Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Yes!
    
    And it seems to me that wilfully advocating violence(*) undermines
    the greatest strength of the human species, our ability to work
    with each other, empathize with each other, care about each other,
    and consciously choose to reach for something better than what our
    biological impulses dictate.
    
    (*) Did you ever notice that no matter what kind of violence is
    being advocated, it's always justified by the other person's
    actions?  "He deserves to be friend because his crime was so
    heinous."  "The girl I raped and murdered deserved it because she
    shouldn't have been in a bar like taht in the first place."  "The
    Jews and other misfits deserve to die because they aren't like
    us." "We have to attack this other country because they insulted
    our national pride"?

    Eagle...
    
    Please do not state that you own guns to protect 'women' in the plural. 
    You do not need to own a gun to protect me and the situations I might
    encounter.  
    
    I have been mugged and I have gotten out of the situation without a
    weapon.  Although I lost $60 I will continue to address crime in ways
    to prevent it before it happens instead of anticipating it's occurence.
                                                     
    

>    Please do not state that you own guns to protect 'women' in the plural. 

 I wasn't aware that he said "all" women. If he intends to protect more than
one, then women applies, methinks. I'm sure that the old bird would be happy to
leave you to decide your own method of self-protection.

 The Doctah

Well, apparently some people don't agree that peace and harmony are
better than conflict, and won't look to alternative solutions --
afterall, it's *always* been done that way (at least per all those
history books written by all those men). 

No wonder the human race is having trouble evolving past choosing
physical violence to each other.  

(Now that fact that women in general, traditionally, have found other
means than physical violence to resolve their own differences, might
give us hope.  But the, I don't feel like lying  in the mud with a 
gun, so what do *I* know...)

	MKV

    
    Peggy, I'm so glad that you put that basenote in; I was beginning
    to think that it was just me. There have been soooooo many notes
    in WN lately that advocate "retribution and punishment of the guilty".
    
    The petty fights between noters never bothered me, but those notes
    do. I've been hitting NEXT UNSEEN so much, it really surprised me,
    because I used to try to read almost everything in here.
    
    There are those who will probably accuse me of idealism, having
    rose colored glasses, etc. Say what you will. I don't like violence.
    Period. Including capital punishment.
    
    Recently, I watched the Leonard vs. Hearns fight with a group of
    friends. It was an enlightening experience. My motives for going
    in the first place were kinda suspect, anyway; I was there to balance
    the male/female ratio. I did not expect to enjoy the fight. But
    after a while, I started screaming and yelling and urging on the
    punches which were brutalizing and dehumanizing and DAMAGING those
    men. Some people call that "gettin' into the spirit of things".
    I was highly ashