people in nature,
the
>question is what level of energy and life extension do these nuts and seeds
>provide and could there be a different diet that would provide more energy
and
>life extension. some animals before humans came on the scene became
extinct
>possibly due to their limited wisdom of how to optimumly evolve in nature.
the
>same thing could happen to our species if we keep thinking a stone age diet
is
>the ultimate diet approach for people, even tho it is obvious that it is
>better than the S.A.D. diet.

Huh?!? Are you saying that if we eat the diet we are adapted to we will go
extinct? I am completely awed that you can make that sound plausible in
three sentences. Perhaps because life extension and level of energy (beyond
a certain point) have little to do with evolutionary success.

>maybe seeds are meant to be eaten by animals and humans until they gain
the
>knowledge and wisdom of how to refine and extend their life by carefully
>examining scientifically and intuitively-instinctively the optimum ways of
>getting energy. raw breathairians may find any food objectionable(just jokin
>here but who knows the future evolution of our species and how it relates
to
>foods we eat?)

Huh?!? Here's one scenerio for the future evolution of our species: Raw
vegan advocates convince the world that they must become strict converts
for health, and of course, spiritual reasons. Immediately libido is
diminished to absurdly low levels. The next generation, not just limited in
number but also showing a marked inability to grow to sexual maturity,
reproduces at a miserable rate. And so on, the species is extinct in
several generations.

Seriously, forest, for fun, try entertaining, just for a moment, the idea
that spirituality has no place in the human future, that our "destiny" is
to outgrow our pathetic need to codify bliss. It is of no interest to me
how true or false that may turn out to be--it is simply a way for you,
perhaps, to see how prejudiced you are _for_ all the spiritual hocus pocus.
What if the eggs in your basket (your group process thing, raw veg, and
general new agey spirity stuff) are not the "true direction" but another
fad? Again, whether or not they are the future makes no difference to me.
My point is: who decided that what _you_ believe is best for the rest?

Cheers,
Kirt

Subject:
are raw vegan "nuts" edible or credible?
Date:
Sat, 20 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

kirt wrote:
>
> Huh?!? Are you saying that if we eat the diet we are adapted to we will go
> extinct? I am completely awed that you can make that sound plausible in
> three sentences. Perhaps because life extension and level of energy
(beyond
> a certain point) have little to do with evolutionary success.

no i am saying that it seems to me as animals and plants evolve or adapt to
new situations or environments they may change their patterns of eating
and/or
lifestyle. the degree of succcess they have at this may be a factor in how
well they survive in an everchanging nature. some may, due to one reason or
another fail to adapt and go extinct. it seems that our species has evolved
the ability to both instinctively and intellectually examine and refine the
quality and quantity of our life. it seems logical and natural that this would
go on and on. when some of us see the destruction by humans of nature in all
it's complex parts, we are compelled by some instinctive(spiritual?) urge to
survive. i think it's good to go back to point A (as you and others have done
with stone age instincto diets) and find where we may have taken a limited
course in our dietary evolution, but i just don't see it as the final
perfection of our species, if it were we would still be in the stone age it
seems to me.
>
> Huh?!? Here's one scenerio for the future evolution of our species: Raw
> vegan advocates convince the world that they must become strict
converts
> for health, and of course, spiritual reasons. Immediately libido is
> diminished to absurdly low levels. The next generation, not just limited in
> number but also showing a marked inability to grow to sexual maturity,
> reproduces at a miserable rate. And so on, the species is extinct in
> several generations.

here's another scenario. stone age diet advocates convince the world that
compassion for other life forms and spirituality are not worthy of any
attention and that raw meat eating is the accepted norm. immediately libido,
competition, and agression are increased to absurdly high levels and there is
a big jump in population of humans. this increase in population creates tribal
disputes over hunting ranges. because there is little compassion for any
other
life except perhaps the immediate clan or tribe, these clans begin to fight
and kill each other. each generation, in an effort to survive develops better
and better ways of killing food animals and their competing neighbor clans.
this leads to a male dominant intelligence based on power and greed and
advanced weaponry and so on, the species is extinct in several generations.
>
> Seriously, forest, for fun, try entertaining, just for a moment, the idea
> that spirituality has no place in the human future, that our "destiny" is
> to outgrow our pathetic need to codify bliss. It is of no interest to me
> how true or false that may turn out to be--it is simply a way for you,
> perhaps, to see how prejudiced you are _for_ all the spiritual hocus pocus.
> What if the eggs in your basket (your group process thing, raw veg, and
> general new agey spirity stuff) are not the "true direction" but another
> fad? Again, whether or not they are the future makes no difference to me.
> My point is: who decided that what _you_ believe is best for the rest?

seriously, kirt, try entertaining, just for a moment, the idea that
instinctual spirituality is evolving and has some place in the human future
and past, that it is our destiny to refine body, mind, and spirit to explore a
more harmonious compassionate blissful experience with nature so that as
humans we do not continue to destroy nature and each other. perhaps to go
back to the past to solve the problems of the future and the now may have
limitations. i certainly see some value in your investigation of past
evolutionary stages and have done a lot of the same. in answer to your
question at end of paragraph above, no one decided what i believe is best for
the rest, it's just a series of ideas and concepts that seem to me will make
my life and world a more fun, relaxing, loving place to be. i am open to the
refinement of these concepts by the concensus of the family members that
may
find agreement with the general outline. i would never impose ideas on
others,
just share what has work/played for me in my limited experience of life so
far
and hope that together with group consensus we will make wiser decisions
than
by the traditional male dominant competative hierarchical monarchy,
dictatorship, or majority rule approach.

ps. it's possible that the lowering of libido does not diminish our ability to
enjoy sex and sensuality but actually allows us a chance to have a more
"whole"istic relaxed compassionate, body, mind, spirit, experience with the
oppisite sex instead of the (in my mind limited) male dominant traditional
stone age macho sexual mentallity. it's possible that this lowering of libido
also reduces male agreesion and competition with other males and enables
them
to evolve from agressive competition to relaxed blissful cooperation and
increases the chance for individual and world peace. i know it's hard to
believe this spiritual stuff without faith and experience and experiments. as
a youth growing up i rejected the old male dominant macho high priest control
type religions (like the stone age ones that used animal and human sacrifice).
i explored them and found them very limiting, but my spiritual instincts kept
urging me on to explore a deeper more evolved compassionate way of
interacting
with nature and fellow people. faith is a weird thing, i know i cannot
convince anyone of it's paradoxical value, it must be experienced to be
appreciated. my limited experience with spiritual faith has resulted in
several psychic events in my life and numerous sychronistic phenomena,
enough
for me to have few doubts about it's validity but not enough to prove to you
that it is real. i care enough about you and the rest of the human race to
share it, you may reject it if you like. i would never expect anyone to accept
spirit on blind faith but by trial and error testing and experimenting and
experiencing on their own.......aloha and peace forest
>

Subject:
Re: are raw vegan "nuts" edible or credible?
Date:
Sat, 20 Feb 1999
From:
kirt

forest:
>here's another scenario. stone age diet advocates convince the world that
>compassion for other life forms and spirituality are not worthy of any
>attention and that raw meat eating is the accepted norm. immediately
libido,
>competition, and agression are increased to absurdly high levels and there
is
>a big jump in population of humans. this increase in population creates tribal
>disputes over hunting ranges. because there is little compassion for any
other
>life except perhaps the immediate clan or tribe, these clans begin to fight
>and kill each other. each generation, in an effort to survive develops better
>and better ways of killing food animals and their competing neighbor clans.
>this leads to a male dominant intelligence based on power and greed and
>advanced weaponry and so on, the species is extinct in several generations.

In my scenerio I was associating the reduced sexual drive (whether you want
to glorify that into some sort of tantric withholding orgasm hocus pocus
doesn't change the facts) and lack of robust growth in children to raw
vegan diets. Your scenerio associates meat eating with libido (OK, I'll
grant that relative to raw vegans ;)), competition, aggression,
territorialism, killing, male dominance, power, greed, and advanced
weaponry. If this wasn't all so cliche it might be funny.

>seriously, kirt, try entertaining, just for a moment, the idea that
>instinctual spirituality is evolving and has some place in the human future
>and past, that it is our destiny to refine body, mind, and spirit to explore a
>more harmonious compassionate blissful experience with nature so that as
>humans we do not continue to destroy nature and each other.

I am not destroying nature and each other. I further have no guilt about
the way I live, my genetic heritage (except maybe the German part ;)), or
my sensations, emotion, or ideations (though I find most of the latter
frivilous). Why would I want to convince myself that if I suppress my
sensations and emotions that I might be part of the forefront of human
evolution (as if your individual ideation has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with human evolution--you can think up warm fuzzy codes of conduct until
your sperm count is zero and that simply isn't what evolution is)? Further,
I have loads of harmony, compassion, and bliss in my life (along with the
delightful contrast of some chaos, some revenge, some sadness, ect.)--
there
is nothing to refine towards some ideal (which are a dime a dozen even if
we convince ourselves that ours is titanium-plated).

I have no idea what people mean when they talk of spirituality, especially
when you do, since it is always used to tell people how advanced you are,
and with a rightiousness that is denied to boot. I am, at times, rightious
but have no need to deny it. If new agey artsy fartsy is vangaurd I will be
more than happy to enjoy life at the end of the line where there is some
room to play instead of forest's code to live by. Life/experience as given
is a dang delight in need of no moralistic refinement in the guise of
advancing the spiritual.

>perhaps to go
>back to the past to solve the problems of the future and the now may have
>limitations.

_You_ solve the problems (???). I'll be experiencing my carnal existence
and thinking up loads of BS with the left over brain, but damn if I will
take it so seriously that I convince myself that I am solving humanities
past and future problems! Even I ain't _that_ egotistical. My biggest
problem right now is the frickin mongooses who want to eat little chicks
and eggs. My biggest delight is my daughter's new clicking sounds. Who
needs faith?

>i certainly see some value in your investigation of past
>evolutionary stages and have done a lot of the same. in answer to your
>question at end of paragraph above, no one decided what i believe is best
for
>the rest, it's just a series of ideas and concepts that seem to me will make
>my life and world a more fun, relaxing, loving place to be.

Ideas and concepts hold no such power. Face it: like every flavor of
"radical" before you, you want to change other folks so you will feel less
alone, less alienated, more loved. As long as you have the hope of your
codified community of ideas and concepts, you can perhaps stave off the
alienation for a while.

>i am open to the
>refinement of these concepts by the concensus of the family members
that may
>find agreement with the general outline. i would never impose ideas on
others,
>just share what has work/played for me in my limited experience of life so
far
>and hope that together with group consensus we will make wiser decisions
than
>by the traditional male dominant competative hierarchical monarchy,
>dictatorship, or majority rule approach.

Nobody cares, forest. Those cliches only stand between you and real
experience, real life in the moment.

>ps. it's possible that the lowering of libido does not diminish our ability to
>enjoy sex and sensuality but actually allows us a chance to have a more
>"whole"istic relaxed compassionate, body, mind, spirit, experience with the
>oppisite sex instead of the (in my mind limited) male dominant traditional
>stone age macho sexual mentallity.

Jeeeezuz, but you do harp. Are you an ex-Marine doing penance or
something?
Or was your father an asshole? Mine was more often than not. Get over it.
The world isn't made of male domination cliches.

>it's possible that this lowering of libido
>also reduces male agreesion and competition with other males and enables
them
>to evolve from agressive competition to relaxed blissful cooperation and
>increases the chance for individual and world peace.

Yeah, right. This used to be called porno-politics, where every social evil
was blamed on sexual dysfunction. But back then they figured it was
repression of sex that caused the troubles. I see they had it backwards,
eh?

Whether the world is at peace or in blissful competition hardly matters,
does it? But one thing is sure, your libido, reduced or exaggerated, has
NOT ONE DANG THING to do with world peace!!! How can you imagine
otherwise?
Its like in the Woody Allen movie "Manhattan". Do people inflate their own
sense of importance by attaching their own pycho-sexual neuroses to
grandious concepts? Or do people avoid dealing with the deep existential
issues by taking their own pycho-sexual neuroses way to seriously?
Somehow,
forest, you seem to do both at the same time. I probably do neither (but
then I always was conceited ;)), so I doubt we are going to come to a group
consensus. ;)

>i know it's hard to
>believe this spiritual stuff without faith and experience and experiments. as
>a youth growing up i rejected the old male dominant macho high priest
control
>type religions (like the stone age ones that used animal and human
sacrifice)

Everyone in my communion class two decades ago thought it was a bunch of
crap. Whether they could harp on male dominance or not. ;) Whoopdedo.

>i explored them and found them very limiting, but my spiritual instincts kept
>urging me on to explore a deeper more evolved compassionate way of
interacting
>with nature and fellow people. faith is a weird thing, i know i cannot
>convince anyone of it's paradoxical value, it must be experienced to be
>appreciated.

Hope is a weird thing too. It keeps pain at bay.

To me, you simply have trouble interacting with people so you let them know
right away what the rules are going to be if you are going to have a
relationship with them. Along the way you make it known how terribly
spiritual and evolved you are.

And if you know you can't convince anyone of the value of your faith (or it
is the value of _their_ faith?), why do you try all the time? Perhaps just
to advertise the fact that you are really deep, really gentle, an overall
jesus without the horrifying male dominance?

>my limited experience with spiritual faith has resulted in
>several psychic events in my life and numerous sychronistic phenomena,
enough
>for me to have few doubts about it's validity but not enough to prove to you
>that it is real.

Yup. I had a vision myself. It was that our big brain can think up just
about anything, all the while missing the delight of the details.

>i care enough about you and the rest of the human race to
>share it, you may reject it if you like.

Well, you can stop praying for me whenever you want. Please.

>i would never expect anyone to accept
>spirit on blind faith but by trial and error testing and experimenting and
>experiencing on their own.......aloha and peace forest

I _reject_ spirit as an affront to existence. As a gimmick to avoid the
pushes and pulls, the (as Liza might say) the calcium and the oxalic acid
of life. But so what? That's just me. It's not humankind's advancement from
male domination (o praise the erection!!! clitoral and penile!!!) to
gentility (o praise the limp sticky leftovers!!!) so it doesn't count in
karma points. That's fine by me.

Cheers,
Kirt

Subject:
Re: are raw vegan "nuts" edible or credible?
Date:
Sat, 20 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

hey kirt, thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings, i enjoy the debate,
raw food for thought......might start a new cult on raw thoughtarianism,
everyone practices an eatmywords mantra and after the ritual there is a
carrot
and beet juice party and the left over carrot and beet pulp is transformed
into paper by adding psyillium seeds(toxic of course) and soy bean inks with
flavorings are added and the dialog from each member of the council is
written
on their papers and the juice represents the blood of the earth and the
papers
represent the ego. see ya in church :-) aloha and peace......forest

well i drank the juice and ate my words and had this enlightening
transcendant
experience and there was this lite at the end of the tunnel and when i got to
the lite god told me i was crazy and i should take heed in his messenger kirt
neift and stop all this silly nonsense and go back to where i came
from.........so i am herethereverywhere ......i think i'll break my juice and
word "fast" and "slow" down.................later for-rest

Subject:
Re: are raw vegan "nuts" edible or credible?
Date:
Sat, 20 Feb 1999
From:
kirt

forest:
>...and there was this lite at the end of the tunnel and when i got to
>the lite god told me i was crazy and i should take heed in his messenger kirt
>neift and stop all this silly nonsense and go back to where i came
>from.........so i am herethereverywhere

Ha! I suspect your waiting out this 18 hour Big Island rain online like I
am, which means we are both nowhere. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt

Subject:
"fruitflys" in paradise
Date:
Sun, 21 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

Fruitarianism is a failure because it is far beyond the range of
> > diets that we are adapted to by evolution (and the claims of certain
> > fruitarian advocates that we evolved as fruitarians, are nothing more
> > than bogus crank science).

this statement to me takes little logical thinking to find flawed, since even
modern cultures are consuming fruit in their s.a.d. diets. that proves to me
that fruit has been a part of diet for a long time. i guess the question is
then, at what crucial percent of consumption of fruit does it begin to
become
a problem in our health. at about 70% for about 10 years now and after
numerous other long term diet experiments i have yet to find a more
optimum
diet.

i understand the argument that primitive man and woman ate a more
omnivore
diet and that makes sense to me, i'm just curious in the investigation of
refinement and/or evolution in diet what pathways might be available. i
suspect it may be in physical terms a matter of getting a certain percent of
minerals. if we can find those essential minerals in a diverse variety of
fruits , (and i don't see why we can't) then i don't see a major problem in
finding an example in the not too distant future. actually i suspect there
could be some fruitairians around today who could challenge other diet
preferences in their age group in a holistic natural health olympics.

i agree with you, i doubt we evolved from 100% fruitarian heritage, but
checking out the lemur and primate world displays so many different diet
approaches that i suspect it may be more a matter of adapting to the foods
available in the niche they live, and the mineral balance than percentages of
fruit, meat, insects, leaves, roots, etc. maybe we instinctively gravitate to
the right mineral balance when we live naturally. the red panda for example
according to some scientists was once predominantly a carnivore and over
time,
due to changing habitat evolved to be somewhere around 95% bamboo leaves
only
with an occasional rodent or insect. to suvive on it's limited diet it has to
eat almost 24 hours a day.

tho it sounds far fetched, i wouldn't rule out the possible alien connection
in the scheme of things, did all this diverse life on earth evolve from some
prymordial goop or could some fruitairian aliens have stopped by and planted
fruit trees on their way to the plieades? :-)

now when we add the concept of compassion, love, spirituality, etc. to the
human evolution, some of us question how we might expand compassion to
include
more of life and nature and that brings up the question, can we eat healthy
and kill less and feel better? from my somewhat limited experience i think
that's possible and have been plodding along down that trail of pitfalls for
awhile now, and i keep gettin the same message, find a bonded family and
stop
piggin out so much.....well i'm startin to ramble abit quess i'm outa
here...........raw, raw, aloha.....forest

Subject:
animal instincts
Date:
Tue, 23 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

Nieft / Secola wrote:
>
> Is it just me, or is this getting tiresome?
>
> Cheers,
> Kirt
>
yes i agree, this putdown someone else in an attempt to eletvate our own
position can be a tiring position to hold, i did it for many years and there's
a "teensy weensy" bit of that left in me. i think it stems from male dominant
competitive animalistic "instinctive" heritage from the past.

i suggest when that urge comes we attempt to speak for the self what
works/plays for us with " i" statements rather than pointing the finger with
what's wrong with "you" statements. this has improved my friendships with
other men especially and may be an essential evolutionary step to help save
this planet from the growing number of male dominant men being born each
day.

seems to me if we carry on this natural "instinctive" male dominantg
behavior
pattern without any modifications or adaptations that it will probably lead to
a serious threat to the human population and earth. in my mind we are
already
dangling on the edge of that cliff.

after observing animal societies for many years now i see this male
dominant
position in nature is quite prevelant, however it is not the only choice. the
difference between the bonobo chimps society and the other(can't remember
name) chimp societies more commonly studied by scientists shows to me we
have options.

bonobos dissipate their agression with sexuality(sounds kinda fun) while
other chimp societies dissapate aggression by killing each other and/or being
submissive to the male dominant leader. i'm not saying one is right and the
other is wrong, just pointing out that even if our heritage points to certain
social or dietary behaviors, that doesn't mean they are set in stone and
cannot be modified over time to account for changing times and
environments.
animals are smart enough to change their behavior patterns to adapt to the
changing environment, i hope our "instincts" allow us to do the same.

Subject:
Re: animal instincts
Date:
Tue, 23 Feb 1999
From:
kirt

forest:
>yes i agree, this putdown someone else in an attempt to eletvate our own
>position can be a tiring position to hold, i did it for many years and there's
>a "teensy weensy" bit of that left in me. i think it stems from male
dominant
>competitive animalistic "instinctive" heritage from the past.

And not from meat eating? ;)

> i suggest when that urge comes we attempt to speak for the self what
>works/plays for us with " i" statements rather than pointing the finger with
>what's wrong with "you" statements. this has improved my friendships with
>other men especially and may be an essential evolutionary step to help save
>this planet from the growing number of male dominant men being born each
day.

So, we should follow some rules that you made up on how to interact? But
aren't you male? I, for one, would never submit to such male domination. ;)

> seems to me if we carry on this natural "instinctive" male dominantg
behavior
>pattern without any modifications or adaptations that it will probably lead
to
>a serious threat to the human population and earth. in my mind we are
already
>dangling on the edge of that cliff.

The posting style on this list will have NOTHING to do with human
population. Neither do the rules for interaction that has helped you make
friends. Delusions of granduer.

> after observing animal societies for many years now i see this male
dominant
>position in nature is quite prevelant, however it is not the only choice. the
>difference between the bonobo chimps society and the other(can't
remember
>name) chimp societies more commonly studied by scientists shows to me
we
>have options.

forest, is there a male domination list somewhere that might better suit
your obsession with the subject?

> bonobos dissipate their agression with sexuality(sounds kinda fun) while
>other chimp societies dissapate aggression by killing each other and/or
being
>submissive to the male dominant leader. i'm not saying one is right and the
>other is wrong, just pointing out that even if our heritage points to certain
>social or dietary behaviors, that doesn't mean they are set in stone and
>cannot be modified over time to account for changing times and
environments.
>animals are smart enough to change their behavior patterns to adapt to the
>changing environment, i hope our "instincts" allow us to do the same.

I must have missed something. No one (except perhaps the raw vegans)
consider dietary behaviors to be set in stone, do they?

What has changed in our environment that means we must abandon the
range of
our native diets? Fruit has gotten sweeter? ;)

Do I follow the gist of your repeated thoughts:

The world is a terrible horrifying male dominated place, so

Maybe we can be evolve to a fruitarian diet , so that

Maybe the world will heal in ways that I find appropriate.

Oh, and killing is bad.

Is this the line of reasoning?

Cheers,
Kirt

Subject:
tree here now
Date:
Tue, 23 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

>forest:
> > i suggest when that urge comes we attempt to speak for the self what
> >works/plays for us with " i" statements rather than pointing the finger
with
> >what's wrong with "you" statements. this has improved my friendships
with
> >other men especially and may be an essential evolutionary step to help
save
> >this planet from the growing number of male dominant men being born
each day.
>
kirt: So, we should follow some rules that you made up on how to interact?
But
> aren't you male? I, for one, would never submit to such male domination. ;)

i SUGGESTED that, suggestion does not imply rules in my dictionary but
implys
agreement. consensus as an alternative to hierarchy implys 100%
agreement,
that's what i'm talking about. rules are imposed by male dominant
hierarchies.
are you so desparate for a disagreement that you will stretch the truth
about
what someone else said? take a deep breath i love you, we don't have to do
this all the time. we could cooperate and search together for the ideal diet.
>
> The posting style on this list will have NOTHING to do with human
> population. Neither do the rules for interaction that has helped you make
> friends. Delusions of granduer.

if this list group reflects male dominant behavior or vibes and it is
broadcast around the world, then i think it could have some role in the
planet's population. it might take a while to prove it to some and this may
not be the best place. i have no rules for interaction as you imply above. i
have agreements for interaction. a world of difference, try it, it's actually
fun and has nothing to do with granduer.
>
> forest, is there a male domination list somewhere that might better suit
> your obsession with the subject?

actions and vibes speak louder than words, therefore i would reflect this
statement back to you for consideration. actually i prefer you stay here and
keep challenging us wimpy low testosterone vegan fruitflys to go deeper into
our intuitive subconscious to find the supportive spirit and begin to
transcend this ageold male dominant competition thing.
>
> I must have missed something. No one (except perhaps the raw vegans)
> consider dietary behaviors to be set in stone, do they?

well i sure get that impression from you based on the way you lash out at the
raw vegans( or almost everybody) all the time that since they are so wrong,
then you must have special knowledge of the perfect or near perfect diet.
just
what do you eat, and how is your health these days? how old are you? do you
think you have achieved the perfect balance and there is no room for
improvement? if so please share with us your insites, i'm new here. i wonder
if we could seek agreement here as much as disagreement and make this a
little
friendlyer atmosphere. anybody else out there besides me who can relate to
that.
>
> Do I follow the gist of your repeated thoughts:
>
> The world is a terrible horrifying male dominated place, so
>
> Maybe we can be evolve to a fruitarian diet , so that
>
> Maybe the world will heal in ways that I find appropriate.
>
> Oh, and killing is bad.
>
> Is this the line of reasoning?
>
i would word it differently: everything in nature is good, but may have
limitations and evolution and/or adaptation offers us choices. one good
limitation is male dominance and it's relation to diet and military arms race.
maybe by considering that we have other options we can slowly begin to
refine
how well we get along with each other and it may lead to modifications in
diet, especially due to the ever increasing population and deforesting of the
planet.......aloha and peace

Subject:
Re: "whole"istic wellness
Date:
Tue, 23 Feb 1999
From:
Liza

forest,
> i see the union of male and female has spiritual value as
> well as physical pleasure and that to learn to control our physical urges
may
> enhance our holistic evolution. for me this involves attempting to avoid
> ejaculation and orgasm.

?????!! WHA'???
???!! EXSQUEEEEEEZE me, but WHY would I wanna do THAT?

Hmmmm, now why does it kinda seem like eating fruit, getting colonics,
anorexia, vomiting and laxatives, breatharianism, enemas, detoxing,
obsessing on food cleanliness, trying to make your period stop or at least
come out clear like water, "master cleanses" with salt and cayenne,
nightmares of creepy parasites and candida creatures crawling around,
fanatical veganism, and now the latest - avoiding all the messy, beasty,
out-of-control parts of sex - why do these all kinda' sorta' feel like the
same neurosis?

Could it be ......... S-A-T-A-N???

(from "The Church Lady" by Saturday Night Live comedian Dana Carvey)

forest,
> it sounds perhaps less
> pleasurable, but

Yes indeedy, forest!! It soitenly does.

forest,
> i
> have been celibate for about 10 years now, not by choice but by lack of
> support for these concepts from women.

HAH!!! Excuse me again, but that is FUNNY!! Very funny, in fact. In fact
it's very very very funny.

I must say - I for one would most likely have counted myself among those
women who maybe weren't completely 100% supportive of these concepts.
You
know, I don't know how much experience you've had with the fairer sex, but
it is a common problem that they often have a hard time achieving these
things you've mentioned above, even under the most favorable of conditions.
It is usually the sign of a man with much experience and understanding in
the ways of women, that he will be at least as interested in hearing, from
her, about how intimate relations might be made more pleasurable, FOR HER,
as he is in telling her all about how he wants sex to be for himself.

By the way, I've discovered that we have a wide range of ages on this list,
and that age seems to be of critical importance on the matters that keep
coming up here. So, if you don't find it too personal a question, are you a
Gen X-er? in your 20's? 30's? Baby Boomer? Elder? Evidently this matters a
lot when it comes to eating and sex.

Love Liza

Subject:
Re: are raw vegan "nuts" edible or credible?
Date:
Tue, 23 Feb 1999
From:
Liza

Forest,

> this leads to a male dominant intelligence based on power and greed and
> advanced weaponry and so on, the species is extinct in several
generations.

Please refrain from "male-bashing." There is no such thing as a "male
dominant intelligence." Intelligence is intelligence. Some men are
brilliant, some are not as brilliant, and the same is true for women.

It is hateful, bigoted, and furthermore completely erroneous, to make
slanderous comments about men, or any other group, such as you have made
above.

Men are great. I love men. Men work hard, have principles, stubbornly
refuse to "grow up," love and take care of their families, take
responsibility for world matters, and are sexy, funny, wonderful, and great
friends.

I would ask you to cease making such comments on this list.

Love Liza

Subject:
can sex be refined?
Date:
Wed, 24 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

Liza May wrote:
>
> forest,
> > i see the union of male and female has spiritual value as
> > well as physical pleasure and that to learn to control our physical urges
may
> > enhance our holistic evolution. for me this involves attempting to avoid
> > ejaculation and orgasm.
>
> ?????!! WHA'???
> ???!! EXSQUEEEEEEZE me, but WHY would I wanna do THAT?

if you are content with your positition in life and health and have no
interest in spiritual pursuits, i agree why would you wanna do that. perhaps
you could inform us of your diet preferences and tell us all about how you
have achieved such great health that you can attempt to ridicule others who
share their limited experiences.
>
> Hmmmm, now why does it kinda seem like eating fruit, getting colonics,
> anorexia, vomiting and laxatives, breatharianism, enemas, detoxing,
> obsessing on food cleanliness, trying to make your period stop or at least
> come out clear like water, "master cleanses" with salt and cayenne,
> nightmares of creepy parasites and candida creatures crawling around,
> fanatical veganism, and now the latest - avoiding all the messy, beasty,
> out-of-control parts of sex - why do these all kinda' sorta' feel like the
> same neurosis?
>
> Could it be ......... S-A-T-A-N???

could it be a sincere desire by some to explore a continual refinement and
evolution of life and health and all it's mysteries despite their limitations,
mistakes, and pitfalls? could it be that those who are closed minded or
unwilling to try new things brush it off and make jokes or call it satanic?

based on your comments here it is obvious you are here to ridicule others
who
do not fit your model of perfect health. please help us degenerate fools by
sharing your wisdom rather than poking fun at others, otherwise you come
across as someone who is uncaring and close minded. sarcastic humor based
on
my personal experience affects our psychological health and relationships
with friends.
>
refering to tantric diciplines: there's this old saying we probably all heard,
"don't knock it till you try it." and try it long enough to achieve some
degree of mastery, then write and tell me your thoughts. some people who
hear
of some new idea try it once or twice in an effort to prove it wrong rather
than to give it a serious objective consideration.
>
> forest,
> > i
> > have been celibate for about 10 years now, not by choice but by lack of
> > support for these concepts from women.
>
> HAH!!! Excuse me again, but that is FUNNY!! Very funny, in fact. In fact
> it's very very very funny.

i'm glad that i have brought levity to your world, if it is sincere and real i
believe it can add to our health, tho if we laugh at someone rather than with
someone it may just be an indication of an unresolved childhood trauma.
>
> I must say - I for one would most likely have counted myself among those
> women who maybe weren't completely 100% supportive of these concepts.

that's pretty obvious this far into your message, just what percent into
these
concepts are you?
>
> By the way, I've discovered that we have a wide range of ages on this list,
> and that age seems to be of critical importance on the matters that keep
> coming up here. So, if you don't find it too personal a question, are you a
> Gen X-er? in your 20's? 30's? Baby Boomer? Elder? Evidently this matters
a
> lot when it comes to eating and sex.

i am 49 years young/old, how young/old are you?
>
> Love Liza
>
it's interesting after your long message laughing and ridiculing me that you
end your post with love lisa. i'm into unconditional love but your sarcastic
humor puts some degree of block in our ability to expand love in my limited
opinion.....aloha and peace....forest

Subject:
gender blender
Date:
Wed, 24 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

Liza May wrote:
>
> Forest,
>
> > this leads to a male dominant intelligence based on power and greed and
> > advanced weaponry and so on, the species is extinct in several
generations.
>
> Please refrain from "male-bashing." There is no such thing as a "male
> dominant intelligence." Intelligence is intelligence. Some men are
> brilliant, some are not as brilliant, and the same is true for women.

i think you are overreacting here and taking these ideas out of context. it's
not hard to see that "his-story" is full of examples of male dominant
behavior
in "hu-man" species. almost any "per-son" can see it. even our languages
reflect it. if you can't see it pray to god and "he" will help you. thank god
the women's lib movement has been slowly chipping away at an age old male
dominant hierarchical limitation. this is not male bashing, heck i'm a male,
i'm just saying a balance in power in men and women may help create peace
on
earth potential and enhance our individual health.
>
> It is hateful, bigoted, and furthermore completely erroneous, to make
> slanderous comments about men, or any other group, such as you have
made
> above.

i agree completely with your above comments, except the ending. i am
referring
to domineering men and the general tendancy thru out his-herstory for those
type of men to control the world. i am not saying all men are domineering,
just pointing out a general tendancy that has been around a long time.
>
> Men are great. I love men. Men work hard, have principles, stubbornly
> refuse to "grow up," love and take care of their families, take
> responsibility for world matters, and are sexy, funny, wonderful, and great
> friends.

i agree with most of what you said above, but aren't you bashing men here a
bit when you say they stubbornly refuse to grow up? i don't feel i stubbornly
refuse to grow up. have you yourself completely grown up? in my opinion
most
adult americans(in general) are not grown up. they are still depending on a
predominantly male dominant big brother-father society to protect them like
little children and in my mind until there is more male-female balance in
society, politics, etc. male dominance will prevail and this affects not only
the health of the environment but also us as individuals....aloha and
peace.....forest
>

Subject:
village by the waterfall
Date:
Wed, 24 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

Lynton wrote:
>
When this goes counter to the experience of those that
> have been before, these people are generous enough to devote some not
> inconsiderable effort in attempts to put others on a safer, healthier track.
> This makes this list one of the few I've found that does NOT support dogma
> for the sake of promoting an idea/ideal.

i agree, as you can see i like to get into a debate over issues, i learn that
way, i just see all this put down vibe as a lotta wasted polarized energy. i
think we can keep each other in check fine by being assertive about our
opinion as opposed to agressive or a putdown of someone elses opinion. not a
big deal i guess, i just feel it will put interesting people off sometimes and
is not my idea of a gentlemans/womans debate or discussion. it's really not
necessary just a habit from paleo days some seem stuck with. perhaps some
others can tickle them enough to lighten up a bit.
>
> I'm not an expert, but wheat bran contains phytates that prevent the
> absorbtion of minerals (such as calcium) and is thought by some to
actually
> drain away minerals from the body.

i had a hair test analysis awhile back and was surprised to see calcium levels
normal despite the fact that i don't eat much high calcium food. i would like
to find a substitute for wheat bran that i can grow myself. the store bran
can
be old, rancid, or have bugs so it would be nice to find a replacement some
day. i am such a creature of habit, i am aware of doing a lotta unhealthy
things, like sitting in front of this computer.

> Rather than suggest a "better bran", I suggest you take the feeling that
you
> want to stuff as an indication that you need something more nutritious.
> (I've been there).

i appreciate your suggestion, but i think i know the self well enough to know
why i eat bran as a stuffer, it seems you glossed over it perhaps. i am
filling up on bran because i am a hermit and feel empty without an extended
tribal family. in the past for brief periods i have experienced a tribal
family, during those periods my oral fixations dissapated and i ate less and
felt better, mostly fruit.
>
> >>
> >> >how many years did you try fruitarianism
>
> well, I started with a raw juice regime that included two or so cups of
> barley-grass-juice and a couple of pints of carrot juice per day. This
> lasted maybe 12 months. I lost alot of flab, and had reasonable strength
> and vitality. For some reason or another I got attracted to the idea of
> eating all fruit, thinking that if I ate enough that I would get enough
> protein. Did I eat alot of fruit (all organic, most certified). This
> lasted about 3 to 4 months, the weight just kept falling. When I got down
> to 130 pounds I knew there was something wrong with this diet. ( Why I
had
> to wait so long I don't know). The day I had my first real food, I never
> looked back. But its been a slow process.

it sounds to me like you ate too much fruit and didn't consider all the other
factors related to health and jumped to conclusions like so many others
seem
to do. also 3-4 months is not very long to test something but if you were
eating lots of fruit it's probably best you backed off. it may not always be
that fruit is the culprit, there are so many variables and factors to health
that i think we are all jumping to conclusions to support our theories and put
down others. i like this list because of it's range of diets and ideas.
i think it's good to be humble enough to see that all this rheteric on various
diets has not produced any examples of super health that are obvious
improvements over say a moderate psyclogically well balanced S.A.D. eater.
>
> What I'm saying is that if a person is adequately nourished, they can cope
> with psycological matters better.

i agree
>
> And do you wonder how it is that a person can suffer great physical pain,
> yet when its over they carry on with life "as usual"? If someone breaks a
> leg or something when they are young and the injury recovers properly,
they
> don't go limping thru life or overeat because once they had that
experience.

i don't know what yer point is here, perhaps you missed my point about how
stress, psychological problems and childhood traumas contrubute to oral
fixations and or eating disorders to one degree or another. for example most
people born in my age(baby boomer) were born in hospitals and taken away
from
mother immediately after birth. that alone is an oral trauma. breatfeeding
immediately after birth is a crucial bonding time, in my mind without it can
be perminant oral problems. there are many other unnatural traumas too
numerous to mention, but in my mind many of them affect our eating habits
and
make testing different diets a challenge, since we may be offtrack from
birth
on any diet due to overconsumption etc. until we resolve these issues with
supportive extended families and an abundant food and nature preserve all
diets may feel limiting or less than ideal.
>
> I'm not discounting ones emotional environment (internal or external, for
> they do affect each other), but I wanted to point out that, given whatever
> my past, if I am healthy on one diet and not on another then maybe its not
> my immediate past that has much to do with it (the past that counts in
this
> regard is more likely that of my ancestors ancestors....). AND if I'm
> healthy, I can cope with emotional issues better.

i see your point here and it makes some sense to me.
>
> How long have you been Fruitering, Forest?

i am about 70% fruitarian for about 10 years now. i also eat about a
tablespoon of spirolina, a teaspoon of kelp, couple teaspoons of nutritional
yeast, a teaspoon of braggs liquid aminos, and one juice coconut, plus one to
two cups of bran each day. the rest of the diet is mostly fruit. occasionally
when away from the farm i get hyped up and eat a junkier item, but not too
often anymore i know a lot of that has limitations, it's mostly a habit that i
haven't been able to refine lately. that's why i'm recruiting so heavy on
consensus extended family, i see it as my major health problem. each year i
have a better opportunity to check out fruit eating because after about 12
years i have a small fruit forest producing more variety and quantity.
>
>
> almost 100% organic, foods that are either highly benficial or neutral for
> my blood-type
>
> Lectins are proteins. To quote from "Eat Right Diet" by Dr P. D'Adamo,
> "Lectins are a powerful way for organisms in nature to attach themselves
to
> other organisms in nature. Lots of germs, and even our own immune
systems,
> use this superglue to their benefit. ... Often the lectins used by viruses
> or bacteria can be blood type specific, making them a stickier pest for
> people of that blood type.
> "So too with the lectins in food."

interesting, sounds to me like what i would call the mucus factor or albumin
factor. too much clogs things up and reduces water soluability and the flow
of
nutrients to the cells, etc.
>
> Generally the body makes the enzymes it needs when it needs them, and
enzyme
> diet theory holds that by consuming raw food, the dietary enzymes
contribute
> to the vitality of the body.

sounds logical heard that before.
>
> Lectin diet theory shows how some foods enhance the immune system
while
> others compromise it, and that the foods behave differently depending on
the
> A-B-AB-O blood type of the eater.

i have heard about this also but haven't studied too much. don't know what
blood type i am.
>
> Dr D'Adamo (for 15 year) and his father (for 30 years) have been
reseaching
> and applying this method.
>
will try to study it sometime, thanks for sharing, i think i overreacted to
your opening statement to me when we first met.
>
> male: its the name of a village/naval base in Devon, England. it means
> "village by the waterfall" I think. My mother says its a very beautiful
> place ( or was when she saw it).
>
like the definition of yer name, what a pleasant thought.....aloha and
peace.....forest

Subject:
getting to the meat of the matter
Date:
Fri, 26 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

Jean-Louis Tu wrote:
>
> Well, "reliable" sources of meat don't contain more growth hormones
> than "reliable" sources of fruit contain pesticides.

good point
>
> -Why do lions waste so much "precious energy breaking down the
> protein chains into simple aminos"?

suprised you asked this question. lions have different teeth and digestive
arrangement than huWoMans, this argument seems out of context to me.
>
> -Saturated fat is not harmful when not in excess and balanced by
> unsaturates. Sugar is harmful when in excess too.

tit for tat, what does it prove, nothing, but is a valid point.
>
> -What would constitute for you a "proof" that pre-fire man ate such
> or such food? You are ignoring some evidence of meat-eating, but do
> you have a better evidence of fruit-eating?

it seems to me that primative WoMan evolved in the middle east during a
time
of desertification, and perhaps there may have been periods when survival
was
a big issue and they may have had to eat whatever they could get their hands
on including meat and insects. what their original diet was may never fully be
known, and i'm not sure it even matters. what does matter is a continual
investigation and refinement based on scientific evidence combined with
intuitive investigation. i once saw a nature show on pbs where during a
severe
drought period a hippo had discovered a dead buffalo and was warding off a
hungry pride of lions and eating the fermenting contents of the buffalos
stomach. food choices in the past may have been nothing more than
opportunist
hunger satisfaction.
>
> -Converting the world to vegetarianism would NOT resolve famine
> problems. Even in countries where enough food is produced, some people
> are still starving.

i think there is plenty of "scientific" evidence to prove how unsustainable it
is too feed the world meat as opposed to tree food, at least by current
practices. plus don't forget the consideration that the deforesting of the
planet due to old burn and slash gardening practices shows that even
vegetarian approaches to eating may require refinement as populations
grow.

> -Moral reasons (not willing to kill) are IMO the *only* good reason for
> not eating meat.

if you honestly believe this is a good reason, then why do you continue? do
you kill your own food?
>
> -How do you know whether such or such reaction (e.g. drooling,
> disgust) can be attributed to instinct or culture?

i agree, a lotta this instincto argument is questionable. it has been so many
generations since we had a healthy balanced instinctive connection to nature,
that i think most people claiming and practising instincto are going to
require a long time living close to nature before they can trust their
instincts 100%. a worthy goal none the less. thanks for sharing jean. are you
a male or female?................aloha ....forest

Subject:
Re: getting to the meat of the matter
Date:
Sun, 28 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

>
> Yes, it is interesting where one draws that line, but one cannot avoid
> drawing it altogether. (Note: I'm not saying that you said we could.)
> Even those people who go around wearing masks so that they don't acci-
> dentally inhale and kill teeny creatures of the air can't avoid it.
> Their immune systems are killing things all the time. So what is my
> point? Oh, I dunno... just that everyone kills. Everyone.
>
> Maybe now would be a good time to bring up intention, eh? :)
>
> Carol

hi carol, yes i agree with what yer sayin, maybe the point is not so much
where to draw the line, but a matter of adjusting the line as we go to be less
and less killing, to be continually looking at ways to eat with less killing
until old age calls us to surrender to the whole and we instead of Dr.
Kavorkian approach to death, we stop eating and killing and wait for death to
transform us.

the idea of wearing masks to avoid germ death inside is definately extreem.
i
was thinkin about that once and thought that perhaps an individual who was
so
non-violent would have a peaceful immune system and instead of attacking
foreign objects entering would find a way to cooperate and transmute rather
than attack and destroy. just a thought, no proof, but intuition is sometimes
a crucial guide as well as science.

ya lets bring up intention, what did you have in mind on that issue?

Subject:
Re: Killing (was Re: getting to the meat of the matter
Date:
Sun, 28 Feb 1999
From:
Forest
>
> There will always be those who respond with the "but wouldn't it be nice if
> we could see all of life as our family?" The question makes about as much
> sense to me as "but wouldn't it be nice if we could kill every living thing
> on the planet?"
>
> Cheers,
> Kirt
>
"wouldn't it be nice if we could kill every living thing on the planet" may
not make much sense on a conscious level to some of us but on a
subconscious
action level may be exactly what some of us are doing. nuclear bombs,
genetic
engineering, germ warfare, etc. there may be a connection to the foods we
eat
and the militaristic reality we have created. would rather live a bambi
consciousness, than kill or be killed consciousness that leads to the arms
race we are in today. at least i experiment in that direction, knowing it may
have pitfalls and limitations, but opting for the compassionate side of the
equation and adjusting as i go. so far it feels good......aloha forest

Subject:
Re: Killing (was Re: getting to the meat of the matter
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999
From:
Forest

>kirt writes:
>
> << Saying we shouldn't kill for food, is to my mind, just as perverted as
> saying we _should_ kill our kids. Both are extreme distortions of our
> nature IMO. Calling either a process of refining or perfecting evolution,
> or an experiment in high morality and spirituality just makes it more
> perverted IMO.>>
>
chimps who hunt and kill raw meat as part of their diet, also kill and eat
their young, that's natural. this is the natural heritage that instinctos are
promoting in a sense. it seems the basic argument is that if it worked in the
past, and we were more healthy than we are now, it must be the way, no
need
for improvement. i see value in studying their diet and lifestyle for patterns
and clues to healthy living but see many limitations that i suspect even the
raw meat instinctos would have difficulty with. chimps also eat their own
shit. who knows, i think they claim it has acidophilus type bacteria that are
maintained for digestion. elephants also eat their shit. i'm not promoting it,
just find it fasinating. might provide a balanced diet for the urine
therapists.:-)

as i said in an earlier post, refinement and evolution are available to those
who are interested and may involve refinements in compassion and diet. it
may
also involve studying our ancient heritage. it appears that many are content
with limitations, that's fine, business as usual is in my mind part of why
this world is on the brink of ecological collapse. the world in paleo days was
less populated and therefore may not be a working model for the future. our
attemps at refinement and evolution may have flaws and pitfalls, but without
some change i don't see us surviving in mass much longer. as environments
change, so do the plants and animals that inhabit them, that's evolution and
adaption. those that don't change often don't survive.

this post has brought up a few questions in my mind kirt. do you feel humans
are capable of evolution or change? are you convinced that expanding human
compassion to include more is a stupid mistake or waste of time? do you
believe in compassion at all and where do you draw the line with compassion
for life? do you have any inklings of a possible spirit world? if you do, how
would you define it? if you don't does that rule it out completely? have you
ever had a personal experience that you couldn't explain in cave man terms?
do
you believe or have you ever experienced a syncronistic event? why do you
spose cave men developed religion while other animals seem to be content
without one, are we simply more stupid? how do you see humans as different
from animals? do you feel your diet is now perfected and that the rest of
your
life you will eat that way? do you always feel in good health on your current
diet? is your family life free from stress and disagreement? do you believe
that man is the ruler of family, if so what is your feeling on women's lib
movement?

Subject:
Re: Killing (was Re: getting to the meat of the matter
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999
From:
kirt

Kirt:
>>I think some of the problem with some of the human reaction to killing may
>>be a bit nuerotic in nature.

>axel:
>for some really weird reason, many, many people do not "feel" like killing
>animals, or that killing is ok. now of course you can say it is for this or
>that, but who knows. we can make really interesting theories for ever.
some
>people feel they have a spiritual part. also an emotional being or body. on
>many levels it makes a lot of sense NOT to kill sentient, intelligent beings
>that are SO similar to us in many ways. on another levels, like health, it
>might make sense to eat animal products. but that is all there is about it.

I seriously doubt that it all there is to it. We are attracted to ideations
for complex reasons...

>i do not buy any hunter instinct stuff.

Watch the play of, even vegan, children, especially boys and you will find
the hunting/stalking/killing theme often. It is almost humorous to hear
vegan passivist parents share their frustration that though they expose
their children to no media violence, have no "violent toys"--still their
children use a stick (or anything) and turn it into a hunting weapon.

Millions of people hunt and fish even though they can get their food
without killing.

Luckily, you don't have to "buy" any hunter instinct. ;)

>i know this list is about food
>specially, but still i feel like sharing how i see things. lately i am
>starting to sense that there has to be a way to be vegan and really healthy
>in this world. there has to be a way to work it out. i mean, it makes sense
>at ALL levels except that some people need animal products for their
health!
>this is something.

This paragraph is unintelligable to me for the most part. If you want to be
a vegan, be a vegan. Just don't try to tell me you are better than anyone
else because of it.

>not wanting to kill sentient beings is a "maternal instinct"?

An overgeneralized maternal instinct, yes. Maybe. As you say, who knows?

>it might be for some, but you can not apply it to all people that refrain
>from killing animals or not participating indirectly in such killing thru
>buying animal products.

It's just an idea, alex. The mammalian maternal instinct is a better
"given" than puffy ideas about "spirituality" to me. To each his/her own.

>why so many people find horrible the killing of animals? are some of them,
>as you say, "a bit neurotic"? give me a break!
>neurotic for not killing animals? come on! it is absolutely HORRIBLE, IMHO,
>to KILL an animal!

No it isn't. It's a serious event packed with sensation, emotion and, for
humans, various ideations. That you are so touchy on the subject hiints
that it may be a complex for you. Who knows?

>have you done it, kirt? how many people that defend
>animal products on any level can actually go and kill animals? not many,
>right? i know, i know, this is said again and again, some might say "vegan
>brainwhasing"

I have killed animals for food and will kill _many_ more in the future. It
is not horrible to me. I have killed animals (rats) that simply want to
live in my space as well. This wasn't horrible either.

>a part of me just do not accept that god, because i do believe in god, can
>create this conflict between many people=B4s ethics and their biological
>needs. it does not make sense.

A lot of things don't make sense, but that we are mammalian omnivores with
the capacity to be tender to each other and the capacity to kill our food
isn't one of them. It's just the way it is.

>also, are you all in this mailing list so scientific? is science the best
>way to find truth for you?

I am not seeking any Truth. Science has its pros and cons as practiced. If
you want to vegan regardless of the contrary evidence, go ahead. It'd be
nice if someone figured out how to trick their own nature into such a
regime successfully and then there would be less harm done to the folks who
aspire to veganism--not to mention their children.

>IMHO, being disgusted with the idea of killing animals, or watching an
>animal being killed for human consumption, or not wanting to kill animals
>yourself, is not a maternal instinct codified into a rule of conduct. it can
>also be seen as a natural spiritual emotional part of many human beings
that
>intuitively do NOT like killing AT ALL

Well, of course you're going to say that, axel. ;) What's the alternative?
Admit that it has become a neurotic ideation? "Freedom" for you may one
day
be to kill an animal that you eat, working through your resistance to the
idea.

>>flavors of "killing is bad" fundamentalism.=20
>
>it might not be in your ethics, but is not necesarily fundamentalism. it is
>a very valid and real posture that many human beings share.=20

Its' fundamentalist to be because it is very rigid black and white thinking
combined with rightious superiority. PETA believers are in the same class
as the people who kill abortion clinic staff and those who kill the other
guy because of their religious ideations.

>>Saying we shouldn't kill for food, is to my mind, just as perverted as
>>saying we _should_ kill our kids. Both are extreme distortions of our
>>nature IMO.=20
>
>you mean our physical nature. our nature is not only our body.

Last time I checked my brain was indeed part of my body and it will suffer
immensely without the rest of it. The brain is big enough to make up all
sorts of "truth", including the idea that we are something more than a
brainy mammal. Go ahead and be a spiritual vegan if you like struggle for
some reason. Consider yourself better than those who don't share you "deep
compassion" for animals.

>there might
>be a way to be well without animal products. maybe highly mineralized
>vegetable food, lots of sunshine and living outside and doing lots of
>exercise? it could be.

Sure could. Let us all know when you figure it out.

>Calling either a process of refining or perfecting evolution,
>>or an experiment in high morality and spirituality just makes it more
>>perverted IMO.
>
>please clarify. one thing is that you do not think that veganism is
>appropiate for health reasons, but another thing is that it is perverted.
>why is it perverted?

Because it denies one's own biological inheritance at the same time it sets
someone up as "special".

>>There will always be those who respond with the "but wouldn't it be nice if
>>we could see all of life as our family?" The question makes about as much
>>sense to me as "but wouldn't it be nice if we could kill every living thing
>>on the planet?"
>
>i really do not know if you are serious or just kidding.

I'm not kidding at all. Each of the above are radical departures from what
it means to be fully human and healthy to me.

>it sounds like you
>do not take seriously people=B4s desire for a more peaceful and harmonic
>world. is this the case?

Like, forest, you somehow think your lunch has anything to do with world
peace! Are _you_ serious? ;)

The peace and harmony you may need isn't out there in the world but inside
yourself. If you had such harmony I can't imagine that you would be so
attracted to a diet that continues to fail you so miserably.

>do you have dreams for a better world, with less
>violence and cruelty?

My world has very little violence or cruelty. I enjoy the world I live in
and find its contrasts part of the delight. I don't dream for a better
world.

>honestly, it sounds like you are making fun of this. respecting other
>beings, not hurting other beings, not causing suffering to beings with
>capacity to feel just like you is not a stupid nonsense, you know?

Taken to the PETA extreme, yeah, its nonsense. Perhaps if you deal with
your own suffering, alex, and you might not need to perseverate on the
"world" and dreams.

>also, just curious, what are your ethics?

I don't know.

>what things do you think are good
>and bad?

I don't know.

>do you think the world can change for the better? if so, how?

It is not a concern for me.

Cheers,
Kirt

Subject:
Re: Killing (was Re: getting to the meat of the matter
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999
From:
kirt

forest:
>this post has brought up a few questions in my mind kirt. do you feel
humans
>are capable of evolution or change?

Evolution is not something someone does, forest. If you mean can people
change for "the better", well, I suppose so, but defining what is better,
for me, is an absolutely individual thing. To each his/her own. The trouble
with your version of "evolution" is that you decide what is "better" or
"more advanced" or "refined" for the whole frickin species!

>are you convinced that expanding human
>compassion to include more is a stupid mistake or waste of time?

Yeah, or at least doomed to pitiful failure at best and doing the exact
opposite of its intentions at worst. The problem is that compassion isn't
something that can be "expanded" it is simply an emotion, part or the
heritage of our mammalian maternal instinct. It is easy to see why so many
people feel all cuddly with other mammalian young ones (to the point of
making pets into children--and much worse, children into pets). What
puzzles me is someone extending that to human prey or farm animals, and
then insects, etc. It just makes my face crinkle up in confusion. To put it
another way, if you had your fill of "compassion" from loving big-brained
mammalian care-givers, I doubt you would be as concerned/obssessed as you
are with the issue today. Further, you can "refine" or "expand" or "evolve"
your compassion with all your heart and mind, and it may not be anything
more than a symbolism for your own need. Besides, as I said, IMO compassion
isn't something you expand, its something you experience. Trying to
experience it more because it sounds really hip to be really compassionate
doesn't make any sense at all to me. You live life and compassion is part
of it, giving and receiving. Compassion isn't something that is directed,
it is an experience.

>do you
>believe in compassion at all and where do you draw the line with compassion
>for life?

I don't draw any lines. Some stuff pisses me off; some stuff delights me.
The idea that if I drew a line and then backed up and drew it a little
further that I would then be evolving is almost absurd to me. I want to be
fully human, fully me--not sit around and abstracting a neat sounding
fashionable ideal and then cramp myself into that mold and pretend I am
ahead.

>do you have any inklings of a possible spirit world?

I already told you: no. And I suspect if I did, I would leave it to the
spirits. ;)

The world as given is already an _incredible_ gift. I have a vague sense
that I don't want to blow my life away, that I want to live with gusto,
sensationally, emotionally, and ideationally. But for me this has more to
do with embracing myself and the physical world (I can recognise no other
if I am honest), than any big dealy of ethics or morality or spirituality,
whatever that is supposed to be. In other words, I am connected to a, say,
sunrise, physically not spiritually. Physical is more than enough for me
and -includes- my capacity to think. Perhaps what folks mean by spiritual
is something that has become separated in their own pysche, that body and
mind are separate (neurotic), instead of whole (natural). Who knows?

>if you do, how
>would you define it?

I wouldn't if I did. But I don't. ;)

>if you don't does that rule it out completely?

What, like UFOs? What possible difference could it make to me? If their are
UFO's the only thing that I could think to ask is: are their any
interesting fruits on your planet? If there are spirits, I would say: don't
you _miss_ the physical? ;)

>have you
>ever had a personal experience that you couldn't explain in cave man
terms?

I can't explain 95% of my experience in any terms. It doesn't bother me
(indeed it DELIGHTS me) and certainly doesn't make me want to get
"spiritual" whatever that is.

>do
>you believe or have you ever experienced a syncronistic event?

I don't know what that means. Life is wonderous and full of every kind of
event. That doesn't bother me (indeed it DELIGHTS me) and certainly doesn't
make me want to get "spiritual" whatever that is.

>why do you
>spose cave men developed religion while other animals seem to be content
>without one, are we simply more stupid?

Why religious is a constant in human experience throughout history and much
of prehistory is something I am very curious about. Why humans need to
codify bliss instead of experiencing it is also something I am very curious
about.

>how do you see humans as different
>from animals?

Big brain. Beautiful fingers. Etc.

>do you feel your diet is now perfected and that the rest of your
>life you will eat that way?

No. I can say that I enjoy the heck outta my diet, always have, and
hopefull always will, regardless of how it changes.

>do you always feel in good health on your current
>diet?

Most of the time.

>Is your family life free from stress and disagreement?

Of course not. What a drag _that_ would be! ;) But I do have a rich family
life.

>do you believe
>that man is the ruler of family, if so what is your feeling on women's lib
>movement?

Is this a survey? No one rules a family.

Women's lib is sexist. Society doesn't limit people. People limit themselves.

Bonus parable from a Tom Robbin's book:
====

In a place out of doors, near forests and meadows, stands a jar of
vinegar--the emblem of life.

Confucious approaches the jar, dips his finger in and tastes the brew. "Sour,"
he says. "Nonetheless, I can see where it would be very useful in preparing
certain foods."

Buddha comes to the vinegar jar, dips in a finger and has a taste.
"Bitter," is his comment. "It can cause suffering to the palate, and since
suffering is to be avoided, the stuff should be disposed of at once."

The next to stick his finger in is Jesus Christ. "Yuk," says Jesus. "It's
both bitter and sour. It's not fit to drink. In order that no one else will
have to drink it, I will drink it myself."

But now two people approach the jar, together, naked, hand in hand. The man
has a beard and woolly legs like a goat. His long tongue is slightly
swollen from some poetry he has been reciting. The woman wears a cowgirl
hat, a necklace of feathers, a rosy complexion. Her tummy and tits bear the
streatchmarks of motherhood; she carries a basket of mushrooms and
herbs.
First the man and then the woman sticks a thumb into the vinegar. She licks
his thumb and he hers. Initially they make a face, but almost immediately
they break into wide grins. "It's _sweet_," they chime.

"Sweeee-eet!"
=====

I'm not spiritual, but I'm a hell of a romantic. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt

Subject:
Re: Killing (was Re: getting to the meat of the matter
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999
From:
Liza

Jean-Louis,

A few remarks on your few remarks...

> A few remarks on killing animals and spirituality:
>
> -It is true that that some people choose not to kill for spiritual
> reasons, but many people who wouldn't kill an animal are not spiritual
> at all: they don't kill, just because they are afraid of blood, which
> has nothing to do with being spiritual.

Or because they're afraid of violence; or because they really LIKE violence
and they're afraid of THAT; or because their new girlfriend think's
killing's uncool; or because their best friend in high school loved to hunt
and drink too much at the same time so who knows you probably become an
alcoholic if you kill animals; or because his uncle got killed in a hunting
accident; or because they don't know how to use a gun or a bow or knife, or
because they are middle class and if it's not sport-hunting for big game in
Africa think it's beneath them to kill low-class animals like deer for the
tacky purpose of eating them; or because they won't admit that they'd slap
a mosquito in a Minnesota minute but they don't call this killing,......

> -I don't have a clear definition of spirituality, but I don't see why
> killing animals should in principle be incompatible with any/all forms of
> spirituality. I admit that killing by itself is not spiritual, but
> neither are eating, peeing, etc.

HA!!! That is hilarious!

But actually, come to think of it, there are religions that do, in fact,
sanctify (and even codify) all the mundane acts of daily living, even
including which side of the bed to get out on, which foot to put down first
(honestly!!), and definately EATING. (Ugh, man oh man there's been a raft
of philosophizing about the spirituality of eating - in the New Age world a
la Gabriel Cousens; and of course in the many ways that eating is
incorporated into religious ritual the world over (I should say, in the way
that religious ritual is incorporated into eating. The lower life forms
haven't incorporated religion into their eating, yet, like us).

I shouldn't make fun of it, though. I personally LOVE Christmas dinners,
holiday dinners of EVERY kind, in EVERY culture I can possibly manage to
get in contact with, and I personally love ritual, and tradition, and
ethnic cooking and feasts, and the singing and music and celebration and
fun and planning and lovliness and gaiety that goes into this, and how it
centers around the dinner table.

> -In hunter-gatherer societies, every male has to kill, and doesn't
> mind doing so. If you belonged to a society where killing is normal,
> then you wouldn't find it repulsive. (Even in today's world, farmers
> don't mind slaughtering a chicken for dinner.)

Thank you, I appreciate your saying this. These discussions about hunting
and killing always include an un-aware and implicit put-down of the
millions of people world-wide for whom killing their food is just part of
their culture, and always has been. It is VERY small-minded to ignore most
of the world's population, and what they know, when it comes to this issue.

> -Not all people who don't kill animals are peaceful (Hitler was
> vegetarian). It is possible to kill animals for food and be peaceful
> towards other humans.

And thanks again for this. So Hitler was a vegetarian, huh? Didn't know
that. That is an interesting, and rather weird, bit of useful trivia. I'll
definately keep that one in my hat, next time this sort of discussion
presents itself.

Again, the un-expressed assumption that anyone who hunts or kills animals
is a violent person, is insulting, and bigoted. Here in the United States
(don't know about other cultures) it definately has an important
uppity-superior classist aspect to it, since, for historical reasons and
reasons of style, more people from poor and blue-collar backgrounds hunt
than do white-collar types. This problem of holier-than-thou class
superiority, posing under the pretense of idealism, very much plagues the
vegetarian and "green" movements, (and other New Age movements, for that
matter). (For those not in the U.S., please ask if some of the references
in my paragraph are unclear).

Thanks again, Jean-Louis, for yet another terrific, wise and wonderful
post.

Love Liza

Subject:
clan of the cave bear
Date:
Mon, 8 Mar 1999
From:
Forest
>
> As to your last statement, it sounds as if you are pleading for a
> more progressive approach away from Nature rather than a more
> natural and hence regressive approach which leads us back to
> Nature and the foods we are actually supposed to eat and which
> our bodies have been conditioned to eat for multimillions of
> years (as compared to the relatively short period that man has utilised
> fire for cooking purposes). Or am I reading between the lines
> again?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alan

alan, evolution or adaption is with nature rather than away from nature. all
animals in nature will adapt or die if their environment changes the foods and
habitat they live in. that is what is happening to our species due to
population increase and deforestation.

what i was/am saying is that to solve world problems by reverting back to
cave man lifestyle has some merits but also may present serious limits in
our
ability to survive in the fast changing times we live in.

also the diets of cave men may have served them well, but may have also
contributed to the male dominant or alpha male dictatorship type society
that
the cave men and women experienced. how many of us today would be willing
to
accept the political mentality of a cave man type society with slavery,
womens
oppression, infanticide, barbaric battles over turf, etc.

i would be willing to go back to the stone age with some folks if i thought
they were really serious and used a consensus paradigm and modified diet
rather than the traditional cave man style. aloha, forest

Subject:
RE: [Fwd: natural spiritual extended family]
Date:
Wed, 30 Jun 1999
From:
brian
To:
"'forest

hey brian, thanks for the thoughtful response to me letter to you, i am
enclosing my thoughts on natural spiritual extended family. i tend to
operate
from the lowest common denominator(family) because i think eco-village will
require restructuring of the family unit to succeed on large scale level
which
is also why i responded to you in the first place. happy family.....aloha
forest for earth re-leaf.

Many traditional city people have hidden fears and serious problems
relating to nature and need to be taught how to slowly attune to and trust
nature more. Only then can we learn to trust ourselves and each other and
go beyond co-dependancy.
Hi Forest,
Thanks for the reply. I've read through it once, but it would need more
time still. I'm struck, though, by differences because they're so often
more important than similarities. For example, we're all similar in that
we're all human - yet patently our differences create the diversity that
ensures we evolve as a species & as individual cultures. With regard to the
latter, no one outside the developed world wishes or wants a universal
culture - and especially not one that is a product of "western
civilisation". Africa is full of people espousing egalitarian philosophies,
consensus based communities and so on. Invariably they draw the ire of the
communities they want to work with. This isn't because Africa is backward,
it is because the imposition of New Age principals is perceived of as
domination. Much of what is espoused in the developed world requires rules
that are followed, "Silence before speech", etc, all of which is anathema
to a society that is essentially libertarian. Our society is so different
it is difficult to explain. We place, I think, greater emphasis on good
manners, but are also less tolerant of those who don't. This is why many
Americans and Europeans believe, wrongly, that life is cheap in Africa. It
is not. Another reason is that westerners confuse communalism (traditional
in much of Africa) with egalitarianism. Africa is communal, societies are
family based & people who are relatives would not be recognised as such in
the developed North. Most importantly, Africa is a collection of 1000s of
societies. In creating the countries you see in your atlas today, colonial
powers forced these societies to live side by side, ignoring historical
conflicts. (You see similar in the Balkans today.)

This is why I pasted the comment from your Re-Leaf document. You state,
rightly, that city dwellers have hidden fears and problems relating to
nature. So too does the developing world have fears & problems relating to
Africa. I have had, since arriving in the west, well meaning, concerned
people tell me that there is a "better way" to live than by subscribing to
an African culture. I have had it here, too: accept Africa but not
patriarchal society. Elsewhere: ah, but Africa is homophobic. Or: yes, but
what about all the wars? That is what we are. I have been told African
attitudes are "old fashioned", which is frankly insulting. We are not old
fashioned, we simply prefer to chose our own path - & believe that 300
years of being judged is perhaps enough. You can, you see, learn more about
quality of life from Africa than anywhere in the developed world. Family
values, humour, self-sufficiency, honour, pragmatism. These are all
ingrained, but so are conflicting aspects; mistrust of authority, an
acceptance that we are not all equal. All societies follow different paths
& this leads to the prejudices that are ingrained in much of the world.
Many in Africa are well acquainted with Eurocentric racism, but what many
people in the developed world don't realise is that it is easier to cope
with the overt, usually nonsensical racism of a red neck than it is with
the liberal condescension of a New Age academic - seen as equally bigoted.
This is why we, in our work, accept all as we see them. We are all African,
but of diverse ethnicity & tribal origins. Instead, we do what we can to
understand our differences. For instance, Shona people, the majority in
Zimbabwe, are castigated frequently in the international press for being
homophobic. Nobody has bothered to point out that for Shona people
homosexuality and incest are the same thing, yet no one in the liberal
western media would seek to condone incest.
Where we are fortunate is that restructuring of family units is something
we need not even consider. We work with families extended on a grand scale
where mutual support is an accepted necessity & where one person in paid
employment supports not just children, parents or siblings, but cousins and
others whom the rest of the world would not even recognise as family. It is
an enormous strength - & perhaps the reason why our main concern is not
spiritual well being but financial security.
I hope all this helps you understand a little more why Africans sometimes
come across as angry or greedy - and that negative aspects in one society
need not be negative in another.
Stay well,
Brian.

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: natural spiritual extended family]
Date:
Wed, 30 Jun 1999
From:
Forest

brian wrote:

> Thanks for the reply. I've read through it once, but it would need more
> time still. I'm struck, though, by differences because they're so often
> more important than similarities. For example, we're all similar in that
> we're all human - yet patently our differences create the diversity that
> ensures we evolve as a species & as individual cultures. With regard to the
> latter, no one outside the developed world wishes or wants a universal
> culture - and especially not one that is a product of "western
> civilisation".

brian, your opening statement has me a bit confused, actually much of what
you
say is hard to put into a context in relation to what i was sending to you.
anyway, i know universal culture is unlikely to happen anywhere but that's
what the new world order is pushing in a male dominant way, i am concerned
that competition and greed will run the show instead of a humanitarian or
spiritual base. that is why i propose family with a spiritual base. it seems
the universe operates on some hidden spiritual concepts that all cultures for
hundreds of years have tried to understand(africa included) and their
cultures
were based on that limited understanding such as my god's better than your
god. as we approach the global consciousness and large scale population it
will be necessary for cultures to blend to one degree or another to survive
and trade amongst each other. africa is becoming westernized from a money
based capitalism greed and power base and if that is unsatisfactory to
africans great, but to ignore the new age concepts coming from the western
world (in africa or any other place for that matter) will only allow the
negative qualities of western ideas to take over. that's why i think all
cultures within america are blending and creating a new age consciousness.

Africa is full of people espousing egalitarian philosophies,
> consensus based communities and so on. Invariably they draw the ire of
the
> communities they want to work with. This isn't because Africa is backward,
> it is because the imposition of New Age principals is perceived of as
> domination.

i'm sure all over the world there is a small minority of wise people who
espouse egalitarian or concensus living altho in my mind this is a very small
minority. most of the rest of the world (africa and european included) there
is still a male dominant hierarchical system in control. the 1960's era
heralded in an evolved sense of human rights with civil rights and women's
liberation movements just to mention a couple more important ones. much of
this evolved equal rights energy has slowly been spreading to other parts of
the globe but still lags behind in most third world countries except perhaps
in remote isolated small groups. that's why new age concepts are so
important
to share and begin to incorporate but only with the consensus of the people
who are exposed to them.

Much of what is espoused in the developed world requires rules
> that are followed, "Silence before speech", etc, all of which is anathema
> to a society that is essentially libertarian.

all societies that i have ever read about have rules or customs, that is what
makes them different from each other. libertarianism is an ideal that has
some
merit but i don't know of any successful models in africa or america or
anywhere. also, the word rule is a product of dominant hierarchy, while the
word agreement is a product of consensus. they sound similar but are miles
apart in some ways.

Our society is so different
> it is difficult to explain. We place, I think, greater emphasis on good
> manners, but are also less tolerant of those who don't.

good manners are rules imposed by hierarchical culture aren't they?

This is why many
> Americans and Europeans believe, wrongly, that life is cheap in Africa. It
> is not.

not sure exactly yer point here but i am an american and i don't think life is
cheap in africa or anywhere for that matter.

Another reason is that westerners confuse communalism (traditional
> in much of Africa) with egalitarianism. Africa is communal, societies are
> family based & people who are relatives would not be recognised as such in
> the developed North.

that's cool, i agree, that's what extended family is all about and that's what
i am promoting.

Most importantly, Africa is a collection of 1000s of
> societies. In creating the countries you see in your atlas today, colonial
> powers forced these societies to live side by side, ignoring historical
> conflicts. (You see similar in the Balkans today.)

ya, i agree not a healthy approach
>
> This is why I pasted the comment from your Re-Leaf document. You state,
> rightly, that city dwellers have hidden fears and problems relating to
> nature. So too does the developing world have fears & problems relating to
> Africa. I have had, since arriving in the west, well meaning, concerned
> people tell me that there is a "better way" to live than by subscribing to
> an African culture.

it's not subscribing to an african culture that they are talking about but
subscribing to a male dominant hierarchical culture.

I have had it here, too: accept Africa but not
> patriarchal society. Elsewhere: ah, but Africa is homophobic. Or: yes, but
> what about all the wars? That is what we are. I have been told African
> attitudes are "old fashioned", which is frankly insulting.

i think all the attitudes that are male dominant hierarchies are old fashioned
no matter where they are including africa, and if they continue much longer
they will destroy the environment and all human life. it's not an insult it's
a fact that we need to evolve in order to survive(all cultures worldwide).

We are not old
> fashioned, we simply prefer to chose our own path - & believe that 300
> years of being judged is perhaps enough.

i think some people judge the quality of life on earth in an effort to improve
it not just to degrade a culture. i judge my own american culture in much the
same way and i grew up in it and i see it has many good qualities but lots of
room for improvement.

You can, you see, learn more about
> quality of life from Africa than anywhere in the developed world. Family
> values, humour, self-sufficiency, honour, pragmatism.

i wouldn't say i can learn "more" i would say i can learn "equally" from
africa, because all over the world there are or at least have been similar
virtues.

These are all
> ingrained, but so are conflicting aspects; mistrust of authority, an
> acceptance that we are not all equal.

yes and the reason you do not have equal rights is not just because of
european influence but also because of male dominant hierarcical
worldwide(including africa) traditions that existed before europeans arrived
on the scene.

All societies follow different paths
> & this leads to the prejudices that are ingrained in much of the world.

i would say all societies followed similar male dominant paths, it's just that
europeans had the upper hand in more sophisticated technical weapons and
therefore got more in control. if africa had better weapons back then
chances
are they would be the imperialist controlers today.

> Many in Africa are well acquainted with Eurocentric racism, but what many
> people in the developed world don't realise is that it is easier to cope
> with the overt, usually nonsensical racism of a red neck than it is with
> the liberal condescension of a New Age academic - seen as equally bigoted.

perhaps some new age academic people are bigoted, but i don't see as much
as
you seem to imply, it seems you have some degree of judgement of the new
agers
that is a bit overdone in my mind anyway.

> This is why we, in our work, accept all as we see them. We are all African,
> but of diverse ethnicity & tribal origins. Instead, we do what we can to
> understand our differences.

i agree, that sounds reasonable.

For instance, Shona people, the majority in
> Zimbabwe, are castigated frequently in the international press for being
> homophobic. Nobody has bothered to point out that for Shona people
> homosexuality and incest are the same thing, yet no one in the liberal
> western media would seek to condone incest.

well, thanks for clueing me in, i was unaware of either viewpoint.

> Where we are fortunate is that restructuring of family units is something
> we need not even consider.

this is where i would probably disagree, since male dominance is wide spread
thruout the world in the family and is not fair or equal and leads to war and
ego-centic competitive cultures that fight among themselves. i'm sure there
may be isolated cultures here and there that do not fit this mold(including
africa) but they are very rare and probably endangered unless secret about
their way of living.

We work with families extended on a grand scale
> where mutual support is an accepted necessity & where one person in paid
> employment supports not just children, parents or siblings, but cousins and
> others whom the rest of the world would not even recognise as family. It is
> an enormous strength - & perhaps the reason why our main concern is not
> spiritual well being but financial security.

yes, but the extended family structure you speak of is male dominated and
unequal and not much different from what americans were rebelling against
in
the 1960's when they took to the streets for civil rights and women's
liberation. it's good to have financial security but not at the expense of
inequality, that's why the world is in the ecological mess we are in because
men are running the show and too agressive about dominating nature. when
women
begin to be involved politically and equally then they begin to balance the
male dominant traditional limitations that keep us fighting each other.

> I hope all this helps you understand a little more why Africans sometimes
> come across as angry or greedy - and that negative aspects in one society
> need not be negative in another.
> Stay well,
> Brian.

i think i understand why africans are angry, they were bullied by a male
dominant european culture who greedily took from and/or destroyed african
cultures, but it was already happening all over the world that way with all
cultures because of their male dominant stage of evolution, europeans just
happened to have better weapons. when europeans have improved spirituality
or
evolved civil rights don't think it's the same old thing happening,
spirituality is offering hope for all cultures, if ignored male dominant
hierarchies will continue to rape the earth and its people no matter where
they are from.

hope this explains a bit more why i am promoting a more equal form of
extended
family with a few new age improvements. obviously it is not for everyone, i
am
often ridiculed and judged by my own culture for my views so i am not
surprised that you find my views strange or foreign or hard to relate to. but
before you give up completely i suggest you try them out as an experiment
with
some openminded friends and see what happens......aloha and peace....forest
for earth re-leaf

ps. are you an ethnic african, your name sounds european to me? what tribe
did
you originate from?

Subject:
Re: Individualism/Community
Date:
Thu, 1 Jul 1999
From:
"Stephen

This topic came up on another list I participate in. I was reading
Malcolm Margolin's book _The Way We Lived_. This is a book he put
together about California Indians, a collection of stories, songs and
reminiscences from various tribes.

Some of what he was pointing out was how for these people the
individual was not considered the smallest unit of humanity, the
family is. An individual alone is not whole. The idea of it was
about as repulsive as the thought of a severed limb crawling on its
own.

He also comments at the way they were from very early ages shaped by
the world around them. Swaddled in their cradle baskets, they watched
the world rather than acted upon it. Acceptance of the world became
the center of their worldview. Obedience, moderation and restraint
became the prime virtues.

I feel shaped by individualism myself. And it may be individualism
that saves the world in that we are no longer acting without question
in the ways that we have been raised. We are not obedient to the
traditions of our cultures, traditions of exploitation and
colonization that we have acted out for 10,000 years. We are reaching
out for new ways to think. We are in the midst of revolution, and
revolution is a very defiant act of individualism.

But I am also beginning to think that individualism is not something
sustainable. We have evolved as social creatures, and I think in many
ways the attitudes of the Indians described by Margolin may be the
ones we will eventually need again.

Perhaps as a part of their focus on family and tradition, obedience,
moderation and restraint - they also had strong freedom of expression.
While not at all remarkable for their individualism, these same
indians and remarkable for their individuality - their great variety
in ways to live, variety in character. There was still respect for
the individual, but the individual as a part of family.

Trickster stories are a pretty odd part of the mix here too. The
trickster was sometimes a hero, sometimes the victom of his own tricks
gone bad. He was held up both as a warning of what you should not be
like, but with a hint that yeah, maybe sometimes you should be like
this. Trickster shows the boundaries of what is acceptable and
unacceptable, and he also confuses those same boundaries. I think
this was an important part of tempering the usual strictness of
obedience, moderation and restraint. Be restrained, but perhaps not
always be restrained.

It is a complex topic, but the real focus is on family. And family
was spread out as far as you could reach. Often plants, animals,
hills, winds, the sky world were addressed as family. Grandmother
Cedar, Brother Sun, Grandfather Thunderbeing. These were a part of
your family as well. To them you owed the same respect you owed your
human family. They saw themselves as part of a living world of
relations, with which they participated. But even in the human world
your closest friends, your students, the elders, were often adopted as
family. This is actually one key to mentoring - the mentor adopts
their student as family. So the web of life was woven tight and
close, and held with great respect, nurtured and strengthened both in
the human world and in the more than human world.

Yeah, individualism and sense of family are sometimes hard to
reconcile. But individuality in expression and belief may be
necessary for us revolutionairies. But maybe we should follow also
the example of our tribal ancestors and hold each other close as
family and cherish our relationship to each other and to the living
world around us. We are not alone, we are woven in the web of life.
Let us, build strong families that remind us of that connection. We
will have to hold the tension between our individualism and our desire
for sustainable culture a bit longer. The revolution continues, but
without the stability of community, the revolution will not be
successful.

Stephen

Subject:
Re: Individualism/Community
Date:
Thu, 01 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Stephen wrote:
>
> Yeah, individualism and sense of family are sometimes hard to
> reconcile. But individuality in expression and belief may be
> necessary for us revolutionairies. But maybe we should follow also
> the example of our tribal ancestors and hold each other close as
> family and cherish our relationship to each other and to the living
> world around us. We are not alone, we are woven in the web of life.
> Let us, build strong families that remind us of that connection. We
> will have to hold the tension between our individualism and our desire
> for sustainable culture a bit longer. The revolution continues, but
> without the stability of community, the revolution will not be
> successful.

aloha stephen, enjoyed yer thoughts on native american family and i agree
how
important it is to feel family with each other and nature. as far as
individualism, that also is very important.

it looks to me like natural families of the future(if we survive) will have a
balance of individualism and socialism within a consensual politics instead of
male dominant hierarchies. native traditional society had much going for it
for survival in a harsh environment with tribes fighting turf battles all over
the world. male hierarchies helped enable the families to survive but
demanded
and desearved respect and having things their way, and as a result were
often
bullies who forced their will on the group without much democratic or human
rites. this was fine and necessary back then but today us free individualistic
americans would find that very difficult and no doubt rebel against it as we
did in the 60's.

the native american shaman was a similar breed of individual. he found the
tribal ways too restraining and often lived away from the tribe in hermithood
nearby and advised the tribe on spiritual matters which he accessed by his
being alone a lot and going on solitary vision quests in nature.

the balance of the two, that's what i think it will take for this
eco-consciousness to be successful, for us to explore hermithood and get in
touch survival individualism and with spiritual individualism and then go back
to the tribe and search out other like minded individualists who want to
re-create the family on a new paradigm using consensus decision making and
allowing women equal opportunity to round out the balance of gentleness and
wisdom. this may only happen when there is a shift from fighting over tribal
boundaries to learning how to globally cooperate and share the land equally
and fairly. if we can succeed at that we may be able to evolve the family to a
more egalitarian consensual arrangement.

i look forward to that day and invite any others out there who might be
thinkin along similar lines to let go of the ego a little and join or start a
consensus support group to start planning and creating the nessesary
models it
will take to teach others who are doubtful of it's potential. i have been
attempting to do that very thing in hawaii for 15 years and have yet to find
one partner ready, yet i constantly meet individualistic ego-centered people
who are free but lonely and missing the evolution and return to family values.
anyway i'm available and have a small land base to get things
started.......aloha and peace......forest

Subject:
RE: [Fwd: natural spiritual extended family]
Date:
Thu, 1 Jul 1999
From:
brian

i know universal culture is unlikely to happen anywhere but that's
what the new world order is pushing in a male dominant way,

Hi Forest,
I wonder whether you place too much emphasis on gender, unless you use
male
dominance as pure concept. Women in power have both historically and in
contemporary politics proved just as adept at national and cultural
imperialism as men. If you are discussing the concept of ideal female
attitudes as opposed to stereotypical males ones, that's a different matter
- but whose ideal & whose stereotype?

as we approach the global consciousness and large scale population it
will be necessary for cultures to blend to one degree or another to survive
and trade amongst each other.

But there is no blending. As everyone from Paris to Pretoria will tell you,
there is an obliteration of all culture under the awesome might of the US
media machine. For the rest of the world it makes little difference if this
is Chuck Norris or New Age philosophy, the fact that it is American makes
people suspicious. Now, this may well be a perception, but it is so widely
held that it has taken over.

africa is becoming westernized from a money
based capitalism greed and power base

Not really, Africa is trying (largely unsuccessfully) to regain its place
in an international money based economy. For millennia, Africa traded with
the world - or at least with Europe and Asia. Only since the latter part of
Europe's industrial revolution was Africa's place in world trade
obliterated.

this evolved equal rights energy has slowly been spreading to other parts
of
the globe but still lags behind in most third world countries except
perhaps
in remote isolated small groups.

I don't think we can use judgmental terminology like "behind". The 3rd
World is not "behind" or less developed in terms of culture or attitude.
The fact that human rights - or equal rights - are perceived differently
means that we are different, but definitely not "behind".

libertarianism is an ideal that has some
merit but i don't know of any successful models in africa or america or
anywhere.

Perhaps this depends on one's definition of success? An orderly, western
mind might see success as an absence of chaos, a law abiding, crime free
society where problems are talked through rather than fought over. It may
be that other cultures would find this sterile & not much fun.

also, the word rule is a product of dominant hierarchy, while the
word agreement is a product of consensus. they sound similar but are miles
apart in some ways.

In what way, because universal consensus is unachievable, the antithesis of
free thought. Thus consensus can only mean, at best, governance by a
like-thinking majority - and the product of such "consensus" will always
amount to the imposition of disagreeable rules and regulations to those who
disagree.

good manners are rules imposed by hierarchical culture aren't they?

No, because they are not enforced by official censure. Rather manners are
the oil which cools innate violence or aggression in humankind.

not sure exactly yer point here but i am an american and i don't think life
is
cheap in africa or anywhere for that matter.

It is a perception widely held. 30 dead in a Jo'burg taxi war is not an
uncommon breakfast news statistic. "Ah," say visitors, "life must be cheap
here if you will kill for a patch of tarmac." They have the wrong end of
the stick.

i think all the attitudes that are male dominant hierarchies are old
fashioned
no matter where they are including africa, and if they continue much longer
they will destroy the environment and all human life. it's not an insult
it's
a fact that we need to evolve in order to survive(all cultures worldwide).

Like me, I'm not sure about this - or sure whether our male dominated
culture (if in fact it is male dominated) is destroying the environment. As
to evolution, our societies are evolving - sometimes violently.

i think some people judge the quality of life on earth in an effort to
improve
it not just to degrade a culture. i judge my own american culture in much
the
same way and i grew up in it and i see it has many good qualities but lots
of
room for improvement.

Very true, but too often in the case of Africa it is not so much a case of
judging as prejudice. People who have yet to set foot on the continent have
an opinion - invariably negative - of Africa & African culture. If they see
good, it is in brightly coloured cloths, art and other such trinkets
designed, if truth be told, largely to feed a voracious market made of
well-meaning but deluded Afrofiles.

yes and the reason you do not have equal rights is not just because of
european influence but also because of male dominant hierarcical
worldwide(including africa) traditions that existed before europeans
arrived
on the scene.

I think that's an assumption. Zimbabwe's greatest hero spirit, Nehanda, was
and is in any living manifestation, a woman. The culture is so different
that plausibly it cannot be bridged. I believe that if viewed from a
western perspective, African cultures might SEEM male dominated, but that
is only because they are not properly understood.

if africa had better weapons back then chances
are they would be the imperialist controlers today.

Perhaps, but these oft violent confrontations between cultures & continents
are also a natural ingredient of evolution. Unfortunately, perhaps, Africa
did not undergo an industrial revolution that led to this sort of weaponry.
Why? Because necessity is the mother of invention and large tracts of
available space together with an abundance of natural resources meant that
Africa's wars in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were largely low key,
brief affairs. Integral to this is, of course, the fact that Africa was in
tune with those natural resources.

perhaps some new age academic people are bigoted, but i don't see as much
as
you seem to imply, it seems you have some degree of judgement of the new
agers
that is a bit overdone in my mind anyway.

Perhaps, but so ingrained is the African mistrust of the developed world
that it is now accepted, even here in the UK, that if someone believes he
has been a victim of racism, then has been a victim of racism - or racist
attitudes.

yes, but the extended family structure you speak of is male dominated and
unequal and not much different from what americans were rebelling against
in
the 1960's when they took to the streets for civil rights and women's
liberation.

It is not necessarily unequal or male dominated, nor similar to the US in
the 60s. It is enough simply to be different - which means it must be
judged by different criteria.

when women
begin to be involved politically and equally then they begin to balance the
male dominant traditional limitations that keep us fighting each other.

Women are politically involved in many African countries - certainly this
is true in Zimbabwe. However, attitudes towards fighting and even violence
are different in many African societies. Perhaps when natural death is a
natural occurrence that happens in the home and in cultures where religion
and culture recognise that the living and the dead share the same space &
interact even on a mundane, day to day level, then violence is more
acceptable as a means of resolving conflict.

spirituality is offering hope for all cultures, if ignored male dominant
hierarchies will continue to rape the earth and its people no matter where
they are from.

It's a tricky one. Most African cultures are intensely spiritual.
Everything from the land to individual thought processes are imbued with a
spirituality that defines and then explains everything under the sun.
Everything is interrelated, from the seasons to cures for illness and
everything in between. has purpose and reason. Despite this - and the
equality of male & female - there is room for often violent disagreement.

i suggest you try them out as an experiment with
some openminded friends and see what happens......aloha and peace....forest
for earth re-leaf

I suspect I would remain suspicious, worried that yet again my way of life
was being eroded. Would you, for instance, see any benefit in the extreme
emotions between love and war that prevail in Africa?

ps. are you an ethnic african, your name sounds european to me? what tribe
did
you originate from?

I am white, like many millions of Africans, & my family has been on the
continent for as long as any American family of similar origins has been in
America. Unlike most Americans, my first language was not English but
Shona.
Stay well.
Brian.

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: natural spiritual extended family]
Date:
Fri, 02 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

> Hi Forest,
> I wonder whether you place too much emphasis on gender, unless you use
male
> dominance as pure concept. Women in power have both historically and in
> contemporary politics proved just as adept at national and cultural
> imperialism as men. If you are discussing the concept of ideal female
> attitudes as opposed to stereotypical males ones, that's a different
matter
> - but whose ideal & whose stereotype?

yes i am talking in general terms here regarding men and women, i know
women
have had an influence thruout history(notice that word his-story), just that
all over the world women's equality has lagged behind men's and still does in
many third word countries. afganistan and saudi arabia are a coupe extreem
examples of how women have been oppressed in recent times..
>
> But there is no blending. As everyone from Paris to Pretoria will tell you,
> there is an obliteration of all culture under the awesome might of the US
> media machine. For the rest of the world it makes little difference if this
> is Chuck Norris or New Age philosophy, the fact that it is American makes
> people suspicious. Now, this may well be a perception, but it is so widely
> held that it has taken over.

yes i agree, for better or for worse (or both) american influence is spreading
worldwide, that's why the influence of american new age is so important to
make sure there is a positive spiritual evolutionairy influence to help
balance the consumer power greed capitalistic influence.
>
> africa is becoming westernized from a money
> based capitalism greed and power base
>
> Not really, Africa is trying (largely unsuccessfully) to regain its place
> in an international money based economy. For millennia, Africa traded with
> the world - or at least with Europe and Asia. Only since the latter part of
> Europe's industrial revolution was Africa's place in world trade
> obliterated.

i think you misunderstood me above, am just saying it's money that talks all
over the world today and we better find an evolved spiritual balance for the
greed and power and corruption it brings with it.

> I don't think we can use judgmental terminology like "behind". The 3rd
> World is not "behind" or less developed in terms of culture or attitude.
> The fact that human rights - or equal rights - are perceived differently
> means that we are different, but definitely not "behind".

if you condone uncontrolled, unchecked violence as as a normal and
necessary
part of culture i guess there's no point in debating any further, cause in my
evolutionary model i see it fading away(some day). if you see human rights as
different for different cultures then i see no point in debating further cause
i see human rights as important to all peoples, the UN has many african
members so human rights must be important to some elements of african
culture.
>
> Perhaps this depends on one's definition of success? An orderly, western
> mind might see success as an absence of chaos, a law abiding, crime free
> society where problems are talked through rather than fought over. It may
> be that other cultures would find this sterile & not much fun.

well if it's more fun to fight and kill each other than to try to cooperate
and get along then i guess i have nothing to say, just find it hard to accept
that as ok in this day.

> In what way, because universal consensus is unachievable, the antithesis of
> free thought. Thus consensus can only mean, at best, governance by a
> like-thinking majority - and the product of such "consensus" will always
> amount to the imposition of disagreeable rules and regulations to those
who
> disagree.

i'm talking about localized decentralized consensus within family and tribe,
small examples that have so much spirit that others feel compeled to imitate
them. the consensus i refer to has one hundred percent agreement in
small(twelve or less) councils. that's what makes the difference between
rules
and agreements so different.
>
> good manners are rules imposed by hierarchical culture aren't they?
>
> No, because they are not enforced by official censure. Rather manners are
> the oil which cools innate violence or aggression in humankind.

i agree they may at times have a cooling effect but they are still hierarcical
rules enforced by the majority or by authority.
>
> It is a perception widely held. 30 dead in a Jo'burg taxi war is not an
> uncommon breakfast news statistic. "Ah," say visitors, "life must be cheap
> here if you will kill for a patch of tarmac." They have the wrong end of
> the stick.

well, similar things happen like that in mcdonalds in america, to me both are
examples of how cheap life is, just a sign to me that we need to recreate the
family and evolve spiritually as individuals and as cultures all over the world.

> Like me, I'm not sure about this - or sure whether our male dominated
> culture (if in fact it is male dominated) is destroying the environment. As
> to evolution, our societies are evolving - sometimes violently.

yes and violence to the earth and people who live on it is what i feel we need
to evolve away from, just cause all cultures have a his-story of violence
doesn't mean we have to live with it forever or that it is the only possible
example of a way to live. i value the his-tory of all cultures but do not wish
to continue in their limited old fashioned traditions. change is a natural
thing, even the cultures that you so admirably defend had numerous leaders
thruout his-story who modified the rules to suit their needs at the time.

> I think that's an assumption. Zimbabwe's greatest hero spirit, Nehanda,
was
> and is in any living manifestation, a woman. The culture is so different
> that plausibly it cannot be bridged. I believe that if viewed from a
> western perspective, African cultures might SEEM male dominated, but
that
> is only because they are not properly understood.

you seem to keep thinking i am picking specifically on africa when i bring up
the male dominant issue, but i see it as a worldwide thing that has had it's
place and time in his-story and evolution(it is natural, look at all the male
dominant animal societies). i just think if left unchecked to continue with
increasing populations spells disaster and more suffering worldwide and i
care
enough about the earth and my own well being to try to be part of a new
paradigm shift from majority rule to decentralized consensus. it may never
happen but inspires me to live amidst the growing world problems and male
dominant cultures.
>
> Perhaps, but these oft violent confrontations between cultures &
continents
> are also a natural ingredient of evolution. Unfortunately, perhaps, Africa
> did not undergo an industrial revolution that led to this sort of weaponry.

i agree they are natural animalistic turf type battles but with modern
weaponry if left unchecked or unevolved have the potential to destroy all life
on earth.

> Why? Because necessity is the mother of invention and large tracts of
> available space together with an abundance of natural resources meant
that
> Africa's wars in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were largely low key,
> brief affairs. Integral to this is, of course, the fact that Africa was in
> tune with those natural resources.

i would guess that all cultures worldwide based on male dominant hierarcical
mentality would eventually dominate and use nature as they became larger
nation states in order to defend themselves from other similar dominating
nation states. the fact that africa didn't as much as europe is probably
because of it's more vast area in relation to population and the abundance of
food and warm climate of the tropics makes for a more laidback society.
>
> It is not necessarily unequal or male dominated, nor similar to the US in
> the 60s. It is enough simply to be different - which means it must be
> judged by different criteria.

well, i agree it is different but i also see similarities.
>
> Women are politically involved in many African countries - certainly this
> is true in Zimbabwe.

women may be involved but not equally or with equal human rights, even in
america there is not an equal representation of women politically yet tho we
seem to be moving in that direction.

However, attitudes towards fighting and even violence
> are different in many African societies. Perhaps when natural death is a
> natural occurrence that happens in the home and in cultures where religion
> and culture recognise that the living and the dead share the same space &
> interact even on a mundane, day to day level, then violence is more
> acceptable as a means of resolving conflict.

yes, i think here you make a good point and one that i think has some degree
of logic, but my guess is that the cultures you refer to back then and maybe
still do have a degree of fear and misunderstanding of death passed down by
a
male dominant high priest who had limited conections with spirit because of
his holier than thou attitude and position rather than a deep compasionate
humble relationship with nature and the rest of the tribe. traditional
religious beliefs worldwide are a result of male dominant hierarcical control
and to me are therefore flawed due to lack of a female balance and equality.
>
> It's a tricky one. Most African cultures are intensely spiritual.

yes, but an old fashioned male dominant spirituality that leads to wars based
on turf battles or my god's better than yer god or my god says this land
belongs to us so move or die. it was the same in america and europe so don't
think i'm referring only to third world here, just tryin to point out the
limitations of this mentality with such powerful weapons available today.

> Everything from the land to individual thought processes are imbued with a
> spirituality that defines and then explains everything under the sun.
> Everything is interrelated, from the seasons to cures for illness and
> everything in between. has purpose and reason. Despite this - and the
> equality of male & female - there is room for often violent disagreement.

yes i agree primitive or traditional cultures saw the value and
interconnectedness with nature to one degree or another but would probably
have destroyed it with unchecked male dominant thinking back then if there
wasn't so much room and less people. it's a whole different world today and
what worked in the past in my mind will not work in the future unless we
agree
that killing, controlling, inequality, greed, domination are all ok and that
it is ok if humanity and all life on earth is destroyed. on some level i can
accept that but on another level i wanna see it evolve to another more
harmonious stage, perhaps i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one, i hope
someday you will join us and the world will live as one.

> I suspect I would remain suspicious, worried that yet again my way of life
> was being eroded. Would you, for instance, see any benefit in the extreme
> emotions between love and war that prevail in Africa?

if i hadn't spent so many lifetimes in those relms already i might be willing
to linger longer in the dualistic love-hate consciousness and am forced into
it anyway due to the world situation today. it's possible that the earth plane
will always be polarizing and dualistic, i just find the self and other selfs
looking for alternatives and i feel i have looked deep enough to know they
exist but not deep enough to have a good work/playing model but the
possibility of it inspires me in the midst of all this male dominating world.

Subject:
Re: Individualism/Community
Date:
Fri, 2 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Stephen wrote:
>
> Yeah, individualism and sense of family are sometimes hard to
> reconcile. But individuality in expression and belief may be
> necessary for us revolutionairies. But maybe we should follow also
> the example of our tribal ancestors and hold each other close as
> family and cherish our relationship to each other and to the living
> world around us. We are not alone, we are woven in the web of life.
> Let us, build strong families that remind us of that connection. We
> will have to hold the tension between our individualism and our desire
> for sustainable culture a bit longer. The revolution continues, but
> without the stability of community, the revolution will not be
> successful.

aloha stephen, enjoyed yer thoughts on native american family and i agree
how
important it is to feel family with each other and nature. as far as
individualism, that also is very important.

it looks to me like natural families of the future(if we survive) will have a
balance of individualism and socialism within a consensual politics instead of
male dominant hierarchies. native traditional society had much going for it
for survival in a harsh environment with tribes fighting turf battles all over
the world. male hierarchies helped enable the families to survive but
demanded
and desearved respect and having things their way, and as a result were
often
bullies who forced their will on the group without much democratic or human
rites. this was fine and necessary back then but today us free individualistic
americans would find that very difficult and no doubt rebel against it as we
did in the 60's.

the native american shaman was a similar breed of individual. he found the
tribal ways too restraining and often lived away from the tribe in hermithood
nearby and advised the tribe on spiritual matters which he accessed by his
being alone a lot and going on solitary vision quests in nature.

the balance of the two, that's what i think it will take for this
eco-consciousness to be successful, for us to explore hermithood and get in
touch survival individualism and with spiritual individualism and then go back
to the tribe and search out other like minded individualists who want to
re-create the family on a new paradigm using consensus decision making and
allowing women equal opportunity to round out the balance of gentleness and
wisdom. this may only happen when there is a shift from fighting over tribal
boundaries to learning how to globally cooperate and share the land equally
and fairly. if we can succeed at that we may be able to evolve the family to a
more egalitarian consensual arrangement.

i look forward to that day and invite any others out there who might be
thinkin along similar lines to let go of the ego a little and join or start a
consensus support group to start planning and creating the nessesary
models it
will take to teach others who are doubtful of it's potential. i have been
attempting to do that very thing in hawaii for 15 years and have yet to find
one partner ready, yet i constantly meet individualistic ego-centered people
who are free but lonely and missing the evolution and return to family values.
anyway i'm available and have a small land base to get things
started.......aloha and peace......forest

Subject:
RE: [Fwd: natural spiritual extended family]
Date:
Sun, 4 Jul 1999
From:
brian

yes i agree, for better or for worse (or both) american influence is
spreading
worldwide, that's why the influence of american new age is so important to
make sure there is a positive spiritual evolutionairy influence to help
balance the consumer power greed capitalistic influence.

Hi Forest,
I'm finding this interesting - & challenging. I still believe, though, that
any philosophy, even New Age, will be viewed with suspicion if it is
propagated or exported from the US. It will be seen, as shown by the
paranoia of successive French governments, as cultural imperialism.
Secondly, in the 3rd World, it is the ability to join the consumer society
that is most sought after. A man on foot wants a bicycle, but when he has a
bicycle he wants a car. This is not about pure status, but also about
convenience, for there is no getting away from the fact that lives are more
conveniently ordered in the developed world than in the developing.

i think you misunderstood me above, am just saying it's money that talks
all
over the world today and we better find an evolved spiritual balance for
the
greed and power and corruption it brings with it.

No doubt this is true. I think what you're saying is that we need more
balance, a sort of spiritual ballast to counteract rampant consumerism. Our
only worry would be that we must sacrifice existing ballast (culture,
spirituality, religion or societal mores) in favour of one deemed more
appropriate for us by people who assume they know more about what would
be
good for us than we know ourselves. That would be a condescension, what
many in the 3rd World, but increasingly in Europe too, now know to be
cultural imperialism.

if you see human rights as
different for different cultures then i see no point in debating further
cause
i see human rights as important to all peoples, the UN has many african
members so human rights must be important to some elements of african
culture.

They're important to all cultures, but the reason we have, and need, courts
of law is not just to deem who is guilty and who is innocent, but also to
interpret the laws of the land. The same is true of human rights -
different societies interpret rights in different ways. In Zimbabwe you are
unlikely to go to jail for killing a burglar in your home - you probably
won't even get as far as court. In Britain, a burglar can sue you if he
breaks his ankle by stepping in an unmarked drain. Thus in Zimbabwe,
consensus has it that a criminal forfeits the right to certain human rights
at a fundamental level.

well if it's more fun to fight and kill each other than to try to cooperate
and get along then i guess i have nothing to say, just find it hard to
accept
that as ok in this day.

All humankind is prepared to fight at a certain level, but that level is
predetermined by an individual society's cultural hierarchy of importance.
In Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland it is religious difference, in South
Africa it is tribe or personal possession. In Papua it is an ancient system
of debt and payback. What we do not have is the right to determine values
for other people - at least not im my opinion.

i'm talking about localized decentralized consensus within family and
tribe,
small examples that have so much spirit that others feel compeled to
imitate
them. the consensus i refer to has one hundred percent agreement in
small(twelve or less) councils. that's what makes the difference between
rules
and agreements so different.

I can't help thinking this is a Utopian ideal. I believe you will always
find people who find this form of consensus governance a variation on an
authoritarian theme. This is one of society's strengths because throughout
history society has been influenced by individualists who have brought
progress.

well, similar things happen like that in mcdonalds in america, to me both
are
examples of how cheap life is, just a sign to me that we need to recreate
the
family and evolve spiritually as individuals and as cultures all over the
world.

I doubt any nation on earth has South Africa's unique situation: roughly 20
000 murders a year in a country with a population of 40 or so million. It
is a situation, though, that must change from within if and when their
society decides that change is wanted. Perhaps where we differ is in our
interpretation of "we". By "we" I mean individual societies, cultures or
nations, whereas I think you mean a global "we". Our fear would be that a
global "we" predetermines dominance by one powerful culture, yours, of a
smaller, less influential culture, ours.

it may never
happen but inspires me to live amidst the growing world problems and male
dominant cultures.

On the other hand, it just might, though I remain dubious about the extent
of male domination - & believe that it is more of a western desire to blur
the lines between man and woman than anyone else's.

i agree they are natural animalistic turf type battles but with modern
weaponry if left unchecked or unevolved have the potential to destroy all
life
on earth.

Of course they do, but these are weapons that until very, very recently
were the preserve of self-appointed guardians of the planet. Herein lies my
worry: we are by nature territorial - but because your gun is larger than
mine the assumption is that I must kowtow. (I'm not talking about you
individually, but about the immediate, pressing way in which your country
influences my own.)

women may be involved but not equally or with equal human rights, even in
america there is not an equal representation of women politically yet tho
we
seem to be moving in that direction.

I would argue that we have gone further in that direction. No, that we have
always been there.

yes, i think here you make a good point and one that i think has some
degree
of logic, but my guess is that the cultures you refer to back then and
maybe
still do have a degree of fear and misunderstanding of death passed down by
a
male dominant high priest

In traditional Zimbabwean religion there is no misunderstanding of death.
One dies in the corporeal sense & becomes of the midzimu, the spirit world
that exists and interacts with the corporeal world at every level. Nor are
their high priests. There are traditional healers (n'ganga) who might be
able to communicate with lesser hero spirits & and there are Svikiro who
are the physical embodiment of hero spirits, some are men, some are
women.
In the corporeal world there are chiefs who are always men, but always
subordinate to the Svikiro and, more importantly, to the will of the
people, as communicated to him through the Dare, his court. In every sense
men and women are treated equally in this system.

who had limited conections with spirit because of
his holier than thou attitude and position rather than a deep compasionate
humble relationship with nature and the rest of the tribe.

There is rarely much humbleness about a Svikiro (though with chiefs (Mambo)
there is. However, Svikiro are never holier than thou or out of touch
because, at the end of the day, they are also vanhu - people.

yes i agree primitive or traditional cultures saw the value and
interconnectedness with nature to one degree or another but would probably
have destroyed it with unchecked male dominant thinking back then if there
wasn't so much room and less people.

Primitive, no. The culture is highly sophisticated & the only thing that is
destroying the land is the imposition of western based culture.

perhaps i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one, i hope
someday you will join us and the world will live as one.

It is equally true that I hope one day all the world would embrace our
values - as one - and make an attempt to see that we are not primitive, not
old fashioned and not brutish, merely different.

if i hadn't spent so many lifetimes in those relms already i might be
willing
to linger longer in the dualistic love-hate consciousness and am forced
into
it anyway due to the world situation today.

I think it's true that African cultures are generally more open, unabashed,
extroverted. This is perceived of as extreme. Amidst the carnage of bodies
in Rwanda, there were people laughing & it is hard for westerners,
particularly with an Anglo Saxon/northern mentality, to understand that the
people were not laughing at the dead, but at the absurdity of their own
situation. But because we laugh, cry, fight and love easily & openly means
we revel in life & emotion. I think this makes us better and stronger, it
certainly makes us more adaptable. Life is multi-faceted and lived on many
planes and life experience can be measured by making full use of the
diversity of them.
Brian.

Subject:
bridging the gendergap?
Date:
Tue, 06 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Kathy Wolf wrote:
>
> Hello, fellow listers

well, since you said listers and not sisters, i'm assuming you are open to
comments by men.

> I have been lurking for a couple of weeks now. And I feel as if
> I have finally run across some kindred spirits here. For some time
> now I've been thinking that I am really eccentric. Most of the people
> I know think my lifestyle is odd at best.

hey, i can totally relate, for my whole life i have been an oddball since i
like simple natural living.

> A little about myself. I am female, 45, divorced with 3 grown
> kids. I live alone in the mountains north of Los Angeles where it
> snows some during the winter. I have one regular neighbor and a
> couple of weekend neighbors. I raise a variety of animals and am
> learning to spin, weave and handsew.

how long have you lived alone? i think living alone is part of learning
self-sufficiency and spirituality but at some point it points us to recreate
the family.

I drive 75 to 85 miles to work,
> depending on where I'm working. I refuse to buy a new vehicle that I
> can't work on myself, so I drive a beatup '74 Chevy P/U. I am trying
> to do as much for myself as possible, including raising all my own
> food(not yet there, but in the planning stages).

wow, i'm impressed and always have wanted to meet and get to know women
like
you who took on the challenge of going beyond role playing. i like to spin and
sew and weave and do childrearing and other nontraditional roles. how can
you
manage to drive so far to work, do you do that every day, that would burn
me out?

> My plan is to buy some property where I am living now and form
> an ecocommunity. I would like to have it be a community of women
> supporting one another.

why is it that strong self-sufficient non role playing women seem to often
want to be separate from men, it's so important to be working together to
get
beyond the limitations of a dualistic or polarized thinking world? what is it
about men that you would like to isolate yerself from, and is it possible that
there may be men who are different than your image? i would like to
understand
so we can bridge this gap and get on with a more spiritual balanced way of
dealing or interacting with each other. i definately think it is a good idea
for women to have the hermithood experience and perhaps even a period of
isolation from men to get in touch with that part of their nature that has
become dependant on men but at some point it seems it would lead back to a
balanced evolved family sense of consenual men, women, and children.

> If anyone knows those who might be interested in this project
> pass along my email or my web page URL. Gotta sign off now. It's good
> to know I'm not as weird as everyone thinks.

i don't think yer weird, would like to meet and talk story and plan together
in consensus with strong country style women. i grew up with two older
sisters
and often find it more comfortable to interact with them than a buncha
macho
dude men, but not all men are that way, especially as this new age unfolds
and
gets underway or whatever we say.

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: third world spirit?]
Date:
Sat, 10 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

WingdWolf wrote:
>
> Without your effort, it won't happen. If you are alone in the effort, it
> probably won't happen either. But it starts with individuals. People can
> create these things if they want to.

i agree

> I'll have to agree to completely disagree with you on that one. The third
> world doesn't have much wisdom in regards to nature--if they did, they
> wouldn't still be third world.

i could say a similar thing about the modern world. techno world doesn't have
much wisdom in regards to nature, if they did we wouldn't be so close to
environmental breakdown. i think the third world has many valuable wise
things
to offer regarding natural living and healthy living if we can see them and
understand them.

All they have is handed-down culture and
> practices.

that's more than we have in the modern world.

Those practices aren't sufficient to handle current population
> levels and growth.

i agree but modern world and it's agriculture is a poor alternative also, even
tho it feeds the world it also is destroying it and isolating us more and more
from nature as a species.

And I don't agree that helping people survive illness is
> a bad thing. Culture must adapt to survive. If it doesn't adapt, it may
> kill its people or lead them to misery. And this is what we see happening
> there.

not a bad thing to help people survive illness perhaps, but in most cases
modern medicine is not addressing the root of the problem either. if we keep
the genetically weak alive with modern medicine they often lack the natural
wisdom to evolve and thus will keep the whole species in a genetically weak
mode.

> They really aren't all that much worse than any other time in history. We
> only hear about it more often now, and there are simply MORE kids, so
there
> are more incidents.

i think there is more to the education problem than population densities, it's
also a matter of having a meaningful natural life to apply our knowledge to.
>
> Only in comparison with, say, Japan--which has a tremendously high suicide
> rate amongst its youth--and a very few other countries. Certainly it could
> stand improvement, but it's far above the worst.

the point i was tryin to make in regards to US education is that since the
60's it has been falling behind as the most educated nation of the world. it
ranks something like 17th today as opposed to top five a few years ago.
>
> It's best that health care make all options available to those who want
them,
> and never force any psychological practices upon the people who seek it.

if health care treats peoples symptoms rather than the disease, it can
genetically weaken the whole species since these weak people breed and
perpetuate their genetically weak genes. nowwhere else in nature does this
exist and now we(humans) have put the world on the brink of environmental
destruction or breakdown with a growing population of genetically weak
people
depending on a big brother (take care of me mentality) that has not enough
awareness to make the right choices or is not evolving a more self-sufficient
responsible attitude.

> Spirituality is a very private, very individual thing, and that should be
> respected.

i agree, but there are some general spiritual principles that apply to us all
and they need to be understood and respected also in order for our species
to
evolve and survive the fast changing times we live in.

Subject:
Re: bridging the gendergap?
Date:
Sat, 10 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Kathy Wolf wrote:
>
> ---
> The Lonewolf
> Wolf Hollow Rabbitry & Farm
> Rex & French Angora Rabbits
> LaMancha & Nubian Goats
> Shetland Sheep

wow, with a name like lonewolf i'm surprised you don't scare yer farm animals
away. :)

> For Forest and other possibly advanced males,

not sure i fit into the advanced male category but thanks for giving me the
benifit of the doubt.
>
> I have lived alone for about five years now. I love it. But you are
> right. I think I would like to create community. That does not mean,
> necessarily, that I want to live in the same dwelling as others. I am
> a slob, know I'm a slob, have accepted I am a slob and don't think
> others need to deal with my slovenliness.

i agree, for me the ideal community has a balance of individual space
combined
with social space. the rat race has us all being "slobs" to one degree or
another(heard the US produces 60 percent of the worlds garbage, but i can
tell
by your spirit that you can rise above that condition whenever you choose. i
still struggle with sloppiness as a hermit because without a family spirit i
lack the energy to be neat.

> Haven't been much into role playing since I left my ex. But don't be
> too impressed. I have a long way to go to meet the goals I have set
> for myself.

like yer sense of humbleness.
>
> Probably because most men are not open minded enough yet to allow
> women to have full say in a community. Men tend to want to lead and
> they tend to want to compete with everyone.

i invented a simple council format that guarentees women and gentlemen a
way
out of outright or even subtle(mediator) domination tricks. instead of
passing
the feather, we pass a three minute hour glass egg timer in the circle(of 12
or less) and everyone gets equal uninterupted time to speak. we have
consensus
decision making so nothin starts until we all agree. simple, low stress and
foolproof way to get beyond domination, guarenteed or your energy back i
like
to tell prospective members. it's so simple and fair and requires such equal
responsibility, that it is difficult to find people ready for it.

These traits are not
> conducive to a peaceful, open-minded, consensual community spirit.
> And many women feel oppressed by the mere presence of men. They feel
> they have to play the role of woman in the presence of man. It's our
> societal imperative.

ya, i see yer point here, the his-story of family control, but it served it's
purpose back in the cave man days by protecting the tribe from other such
similar bully limitations in relation to territorial disputes.

So not having men around tends to liberate women
> so that they can be themselves. Witness the experiments being done
> with single gender schooling. Girls do much better in school as they
> get older if there are no boys in their classes. They don't feel
> compelled to impress the boys or worry about what they think.

yes i see some truth and value in what yer sayin, just think it's also
important work/play on staying together and still get beyond the traditional
dominant competative tendancies.

> I agree that we need to grow beyond our dualistic society. But I have
> not yet figured out how to do it with men raised in this society(or
> women for that matter). This is something we should discuss and try
> to figure out.

consensus with the oouncil format i suggested above will enable it to happen
if you can find one or two friends who are ready. many of us think we are
ready until suddenly we have the opportunity and then out of fear of real
fairness, or habit of competing, or dominating shy away.

> Oh, please, I truly hope there are men who are different. And I hope
> not all of them are gay. But I have yet to know any truly different,
> non-sexually-biased men who have transcended their cultural
> imperatives.

oh please :), i truly hope you meet some truly different non-sexually biased
men, it's all a matter of degrees really, perhaps we are all slowly adding
those degrees of refinement that we are looking for and thru group support
with consensus can gently nudge each other to increase the degree of peace
and
fairness in the family.

If you are such a man I definately want to converse with
> you more and get to know you. I have lost my faith in the hope that
> such men could be found. Gay men are another matter. I know a number
> of them that I would consider fairly free of culturally imposed
> prejudices regarding women. They're more like sisters. But I want to
> meet heterosexual men that are like that. I would welcome such men
> into a community. However, I have yet to meet any.

have you really tried to find them or has yer isolation and workschedule made
yer life so full of daily chores that it is difficult to find the time? that's
what i have been experiencing myself and am struggling to transcend. also,
could we consider finding someone who is less than our ideal and slowly
negotiate a way out of these gender roles thru clear and loving
communication
with each other? i think so and am willing to try.
>
well thanks lonewolf for yer thoughts, you seem pretty open to exploring the
hope for a brighter future in the family, there are support groups out there
and i think your input would be appreciated and useful.....aloha and happy
family searchin.....forest

Subject:
Re: gender and balance in community creation
Date:
Sat, 10 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Rob Sandelin (Exchange) wrote:
>
> In a recent meeting of the Cedar Village Retreat Center community
(forming)
> we had a discussion about limiting membership to people who had
successfully
> partnered (single gender couples were fine). The notion that developed was
> that people who have successfully partnered have learned the same skills
> they need to successfully be cooperative community members.

seems overgeneralized to me, why is the divorce rate the highest it's ever
been in history?
i would like to meet some of these successful partners you talk of, how does
one define success in these terms?

The reverse was
> also noted, that people that are unsuccessful at partnering, and that have
a
> history of being unsuccessful at partnering, would make poor community
> members because their inability to be with another person would also limit
> their ability to be with a group of people.

more overgeneralized thinking. because some of us do not have partners
does
that always imply we are unsuccessful in all areas. we are at least
successful
at realizing the limitations of the nuclear family. sounds more like ya'll are
insecure about being individuals and have to cling to old fashioned trends in
society that are based on the traditional nuclear family because anything too
different and new would be too different and new. yet intuitively i sense this
eco-village fantasy if ever successful will go far beyond the traditions of
the nuclear family and that life time coupling will be the only logical
approach, in fact it scares me a little to be talking this way on such a new
age list.
>
> A point that was brought up was that people without partners are typically
> looking for partners, and if they do not find partners in the community,
> will logically move outside of the community to do so, thus reducing their
> stability as members.

if they look outside the community and find partners they may bring them
into
the community if the community is open enough to consider them and that
could
aid in it's growth and stability, especially if the community had
overtraditionalized thinking that was outdated and that could interfere with
their success.
>
> We also discussed leadership roles in terms of gender and among ourselves
> came to the conclusion that leadership is situational and often
> transitional. For example, the person who knows the most about gardening,
> has the most energy and drive will become the leader of the gardening
> activities by default, irrespective of their gender. However, we also
> discussed that successful cooperative leaders work best if they have skills
> in communication and group building, skills that can be learned and
> transferred.

i agree it's important to have skills in communication and group building, as
long as the current leaders are educating the non-leaders to become more
equal
and responsible in the same way. the idea of having leaders in specific areas
within the community makes sense to me only as long as over time they will
agree to bring the others to their level of expertise and the nonexperienced
agree to that. also the concept of there being specialized jobs or skills
seems at some point outdated and unfulfilling at in community, especially
with
the modern trend of individualism. better for all to learn each others skills
slowly over time than to depend on others thru overspecialization. i think
overspecialization has been a major contributor to our movement away from
natural living and eco-problems. to live simply and naturally does not require
a whole lotta skills and leadership once we learn to get beyond the pecking
order mentality and into the consensual approach.

> The overall operative view of this group of people was that gender was
> largely unimportant in most aspects of our lives together, and in those
> where it was, we dealt with it as needed. Acceptance of roles, either leader
> or non-leader is based on ability, interest and drive, not gender.

i agree pretty much with yer ending statement here, let's just remember to
have leaders that encourage each other to get beyond needing to be lead and
offer good examples and ways for all to have more equal ability, interest and
drive. that's why i include a period of hermithood in my model of reaching
ideal family or community......aloha....forest

Subject:
hierarchy vs consensus?
Date:
Sat, 10 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

WingdWolf wrote:
>
> Dominance plays are dominance plays--and you absolutely will never
eliminate
> them from the human race no matter how hard you try. No amount of
window
> dressing is going to disguise them. They are a very strong, deep-set
> instinctive behavior, and they can be found in all primates, including
humans.
> What other sort of leadership is there? The leader is the most dominant
> individual. How else is it supposed to work? No matter what you try to do,
> it's always going to boil down to that.

aloha wingdwolf, your sentences above seem to have several no and never
comments and convictions which seem to indicate to me that you are
strongly
set on a path within the limits of male dominant or and in the case of
western
civilization female dominant hierarcical modalities, yet here we are on a list
that promotes and discusses concepts related to eco-village. i really find it
difficult to imagine us succeeding at eco concepts while maintaining this
pecking order mentality even tho for most of us it is still a major part of
our life in political terms. i can accept where we are today, but also look
forward to being involved in the paradigm shift out of hierarcical thinking
and consider that such a shift is one of the main hopes for us as a species.

after all these years in america struggling for individualism are we now
suggesting surrendering it to some charismatic leader who will tell us what to
do? are we really serious about our convictions? have we exhausted all hope
or
exploration for cooperation, consensus, and other eqalitarian ideals?

Has this list ever discussed the politics it will take to create eco-village
reality? in my mind we are ahead of the game and should really be discussing
eco-family concepts, since that is the lowest common denominator in the
quest
for a fair and just society, and in my mind it needs to be more consensual
than hierarcical to be fair. it would evolve beyond follow the leader politics
and pecking on each other.

perhaps as we transition from our current situation to a more consensual
society the need for leadership will be important till more of the masses are
ready but some of us today are ready for a change now and that change may
either make or break our ability to maintain the balance of life on earth. i
sometimes tell my friends who acuse me of being a leader that if they insist i
am a leader then i am a leader leading people out of leadership mentality.
such a big challenge may require a big shift in the way we politically operate
within society. we have already moved out of monarchy, dictatorship,
anarchy,
etc. and other such limiting politics in society to a more democratic approach
involving a congress to keep the leader in check or balance, even that has
limitations as we can see in the US. hierarchy has a stong footing around the
world, but it is high time for us to move on to other possibilities while we
still can.......aloha and peace....forest

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: third world spirit?]
Date:
Sun, 11 Jul 1999
From:
WingdWolf

forest writes:

> not a bad thing to help people survive illness perhaps, but in most cases
> modern medicine is not addressing the root of the problem either. if we
keep
> the genetically weak alive with modern medicine they often lack the
natural
> wisdom to evolve and thus will keep the whole species in a genetically
weak
> mode.

Individuals don't evolve in that sense--species do. But humans have
supported our genetically imperfect offspring since before we were Homo
sapiens--there is fossil evidence to prove it. We have survived. There must
be some use in that practice, some value in it--or we would not have evolved
the instinct.

> > They really aren't all that much worse than any other time in history.
We
> > only hear about it more often now, and there are simply MORE kids, so
> there
> > are more incidents.
>
> i think there is more to the education problem than population densities,
it' s
> also a matter of having a meaningful natural life to apply our knowledge
to.

I agree...but what is a meaningful life? Why does the search for greater
levels of human interactions make for more meaning than a search for
greater
levels of technology? Or knowledge? Or even entertainment?
Perhaps the fundamental problem is a search for meaning...and that's
something everyone has to decide on an individual basis. What gives meaning
to live for one person will not do so for another.
I think that with sufficiently thorough education--teaching people who to
THINK, rather than just giving them knowledge--we will find the most natural
life in history will be possible. Because people will be capable of living
closer to their potential--with forethought, efficiency, and burgeoning
curiousity and innovation.

> > Only in comparison with, say, Japan--which has a tremendously high
suicide
> > rate amongst its youth--and a very few other countries. Certainly it
> could
> > stand improvement, but it's far above the worst.
>
> the point i was tryin to make in regards to US education is that since the
> 60's it has been falling behind as the most educated nation of the world.
it
> ranks something like 17th today as opposed to top five a few years ago.

Most likely that ranking scoots around the chart every year...US education
could use a kick in the keister, to be sure, but it's still far from the
worst, and the best have some other problems not taken into consideration.
(such as the aforementioned high suicide rates in Japan).

> >
> > It's best that health care make all options available to those who want
> them,
> > and never force any psychological practices upon the people who seek it.
>
> if health care treats peoples symptoms rather than the disease, it can
> genetically weaken the whole species since these weak people breed and
> perpetuate their genetically weak genes.

Ah, but humans are very special animals. We have evolved the instinct to
look after and support our infirm.
And now we are developing a way to overcome the problems that might
result
from that. It's called genetic engineering, and no matter how long people
fear or resist it, within my lifetime they will be capable of applying the
technology to actually repair genetic defects.
Rather than fearing the consequences of this development, I am fascinated
by
its ascent, and the inevitability of its use on humans. What will we make of
ourselves now? <g> Fear serves no purpose--it is coming, and quite soon.

>nowwhere else in nature does this
> exist and now we(humans) have put the world on the brink of
environmental
> destruction or breakdown with a growing population of genetically weak
> people
> depending on a big brother (take care of me mentality) that has not
enough
> awareness to make the right choices or is not evolving a more self-
> sufficient
> responsible attitude.

One of two things must happen--we must evolve, or we will begin to die off,
as a result of overpopulation and genetic infirmity which will ineviteably
lead to sterility. But as I mentioned above, I think we will be evolving--in
a very unique fashion.
The first species to ever deliberately choose the course of its own
evolution--we will finally be able to claim we can do something no other
creature can. <g>

> > Spirituality is a very private, very individual thing, and that should be
> > respected.
>
> i agree, but there are some general spiritual principles that apply to us
all
> and they need to be understood and respected also in order for our
species
to
> evolve and survive the fast changing times we live in.

I'll have to agree to disagree with that one as well--for if you were to name
the principles in question, there would likely be at least one that I would
disagree with. Evolution is not necessarily going to take us toward greater
compassion, or other traits considered good in religions. It will be change,
but what that change will be, we cannot really predict now.
It will make us better able to survive, or it will destroy us.

--Winged Wolf

Subject:
hierarchy vs consensus?
Date:
Sun, 11 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

WingdWolf wrote:
>
> Dominance plays are dominance plays--and you absolutely will never
eliminate
> them from the human race no matter how hard you try. No amount of
window
> dressing is going to disguise them. They are a very strong, deep-set
> instinctive behavior, and they can be found in all primates,
>including humans.
> What other sort of leadership is there? The leader is the most dominant
> individual. How else is it supposed to work? No matter what you try to do,
> it's always going to boil down to that.

aloha wingdwolf, your sentences above seem to have several no and never
comments and convictions which seem to indicate to me that you are
strongly
set on a path within the limits of male dominant or and in the case of
western
civilization female dominant hierarcical modalities, yet here we are on a list
that promotes and discusses concepts related to eco-village. i really find it
difficult to imagine us succeeding at eco concepts while maintaining this
pecking order mentality even tho for most of us it is still a major part of
our life in political terms. i can accept where we are today, but also look
forward to being involved in the paradigm shift out of hierarcical thinking
and consider that such a shift is one of the main hopes for us as a species.

after all these years in america struggling for individualism are we now
suggesting surrendering it to some charismatic leader who will tell us what to
do? are we really serious about our convictions? have we exhausted all hope
or
exploration for cooperation, consensus, and other eqalitarian ideals?

Has this list ever discussed the politics it will take to create eco-village
reality? in my mind we are ahead of the game and should really be discussing
eco-family concepts, since that is the lowest common denominator in the
quest
for a fair and just society, and in my mind it needs to be more consensual
than hierarcical to be fair. it would evolve beyond follow the leader politics
and pecking on each other.

perhaps as we transition from our current situation to a more consensual
society the need for leadership will be important till more of the masses are
ready but some of us today are ready for a change now and that change may
either make or break our ability to maintain the balance of life on earth. i
sometimes tell my friends who acuse me of being a leader that if they insist i
am a leader then i am a leader leading people out of leadership mentality.
such a big challenge may require a big shift in the way we politically operate
within society. we have already moved out of monarchy, dictatorship,
anarchy,
etc. and other such limiting politics in society to a more democratic approach
involving a congress to keep the leader in check or balance, even that has
limitations as we can see in the US. hierarchy has a stong footing around the
world, but it is high time for us to move on to other possibilities while we
still can.......aloha and peace....forest

Subject:
Partnership skills and community skills
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999
From:
"Rob

Forest Wrote:
because some of us do not have partners does
that always imply we are unsuccessful in all areas. we are at least
successful at realizing the limitations of the nuclear family. sounds more
like ya'll are insecure about being individuals and have to cling to old
fashioned trends in society that are based on the traditional nuclear family
because anything too different and new would be too different and new.

The discusssion about parterning being a prelude to community revolved
around the concept that single people that have not been successful in
having relationships with one other person would not be likely to be
successful in having relationships with 2 dozen people.

In my experience, which includes living in intentional communities for a
decade of my 43 years, plus visiting more than 50, plus 20 communities
gatherings, is that successful communities are based on close interpersonal
relationships between the members. In our conversation on this topic, we
discussed the idea that the ability to have close interpersonal
relationships with other people is a skill, and so those that have had such
must have that skill while those that have not, must not have that skill.
(this logic is obviously suspect, but it was just a conversation) Having a
partnership with another person, or set of people, requires a set of skills
in communication, compromise, and such, which are also the skills needed to
be a successful member of a community.

People who are chronic loners, or who can not sustain a personal
relationship probably will not succeed in a community setting very well,
especially one that requires close personal relationship and interdependence
such as Cedar Village. Other communities require less than Cedar Village
does, and this is OK. If as a community you do very little together, or have
little dependence upon your relationship to each other, then members can
have low levels of communication and cooperative skills and get by just
fine. There are many communities where this is the case, Cedar Village is
not one of them.

Rob

Subject:
Re: hierarchy vs consensus?
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

WingdWolf wrote:
>
> What I'm saying is that this is not a cultural mentality--it's an instinctive
> one. You cannot train it out, and you cannot eliminate it.

it is instinctive to evolve also and in this fast moving technical age we live
in, with genetic engineering and the like, we will need to muster up all the
evolved spirit we can to survive. my instincts for years have been moving
away
from male donminance and toward cooperation. i still am assertive and have
leadership skills and qualities, i just intuitively and logically see and feel
the trend toward cooperation and political evolution. i would be denying my
intuition to hang out in hierarchy any longer, tho i have all the necessary
traits to become a successful leader and probably was in lifetimes of the
past. i don't need to train it out, instincts are doing it for me.

No matter how
> much window dressing you put over it, it's always going to lie in wait
> beneath the surface of all your attempts at consensual rule.

have you ever put any serious effort into consensual living or decision
making? have you ever challenged nature alone by the self? if not i can
understand(but not agree) with where you are coming from. you keep making
these absolute statements regarding hierarchy vs consensus, unless you are
coming from years of experience or experiments i would suggest giving
consensus cooperation some serious consideration.

You don't need
> to surrender to a charismatic leader--one is going to emerge, and people
WILL
> follow him/her. They will respect his/her opinions more than those of
> others, and will let themselves be led, because that is human nature.

for follower types what you are saying is true, but don't forget how many
hitler type leaders have emerged in the past that others with inteligence and
pecking order wisdom were quick to follow. unless we go beyond leadership
ourselves it will be difficult to see or feel the options. if we follow a
jesus type leader rather than a hitler type we will still need to someday
imatate the qualities of the leader since good leaders are rounded up and
cruxified or assasinated and then we are at the mercy of the hitler types
again. his-story is filled with renaisance accompanied by dark ages.

It's
> not a matter of culture--it's as innate as a smile or a laugh.
> If you ignore it, or you fail to recognize how completely innate dominance
> structures are, you're going to fail at working around them. I'm suggesting
> it would be more productive to work WITH them--to mitigate the negative
> effects, and take advantage of the positive ones.

the times i smile and laugh the most are when i am outside the pecking order
mentality and with a buncha down home humble coop freaks with little or no
dominating or leader vibes. if we fail to recognize our own intuitive destiny
as coopertive consensual beings then we will either go down with the ship or
submit to a leader who is less than perfect. the establishment of the jury
trial and non-profit corporation politics by secret societies were instituted
as models of cooperation that we could bond to whenever we felt the
instinctive urge to cooperate more.

you have referred to hierarchy as a natural occuring thing in nature and i
totally agree that is true for many animal societies, but there are at least
as many animal societies that do not operate that way proving to me that it
is
not the only option.

have you studied the social structure of the bonoboo chimpanzee? in the
course of studying human evolution scientists always studied the chimp as it
is our closest relative. but after years of research studying one species of
chimp(which was violent, infanticidal, male dominant, etc.) they have now
begun to study the bonoboo chimp, another species equally close genetically
to
humans. what they are discovering is a completely different social structure
more based on matriarchal values. bonobo chimps who feel angry and violent
dissapate their agression thru socially accepted sexual and nurturing bonding
with each other.

anyway it seems to me that those who are comfortable with hierarchy are
still
in need of a big brother/father/mother to guide them thru life, and are not
yet ready to take responsibility for their own actions or lack the skills to
survive alone in nature. these types of people then project the fears related
to their incompetance to a leader to solve in return for loyalty to the
leader. that's fine for the masses and has served us for countless
generations
but to see it continuing indefinately is to me anyway a dangerous limited
unevolved dead end for the species, or if not a total dead end then perhaps
many steps backward to more and more dark ages in his-story. time will tell,
but i'm not going to wait.....aloha and peace....forest

Subject:
Re: Partnership skills and community skills
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Rob wrote:
>
> The discusssion about parterning being a prelude to community revolved
> around the concept that single people that have not been successful in
> having relationships with one other person would not be likely to be
> successful in having relationships with 2 dozen people.

i disagree, for about 10 years i have been celibate and have been active the
whole time with bonded social situations and actively initiating family values
and situations. i frequently hug friends, do sufi dancing, have spiritual
social sweat lodge cerimonies etc. most of my coupled neighbors i hear
fighting off and on in the distance. i know many others like me here in hawaii.

my guess is that those communities who form around couple arrangements
are
insecure about their own personal identity outside the couple arrangement
and
are too afraid to look deeply at it and prefer to live in a co-dependant old
fashioned nuclear family situation, just like there are those who prefer
hierarchy seem afraid of or too lazy to get involved with equal
responsibility(consensus) politics.
>
> In my experience, which includes living in intentional communities for a
> decade of my 43 years, plus visiting more than 50, plus 20 communities
> gatherings, is that successful communities are based on close
interpersonal
> relationships between the members.

in my equal experience with new age living situations i have witnessed the
same thing as you above but you are saying here "close interpersonal
relationships" not coupling. why did you change yer wording? i suspect cause
it's more accurate. coupling has served us well for countless generations,
but
the 60's ushered in a new age of options relating to relating.

the free love and women's liberation and gay rights, etc. were expressed and
experimented with and signifacantly changed the way society is functioning. i
don't condone free love but i also see many limitations on the traditional
nuclear family despite my being a model "back to the lander" nuclear famiily
man in the 70's. i had the most ideal nuclear family i could imagine but after
a few years into it i began to see it's many limitations. that didn't stop me
from wanting to pursue coopertive living which lead to all the paradigm shift
energy that is being represented by this discussion group and the
communities
movement etc. and the need to evlove family living to survive the fast
changing times we live in today.

In our conversation on this topic, we
> discussed the idea that the ability to have close interpersonal
> relationships with other people is a skill, and so those that have had such
> must have that skill while those that have not, must not have that skill.
> (this logic is obviously suspect, but it was just a conversation)

what you are saying here doesn't make sense to me. many single people,
especially those baby boomer types that went thru the 60's have the ability
to
have close interpersonal relationships. many have been divorced once or
twice,
not because they were incapable of having close interpersonal relationships,
but because they intuitively realized as they were expanding consciousness
and
interpersonal relationships beyond the limitations of the nuclear family. it
has been a difficult time for those people, but i feel it has been more
difficult for those that have clung to the nuclear family paradigm. it looks
like the single idealists have failed but on the contrary we are setting the
stage for a more fair and just and loving family situation if we can keep the
ball rolling. this eco-balance list is one of those stages.

Having a
> partnership with another person, or set of people, requires a set of skills
> in communication, compromise, and such, which are also the skills needed
to
> be a successful member of a community.

am glad you included "or set of people" rather than just couples so i can
agree.
>
> People who are chronic loners, or who can not sustain a personal
> relationship probably will not succeed in a community setting very well,
> especially one that requires close personal relationship and
interdependence
> such as Cedar Village.

i been a chronic loner for the last 10 years while the whole time introducing
thousands of people to consensual extended family concepts based on close
personal relationships. family interdependance is fine as long as those people
involved have their roots in self sufficient individualism. if they don't then
they are more likely than not bringing with them to the family their
insecurities and playing follow the leader games that look to me more like
co-dependancy that interdependancy.

Other communities require less than Cedar Village
> does, and this is OK. If as a community you do very little together, or have
> little dependence upon your relationship to each other, then members can
> have low levels of communication and cooperative skills and get by just
> fine. There are many communities where this is the case, Cedar Village is
> not one of them.

i like a community where the only thing the members need from each other is
love and family bonding and cerimonies. a community where babies are taught
from birth how to take care of themselves alone in nature so that by the age
of 7 (as in some primative cultures) can spend a day or two alone in nature
and survive. how many members of a couple oriented community can do
that? a
community based on dependancy for numerous physical needs or specialized
skills is too much business as usual for me and will not address the need for
quick change that this new age high tech world is confronting us
with.....anyway i agree united we stand divided we fall....big question is
what is the most optimum way to unite........aloha....forest

Subject:
Re: hierarchy vs consensus?
Date:
Wed, 14 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

WingdWolf wrote:
>
> What I'm saying is that this is not a cultural mentality--it's an instinctive
> one. You cannot train it out, and you cannot eliminate it.

it is instinctive to evolve also and in this fast moving technical age we live
in, with genetic engineering and the like, we will need to muster up all the
evolved spirit we can to survive. my instincts for years have been moving
away
from male donminance and toward cooperation. i still am assertive and have
leadership skills and qualities, i just intuitively and logically see and feel
the trend toward cooperation and political evolution. i would be denying my
intuition to hang out in hierarchy any longer, tho i have all the necessary
traits to become a successful leader and probably was in lifetimes of the
past. i don't need to train it out, instincts are doing it for me.

No matter how
> much window dressing you put over it, it's always going to lie in wait
> beneath the surface of all your attempts at consensual rule.

have you ever put any serious effort into consensual living or decision
making? have you ever challenged nature alone by the self? if not i can
understand(but not agree) with where you are coming from. you keep making
these absolute statements regarding hierarchy vs consensus, unless you are
coming from years of experience or experiments i would suggest giving
consensus cooperation some serious consideration.

You don't need
> to surrender to a charismatic leader--one is going to emerge, and people
WILL
> follow him/her. They will respect his/her opinions more than those of
> others, and will let themselves be led, because that is human nature.

for follower types what you are saying is true, but don't forget how many
hitler type leaders have emerged in the past that others with inteligence and
pecking order wisdom were quick to follow. unless we go beyond leadership
ourselves it will be difficult to see or feel the options. if we follow a
jesus type leader rather than a hitler type we will still need to someday
imatate the qualities of the leader since good leaders are rounded up and
cruxified or assasinated and then we are at the mercy of the hitler types
again. his-story is filled with renaisance accompanied by dark ages.

It's
> not a matter of culture--it's as innate as a smile or a laugh.
> If you ignore it, or you fail to recognize how completely innate dominance
> structures are, you're going to fail at working around them. I'm suggesting
> it would be more productive to work WITH them--to mitigate the negative
> effects, and take advantage of the positive ones.

the times i smile and laugh the most are when i am outside the pecking order
mentality and with a buncha down home humble coop freaks with little or no
dominating or leader vibes. if we fail to recognize our own intuitive destiny
as coopertive consensual beings then we will either go down with the ship or
submit to a leader who is less than perfect. the establishment of the jury
trial and non-profit corporation politics by secret societies were instituted
as models of cooperation that we could bond to whenever we felt the
instinctive urge to cooperate more.

you have referred to hierarchy as a natural occuring thing in nature and i
totally agree that is true for many animal societies, but there are at least
as many animal societies that do not operate that way proving to me that it
is
not the only option.

have you studied the social structure of the bonoboo chimpanzee? in the
course of studying human evolution scientists always studied the chimp as it
is our closest relative. but after years of research studying one species of
chimp(which was violent, infanticidal, male dominant, etc.) they have now
begun to study the bonoboo chimp, another species equally close genetically
to
humans. what they are discovering is a completely different social structure
more based on matriarchal values. bonobo chimps who feel angry and violent
dissapate their agression thru socially accepted sexual and nurturing bonding
with each other.

anyway it seems to me that those who are comfortable with hierarchy are
still
in need of a big brother/father/mother to guide them thru life, and are not
yet ready to take responsibility for their own actions or lack the skills to
survive alone in nature. these types of people then project the fears related
to their incompetance to a leader to solve in return for loyalty to the
leader. that's fine for the masses and has served us for countless
generations
but to see it continuing indefinately is to me anyway a dangerous limited
unevolved dead end for the species, or if not a total dead end then perhaps
many steps backward to more and more dark ages in his-story. time will tell,
but i'm not going to wait.....aloha and peace....forest

Subject:
Re: Partnership skills and community skills
Date:
Wed, 14 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Rob wrote:
>
> The discusssion about parterning being a prelude to community revolved
> around the concept that single people that have not been successful in
> having relationships with one other person would not be likely to be
> successful in having relationships with 2 dozen people.

i disagree, for about 10 years i have been celibate and have been active the
whole time with bonded social situations and actively initiating family values
and situations. i frequently hug friends, do sufi dancing, have spiritual
social sweat lodge cerimonies etc. most of my coupled neighbors i hear
fighting off and on in the distance. i know many others like me here in hawaii.

my guess is that those communities who form around couple arrangements
are
insecure about their own personal identity outside the couple arrangement
and
are too afraid to look deeply at it and prefer to live in a co-dependant old
fashioned nuclear family situation, just like there are those who prefer
hierarchy seem afraid of or too lazy to get involved with equal
responsibility(consensus) politics.
>
> In my experience, which includes living in intentional communities for a
> decade of my 43 years, plus visiting more than 50, plus 20 communities
> gatherings, is that successful communities are based on close
interpersonal
> relationships between the members.

in my equal experience with new age living situations i have witnessed the
same thing as you above but you are saying here "close interpersonal
relationships" not coupling. why did you change yer wording? i suspect cause
it's more accurate. coupling has served us well for countless generations,
but
the 60's ushered in a new age of options relating to relating.

the free love and women's liberation and gay rights, etc. were expressed
and
experimented with and signifacantly changed the way society is functioning. i
don't condone free love but i also see many limitations on the traditional
nuclear family despite my being a model "back to the lander" nuclear famiily
man in the 70's. i had the most ideal nuclear family i could imagine but after
a few years into it i began to see it's many limitations. that didn't stop me
from wanting to pursue coopertive living which lead to all the paradigm shift
energy that is being represented by this discussion group and the
communities
movement etc. and the need to evlove family living to survive the fast
changing times we live in today.

In our conversation on this topic, we
> discussed the idea that the ability to have close interpersonal
> relationships with other people is a skill, and so those that have had such
> must have that skill while those that have not, must not have that skill.
> (this logic is obviously suspect, but it was just a conversation)

what you are saying here doesn't make sense to me. many single people,
especially those baby boomer types that went thru the 60's have the ability
to
have close interpersonal relationships. many have been divorced once or
twice,
not because they were incapable of having close interpersonal relationships,
but because they intuitively realized as they were expanding consciousness
and
interpersonal relationships beyond the limitations of the nuclear family. it
has been a difficult time for those people, but i feel it has been more
difficult for those that have clung to the nuclear family paradigm. it looks
like the single idealists have failed but on the contrary we are setting the
stage for a more fair and just and loving family situation if we can keep the
ball rolling. this eco-balance list is one of those stages.

Having a
> partnership with another person, or set of people, requires a set of skills
> in communication, compromise, and such, which are also the skills needed
to
> be a successful member of a community.

am glad you included "or set of people" rather than just couples so i
can agree.
>
> People who are chronic loners, or who can not sustain a personal
> relationship probably will not succeed in a community setting very well,
> especially one that requires close personal relationship and
interdependence
> such as Cedar Village.

i been a chronic loner for the last 10 years while the whole time introducing
thousands of people to consensual extended family concepts based on close
personal relationships. family interdependance is fine as long as those people
involved have their roots in self sufficient individualism. if they don't then
they are more likely than not bringing with them to the family their
insecurities and playing follow the leader games that look to me more like
co-dependancy that interdependancy.

Other communities require less than Cedar Village
> does, and this is OK. If as a community you do very little together, or have
> little dependence upon your relationship to each other, then members can
> have low levels of communication and cooperative skills and get by just
> fine. There are many communities where this is the case, Cedar Village is
> not one of them.

i like a community where the only thing the members need from each other is
love and family bonding and cerimonies. a community where babies are taught
from birth how to take care of themselves alone in nature so that by the age
of 7 (as in some primative cultures) can spend a day or two alone in nature
and survive. how many members of a couple oriented community can do
that? a
community based on dependancy for numerous physical needs or specialized
skills is too much business as usual for me and will not address the need for
quick change that this new age high tech world is confronting us
with.....anyway i agree united we stand divided we fall....big question is
what is the most optimum way to unite........aloha....forest

Subject:
RE: Consensus, etc. (LONG)
Date:
Wed, 14 Jul 1999
From:
"Kenneth

> my point is, though, that cooperation is much more about abiding by
> "majority" decisions that you don't agree with than it is about
> banging out
> some inferior decision by consensus--and a decision made by consensus will
> always be (and has always been) inferior to that made by majority or
> otherwise. This is not a value-laden statement (necessarily);
> rather, it is
> a simple, logical fact. (Derived, in fact, partly from pure reasoning and
> partly from historical analysis.)
>
> A consensus entails that EVERYONE compromise their positions until
NOBODY
> gets the decision that they really wanted--how good could that be?

I welcome your comments Adam, and am sure they will bring out some
discussion on decision making processes. But I feel that they are off the
target when it comes to consensus, for one major reason.

Your comparison of democracy and consensus assumes that they share the
same
foundation. However there is a very important difference, other than the
actual method of decision making. That is the underlying principle of
competition versus cooperation. In democracy we are faced with choices.
Either pick this plan or this one. Do what I want or do what they want. We
must choose the best of the choices, as far as we can determine. Your
exaltation of true democracy of course assumes that one of the choices
available is the right one, in which case there is an option that is for the
better good, and ones that are not.

However, consensus does not use this same system. In consensus, rather
than
coming together to choose which path presented is the best, the group is
coming together to *find* the best path, together. The key is that the
members not be determined that their way 'wins', but rather that the best
way is found. That doesn't mean that a member is going to do whatever they
can to make sure that their wishes get grafted onto the decision somehow.
It means that they are coming to the table with the will to discuss, and to
put down their desires if they turn out to be in the way of the right
decision. The version of consensus that you are illustrating is one where
each member is determined to get their way, and everyone's way is
compromised and changed, until everyone is included in some superficial way.
I agree, that would create an inferior decision.

However, consensus is truly about finding the best solution, not creating
some sort of conglomerate decision. If people come to it with the same
competitive spirit that they take to a majority decision than they will come
up with inferior decisions. However, if they are willing to approach
decisions with an open mind and heart, and look for the best decision,
whether it is their idea or not, than they will find a better decision in
consensus. Consensus is more than simply expanding the number of people
needed for a vote. That truly would create the situation you are talking
about, where everyone's ideas are thrown in just to get something to pass.
In consensus you are given more than a vote. Everyone is included, because
everyone's help is needed. That respect is what raises consensus above a
majority vote.

Ken

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: third world spirit?]
Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 1999
From:
WingdWolf

forest writes:

> > Individuals don't evolve in that sense--species do. But humans have
> > supported our genetically imperfect offspring since before we were
Homo
> > sapiens--there is fossil evidence to prove it. We have survived. There
> must
> > be some use in that practice, some value in it--or we would not have
> evolved
> > the instinct.
>
> am curious of the fossil evidence you refer to, where did you get that
info?

A variety of sources such as National Geographic magazine. Fossil evidence
is of aged and infirm pre-Homo sapiens...some in such poor condition that
there is absolutely no question that they had been ill or injured for a long
time, and were unable to care for themselves for several years before they
died.

> i
> am not so sure it is instinct, seems more like male dominant oppression of
> shamanistic healers in tribes forced to heal the ailing bully king who
> couldn't understand or apreciate how karma operates.

And this sounds like a tremendous leap of assumption and value-judgements
which you are placing on a people who were essentially only a bit more
sophisticated mentally than chimpanzees. They also buried their dead with
flowers and artifacts--did you know that? They had religion.

> > I agree...but what is a meaningful life? Why does the search for greater
> > levels of human interactions make for more meaning than a search for
> greater
> > levels of technology? Or knowledge? Or even entertainment?
>
> because we are social and spiritual beings and it is part of human nature
> and
> instinct to understand and explore beyond the physical dimension into the
> spiritual which is evolving at the same time as technology, knowledge, and
> entertainment which all have to do with physical satisfaction of the
> individual self.

You recognize that spirituality is instinctive, but claim that care of the
infirm isn't? There is equal evidence of both, so why would you assume they
do not both have the same source? You didn't answer, however, why the
search
for spiritual fulfillment is BETTER than the search for physical fulfillment.

> > Perhaps the fundamental problem is a search for meaning...and that's
> > something everyone has to decide on an individual basis. What gives
> meaning
> > to live for one person will not do so for another.
>
> there is however a definite drive for meaning and it may have overall
social
> tendancies.

I consider myself a social deviant. So what do social tendencies have to do
with what gives my life meaning? Or anyone else's for that matter? I see
people who gain the greatest joy and purpose from feeding the poor--and
others who do so from making new scientific discoveries. Those are very
different things...both are equally valid. How can you make that choice for
another person?

> it's true we are all individuals but we are living in a social way with an
> evergrowing population which will force us to find common ground in all
> areas
> including finding meaning.

I refuse to compromise on what has meaning in my life. If that makes me a
"bad person", then so be it. This, to me, is the most sacred individual
decision.

> > I think that with sufficiently thorough education--teaching people who to
> > THINK, rather than just giving them knowledge--we will find the most
> natural
> > life in history will be possible. Because people will be capable of
> living
> > closer to their potential--with forethought, efficiency, and burgeoning
> > curiousity and innovation.
>
> yes i agree, but that will not be possible or will have serious
limitations if
> done within the context of hierarchy.

I disagree completely, because hiararchy is not a barrier to those things.
It's an instinctive social structure, and it can be manipulated to do great
things.

>to get people to think for themselves
> we
> need to go beyond follow the leader mentality

I think "follow the leader mentality" shows a lack of understanding of how
hiararchial social structures REALLY work. We are tribal animal, not a herd
animal. Everyone leads someone save the one at the bottom--everyone
follows
someone save the one at the top. And those positions are changeable, so
one
always both follows and leads at some stage of one's life. In current
society, we don't always get to choose our leaders--or our followers--but
ideally we should. Equality is a wonder concept--it's just totally foreign
to human nature, and no matter how much it's talked about, it simply does
not
occur. There is always someone with a stronger, more persuasive
personality--who can alter the outcome simply with a look, if nothing more
obvious. It is inescapable, natural, and RIGHT.

> > > > Only in comparison with, say, Japan--which has a tremendously high
> > suicide
> > > > rate amongst its youth--and a very few other countries. Certainly
it
> > > could
> > > > stand improvement, but it's far above the worst.
>
> japan is also ahead of US in some major technological fields, japan is
ahead
> in eduction and has a high suicide rate, is that what we should strive for?

That's what I'm saying--you were putting down the US education system--but
Japan's system is better. Yet it causes a higher rate of suicidal depression
in its youth, so it's obviously also too stressful. Japan has a very rich,
spiritual culture, by the way.

> > Most likely that ranking scoots around the chart every year...US
education
> > could use a kick in the keister, to be sure, but it's still far from the
> > worst, and the best have some other problems not taken into
consideration.
> > (such as the aforementioned high suicide rates in Japan).
>
> so what are you saying here?

I'm saying the US education system could stand some improvement, but it's
not
atrocious, and it's not the boogeyman.

> > > > It's best that health care make all options available to those who
> want
> > > them,
> > > > and never force any psychological practices upon the people who
seek
> it.
>
> yes that's what is happening, but nature doesn't opperate that way, i
guess
> this is undebatable unless you believe in karma which i am guessing you
don'
> t.

You're quite right, there--there's no evidence to support it, at all. The
universe doesn't care WHY you did something...it has no morality. Morality
is a human concept. Therefore, "good" actions simply lead to reactions--not
to "good" reactions. What's good to one person may be bad to another.
Example--you hit a kid with your car. It doesn't matter if you did it
deliberately or accidently, the kid is still dead. If no one ever finds out
it was you, then either way the result is the same.
Now, according to karma, the deliberate act brings really bad karma, while
the accidental act brings less bad karma.
But what if the kid was going to grow up to be Hitler? Does that make the
act good? Does it matter if it was deliberate or not in that case? Does it
matter if you knew the kid's future or didn't know it?
THIS is why I don't believe in karma.

> > Ah, but humans are very special animals. We have evolved the instinct
to
> > look after and support our infirm.
>
> you call it instinct, i call it unnatural herd mentality based on bully
> leaders forcing shaman healers to heal or in reality extend their karmic
> debts
> which leads to a more and more unnatural society living further and
further
> from nature in a codependant mode that is destroying the earth.

Then you are deluding yourself, and you don't understand your own instincts,
or those of your species. I don't think you LIKE your own species. The
least of a tribe will be cared for in sickness or injury--not just the
highest ranking. In many cultures, the shaman's rank is as high as the
"chief"'s....if they even HAVE an official "chief". There is a south
american tribe which has a truly communistic society..of course the elders
opinions carry more weight and their social "rank" is higher, but none of it
is forced at all, none of it is official.
Lo and behold, they still care for their infirm.

> > And now we are developing a way to overcome the problems that might
result
> > from that. It's called genetic engineering, and no matter how long
people
> > fear or resist it, within my lifetime they will be capable of applying
the
> > technology to actually repair genetic defects.
> > Rather than fearing the consequences of this development, I am
fascinated
> by
> > its ascent, and the inevitability of its use on humans. What will we
make
> of
> > ourselves now? <g> Fear serves no purpose--it is coming, and quite
soon.
>
> fear does serve a purpose in nature and humans if used wisely and not
> overdone, and that is to inspire us to study the trends of human evolution
> away from nature and to see the patterns developing that could destroy
human
> civilization. the whole ecology movement was based on the fear that we
might
> destroy the earth with our limited social habits and we are not home free
> yet

<interjecting into run-on sentence> Humans are part of nature. Everything
we do is natural. We cannot "move away" from nature--that's a ridiculous
concept. Termites build mounds, we build cities. Ants raise fungus, we
farm.
No difference. It's really VERY vain to think there's a difference.

> and it disturbs me that people like you think we are guarenteed a perfect
> landing in this rat race for hierarchical technology.

Baloney. I'm working on forming an intentional community based on the
concept of work efficiency and and values that address the future and the
ecology. The waste of popular society appalls me. If you can do something
in half the time with half the work, and do it in a way that will ensure the
future of the ecosystem...why the hell would you do it any other way? I'll
never comprehend that. I think the human race could use an IQ boost.

>bully leaders based on
> capitalistic greed and control are leading us into the new age and you seem
> confident that they are on the right track, i just find that hard to
believe
> as i look at the patterns developing.

I think that you need to pick the good things out from the bad, instead of
dumping it all just because you don't like the system that spawned it.

> i hope you are right but i FEAR you
> are
> not.

You have no idea what I really stand for--you never asked, you only assumed.
And your assumptions are based on the most extreme stereotypes...
That's truly sad.

> on some level i realize i need to get beyond the fear and act on the
> solution which is to evolve beyond hierarchy. genetic engineering in the
> hands
> of hierarchical consciousness is a very dangerous thing much more than
> nuclear
> energy.

You have turned hiararchy into some sort of boogyman, thinking if you just
get rid of that, everything will be perfect--that's delusional. Hiararchy
simply isn't the problem, it's just a convenient scapegoat. Genetic
engineering will allow us to overcome the ill effects of caring for our
infirm by CURING them, permanently--we can repair our gene pool with it.
What else might we do? Could be anything...I'm looking forward to seeing it.

>just cause we have learned to manipulate genes doesn't mean we will
> have the wisdom to harmonize with nature, our track record doesn't offer
> much
> hope.

Do you not understand how much of our nature is genetic?

> > One of two things must happen--we must evolve, or we will begin to die
off,
>
> > as a result of overpopulation and genetic infirmity which will
ineviteably
> > lead to sterility. But as I mentioned above, I think we will be
evolving--
> in
> > a very unique fashion.
> > The first species to ever deliberately choose the course of its own
> > evolution--we will finally be able to claim we can do something no other
> > creature can. <g>
>
> i agree we must evolve, but why go so fast

Fear of change....this explains a lot. It's hard to adapt so quickly.
Personally, I am in love with change, but that is unusual for humans. Most
adults like things to be just as they have always been--and instinct shared
with many other animals. It takes a lot of conditioning to overcome this.

>and at the whim of hierarcical
> mentality which has limitations and has made unwise decisions throughout
his-
> story.

The alternative is? To give it up? No way. To change the mentality? Not
possible at this time. So, deal with it AS IT IS...because that is all you
have to work with.

> > I'll have to agree to disagree with that one as well--for if you were to
> name
> > the principles in question, there would likely be at least one that I
> would
> > disagree with.
>
> yes, and that is where consensus comes in to round out the knowledge and
> wisdom of people involved and allow for a more well thought out group
mind
> decision that is agreed on by all and not forced by the hierarchy who may
be
> in a hurry and hasn't thought out things carefully enough to avoid
disaster.

Well, I disagree. So where's the consensus? I will NEVER agree. No amount
of cajoling or discussion will change my mind. So no consensus is possible.
How can this work? Answer: It cannnot. And this is why we have a
representational democracy instead of a true democracy.
The masses are easily swayed, and their opinons can sometimes be
downright
stupid. An individual can make a MORE rational choice.

> Evolution is not necessarily going to take us toward greater
> > compassion, or other traits considered good in religions. It will be
> change,
> > but what that change will be, we cannot really predict now.
> > It will make us better able to survive, or it will destroy us.
>
> your fatalist approach above

The fact that you think this is fatalistic is in itself telling--because _I_
think it is triumphant.

>comes from submitting to the age old
> hierarcical
> tendancies and patterns of his-story.

Ooo...male-bashing term alert. I'm female, by the way. Blaming the men for
hiararchy now? Societies with females in charge worked pretty much the
same
way. Please answer me--WHAT is wrong with hiararchy? Specifically? Not
the
bad things people have done--there is NO evidence they wouldn't have done
those things anyhow, in a different form, but what SPECIFICALLY is wrong
with
hiararchy?

>i think you have a valid point as long
> as you think the way you do and continue to operate in the hierarcical
relms.
>
> aloha forest

And I think you are operating in them, and have come to hate yourself and
the
people around you for it, instead of learning to deal with it and adapt it to
make it something better.

--Winged Wolf

Subject:
singlemindedness in ic
Date:
Thu, 15 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

Rob wrote:
>
> So what intentional community do you live in? I suspect you do not live in
> one, and if you did, perhaps your understandings would change.

aloha rob, i have lived in, helped organize, and continue for years to
investigate and network with the ic networks, i met the main editor of ic
directory and talked at lenth with him on the same subjects we talk on. i was
also a board member of a food coop here in hawaii where i introduced
consensus
decision making and it worked successfully. i am in a very unique
neighborhood
now that no doubt you could learn from if you have an open mind.

we all live in intentional communities so don't try to overamp me with
bringing up credibility issues or background experience. even if you had more
than me i might still have a clue that you overlooked regarding sucess in
ic's. you may have a clearly defined community but that doesn't prove
anything
to me in terms of success.i have been to dozens of communities i was quick
to
walk away from. you may have a community of couples living more
harmoniously
than the mainstream but that doesn't mean there is not a whole lot more
evolution or change to experience. i respect your position but long ago
rejected it for the self cause i felt the more immediate need for change in
order to address my own problems and the problems of the world. that
decision
almost literally killed me so i understand why some may avoid similar
decisions.
>
> Intentional community in most cases involves living closely with other
> people, day in, day out. This is very different than having a set of friends
> you interact with when you want to, or feel like it. Being in a close IC
> means interacting every day, all the time. Very much like living with
> another person.

i have been at intentional communities where people lived close to each other
day in and day out in old fashioned business as usual co-dependancies that i
wouldn't tolorate for one day. in an ideal setting for me intentional
community interactions would always be by free choice and by consensus.
when i
interact that way i am willing to be very closely involved with the family.
the ideal for me would be a balance of independant individualized living
combined with consensual social interaction not one or the other as many
seem
to opt for. by being rooted in individual self-sufficiency we can create a
more ideal self-sustaining free community or family.
>
> If you are not successful at living with other people, then a close
> intentional community is not likely to be a satisfactory experience. Its too
> confining and requires too much personal compromise. It is this personal
> compromise that often leads couples to divorce, or have lots of arguments
> and fights.

if you are successful at living with other people, does that automatically put
you ahead of the hermit monk type or shaman type, i think not? i don't mind
compromise, that's what consensus is all about, what i do mind is living with
people who are subtley co-depending on each other too much or have reached
a
point where they are no longer open to growth. i find this in many modern day
intentional communities.
>
> However, there are tons of successful couples, who are able to negotiate
the
> personal compromises and live very happily. I know dozens of such. So to
> dismiss such behavior as being "traditional" misses the learning. They have
> learned some significant skills, these couples, skills which apply outward
> to a larger group.

right on, i agree with what yer sayin here, just remember it's all degrees and
not a black and white issue as you seem to imply. couples may bring some
degree of skill to the community but may also bring with them some degree
of
co-dependant habits that may inhibit growth.
>
> Lots of people are social, I think it's our nature to be so. However, some
> people are not good at making enough personal compromise in order to be
> successful at living with another person. And, as I brought forth from the
> discussion, if you can't succeed in living with at least one other person,
> how could you ever hope to succeed to live with a dozen? There are lots of
> options for peoples relationships beyond two-somes, but a two-some is the
> smallest living arrangement where people are together and not alone.

i agree some people are more challenged at making relationships because of
their own family upbringing, but it's all a matter of degrees rather than a
black and white issue. i have met singles who were more aware relationship
wise than seemingly happy married couples and i would never consider having
a
ban on singles in community, to me that reeks of closemindedness.
>
> One of the key elements of successful Intentional Communities, as well as
> personal relationship is commitment. There are lots of people who are
> interesting and fun but who do not make commitments. This is not bad, its
> just those folks are not the best to have in an IC nor the best folks to
> make a long term relationship.

i know what yer saying here and agree for the most part, however it has
come
to mind recently to me the need to have communities that have a stable
enough
core group to be able to accomadate the uncommited wayfaring stranger
traveller types in order for them to have an opportunity to experience a
more
grounded natural lifestle so that slowly they may be able to experience a
more
healthy eco-friendly alternative way.
>
> Certainly people who have been happy living with more than two people
would
> do well in an IC, even thrive. However, folks who are only happy living by
> themselves, generally would not be happy in a close IC, especially one with
> shared living spaces.

the main point i was tryin to make which triggered your response here i think
is that there are many sigle baby boomers who have much to offer the ic
movement, as much if not more than existing couple type ic members and to
exclude them from your farms sounds very closeminded and fatalistic to
me......aloha and peace.....forest for earth releaf

Subject:
Re: hierarchy vs consensus?
Date:
Fri, 16 Jul 1999
From:
Forest

WingdWolf wrote:

> This is true--however, notice that in these groups, there will be people who
> hang back and wait for direction,

one reason may be they don't like to be competing and bullying and pecking
but
may have great ideas that could be expressed in a consensus environment
and
result in a more ideal solution or plan.

while others plow ahead full steam,

ya the pusy bully competitive types like we have all been trained to do by the
great american education system. pecking, pushin, interupting, and in your
own
words plowing ahead full steam. doesn't often make for a healthy sustainable
environment to be plowing ahead all the time, gotta stop and smell the roses
along the way and maybe reconsider the good of plowing.

"Alpha" personalities prefer to lead, and it is a real
> effort for them not to--and that's an inborn trait, from all appearances.

unless some of those alpha dudes figure out coopertive ways of politics it's
business as usual on the road to eco-destruction. it's all degrees and hidden
in our every day actions and lifestyle but has incredible influence
in world eco-problems.

> This is true of others as well--some will be very shy and timid, and will not
> want to lead, and will want constant reassurance. And so on.

often they are timid and shy because they do not want to be pushy to have a
voice and are offered no alternative by the loud, interuptive, pushy alpha
types, yet at the same time human evolution is moving toward more
equal human rights.

secrecy is bad?
Date:
Thu, 23 Sep 1999
From:
Forest

aloha peter, a friend sent me your website and i looked it over and read yer
opening statement regarding secrecy and had a comment to make regarding
that.
it seems to me that all humanity is evolving intelligence and that
perhaps(most likely) there is an alien connection in our evlolution. tim leary
said aliens are us in the future.in any event i would like to explain why i
feel secrecy may be useful at times.

it seems to me that we as individual humans are all at different stages of
awareness and intelligence and wisdom regarding how the universe operates.
therefore there may always exist some mystery or "secrets" as to what it
really is. for highly intelligent and wise individuals to share their
"secrets" with the general public could have dangerous results. the big
brother in society is probably no more than a checks and balances for
sharing
knowledge and wisdom within a predominantly male dominant hierarchical
power
structure which is good to a degree but may also have limitations. it seems
we
are not as a species all ready to be given access to highly dangerous
technology. imagine what might happen if suitcase nuclear bombs were
available
at wall mart to anyone. the same applys to ufo technology, it most likely
would be very dangerous in some peoples hands. i'm not saying the
government
is wise enough to hold this knowledge either, but for the general public to
have it seems even more dangerous.

i suspect that this ufo technology and other such mysterious secrets are
available freely to anyone who rises in consciousness and wisdom to a level
that is responsible enough to know what to do with it. i personally do not
feel all humanity is ready at the exact same time so it may be appropriate to
diseminate the info slowly and somewhat secretly to those individuals who
are
more wise and able to deal with the incredible power and energies invloved. it
seems natural that there will always be secrets or mysteries beyond our
current situation to figure out and that we will always be given those secrets
provided our intentions and wisdom have progressed to a level according to
the
level of the mystery. therefore it may be wise to search out how to advance
consciously and wisely thru spiritual diciplines etc. to develop our
consciousness to a level that will draw the answers to the secrets of the
universe we do not have yet. it seems likely that this has been the way
things
have been going for thousands of years on earth and universe. i do believe
that someday the whole human species may all be ready at the same time
for all
the ufo info being held secret, but the worlds eco-problems are a good
example
of how we are not even conscious or wise enough to clean up our act on
earth
let alone space. so i suggest being patient with the aliens and work/play at
spiritual diciplines and when we are ready we will be given all the secrets of
the universe. anyway, that's my 2 cents worth on secrets in
humanity......happy day.......forest for earth releaf

Subject:
y no ufo we c
Date:
Thu, 07 Oct 1999
From:
Forest

aloha joseph, i recieved yer message regarding ufo and gov. intervention etc.
it was interesting and i agree with most of what yer saying. i do have
questions regarding the risks involved in suddenly making available to general
humanity ufo technology since it represents so much potential destructive
energy as well as free positive energy for freeing up the eco problems we
are
sinking in.

if all of us here on earth were spiritually ready for the unbound energy ufo
tech. represents it would be well to seek out the truth, but the masses exist
in many varying degrees of awareness as we can see by the high school
shootings, etc.

to unleash the ufo tech would perhaps not be practical for government
officials or aliens. perhaps they are both making the wisest choice until they
can figure out the best way to elevate the overall awareness or spiritual
wisdom of all earthlings. and perhaps that is what the secret societies and
mystical spiritual groups have been exploring and learning about and
participating in for thousands of years and more. it may be that aliens or
spiritual masters are only waiting for us as individuals to reach a certain
level of consciousness and when that happens they become aware of it and
contact us individually or perhaps in small groups of 12 or less in consensus
agreement.

perhaps the earth plane is a proving ground for individuals to learn
spiritual wisdom to prepare us for lift off when we have mastered our
awareness enough to call in an alien craft or astral beings who teach us to
astrally project without even the need to take the physical body along thus
transcending the need for spacecraft.

well, i'm startin to ramble a bit, in any event sounds like you have some
interesting experience and ideas about what is. i am going to send another
email regarding some of how i see positive change in society and environment
developing, perhaps it will be of interest, feel free to critique if you find
time. am curious where you saw me posted as i wander around the net and
spout
off a bit.

aloha and peace, forest for earth releaf.............oooommmmmmmmmmmm

Subject:
Re: y no ufo we c
Date:
Thu, 7 Oct 1999
From:
Joseph

Dear Forest,

Yes if the et technology were given to us all at this time it would
likely be used for destructive purposes my many parties. There is
evidence that this is already being done by select sections of the
military industrial complex. A cosmic peace movement promoting brother
and sister and beinghood could make our planet safer to receive such
technology. Without a world wide peace-environmental -contact movement
there is not much hope.

At least that is what I am most interested in working on.

One universe, one people!

JB MD

Originally From: Forest
Subject: y no ufo we c
Date: 10/07/1999

aloha joseph, i recieved yer message regarding ufo and gov.
intervention etc.
it was interesting and i agree with most of what yer saying. i do have
questions regarding the risks involved in suddenly making available to
general
humanity ufo technology since it represents so much potential
destructive
energy as well as free positive energy for freeing up the eco problems
we are
sinking in.

if all of us here on earth were spiritually ready for the unbound
energy ufo
tech. represents it would be well to seek out the truth, but the
masses exist
in many varying degrees of awareness as we can see by the high school
shootings, etc.

to unleash the ufo tech would perhaps not be practical for government
officials or aliens. perhaps they are both making the wisest choice
until they
can figure out the best way to elevate the overall awareness or
spiritual
wisdom of all earthlings. and perhaps that is what the secret
societies and
mystical spiritual groups have been exploring and learning about and
participating in for thousands of years and more. it may be that
aliens or
spiritual masters are only waiting for us as individuals to reach a
certain
level of consciousness and when that happens they become aware of it
and
contact us individually or perhaps in small groups of 12 or less in
consensus agreement.

perhaps the earth plane is a proving ground for individuals to learn
spiritual wisdom to prepare us for lift off when we have mastered our
awareness enough to call in an alien craft or astral beings who teach
us to
astrally project without even the need to take the physical body along
thus
transcending the need for spacecraft.

well, i'm startin to ramble a bit, in any event sounds like you have
some
interesting experience and ideas about what is. i am going to send
another
email regarding some of how i see positive change in society and
environment
developing, perhaps it will be of interest, feel free to critique if
you find
time. am curious where you saw me posted as i wander around the net
and spout
off a bit.

aloha and peace, forest for earth releaf.............oooommmmmmmmmmmm

Subject:
response to Forest
Date:
Fri, 08 Oct 1999
From:
Elaine

Dear Peter:
I just read the comments of Forest about secrecy. I
wanted to tell you that I agree one hundred percent with your stated
beliefs about secrecy. There is never a reason for secrecy.
While the comments of Forest are well written apparently Forest is not
making a distinction between spiritual secrets and secular secrets.
Actually, from my point of view, there is no such thing as spiritual
secrets. There is wisdom and enlightenment just waiting for anyone who
is ready for them. These insights are just naturally revealed when one
is ready.
Secular secrecy on the other hand results from someone wanting power
over others or making the ignorant and arrogant assumption that they
know what is best for others. They have no right to make that decision
for others. Engaging in secular secrecy denotes a lack of true
intelligence.
I am sending a cc to Forest.
Sincerely,
Elaine

Subject:
response from Forest
Date:
Fri, 08 Oct 1999
From:
Forest

Elaine wrote:
>
> Dear Peter:
> I just read the comments of Forest (forest@wics.net)about secrecy. I
> wanted to tell you that I agree one hundred percent with your stated
> beliefs about secrecy. There is never a reason for secrecy.

i think you contradict yerself a bit by qualifiing the type of secrecy. if
someone stated an intention to kill your child and you could somehow keep a
secret to prevent it, chances are most mothers would. if revealing a secret
could be life threatening to others or ourself it may be wise to hold back
certain knowledge until it feels safe to share it. that is no doubt what big
brother is doing, tho i am not convinced they are wise enough for the
responsibility.

i suspect centralized gov. and political figures are pawns etc, for secret
societies who may be spiritually advanced(most think the oppisite, at this
point it looks like both options may exist[another polarity factor]), and
waiting for people to wake up spiritually enough to handle the awesome power
related to ufo tech. there needs to be more than just curiousity to reveal
certain secrets, there needs to be the wisdom to deal with the power that
comes with it. i would not feel comfortable with the general public flyin
around in spaceships. childproof lighters are holding secrets. perhaps aliens
and secret societies are like loving parents lookng out for us till we are
ready. the species of huWoMan has been given so many secrets about power
that
we are on the brink of species extinction not to mention potential harming all
life on earth. if i were an alien or government official, i would be slow to
reveal secrets of the universe that have very dangerous possibilities in the
hands of the masses.

> While the comments of Forest are well written apparently Forest is
not
> making a distinction between spiritual secrets and secular secrets.
> Actually, from my point of view, there is no such thing as spiritual
> secrets. There is wisdom and enlightenment just waiting for anyone who
> is ready for them. These insights are just naturally revealed when one
> is ready.

yes, and when one uncovers certain spiritual insights that lead to
superhuman
powers one must then be responsible for how that knowledge is deseminated
or
used. do you hand a loaded gun to a child and merely say be careful and walk
away. some of us need to realize that most of the earth plane operates on
polarity principles, for example good vs evil. as long as our minds are
limited by such thinking there will always be us and them. those holding
secrets and those wanting the secrets to be shared. i think you are right in
that when we are ready spiritually secrets are shared freely, but that does
not mean there is some degree or responsibility that goes with it and that
does not mean or imply that the next day we post our solved mysteries for
access to the masses. it does not either mean that all those holding secrets
or mysteries are doing it for power or control, they may actually know what
is
in our best interests, unlike many centralized governments. that is why we
are
kept in the dark about mysteries or secrets of the universe, we simply have
not evlolved enough to be capable of using the knowledge wisely.

> Secular secrecy on the other hand results from someone wanting
power
> over others or making the ignorant and arrogant assumption that they
> know what is best for others. They have no right to make that decision
> for others. Engaging in secular secrecy denotes a lack of true
> intelligence.

i definately agree that what you call secular secrecy for the mere sake of
controlling others is very narrow minded and counterproductive, but as you
say
there may be more than one reason or motive for secrecy and some may be
useful
to conceal for safety reasons to some, while others may not. beyond the
world
of duality and polarity things are not always black and white. even the ones
who advocate no secrecy are to one degree or another part of the
destructive
force on earth and until we clean up our act on earth(all of us) then i doubt
we will be given certain mysteries and secrets of universal proportions.
however, anyone who feels frustrated or limited by such an earthly existence
can freely act out the diciplines necessary to transcend the earth plane,
even
those holding "secular secrets" can not hold us back, no doubt individuals and
small groups have been doing that for eons and find no need to talk about it
too much. well, i hope i didn't repeat the self too much here, just tryin to
make a clear point, and share a few "secrets" i am learning along the way.
aloha and peace, forest for earth releaf.

ps. by the way peter, i admire your willingness to print my last message
despite it's counter point approach.

Subject:
you may be right but
Date:
Sat, 9 Oct 1999
From:
RR1Box110

Let society decide for ourselves, no one can presume to know what is best
for
people to 'know', that is not a democracy....especially if it involves life
changing ethics that concern millions of people.

True some folks are nuts out there and would try to abuse information, but
lets leak alittle info out huh?

Subject:
you may be right but (but what?)
Date:
Sat, 09 Oct 1999
From:
Forest

RR1Box110@aol.com wrote:
>
> Let society decide for ourselves, no one can presume to know what is best
for
> people to 'know', that is not a democracy....especially if it involves life
> changing ethics that concern millions of people.

well, we are deciding for ourselves, by our actions, we are destroying life on
earth and we have a choice but we ignore it and continue the destruction to
one degree or another, each and every one of us. we are not ready for life
changing ethics, we still need a big brother to tell us what to do or not to
do, and even big brother(the gov. that is) doesn't appear to be ready.
>
> True some folks are nuts out there and would try to abuse information,
but
> lets leak alittle info out huh?

ya, let's make nuclear bombs available at wallmart, and genetic engineering
at
the drugstore, and garden shop, and nano tech, etc. and all the other
undetectable monsters lurking in the high tech world, and then wonder why
our
kids are playin star wars computer games and how long it will be before they
want to play the real thing? personally i would rather unleash organic
gardening and natural living techniques on the masses and see if we are
ready
to clean up our act on earth before flyin around with aliens.

Subject:
RE: more on genetics, etc.
Date:
Tue, 12 Oct 1999
From:
John

Aloha Forest,

You're hangin' out here, too, eh? ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Forest

>...also the fact that the weak are allowed to live
>(please understand i am not saying the weak should be abandoned, just
>questioning how it may affect genetic strength in the species) and breed
due
>to pharmacutical drugs and other western medical approach. this is so very
>different than natural selection.

Actually, this is exactly natural selection (a greatly misunderstood, abused
and misused concept in most quarters). As long as we provide the resources
to enable (for just one example) babies that would have otherwise died to
survive, more of them will survive longer than they would have otherwise.
When we no longer want to or can provide such resources, they will not.
>From a larger perspective, it's really no different that a species
population booming due to increase in food supply, climate moderation,
unusually long breeding season, decrease in predators or what have you (or
from a species crashing due to food scarcity, significant climate change,
shortened breeding season, increase in predators or what have you).

>these factors alone alter genes dramatically
>and unnaturally over time to the point where most are almost living
separate
>from nature and have come to view it as a comodity to exploit. now with our
>unnatural ways and distance from the wholistic nature most are now going
to
>enter futher into the gene domain.

Genetic mutations in organisms are essentially random (even - or perhaps
especially - when caused by human-created compounds). Some mutations
survive longer than those that don't survive as long, to paraphrase Gregory
Bateson. That, in a nutshell, is "natural selection."

In other words - a genetic change in an organism makes it either more, less,
equally or differently fit to continue to exist in the systems in which it
comes into existence (and of which it is a part). This happens based on how
the genetic change constrains the somatic flexibility/adaptability of the
organism.

For example (intentionally simplistic) - a fish is:

1: born with a genetic mutation which results in stronger swimming muscles,
enabling it to escape the usual predators more easily than before. The fish
not only survives, but may ultimately become the dominant type as the
pre-mutation varieties are eaten more often than the post-mutation
varieties.

2: born with a genetic mutation which results in weaker swimming muscles.
Reverse the above description - this variant, all else being equal, will
probably not survive very long.

3: born with a genetic mutation which results in different coloration.
Swimming-wise, no difference in survivability - but perhaps the new
coloration is either more attractive to predators (lowering survivability)
or better camouflage (increasing survivability). Think of all the
ecological factors involved in the survival of the fish (and I maintain that
of course none of us can possibly think of them all, let alone all their
interrelations) - to say it's complex is an understatement.

4: make up some more...see how they might play out...

Somatic adaptations ("getting used" to sleeping in the noise of a city,
breathing smog without immediate fatal effects, eating highly processed
foods without immediate fatal effects, etc.) do not result in genetic
changes. That's the old "Lamarckian inheritance" theory - that (for
example) a thin man who pumps up his muscles lifting weights (somatic
change) can somehow pass the big muscles on to his offspring genetically.
Doesn't happen. That's why genetic changes constrain, rather than
determine. Genes determine what an organism can't do, but there's a varied
range of somatic adaptability within those constraints. Humans can't
breathe water successfully, for example, but we can breath air at a fairly
wide range of densities (sea level to 10 and even 20 thousand feet - and
mixtures like helium/oxygen) successfully.

One's "separateness from nature," however one experiences it, is
(thankfully) a somatic adaptation, not a genetic shift.

>i wonder if there is a way to consciously or spiritually genetically
engineer
>the species to somehow relink it to nature and realign itself to a more
>natural gene progression that leads to more and more balance with nature
and
>each other. i just think that money interests are not conscious enough to
play
>god. perhaps if there was a consensus council of spiritually wise
scientists
>there could be a way to enter the gene arena. how could we be a better
>influence on how this plays out?

I don't think it's a genetic issue - there's no "problem" with our genes in
these respects, only with our behaviors and adaptations ("culture" comes to
mind...). And I certainly don't think any humans, or group thereof, are
conscious enough to "play" god - because if we were, we wouldn't be humans.

We are dancing with our nemesis - literally, our envy of the gods, our
wishing to do what we imagine they can do. I think the wisdom here is that
we admit that envy, let go of that envy and choose to recognize that we are
not gods and will only get ourselves (and probably a lot of our fellow
critters) in big trouble by playing at godhood.

John

Subject:
RE: more on genetics, etc.
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 1999
From:
EFMonaco

Hey John,
What would you say to one who supposses that a mutation might occur that
allows a human to better survive the smog of the city, or processed food?
Then it *is* passed on to the offspring, creating a population of
smog-eaters living on processed foods that ultimately degrade the
biosphere. How's that for a doomsday scenario?
Gene Monaco

Message text written by INTERNET:bioregional@csf.colorado.edu
>
Somatic adaptations ("getting used" to sleeping in the noise of a city,
breathing smog without immediate fatal effects, eating highly processed
foods without immediate fatal effects, etc.) do not result in genetic
changes. That's the old "Lamarckian inheritance" theory - that (for
example) a thin man who pumps up his muscles lifting weights (somatic
change) can somehow pass the big muscles on to his offspring genetically.
Doesn't happen. That's why genetic changes constrain, rather than
determine. Genes determine what an organism can't do, but there's a varied
range of somatic adaptability within those constraints. Humans can't
breathe water successfully, for example, but we can breath air at a fairly
wide range of densities (sea level to 10 and even 20 thousand feet - and
mixtures like helium/oxygen) successfully. <

Subject:
RE: more on genetics, etc.
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 1999
From:
John

Aloha,

-----Original Message-----
From: EFMonaco

>What would you say to one who supposses that a mutation might occur that
>allows a human to better survive the smog of the city, or processed food?
>Then it *is* passed on to the offspring, creating a population of
>smog-eaters living on processed foods that ultimately degrade the
>biosphere.

Entirely possible, of course! But in random mutations, no more likely than
anything else.

The important thing in understanding genetic change, somatic adaptation and
"natural selection" is that humans living in the smog of the city for
generations are *no more likely* to have this mutation occur than humans
living in the purest air on the planet for generations. It either occurs or
it doesn't - environmental conditions do not *determine* what *sort* of
genetic mutations *happen*.

Obviously, chemical compounds, concentrated radioactivity, etc. that we
create can *produce* genetic mutations that might not have happened
otherwise - but they do not determine *what* the mutation is. For example
(B-grade horror movies aside), a mutation from radioactivity does not
"result" in a critter that can survive greater levels of radioactivity, or
that is itself radioactive, etc. - except if that happens to be the random
result.

However - and this is "natural selection" - if this smog-breathing mutation
*does* happen (as a random genetic change), it will likely be more
beneficial to the smog-city dwellers. Depending on what the change is, it
could even be detrimental to pure-air dwellers.

Imagine a genetic mutation that enabled humans to metabolize carbon
monoxide
in some way that actually contributed to our overall health. Smog-city
dwellers with this mutation would be getting more of a good thing the worse
the carbon monoxide got, but pure-air dwellers with this mutation might
suffer from carbon monoxide deficiencies! Over generations, more with the
mutation would survive longer in smoggy cities, and more without the
mutation would survive longer in areas with purer air. In smoggy cities,
all else staying roughly the same (and ignoring politics... ;-), those with
the mutation would eventually come to dominate the population because they
would be generally healthier and breed more often and more successfully.

So when one hears phrases like "...weevils developing a resistance to
chemical pesticide...", what that means is that there are weevils that are,
from the start, less affected by and/or more adaptable to surviving the
pesticide. As with the smog-breather example, they will come to dominate
the weevil population because they will survive and breed more than the
weevils that are more affected by the pesticide (which will die outright,
fail to reproduce, produce non-viable offspring, etc.). As more and more of
the weevil population is descended from the resistant weevils, we say we
see "...weevils developing a resistance to chemical pesticide...". This is
often mistakenly assumed to mean that the pesticides themselves somehow
"make" the bugs more resistant.

The result is the same mess - a majority of pesticide resistant bugs. The
importance of understanding the underlying process is that it can help cut
through propaganda, mis- and dis-information (and just plain ignorance)
surrounding GE and related practices.

If anyone wants to dig deeper - how might all this help explain why some
"naturally occurring" compounds (neem, marigolds, etc. etc.) that ward off
various kinds of what we call "pests" seem to have worked for millennia
without losing their effectiveness?

> How's that for a doomsday scenario?

Well, if everything else adapts and/or is replaced by something that can
thrive in that scenario, it's only doomsday for those that can't or don't...
:-O

John

Subject:
paradigm shift in relation to evolution
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 1999
From:
Forest

john wrote:

> Actually, this is exactly natural selection (a greatly misunderstood, abused
> and misused concept in most quarters). As long as we provide the
resources
> to enable (for just one example) babies that would have otherwise died to
> survive, more of them will survive longer than they would have otherwise.
> When we no longer want to or can provide such resources, they will not.
> >From a larger perspective, it's really no different that a species
> population booming due to increase in food supply, climate moderation,
> unusually long breeding season, decrease in predators or what have you (or
> from a species crashing due to food scarcity, significant climate change,
> shortened breeding season, increase in predators or what have you).

hi john, i have a very limited acedemic knowledge of evolution, your well
written letter reminds me i need to study it more. but "something?" tells me
that even scientists may still have limited knowledge of how it truely
holistically operates. How can we be sure they have covered all the bases and
factors in determining how it operates? they may have discovered several
clues, but there may be many more they haven't discovered. are we to
assume or
trust that science has it all figured out, obviously science continues to make
major errors in it's evaluations despite the valuable knowledge it adds. for
instance, it may be possible mental and spiritual abilities may be a factor in
the genetic evolution of individuals or society as a whole and the dna may be
altered in very short
periods of time due to them, just as it might by scientists playing around in
the lab. but perhaps with more wisdom. as we get more and more removed
from an
amimalistic mentality and increase our brain potential or intelligence and
begin to develop a "spiritual nature?" these factors may make a huge
difference in human evolution and how it operates in us vs other forms of
life, especially as we escalate our movement away from a natural Wholistic
approach to nature. if we apply our limited knowledge of evolution based on
animal and plant worlds in nature to humans we may limit our ability to see
the whole picture as it relates to our species.
>
> Genetic mutations in organisms are essentially random (even - or perhaps
> especially - when caused by human-created compounds). Some mutations
> survive longer than those that don't survive as long, to paraphrase
Gregory
> Bateson. That, in a nutshell, is "natural selection."

well how can we be sure it is all random, what about all the mysteries of the
universe science has yet to figure out, could more knowledge in the future
perhaps someday challenge the random mutation theory? and perhaps at
some
point in evolution the patterns may change or alter. could we perhaps be on
the verge of such a paradigm shift in evolutionary processes in relation to
spiritual conciousness.
>
> Somatic adaptations ("getting used" to sleeping in the noise of a city,
> breathing smog without immediate fatal effects, eating highly processed
> foods without immediate fatal effects, etc.) do not result in genetic
> changes. That's the old "Lamarckian inheritance" theory - that (for
> example) a thin man who pumps up his muscles lifting weights (somatic
> change) can somehow pass the big muscles on to his offspring genetically.
> Doesn't happen.

yes, but most of that theory you are using is based on physical terms, but
does not take into account the factor of mental and spiritual influences or
higher expanded conciousness, time and space warps and how it might alter
the
pattern of evolution
differently for us as we expand. "something?" tells me we are perhaps being
too simplistic in our approach to evolution. science has a his-story of such
thinking it seems, mostly based on a dominating practical scietific one side
brain mentallity. what happens when we factor in intuition and begin to
balance other side brain activity and seek a balance. this could create a
major influence in how evolution operates or how we might percieve it in its
totality. at this time in our species evolution it appears to me(from my
limited perspective), that one side(practical scientific) of the brain is
dominating how we see and interpret the universe and evolution and i do not
trust that to be the bottom line.

Subject:
Re: Genetic Shift or just Somatic Adaptation ?
Date:
Fri, 15 Oct 1999
From:
creuss

On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, John wrote:

> Somatic adaptations ("getting used" to sleeping in the noise of a city,
> breathing smog without immediate fatal effects, eating highly processed
> foods without immediate fatal effects, etc.) do not result in genetic
> changes. That's the old "Lamarckian inheritance" theory - that (for
> example) a thin man who pumps up his muscles lifting weights (somatic
> change) can somehow pass the big muscles on to his offspring genetically.
> Doesn't happen.

Correct, BUT...:

> One's "separateness from nature," however one experiences it, is
> (thankfully) a somatic adaptation, not a genetic shift.

I'm afraid this does (also) represent a genetic shift, for the following
reasons:

1) Pollution:

Exposure to chemical pollutants starts before conception and significantly
affects the mental and physical health of the offspring (for the example
of mercury, see [1..6]), and leads to genetic damage and shifts. The
problem with cytotoxins and neurotoxins like mercury is that although
individuals may initially have a certain tolerance to it, in the long run
the stuff bioaccumulates beyond any tolerance level, and since exposure
is passed on to the fetus, the next generation starts off worse. The
ever-increasing rates of allergies, multiple chemical sensitivities,
chronic diseases etc. are here to stay.

2) Processed food:

In his mile-stone book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" (first
published in 1945, new edition in 1989 [7]), DDS Weston Price,
former president of the American Dental Association, has researched
the effects of processed vs. unprocessed foods on tooth and bone
degeneration in various Native and 'modern' populations. He found that
processed foods lead to considerable degeneration (some pictures at [8]).

More recent research (e.g. [9]) has identified refined carbohydrates and
factory-farm meat as the major causes of degenerative diseases
affecting
not only bones but the whole body (cardiovascular system, GI tract, etc.).

As with the effects of pullution, these physical degenerations affect
the population from before conception and do represent genetic shifts.

3) Artificial 'environment':

Human life increasingly happens "indoors" -- even while "outdoors", we're
increasingly moving around in closed vehicles (car/airplane/train).
In the long run, life in this artificial environment will 'select for'
myopy, obesity, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, etc., resulting in
genetic shifts, not just somatic adaptations.

Hence, human "separateness from nature" increasingly becomes irreversible.

Please prove me wrong ;-}
Chris

References:

[1] Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R, Roider G:
"Mercury burden of human fetal and infant tissues",
Eur J Pediatrics, 1534 (8): 607-610, 1994.

[2] Lutz E, Lind B, Herin P, Krakau I, Bui TH, Vahter M:
"Concentrations of mercury, cadmium and lead in brain and kidney of
second trimester fetuses and infants",
J Trace Elem Med Biol, 10(2): 61-67, 1996.

[3] Yang J, Jiang Z, Wang Y, Qureshi IA, Wu XD:
"Maternal-fetal transfer of metallic mercury via the placenta and milk",
Ann Clin Lab Sci, 27(2):135-141, Mar 1997.

[4] Newland MC; Warfinge K, Berlin M:
"Behavioral Consequences of in-utero exposure to mercury vapor:
alterations in lever-press durations and learning in squirrel monkeys",
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 139(2):374-386, Aug 1996.

[5] Roeleveld N, Zielhuis GA, Gacreels F:
"Mental retardation and parental occupation",
Br J Ind Med, 50(10): 945-954, Oct 1993.

[6] Sodestrom S, Fredriksson A, Dencker L, Ebendal T:
"The effect of Mercury vapour on cholinergic neurons in the fetal brain:
studies on the expression of Nerve Growth Factor and its low- and
high-affinity receptors",
Dev Brain Res, 85(1):96-108, Mar 1995.

[7] Weston A. Price:
"Nutrition And Physical Degeneration", 50th Anniversary Edition,
Keats Publishing Inc., New Canaan, Connecticut, 1989.

[8] http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/foodproc.htm

[9] Yellowlees WW,
"Modern diseases, seen from a Highland practice. An ecological approach",
Ecol Dis, 1983, 2:1, 81-91.
Abstract:
".... Changes in diet are now thought by many scientists to be the
most likely cause for the increase in diseases of civilisation. The
work of McCarrison, Cleave and Burkitt suggests that of all dietary
developments in advanced nations during the last two centuries the
refining of carbohydrates is the most damaging. Cleave has published
strong evidence incriminating 'over-consumption' from dependence on
refined carbohydrates, rather than traditional animal fats, as the
main cause of coronary thrombosis. The high mortality and morbidity of
degenerative diseases with all the attendant human suffering can truly
be termed an ecological disaster. The cause is the failure of the food
and drink industry to give overall priority to the needs of human
health."

Subject:
RE: Genetic Shift or just Somatic Adaptation ?
Date:
Fri, 15 Oct 1999
From:
John

Aloha,

-----Original Message-----
From: creuss

>> One's "separateness from nature," however one experiences it, is
> >(thankfully) a somatic adaptation, not a genetic shift.

>I'm afraid this does (also) represent a genetic shift, for the following
>reasons:...

Entirely possible - as I mentioned, toxics we create and/or concentrate may
contribute to genetic mutations. These mutations will not necessarily be
relevant to the causative agent, however...that's really my essential point.

There is a lot of economic and political pressure pushing for "genetic
determinism" in current science - the idea that a particular gene or genes
determine exact characteristics of organisms. It's not that simple - if it
were, nothing much would survive! And it's a dangerous oversimplification.
Remember - what was it called, "eugenics?" Not to mention Hitler's beliefs
about genetics...genetic determinism is just the ideology that spawned
eugenics coming around again. Eugenics had no lack of "scientific proof"
and support in it's day...

I agree with all your examples - the toxins, the diet issues, etc. - I've
read similar accounts myself. Some of these causes of somatic
degenerative
diseases (such as bioaccumulation of heavy metals) may also cause genetic
damage (the consequences of which are not necessarily relevant to the
causative agent). The "cause" of a food allergy or metals sensitivity is
not necessarily a genetic shift, however. Since the fetus IS an integral
part of the mother, any relevant somatic changes in the mother leading to
sensitivities, etc. can very likely apply to the fetus as well, including
after birth. And if they are genetic to begin with, then of course (barring
further mutations and/or further somatic adaptations) they will apply to the
child.

I think we agree that regardless of explanations, we are creating
increasingly harsh conditions for our own survival, conditions that make it
more difficult to recognize ourselves as related to "all our relations"...

John

Subject:
RE: paradigm shift in relation to evolution
Date:
Fri, 15 Oct 1999
From:
John

Aloha,

-----Original Message-----
From: Forest

>hi john, i have a very limited acedemic knowledge of evolution, your well
>written letter reminds me i need to study it more. but "something?" tells
me
>that even scientists may still have limited knowledge of how it truely
>holistically operates. How can we be sure they have covered all the bases
and
>factors in determining how it operates?

I'm in agreement with you...my posts on this topic are actually my attempt
to present somewhat of an alternative to the current push to "prove" the
"safety" of GE by claiming genetic determinism happens, by attributing to
genes alone patterns and relations that involve far more than "just" genes,
and (I suggest) far more than humans can ever know, whatever names we
call
it by ("scientific," "spiritual," etc.). Quantum physics has already
started to realize this, but perhaps not some geneticists...

I have no doubt that science doesn't have all the answers. There is plenty
of research out there that "proves" that gene interactions are far more
complex than GE proponents are willing to admit, not to mention the more
complex systems that the genes are a part of. There is a lot of
oversimplification in public reporting on GE - proponents typically try to
make it sound as simple and safe as playing with Lego or tinker-toys.

That's why I'm concerned when scientists (or anyone else) claim that they
"know" GE foods or critters are "safe." They don't know those levels of
complexity, as numerous experimental "surprises" have shown; they won't
admit that, however, and they (or the corporations they serve) want to
make
us and the rest of the biosphere all laboratory rats and have us pay them
handsomely for the privilege.

>well how can we be sure it is all random, what about all the mysteries of
the
>universe science has yet to figure out, could more knowledge in the future
>perhaps someday challenge the random mutation theory?

By "random" I mean essentially "mysterious," in that we can't predict
exactly what, when, where and how.

>yes, but most of that theory you are using is based on physical terms, but
>does not take into account the factor of mental and spiritual influences or
>higher expanded conciousness, time and space warps and how it might alter
the
>pattern of evolution
>differently for us as we expand. "something?" tells me we are perhaps being
>too simplistic in our approach to evolution.

"Evolution" is a name for what some people have observed over time, and
then
told a story about. Science, spirituality, etc. are all just stories we
tell ourselves in trying to make sense of our experiences, in the same way
that some cultures tell stories of living on the back of a giant turtle,
etc. They are all explanations.

My question is: what are the consequences of living this explanation, or
that explanation, or this other explanation? Some of us have been living an
explanation of the world as chunks of "resources" that are ours for the
exploiting, with essentially no connections between such activities and our
own well-being or that of the systems that create and sustain these
"resources." This seems like a dangerous story to live...in short, I think
we agree, Forest, but we have different stories about it!

For wholistic perspectives that support understanding stories about
"genetics," and a whole lot more, I recommend reading:

a) Everything by Gregory Bateson (biologist, anthropologist, psychologist,
etc. and son of the man who coined the term "genetics") - Major books are
"Steps to an Ecology of Mind," "Mind and Nature: a necessary unity" and "A
Sacred Unity." Mind and Nature is perhaps the most accessible, as he wrote
it as a cohesive whole. The others are more collections of essays and take
a bit more tying together by the reader. Check libraries & used bookstores,
as these are out of print.

b) Everything by Humberto Maturana (but skip the English translation of
Tree of Life, I am told), Chilean neurobiologist and epistomologist - his
associate Francisco Varela maintains a web site with some of his material
at:

http://www.inteco.cl/biology/

Several of his papers are linked on this page, and can be read in full on
line.

I recommend these two because not only have I come to "understand" a great
deal through their works, but they are whole systems practitioners, not
specialists with a point to prove. They have spent their lives exploring
and integrating multiple domains rather than resorting to specialization,
and their explanations are the richer for it.

John

Subject:
how high is up?
Date:
Fri, 26 May 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:

." there is either
> spiritual understanding which is simply a gift from the creator as our
> natural, innate,birthright, or there is the unending quest by humans
> to try and figure it out either individually or collectively.

the creator does not offer spirituality on a silver platter, but offers it to
those who have an unending quest to search and act out the necessary
diciplines to move forward.

> One Law that holds it all together. that Law emanates from One source.
> call it love. just honor and respect that.

i am not sure i believe in one law or absolute truth, it looks to me like we
have some truth, we search for more, and when we find it we adjust the
limited
truth of the past to incorporate the truth we just found. then we go
searching
some more and so on.

> how about the native american "church" where the whole shootin'
> match is sacred: trees are sacred, rocks are sacred, frogs, lizards,
> insects, me, you, sun, moon, stars, earth, it's ALL sacred. that's my
> church.

i can agree to that, see ya in church with all our friends.

and for the human mind to pollute this holy creation is a
> travesty. do you really believe it's god's mind that creates the
> sacrilege of the sacred earth mother?

everything is good but may have limitations and we always have choices if we
search deep enough. if the creator created everything then it created
pollution and less than perfect polluted beings. as i said before it's all a
matter of degrees not a black and white issue. the earth plane may always(i
hope not) be polluted and merely be a testing ground for us to learn to
transcend and move to other less polluted dimensions.

and i do applaud anyone who admits that
> their puny human(ego) mind is limited and perhaps also admits that
> with that 'device', it will never figure out what it's all about.

i admit our ego's are limited but they are good and have enabled us to figure
out quite a bit about the universe. by refining and searching the ego and
being open to intuitive process we will perhaps see a bigger and bigger
picture.

so consider "applaud"
> a cyber hug, bud. call it male cyber bonding, okay?

ok, what the world needs now is more male bonding and female too.

> you make ego into a bad guy.

sorry if you got that impression from me, that's not how i feel.

it is an aspect of the divine gift
> gone astray in most people.

i would rather say it is a limited but good aspect of the divine gift to
various degrees in all people.

a case of misidentification. do you think
> the ego is "bad" when it is aligned properly with the forces of
> creation?

nothing in nature is bad, but may have limitations and we have options to
search and get beyond those limitations in a spiraling upward sorta way.
wherever we are at any given time is aligned with the forces of creation.
some
of us are interested in getting beyond polarity and duality and we search and
act out the change and growth and evolution it takes to get there.

you state that the "human nature mind" is worthy of
> reverence? shame on you! that is truly mental competition vibes
> because this "human nature mind", again imho, is NEVER,EVER worthy of
> reverence.

if the creator created the human mind then it is part of god's(i'm using yer
terminology here) oneness and worthy of reverence, in fact if we don't have
unconditional love for it all, chances are we will get stuck.

and that is my point that i began and will end with: there
> is only ONE, and that One, is the only One i will ever give reverence
> to.

and remember if there is only one, that includes everything, your mind, my
mind, pollution, limitations, etc. start unconditionally loving it all and
chances are we will move up a notch or two in degrees of understanding the
complicated/simple paradoxical nature of nature.

begin and end with Nature (god in disguise-all right?) all else is
> human folly (and not spiritual). can you agree?

human folly is part of nature and or god. over time it may be more
harmonious
with the universe. even god has a big bang now and then to remind us blowing
up ourselves is ok in the bigger picture we are all one and no matter how
blown away we are, we are still one. paradox eh?

maybe you can quote
> me on this (and i'll use your word for god so perhaps we really do
> agree in the end). " life began in nature and will end in nature.
> everything in between could be a nice journey for humans." neil

life is beyond beginning and ending, time and space is another polarity trap
to keep us limited in our good but limited dualistic modality. in the spirit
of peace, balance, harmony, oneness i wish you well.

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Tue, 01 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

robert, i appreciate you sending me yer conspiracy theories, however most
of
them are similar and i have read similar before. i guess you still think i am
poorly informed due to my way of looking at the "big picture". first off i'll
say i'm not sure, just going on some clues, intuition, reading and listening
to others.

i think it's a matter of degrees of bullies out there on the earth plane who
are still struggling to be greedy, competetive, and powerful to the point of
lookin pretty big sometimes. but i think there is a bigger energy based in
spiritual consensus that sees the whole earth plane as a lesson place for the
degrees from bully to humanitarian nice guy/gal. they do try to point us in
the healthy direction but they don't come in and wave a magic wand and make
peace on earth cause that would not resolve the karma of the bullies still
here, we gotta figure it out on our own or thru cooperation and reducing our
karma.

we are all greedy bank presidents, and eco-destroyers to one degree or
another thru such things as landlord, car driver, toilet paper user, computer
folks, etc. we are all guilty to one degree or another and are put in the
midst of even meaner dudes to see if we have learned enough knowledge and
wisdom to live with the devil and not be influenced or tempted by the
methods
that keep us/them in check. if we ever can pass all the difficult tests that
are in store for us on the earth plane i suspect these spiritual folks will
find out and introduce themselves and invite us to join their ranks.

things like non-profit organization, land trust, back to the magna carta
things have been looking up on the scene of fairness. slavery in it's crudest
form and hitler type control is slowly being reduced so is it really worse or
better over time. i say a little better. if you don't wanna pay taxes study
and master common law or form a non-profit org. and you can be free. don't
expect someone to hand you unlimited freedom, it is something we need to
be
worthy of, to work towards, or prove we are ready for.

perhaps that ufo roswell crash way back when really happened and the
government came in and made up a story to cover it up. makes sense to me
not
to unleash all that tecnology to the masses overnite to play with and perhaps
destroy each other with. as a species we aren't much above animal
intelligence
to be given too much high tech to play with would be disasterous, look how
close to the brink we are right now as we speak. anyway this one book(hard
to
find) called "brother of the third degree" by will garver really made me
excited and i breathed a sigh of relief for the spirit that it represented to
me about the new world order or the conspiracy theories.

it is quite possible that the earth plane may destroy the human species and
may have done it before as in lemuria and atlantis. in east indian religion or
philosophy there is a theory that the cycle of creation and destruction goes
on and on on the earth plane over and over and that over time some of us
see
the pattern and it's limitations and somehow rise above it and move on to
other lessons. i think there is something to it but can't prove it, just keep
lookin for more clues and keep tryin to refine the body mind and spirit.
testing one two...........f

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Wed, 02 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

bob wrote:
>
> Offhand, I see nothing wrong with "landlord" -- just a simple business
> transaction -- unless you are objecting to the whole concept of land
> ownership. That's a separate issue as I see it.

in my mind there is nothing equal or natural about one having access to land
while another has to pay for it. to charge someone else for access to ones
land creates inequality and is a form of slavery in my mind. tho i continue to
do it, i always remind people here they have an option to
landlord/tennant(polarity) arrangement which is consensus land trust. yes
land
ownership in this age is better than old days but still a long way from
natural. also it is not natural to get money from someone else's need. in my
mind we should all be growing our own food, being our own doctor and lawyer,
building our own house, etc. the renaissance man/woman approach to life.
obviously none of us are there but i would support an effort in that direction
and am well on my way.
>
> Isn't that just playing their game? Studying and mastering law doesn't
> sound like "freedom" to me. It sounds more like drudgery. It sounds as
> if you are saying that I have to become a slave (to the lawbooks and
> courtrooms and judges -- and hoping I don't get railroaded) in order to
> be "free."

not quite like playing their game, don't you wanna be yer own doctor, why not
be yer own lawyer too, at least for the money savings if nothin else. if we
are gonna be social beings learning common law is as important as learning
natural health in fact it is an extension of natural health. it is not easy
but i believe that it is rewarding and meaningful and it takes us beyond a big
brother need in our life which actually is a wellness issue. it also increases
our self esteem to know we are less in need or control of others experise.
wish i was a better example, lack of support has made me lazy and
complacent.
non-profit org. is also steping outside the system a bit and being more
responsible and being rewarded with choices others grumble the system has
taken away.
>
> Yes, the government would like to do the destroying with it. In this
> country, we the people are supposed to be running the government, not
> some unelected bureaucrats with security clearances.

we allow it to happen by not being more involved with progressive social
systems like consensus, non-profit, etc. if we the people are irresponsible
which in general we are, then we need a big brother to guide, protect, and yes
control us. not that big brother has it together, but as i said i believe big
brother is watched over by spiritual folks to one degree or another. doesn't
mean our mass karma won't destroy us any day now tho.

> I'd agree with that, but we already have more than we need to wipe
> ourselves out, and the wrong people are in control of it.

somehow the wrong people you talk about are the less than perfect elected
officials we have put in office even if there is soft money funding the
elections. it's not perfect but it's an improvement over dictatorship or
monarchy. consensus or non-profit offers a little more hope and refinement
but
not many give it much thought while spending more time discussing the
problem.
>
> Well, the ones I read make my hair stand on end. Try "The Unseen Hand"
> on for size. There are degrees way higher than 3rd, and they get more
> molevalant the higher up you go.

well, here's a question for those who come to me sayin there's no hope. is
the
universe controlled by the devil and is it all bad in the end. me thinks not.
a lot of what we see is what we get. those who dwell on the problem will
always say it's "them" who are to blame for what is while i say it is all of
us to one degree or another and let's work on reducing that degree. it's all
karma and even if we all die tomorrow our karma will be less. this discussion
relates to karma and spirit and for those unsure about their faith in such
stuff may appear unfounded or silly. what can i say, i'm a fool for the spirit.
>
> Haen't figured out how to do that yet. One has to overcome fear of death
> for starters.

that's a good start, how bout finding a good non-profit cause and pursue it
with a consensus group of friends. how bout a consensus raw food clinic
retreat and educational program and homesteading program. oh oh, startin
to
ramble earth releaf propaganda, but that's all i know to get what we all seem
to want, better wellness and freedom. easier said than done but worth the
effort, at least in the mind of this stubborn idealist. aloha, f
>
> Bob

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Wed, 02 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

bob wrote:
>
> Offhand, I see nothing wrong with "landlord" -- just a simple business
> transaction -- unless you are objecting to the whole concept of land
> ownership. That's a separate issue as I see it.

in my mind there is nothing equal or natural about one having access to land
while another has to pay for it. to charge someone else for access to ones
land creates inequality and is a form of slavery in my mind. tho i continue to
do it, i always remind people here they have an option to
landlord/tennant(polarity) arrangement which is consensus land trust. yes
land
ownership in this age is better than old days but still a long way from
natural. also it is not natural to get money from someone else's need. in my
mind we should all be growing our own food, being our own doctor and lawyer,
building our own house, etc. the renaissance man/woman approach to life.
obviously none of us are there but i would support an effort in that direction
and am well on my way.
>
> Isn't that just playing their game? Studying and mastering law doesn't
> sound like "freedom" to me. It sounds more like drudgery. It sounds as
> if you are saying that I have to become a slave (to the lawbooks and
> courtrooms and judges -- and hoping I don't get railroaded) in order to
> be "free."

not quite like playing their game, don't you wanna be yer own doctor, why not
be yer own lawyer too, at least for the money savings if nothin else. if we
are gonna be social beings learning common law is as important as learning
natural health in fact it is an extension of natural health. it is not easy
but i believe that it is rewarding and meaningful and it takes us beyond a big
brother need in our life which actually is a wellness issue. it also increases
our self esteem to know we are less in need or control of others experise.
wish i was a better example, lack of support has made me lazy and
complacent.
non-profit org. is also steping outside the system a bit and being more
responsible and being rewarded with choices others grumble the system has
taken away.
>
> Yes, the government would like to do the destroying with it. In this
> country, we the people are supposed to be running the government, not
> some unelected bureaucrats with security clearances.

we allow it to happen by not being more involved with progressive social
systems like consensus, non-profit, etc. if we the people are irresponsible
which in general we are, then we need a big brother to guide, protect, and yes
control us. not that big brother has it together, but as i said i believe big
brother is watched over by spiritual folks to one degree or another. doesn't
mean our mass karma won't destroy us any day now tho.

> I'd agree with that, but we already have more than we need to wipe
> ourselves out, and the wrong people are in control of it.

somehow the wrong people you talk about are the less than perfect elected
officials we have put in office even if there is soft money funding the
elections. it's not perfect but it's an improvement over dictatorship or
monarchy. consensus or non-profit offers a little more hope and refinement
but
not many give it much thought while spending more time discussing the
problem.
>
> Well, the ones I read make my hair stand on end. Try "The Unseen Hand"
> on for size. There are degrees way higher than 3rd, and they get more
> molevalant the higher up you go.

well, here's a question for those who come to me sayin there's no hope. is
the
universe controlled by the devil and is it all bad in the end. me thinks not.
a lot of what we see is what we get. those who dwell on the problem will
always say it's "them" who are to blame for what is while i say it is all of
us to one degree or another and let's work on reducing that degree. it's all
karma and even if we all die tomorrow our karma will be less. this discussion
relates to karma and spirit and for those unsure about their faith in such
stuff may appear unfounded or silly. what can i say, i'm a fool for the spirit.
>
> Haen't figured out how to do that yet. One has to overcome fear of death
> for starters.

that's a good start, how bout finding a good non-profit cause and pursue it
with a consensus group of friends. how bout a consensus raw food clinic
retreat and educational program and homesteading program. oh oh, startin
to
ramble earth releaf propaganda, but that's all i know to get what we all seem
to want, better wellness and freedom. easier said than done but worth the
effort, at least in the mind of this stubborn idealist. aloha, f
>
> Bob

Subject:
Re: [landtrust] Off topic homeless at U.C. Berkely
Date:
Wed, 02 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

because of public health sanitary concerns, ask the county, city, regional or
state health department or the homeless to learn to deal with their shit in a
sanitary organic way. recyling, natural way that is totally self-contained
compost toilet systems until it becomes organic humus. if we can spend
billions on a space station that recycles it's shit and waste into growing
food hydroponically it's high time we as a society and individuals learn how
to deal with our shit here on earth and not send it down the road to some
other dump site. let's clean up the other pollution we live in also. aloha and
peace, forest for earth releaf.

Joe wrote:
>
> Because of public health sanitary concerns, ask the homeless to move
> on. For more info, contac your county, city, regional or state health
> department.

Subject:
[landtrust] Ethics and Spiritual Values
Date:
Fri, 04 Aug 2000
From:
"Silver Wings"

There can be no peace as long as you
make war on Mother Earth.

A thousand years ago or more we the Haudenosaunee, the Iroquois, were
given the rules and processes of democracy. The principles of this
democracy are: Peace in mind and community, Equity, which is justice
for the people, and the power of the good minds, which embodies good
health and reason.

This democracy established power in the people who joined of their
own free will. It established the process of informed consent. It
balanced the duties of governance between men and women. It gave
women the duty of choosing leadership, that was then ratified by
consensus of the people. It also gave women the power of recall. It
provided the principle of representation of people in government, as
well as accountability by leadership.

It established respect as a law. It established access to all leaders
and an open forum on all issues, and it did not discriminate on the
basis of gender or age. It promoted freedom as a responsibility and
above all it was based upon the spiritual laws of nature.

This was a seamless government that inspired Benjamin Franklin to
say "...this is a government that seems indissoluble." It inspired
the roots of western democracy that we know today. All this from
indigenous peoples.

This Democracy is all inclusive. Democracy is direct access to
leadership. Democracy is equal protection under law. True democracy
does not abide privilege, nor centralized control of power.
Leadership is privileged only to serve. And the leaders needs come
last after the people.

The democratic laws of most indigenous peoples arise from their
understanding of the natural law and the regenerative powers that
sustain life.

Therefore, "sustainable" in our terms means working with these laws
that could be termed spiritual.

We were instructed to make all of our laws in concert with these
principles thus insuring life in endless cycles. To challenge these
cycles and the interdependent processes of life that sustain us will
insure our defeat and demise on this Earth. We human beings can be
productive and supportive to this network or we can be parasites.
Right now we are parasites.

And we are, by sheer numbers and behavior, extinguishing other life
forms. The natural laws says that no one entity can grow unchecked.
There are forces that will check this unbridled growth, such as
disease and lack of food and water. Privilege will not prevail.

Read On... http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/OrenLyons.html

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Mon, 7 Aug 2000
From:
Bob
To:
forest

Forest,

>in my mind there is nothing equal or natural about one having access to
land
>while another has to pay for it.

Nowadays everone has equal access to it. You either buy it or rent it,
just like a car or a house or other consumer item.

> also it is not natural to get money from someone else's need. in my
>mind we should all be growing our own food, being our own doctor and
lawyer,
>building our own house, etc.

Not everyone wants to do all those things, so they hire others to do them
instead, while they focus their life energies on things they find more
rewarding or profitable.

Also, should we build our own houses from scratch? That might work
better in Hawaii than in, say, Michigan or Wisconsin, where greater
protection from the elements is necessary.

Even in Hawaii, you had to rely on someone else to provide the pipes you
use for plumbing. You didn't not make them yourself by extracting iron
ore and forging the steel that comprises them.

>why not be yer own lawyer too, at least for the money savings if nothin
else.

To me, THAT is definitely a form of slavery, though perhaps necessary on
this earth plane. There is nothing natural about manmade laws and
loopholes.

>non-profit org. is also steping outside the system a bit and being more
>responsible and being rewarded with choices others grumble the system
has
>taken away.

Non-profit org is definitely part of the system. I know of a church in
Indiana that is trying to opt out of that one, and they are getting
persecuted by the IRS authorities. They might even lose their church
building because they are not "playing the game" according to government
rules.

>somehow the wrong people you talk about are the less than perfect
elected
>officials we have put in office even if there is soft money funding the
>elections.

No, I'm talking about the people who decide which people we have to
choose from when we "elect" them. The people we "elect" are mostly
controlled by small powerful groups. The elections are just for show so
that we delude ourselves that we are exercising free choice at the ballot
box.

>it's not perfect but it's an improvement over dictatorship or monarchy.

That's exactly what it is, a dictatorship or oligarchy, IMO, only it's
secret, so the people don't have an easy enemy to target. They think
they are making their own choices.

> consensus or non-profit offers a little more hope and refinement but
>not many give it much thought while spending more time discussing the
problem.

Maybe, I don't know. Our CSA is supposedly run by consensus too, but I'm
not sure it really is. Those who are more skilled at manipulating group
meetings are the ones whose agendas get adopted.

>well, here's a question for those who come to me sayin there's no hope.
is the
>universe controlled by the devil and is it all bad in the end. me thinks
not.

It's possible the earth plane is. But there's a lot more to the universe
than planet Earth. I wouldn't extrapolate to the whole universe from the
example of one planet.

>those who dwell on the problem will
>always say it's "them" who are to blame for what is while i say it is
all of
>us to one degree or another

Why not both? Problem is it's hard to get people excited enough to do
anything about the problem when they don't even perceive a problem.

>even if we all die tomorrow our karma will be less

I assume you mean negative karma. There's good karma too, you know.

>that's a good start, how bout finding a good non-profit cause and pursue
it
>with a consensus group of friends. how bout a consensus raw food clinic
>retreat and educational program and homesteading program.

I've got more than enough on my plate already for now, but thanks for the
ideas.

Bob

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Wed, 09 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Bob wrote:
>
> Nowadays everone has equal access to it(land). You either buy it or rent it,
> just like a car or a house or other consumer item.

i wouldn't exactly call it equal access if you look at it from a global
perspective and consider the growing world population. there is an increasing
division between the rich and the poor. the US is the cream of the crop at
the
top of the rich pile with one out of forty being millionaires, we are
fortunate to be here. in a natural sense land should not be bought and sold.
by the time one goes through all the hoops to get a small homestead the
spirit
for living naturally is often lost with building codes, etc.

> Not everyone wants to do all those things, so they hire others to do them
> instead, while they focus their life energies on things they find more
> rewarding or profitable.

i don't know if you are familiar with the term renaissance man, but there
have
been times in his-story when we took pride in learning to be a jack of all
trades and master of some. i think in a natural setting one does not
specialize in jobs, rather one learns all the skills necessary to survive in
the nature. this has some effect on the spirit and well-being of the people.
it may be more profitable to specialize in this modern age but in my mind it
is unhealthy and unnatural.
>
> Also, should we build our own houses from scratch? That might work
> better in Hawaii than in, say, Michigan or Wisconsin, where greater
> protection from the elements is necessary.

for thousands of years native cultures have built their own houses in the
coldest climates in the world. i built a three story log house in northern
wisconsin by the self years ago. one develops pride and self esteem on such
a
mission and increases their knowledge of nature immensely. when we do
more for
ourselves and teach each other freely, the codependency factors that
separate
family and friends are not so evident.
>
> Even in Hawaii, you had to rely on someone else to provide the pipes you
> use for plumbing. You didn't not make them yourself by extracting iron
> ore and forging the steel that comprises them.

actually my pipes are polyethylene, you are correct in pointing out i am not
totally self-sufficient, however with more support i would make that attempt
over time and be blessed with the effort spiritually no doubt. i would be
taking responsibility for my life in a natural way and not depending on
greedy, polluting corporations for my goods and services. water catchment
and/or bamboo pipes might be more natural alternatives.

> To me, THAT(being our own lawyer) is definitely a form of slavery, though
perhaps necessary
on
> this earth plane. There is nothing natural about manmade laws and
> loopholes.

i think that common law is a beautiful natural way to settle disputes. the law
system i believe was originally started in an effort to avoid war and violence
and get beyond animal intelligence in social settings, to settle things in a
fair way thru mediation and holding one accountable for their actions. like
all areas of society there are those who will find ways to cheat, however that
is why it is good to defend the self and become knowledgeable of fairness
factors to be able to avoid having the cheaters take over our lives. we can
do
that individually or as non-profit groups like civil liberties union does.
>
> Non-profit org is definitely part of the system. I know of a church in
> Indiana that is trying to opt out of that one, and they are getting
> persecuted by the IRS authorities. They might even lose their church
> building because they are not "playing the game" according to government
> rules.

you are correct, non-profit is part of the system, but what a wonderful
choice
to have for those dissatisfied with the more conventional big brother
approach
to life. if one is trying to get beyond greed and profit one gets more freedom
but still needs to be monitored to keep the cheaters in check, or those who
may attempt to introduce some unfair practices. we need a big brother
system
for the masses who are unable to take responsibility for themselves, but
also
need options for those who wish to move in a more responsible humanitarian
way. churches in the past and present can become as corupt as any other
part
of society if left unchecked. it is unfortunate that the population of the
earth has grown so large that we need a huge organized new world order
system
to help keep us from blowing each other up or polluting each other. it is far
from perfect but has done amazingly well considering the normal animal
behavior of the masses and the corporate greed machines.

> No, I'm talking about the people who decide which people we have to
> choose from when we "elect" them. The people we "elect" are mostly
> controlled by small powerful groups. The elections are just for show so
> that we delude ourselves that we are exercising free choice at the ballot
> box.

the election process can be improved no doubt and will i suspect over time.
the ones you refer to as small powerful groups we all support to one degree
or
another by supporting the consumer lifestyles that allowed them to gain
control. these are the large corporations that lost site of nature in their
quest to keep the customers satisfied. big oil companies and car
manufacturers
and steel companies and drug companies. we have stepped away from the
drug
world with natural hygiene type diets but that is only one small part of the
whole we need to address if we really wanna walk our talk and live a karma
free natural life.
>
> That's exactly what it is(the system), a dictatorship or oligarchy, IMO, only
it's
> secret, so the people don't have an easy enemy to target. They think
> they are making their own choices.

well, i suspect if we lived in real dictatorship or oligarchy we would be a
lot more discontent and unable to even protest without the threat of death
or
imprisonment. there is still a lotta injustice and need for improvement no
doubt, but i still say it's a step in the right direction and the room for
improvement is available thru consensus and/or non-profit humanitarian
efforts
any time we choose to live more humble less greedy and less profitable
natural lifestyles.
>
> Maybe, I don't know. Our CSA is supposedly run by consensus too, but I'm
> not sure it really is. Those who are more skilled at manipulating group
> meetings are the ones whose agendas get adopted.

there is always room for improvement in any system and i am thankful that
we
have the opportunity to experiment and explore choices in those relms. even
consensus communications can have ways of manipulation and control as you
say,
i have witnessed corruption in consensus but way less than majority rule. i
studied consensus and found ways to prevent a lotta coruption in the ranks. i
refined it so well that i can't find anyone spiritual enough to join in.
things like the equal time to speak without interuption and limit to length of
time for meetings are just a couple examples.
>
> It's possible the earth plane is. But there's a lot more to the universe
> than planet Earth. I wouldn't extrapolate to the whole universe from the
> example of one planet.

i agree it is possible that the earth plane goes thru neverending cycles of
good and evil to introduce the masses to the concept of how karma operates
and
then offers choices that allow one a spiritual escape valve out of the earth
dimension whenever one is ready to move out and on to more spiritual
places.
>
> Why not both? Problem is it's hard to get people excited enough to do
> anything about the problem when they don't even perceive a problem.

i agree it is both us and them who are messin things up and yes you are also
correct in saying we have become too complacent and dependant on a big
brother
to act on our dreams.

> I assume you mean negative karma. There's good karma too, you know.

in the bigger picture there is no good and bad karma, rather it is the idea
that all things are good but may have limitations and when we tire of the
limitations we have choices and options to move us on if we choose to see
them. getting beyond the good and evil polarity and exploring trancendance
of
polarity is part of the spiritual experience in forest's mind.
>
> I've got more than enough on my plate already for now, but thanks for the
> ideas.

many are called but few have the time, but is that really the truth or are we
just too complacent to change. in some ways it is lack of support that keeps
us busy with the old ways. here at earth releaf we can begin to find support
for more natual living thru concensus paradigm. it is different than the
system and gets spiritual and scarey at the same time, but there is really
nothing to fear but fear itself.

aloha and peace, forest

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Thu, 10 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest,

> in a natural sense land should not be bought and sold.

Sure, an argument can be made for that. But if land CAN be bought and
sold, then it only makes sense that it can also be rented. Same for
structures that are built on the land. Certainly, the one who builds the
structures ought to have the main say in how they are used.

>the spirit for living naturally is often lost with building codes, etc.

I agree. Building codes are probably an unconstitutional restriction of
freedom.

>i don't know if you are familiar with the term renaissance man, but
there have
>been times in his-story when we took pride in learning to be a jack of
all
>trades and master of some

Sure, I agree again. But that doesn't mean that it's the most efficient
way to spend one's time.

>i think in a natural setting one does not
>specialize in jobs, rather one learns all the skills necessary to
survive in
>the nature. this has some effect on the spirit and well-being of the
people.
>it may be more profitable to specialize in this modern age but in my
mind it
>is unhealthy and unnatural.

Yes and no. Cooperation is natural to humans, and cooperation leads to
specialization in order to improve efficiency.

>for thousands of years native cultures have built their own houses in
the
>coldest climates in the world. i built a three story log house in
northern
>wisconsin by the self years ago. one develops pride and self esteem on
such a
>mission and increases their knowledge of nature immensely. when we do
more for
>ourselves and teach each other freely, the codependency factors that
separate
>family and friends are not so evident.

Agreed.

>actually my pipes are polyethylene, you are correct in pointing out i am
not
>totally self-sufficient, however with more support i would make that
attempt
>over time and be blessed with the effort spiritually no doubt. i would
be
>taking responsibility for my life in a natural way and not depending on
>greedy, polluting corporations for my goods and services. water
catchment
>and/or bamboo pipes might be more natural alternatives.

Yes, but once again you sacrifice efficiency for independence. But are
we ever truly independent? I say we are not. We will be impacted by the
decisions and results and actions others take, whether we like it or not.

>i think that common law is a beautiful natural way to settle disputes.
the law
>system i believe was originally started in an effort to avoid war and
violence
>and get beyond animal intelligence in social settings,

Yes, I agree. But nowadays, statute law is the predominant form of law.
It is this that is so onerous to study.

> we can do that individually or as non-profit groups like civil
liberties union does.

The concept of profit and nonprofit is once again statute law, not common
law.

>you are correct, non-profit is part of the system, but what a wonderful
choice
>to have for those dissatisfied with the more conventional big brother
approach
>to life.

It is natural for humans to create surplus in order to live through lean
times or for emergencies or for bartering with one another. Therefore
profit is normal and natural.

>if one is trying to get beyond greed and profit one gets more freedom
>but still needs to be monitored to keep the cheaters in check

Profit and greed are not the same thing. Greed is wanting more than
you're entitled to.

>we need a big brother system
>for the masses who are unable to take responsibility for themselves

That is what Big Brother would certainly like us to believe.

>it is unfortunate that the population of the
>earth has grown so large that we need a huge organized new world order
system
>to help keep us from blowing each other up or polluting each other.

Again, that is what the authoritarian-minded Big Brothers would have us
believe. They create the wars and violence and then offer their One
World Government as a solution.

>it is far from perfect but has done amazingly well considering the
normal animal
>behavior of the masses and the corporate greed machines.

Most animals are not "normally" violent toward members of their own
species, and I don't believe humans are either. They are incited to act
that way to give the rulers an excuse to rule.

>the ones you refer to as small powerful groups we all support to one
degree or
>another by supporting the consumer lifestyles that allowed them to gain
control.

Those are not the people I'm talking about.

>well, i suspect if we lived in real dictatorship or oligarchy we would
be a
>lot more discontent and unable to even protest without the threat of
death or
>imprisonment.

Yes, and that is the direction in which we are headed. We will probably
get to experience that within our lifetimes.

>that all things are good but may have limitations and when we tire of
the limitations

Yes, so why do you speak of "reducing" karma, as it can be neither
increased nor decreased? it just is.

>many are called but few have the time, but is that really the truth or
are we
>just too complacent to change. in some ways it is lack of support that
keeps
>us busy with the old ways.

For me, change must be an evolution, not a revolution. What you call
complacency is a matter of inertia. I see changes that need to be made
in my life, but not everything all at once. One step at a time works
better for me.

Bob

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Thu, 10 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Bob Avery wrote:
>
> Forest,
>
> > in a natural sense land should not be bought and sold.
>
> Sure, an argument can be made for that. But if land CAN be bought and
> sold, then it only makes sense that it can also be rented. Same for
> structures that are built on the land. Certainly, the one who builds the
> structures ought to have the main say in how they are used.

i think you missed my point about how large private land holdings continue to
add to the gap between the rich and poor. also the point that in a natural
world we provide for our individual survival and don't need to depend on
others for money.
>
> I agree. Building codes are probably an unconstitutional restriction of
> freedom.

i suspect a common law support group could find a way around building codes.

> Sure, I agree again. But that doesn't mean that it's (renaissance man
appoach) the most
efficient
> way to spend one's time.

i am not talking so much about efficiency as naturally or more karma free or
spiritually balanced. however i also would say it is more efficient when one
considers all the subtle codependant factors that enter in and the ecology
problems.
>
> Yes and no. Cooperation is natural to humans, and cooperation leads to
> specialization in order to improve efficiency.

specialization in my mind is a major contributor to alienating ourselves from
nature and each other. jack or jane of all natural survival skills encourages
more cooperation cause codependacy factors will be at a minimum and keep
us
from wanting to avoid the group. in the beginning stages or transition we can
slowly learn from the specialists by sharing the knowledge of our specialties
with each other so that all slowly gain in survival knowledge and no longer
depend on a big brother or mother or whatever for it.

> Yes, but once again you sacrifice efficiency for independence. But are
> we ever truly independent? I say we are not. We will be impacted by the
> decisions and results and actions others take, whether we like it or not.

i don't think we sacrifice efficiency by being more self-sufficient, in fact
if we really play with it we can get more and more efficient over time. i
don't necessarily wanna be totally independant, just don't wanna lotta
codependant energy in my life. by teaching others rather than doing for
others
we all win win in a coopertive way.
>
> Yes, I agree. But nowadays, statute law is the predominant form of law.
> It is this that is so onerous to study.

statute law is predominant because we allow it to be and don't take
responsibility for studying and applying common law in our lives.

>
> The concept of profit and nonprofit is once again statute law, not common
> law.

there is no doubt a common law approach to nonprofit type organization and i
would consider it if the group was interested.
>
> It is natural for humans to create surplus in order to live through lean
> times or for emergencies or for bartering with one another. Therefore
> profit is normal and natural.

yes storing the fruits of our labor is wise in cold climates or emergencies,
however if we have to hire others or work for someone else to get our
money we
loose touch with natural survival and interaction on a wholistic basis.
>
> Profit and greed are not the same thing. Greed is wanting more than
> you're entitled to.

working for others or hiring others for our livelihood is unnatural and
unspiritual in my mind, tho i still do it to one degree or another i would be
willing to reduce it over time with a supportive group of friends. greed and
profit are not exactly the same but when we look to others instead of nature
for our livelihood we are approaching the greed factor and starting to build
up karma.
>
> That(big brother is essential for keeping the masses in line) is what Big
Brother would
certainly like us to believe.

yes, but don't you think that is true and if so why knock it? it has been a
part of our evolution out of animal consciousness for thousands of years.
male
dominant societies.
>
> Again, that is what the authoritarian-minded Big Brothers would have us
> believe. They create the wars and violence and then offer their One
> World Government as a solution.

isn't it true for the masses, why knock it, might be a lot worse with anarchy
or whatever you would replace it with. what would you replace it with
anyway?
>
> >it is far from perfect but has done amazingly well considering the
> normal animal
> >behavior of the masses and the corporate greed machines.
>
> Most animals are not "normally" violent toward members of their own
> species, and I don't believe humans are either. They are incited to act
> that way to give the rulers an excuse to rule.

do you really believe that? some animals do posturing without violence while
some will fight to the death over food, territory, or sex. humans are so
similar that we are only two percent different than our primate animal
relitives. look at the *his-story* of male dominated societies, just a lotta
pecking order mentality and over specialization based on male dominance and
now female dominance as well in western cultures. this is what consensus
and
cooperation is trying to evolve away from.
>
> Yes, and that is the direction in which we are headed. We will probably
> get to experience that within our lifetimes.

if we do, it will be because too many are dwelling on the problem or living
lifestyles that support the problem rather than tryin to live more
coopertively and sustainably using nature more and money based systems
less.

> Yes, so why do you speak of "reducing" karma, as it can be neither
> increased nor decreased? it just is.

if we refine our way of living it affects and reduces the degree of karma
that
inhibits our spiritual evolution.
>
> >many are called but few have the time, but is that really the truth or
> are we
> >just too complacent to change. in some ways it is lack of support that
> keeps
> >us busy with the old ways.
>
> For me, change must be an evolution, not a revolution.

i am all for evolution and never ever use the word revolution.

What you call
> complacency is a matter of inertia. I see changes that need to be made
> in my life, but not everything all at once. One step at a time works
> better for me.

so what steps are you interested in and how can we facilitate or cooperate
with each other in those slow but moving steps?

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:15:58 -0400
From:
Bob

Forest,

>i think you missed my point about how large private land holdings
continue to
>add to the gap between the rich and poor. also the point that in a
natural
>world we provide for our individual survival and don't need to depend on
>others for money.

OK, your points are noted.

>specialization in my mind is a major contributor to alienating ourselves
from
>nature and each other. jack or jane of all natural survival skills
encourages
>more cooperation cause codependacy factors will be at a minimum and keep
us
>from wanting to avoid the group. in the beginning stages or transition
we can
>slowly learn from the specialists by sharing the knowledge of our
specialties
>with each other so that all slowly gain in survival knowledge and no
longer
>depend on a big brother or mother or whatever for it.

Yes, these are reasonable points too.

>i don't think we sacrifice efficiency by being more self-sufficient, in
fact
>if we really play with it we can get more and more efficient over time.

I don't really buy this. Sure, your competency at any given task will
increase with repetition, but there are so many possible tasks that
you'll never have time to master them all. There will always be someone
who specializes in each one of the tasks who will exceed your efficiency
in that task be he devotes more time to it.

>i don't necessarily wanna be totally independant, just don't wanna lotta
>codependant energy in my life. by teaching others rather than doing for
others
>we all win win in a coopertive way.

I think that increasing self-sufficiency is a good goal, and I'm working
in that direction myself, but I realize that ultimately there is no such
thing as complete independence.

>statute law is predominant because we allow it to be and don't take
>responsibility for studying and applying common law in our lives.

Yes, but it's there all the same.

>yes storing the fruits of our labor is wise in cold climates or
emergencies,
>however if we have to hire others or work for someone else to get our
money we
>loose touch with natural survival and interaction on a wholistic basis.

True.

>working for others or hiring others for our livelihood is unnatural and
>unspiritual in my mind, tho i still do it to one degree or another i
would be
>willing to reduce it over time with a supportive group of friends.

Well, I just see it as one form of cooperation.

>> That(big brother is essential for keeping the masses in line) is what
Big Brother would certainly like us >>to believe.
>
>yes, but don't you think that is true and if so why knock it? it has
been a
>part of our evolution out of animal consciousness for thousands of
years. male
>dominant societies.

No, I don't think it is true. We are miseducated and therefore easy to
manipulate. Since this is exactly the kind of subject Big Brother likes,
he has no incentive to change the system either. Only if people wake up
and throw off the yoke will change happen, but it's kind of a chicken and
egg thing here.

>isn't it true for the masses, why knock it, might be a lot worse with
anarchy
>or whatever you would replace it with. what would you replace it with
anyway?

Well, a constitutional republic -- what the US is "supposed" to be --
would certainly be worth a try. Even Forest's amoebalike cells of
consensus extended family would be better than the status quo, and so
would anarchy.

>do you really believe that? some animals do posturing without violence
while
>some will fight to the death over food, territory, or sex. humans are so
>similar that we are only two percent different than our primate animal
>relitives. look at the *his-story* of male dominated societies, just a
lotta
>pecking order mentality and over specialization based on male dominance
and
>now female dominance as well in western cultures. this is what consensus
and
>cooperation is trying to evolve away from.

I agree that "consensus cooperation" is better than Big Brother. Almost
anything would be. The "pecking order mentality," as you put it, is the
essence of Big Brotherism. That's what the government and the secret
societies are all about.

>if we do, it will be because too many are dwelling on the problem or
living
>lifestyles that support the problem rather than tryin to live more
>coopertively and sustainably using nature more and money based systems
less.

Most people can't even visualize that as an alternative -- they are too
brainwashed.

>> Yes, so why do you speak of "reducing" karma, as it can be neither
>> increased nor decreased? it just is.
>
>if we refine our way of living it affects and reduces the degree of
karma that
>inhibits our spiritual evolution.

Again, you are referring not to karma, but bad karma. The good karma
will increase. When one increases, the other must decrease.

>so what steps are you interested in and how can we facilitate or
cooperate
>with each other in those slow but moving steps?

I am moving forward on the self-sufficiency front by learning more about
gardening and farming. Getting lots of food from my garden this year.
Also retiring from the rat race 11 years ago was a step forward. The raw
diet was another. The M2M yet another. Who knows what the future will
bring? I'm a work in progress.

Bob

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Bob wrote:
>
> >i don't think we sacrifice efficiency by being more self-sufficient, in
> fact
> >if we really play with it we can get more and more efficient over time.
>
> I don't really buy this. Sure, your competency at any given task will
> increase with repetition, but there are so many possible tasks that
> you'll never have time to master them all. There will always be someone
> who specializes in each one of the tasks who will exceed your efficiency
> in that task be he devotes more time to it.

i have personally found that i become more efficient pursuing self-sufficient
ideas. pecking order and money matters related can really bog me down. and
i
maintain a creative unique personality and individuality rather than becoming
a mass minded robot. the ice man discovered in austria was an interesting
example of a renesaisance man. i might be willing to just simplify my life
more and more to a point where i could be more and more self-sufficient
especially if i had a non-dominating more loving and bonding tribe to share
the experience with. we are not too far removed from totally self-sufficient
native peoples, if we could have their life with consensus instead of the
pecking order hierarchy it might be a whole new fulfilling loving natural
experience. i would move slowly in that direction as an experiment in more
sustainable and spiritual living. i would also be willing to try other
possibilities.
>
> I think that increasing self-sufficiency is a good goal, and I'm working
> in that direction myself, but I realize that ultimately there is no such
> thing as complete independence.

maybe not complete self-sufficiency but it wasn't too long ago that it was
the
natural norm.
>
> Yes, but it's there all the same(statute law).

no problem as long as we have a choice, remember the masses in my mind
need it.
>
> >working for others or hiring others for our livelihood is unnatural and
> >unspiritual in my mind, tho i still do it to one degree or another i
> would be
> >willing to reduce it over time with a supportive group of friends.
>
> Well, I just see it as one form of cooperation.

yes, i guess cooperation is a matter of degrees rather than a black and white
issue. i just idealize a refined form of cooperation.
>
> >> That(big brother is essential for keeping the masses in line) is what
> Big Brother would certainly like us >>to believe.
>
> No, I don't think it is true. We are miseducated and therefore easy to
> manipulate. Since this is exactly the kind of subject Big Brother likes,
> he has no incentive to change the system either. Only if people wake up
> and throw off the yoke will change happen, but it's kind of a chicken and
> egg thing here.

what occured to me somewhere down the line when i was thinking that big
brother was out to get me, was that if i could look beyond the limitations or
problems of big brother consciousness i began to see options and choices to
the big brother mentality and they functioned and existed side by side with
the big brother approach. that for me was really refreshing and i started to
see hope again for refining my life. we all have big brothers or uncles,
aunts, etc. who are at different degrees of spiritual development, they
cannot
be forced to evolve, so they live in their limitations until for one reason or
another they tire of the limitation and start searching out their options.
similar in some ways to the internet option and choice arrangement.

> Well, a constitutional republic -- what the US is "supposed" to be --
> would certainly be worth a try. Even Forest's amoebalike cells of
> consensus extended family would be better than the status quo, and so
> would anarchy.

i'm not sure exactly what a constitutional republic is, how is it different
than what we now have? anarchy at least the way i interpret it doesn't sound
very good to me, just a lotta bullies pushing each other around over territory
disputes.
>
> I agree that "consensus cooperation" is better than Big Brother. Almost
> anything would be. The "pecking order mentality," as you put it, is the
> essence of Big Brotherism. That's what the government and the secret
> societies are all about.

something inside me intuitively feels there is a consensus spiritual group
energy watching over the big broter mentality without interfering too much
but
offering those who are ready options and choices to big brother. if that is
not the case i sense we would have pecked the huWoman race to mass death
by
now. even some of those limited powerhungry greedy big brothers have a
heart
and like our relitives with limitations may some day evolve slowly to a new
better way.
>
> Most people can't even visualize that as an alternative -- they are too
> brainwashed.

yes, that's why i would love to be part of a core group effort educational and
example farm where people could look at some eco-friendly choices and find
supportive friends at the same time.
>
> Again, you are referring not to karma, but bad karma. The good karma
> will increase. When one increases, the other must decrease.

i am trying to transcend polarized thinking and therefore i refer to karma as
neither good or bad since they represent polar oppisites. or i may say all
karma is good, but may have limitations and when we become aware and tired
of
a karmic limitation we can make choices and move on to an evloved karma
position or spiritual position. a continuum concept rather than a polar one.
>
> I am moving forward on the self-sufficiency front by learning more about
> gardening and farming. Getting lots of food from my garden this year.
> Also retiring from the rat race 11 years ago was a step forward. The raw
> diet was another. The M2M yet another. Who knows what the future will
> bring? I'm a work in progress.

yes bob, i think you are moving right along and i salute you for your efforts.
aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Mon, 14 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Bob Avery wrote:
>
> How do you know? He was just a shepherd.

shepherd's in those days had to have a lotta survival skills. i don't know
that he was a shepherd tho, his tools and objects he carried with him indicate
a high level of skilled craftsmanship. most people in those days i am guessing
made most of their own things.
>
> Yes, it might end up working well for you. On the other hand, Big
> Brother might decide to force that NASA installation on you down in
> Naalehu and change your world for you. Lots of other scenarios where
> that could happen too due to forces beyond your control.

it is possible to stop some things like that if the local folks get together
and act, we have stopped a space port and a prison from happening in our
area
>
> It's a system whereby the rights of the individual are respected, even if
> that individual is in a minority position. Certain inalienable rights,
> like the rights to pursue individual freedom, life, and liberty (within
> the context of not interfering with the same rights of others) are
> absolute.

i believe we have some degree of that now, and i suspect more than any
other
time in his-story tho i suppose we could ask for a more higher degree if we
are responsible enough.
>
> What we have now is more and more a democracy, or mob rule, where you
can
> infringe anyone's rights if you get a majority of the moment to agree
> with you. This leads to all sorts of abuses, as the majority are easily
> misled by the propaganda of the rich and powerful.

yes i agree, majority rule has some limitations, but may be just right for the
masses who often infringe on the rights of others in society.

> Assuming that people by nature are mostly bullies. It's my experience
> that most people are not like that and would form some sort of
> cooperative protective system against the actions of a few.

in general i think the masses are operating on some level or degree of bully
consciousness or pecking order mentality. the alternative coopertive
movement
in the world i suspect only represents something like .01% of the population i
suspect or less. that small amount is non the less significant and a major
player in the spirit of evolution or change.
>
> Perhaps, but it would be a nonphysical, otherdimensional groups. The
> conspiratorial corporeal groups, the only ones I know, anyway, are in it
> for themselves, no matter how many innocent people are killed in wars and
> famines that they arrange for their mutual benefit.

i agree that some of this spiritual stuff is otherdimensional but i think it
is also represented on the earth plane in physical terms.
>
> Look around you. In terms of numbers of people slaughtered, the 20th
> century has been the bloodiest in history, with no sign that the 21st
> will be any better.

yes, but look at population growth factors, i think we are doing amazingly
well considering the mess we have created and i suspect there are some
small
percent of wise ones out there guiding us somehow.
>
> Maybe, but they get in it so deep, they don't know how to extricate
> themselves once they realize the true nature of what is going on. People
> have been murdered trying to stand up against it.

yes, we are all stubborn to change habits, i bet both of us would still get in
a car or jet knowing full well it is unhealthy and polluting. it's all a
matter of degrees and we are all guilty to one degree or another.

> See you in October. I'm beginning to think I may be the only M2Mer
> (outside of you) to show up. Any word from Clary yet? I emailed her
> once and got no response. Anyone else tell you s/he's coming?

well, i do think clary sounded pretty sure to me at one time. i haven't heard
from paul willems for awhile, will email him soon and see if he is still
coming. helen sun has pretty for sure commited. i have told a few folks living
on the island, so one or two may come by. i think there was one or two
others
i am forgetting that sounded like they might make it. time will tell i guess.

Subject:
[landtrust] holy moses?
Date:
Mon, 14 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

M. Emily wrote:

> ...So, I guess the Law that Moses gave--which begins by declaring the land
> to belong to the God that everyone one must honor--is probably the best
> approach to Law that will work that we humans have seen thus far.
> ...I don't know. Anybody see another approach that will work
> ...Native American tribes--of which I am a distant relation--have territory
> problems still.
> ...Thank you for beginning this stream of thought. It is appropriate for
> this forum, and I look forward to continuing in this vein.

emily i liked yer comments regarding the homeless, but in regards to moses
approach, i hope we can come up with a better one. he went to an occupied
land
based on a vision that it was promised to him by god. if the land is already
occupied by some other culture who perhaps have a different god or religion
and we tell them to leave or die, we are not making progress, look how the
middle east is still in turmoil in a similar way.

i still say the best approach is conensus coopertive land trust and
stewardship without national boundaries.

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest,

>it is possible to stop some things like that if the local folks get together
>and act, we have stopped a space port and a prison from happening in our
area

Yeah, now, bit wait a bit until the US is no longer so democratic. It wasn't
possible for the Polynesians to stop Captain
Cook's ilk.

>i believe we have some degree of that now, and i suspect more than any
other
>time in his-story tho i suppose we could ask for a more higher degree if we
>are responsible enough.

I'm not so sure about that, but I'm not a history expert.

>yes i agree, majority rule has some limitations, but may be just right for
the
>masses who often infringe on the rights of others in society.

If the masses were better educated, that wouldn't happen; but it doesn't suit
the powers that be to teach the finer points of
the Constitution in school. They want an eventual fascist dictatorship here,
so they're trying dumb us all down.
Succeeding too for the most part.

>in general i think the masses are operating on some level or degree of bully
>consciousness or pecking order mentality.

That's exactly what the "controllers" want -- and they have the mass media
in their pockets. It's hard to fight it.

>yes, but look at population growth factors, i think we are doing amazingly
>well considering the mess we have created and i suspect there are some
small
>percent of wise ones out there guiding us somehow.

One can only hope, but no, I don't think we are doing very well at all. WW III
will be much worse -- or maybe they'll
just continue the policy of rotating the misery among countries one by one.
Yugoslavia has had its turn. Iraq is still being
decimated. They don't really want Hussein out of power. It would have been
(and still would be) very easy to take him
out. What they want is starvation for the masses of Iraq.

>yes, we are all stubborn to change habits, i bet both of us would still get in
>a car or jet knowing full well it is unhealthy and polluting. it's all a
>matter of degrees and we are all guilty to one degree or another.

OK, sure, but there's a big moral difference betw suicide and murder in my
book.

Bob

Subject:
Re: Conspiracy or Theory
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> If the masses were better educated, that wouldn't happen; but it
> doesn't suit the powers that be to teach the finer points of the
> Constitution in school. They want an eventual fascist dictatorship
> here, so they're trying dumb us all down. Succeeding too for the most
> part.

i think education is secondary to a natural lifestyle with parents who
work/play together on the land with the children which is a natural form of
education. i do think education is important and the US is lagging behind in
that area i know, we used to be more at the top. i would like to be part of a
coopertive effort to implement natural survival education programs for
adults
and children. f

Subject:
Re: What happened to YOU? Oh, nothing.
Date:
Fri, 18 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

we had some big mango trees on some church property, huge mature ones on
the
corner by the highway, they were there almost as long as the church. well
first they tore the old church down and the whole community was upset. it
had
that old traditional country church look. they said it was too old to repair?
then a few weeks later when i went by the huge mango trees were on the
ground
being cut up into small pieces and hauled to the dump. once again the whole
community got up in arms over the loss of the mango. some people even
boycotted and demonstrated at the church on sunday but to no avail.

i saw a film on tv once where they showed logging in the amazon rainforest.
they take about ten or so of the biggest bulldozers you can buy, then hook
them up together in a row about 100 yards apart with chains that have links
the size of auto tires. then they all start moving in a row thru the forest.
every tree in their path is pulled over by the massive chains. yes, many of us
are crying over the lack of concern for and destruction of nature in our
lives.

all the more reason to get serious about consensus coopertive land trusts
and
find a consensus support group to get back to natural living and bonding with
each other and the earth. if we are not part of the solution, most likely we
are part of the problem.

M. Emily wrote:

> What happened to me this morning?
>
> Oh, nothing. I just wept over a dead flower, that's all.
>

Subject:
what can happen to us, oh, everything, it's all a matter of choice
Date:
Sat, 19 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

M. Emily wrote:
>
> ...Forest, thank you for responding in this way. I appreciate the point of
> view that says we must DO something. I come from a Jewish family that
> participated in the social upheavals of the 30s thru the 60s because they
> felt humanity must DO SOMETHING to stop exploitation of people, of
> resources, and of the environment.
> ...My activist relatives were among the angriest people I have ever seen,
> and their anger seethed and burned them up, and they finally gave up
> idealism of any kind and became Reagan Republicans. [shrug]
> ...For my part, I had a problem with the anger they displayed while I was
> growing up. It seemed to me that anger is not the solution to the problem
of
> envy, and I'm not certain whether anger is the solution to the problem of
> Evil. That is a cosmic issue, beyond my experience.

i think one of the solutions to anger and/or evil is to try to transcend
polarized ways of thinking and looking at life. it appears to me as we evolve
spiritually there is a point when polarity issues(creating anger and
sadness)fade, and continuum concepts start to begin(creating joy and
happiness
even in the midst of the limitations of the moment)

to put it another way i might look at life and the world situation and say,
"everything in life is good(even killing and sickness) but may have
limitations, and if we grow tired of the limitations we always have many
choices to go beyond the limitations."

it seems to me the trick is to not dwell too long on the limitation or
problem(that can make us angry or sad) and instead be actively engaged in
making the choices and moving beyond the limitation we are tired of. dwelling
on the problem while still being a part of it causes anger or frustration.
dwelling *and acting* on the solutions adds spirit and hope and even helps
eliminate the problem over time if carefully done.

> ...My experience is limited, but a few thoughts really stand out--
> ...What I have come to realize is that this whole planet and its environment
> had to come from somewhere--ergo, somebody OWNS it and it didn't
happen by
> accident. That's point one.

i think what you are talking about here is beyond ownership concepts and
time
and space also for that matter.

> ...Point two is that, among the people on this planet there are some who
> have the ability to transmit and receive Thought. [I am one of these.]

i think transmitting and recieving thought is a matter of degrees rather than
a black and white(polar) issue and i suspect all of us have some degree of it.

> ...Point three is, if you're going to protest the treatment that this planet
> GETS, the possibly ONLY effective way is to transmit the thought of
physical
> abuse of the planet to Whoever owns the planet. I believe this form of
> communication is called "prayer."

how bout tryin to transmit the thought of being open to solutions to the
problem, don't ya think "god-goddess" already knows the problems. we say
god-goddess created everthing so in effect on some level god-goddess
created
the abuse of the planet, probably to teach us that if we don't like it we can
simply be examples of the choices that slowly move away from that
particular
limitation. even if we die in the process of moving away from the limitation
we will have a sense of spirit thru our attempted effort.

> ...So I protest straight to God--all day, all night long. I say, "God, this
> is NOT appropriate. What are YOU going to do about it? After all, it's YOUR
> Planet, your rainforests, your Diversity these people are wrecking." Since
> thought transmission is what I'm "good at," that is the vocation I have set
> for myself--Cosmic protest.

the people wrecking the planet are also god-goddess's creation. they are
here
to teach us something, probably that we are all quilty to one degree or
another. i think we slowly become co-creators with god-goddess at some
point
in our spiritual evolution. so we might also ask the question, "what are
we(god-goddess and me) gonna do about it. that leads to the question or
prayer, "how can i be a better example in action of how to live sustainably on
the earth?"

> ...That is my mission en toto. For me "ET PHONE HOME" is my form of
activism
> because it is perfectly clear to me that most of the humans walking
around
> are clueless and don't care one whit what THEIR "consumerism" is doing to
> the rest of us.

just remember that is true of all of us to one degree or another(rather than
another black and white polar issue) and instead perhaps we should be sayin,
how can i-we be better and better examples in action? can you see ways in
which *you* are overconsuming to one degree or another just like *them*?

> ...What that "God" out there wants to DO with this plea for Mercy only He
> knows. I guess waiting is also part of the "deal."
> ...But if you have a better idea, I would certainly be willing to consider
> THAT.

emily, i think prayer is an important part of the mix you are discussing here.
but remember that saying, "actions speak louder than words(prayer)?
prayers
should be directed to being open channels to solutions we can act out so we
are not just talking(praying) about the problems but are actively searching
for and acting out the solutions. it seems like balancing the left and right
brain(polarity again) in an effort to let intuition(prayer) balance with
practical action(lifestyle changes) that works/plays out the solutions.

one last thought, above you refer to god as a he. this in my mind is another
polarity concept and limitation. perhaps you are angry subconciously because
you don't think the real god has a gender. male agression has a lot to do with
the mess we are in on the earth. and women are perhaps too passive to
effect a
change. therefore anger creeps into the mix.

womens lib was/is a great step in realizing the value of gender equality and
independance. now perhaps we can look and how women can take more
assertive
responsibility for the mess we have created and stop being subconsciously
angry at men.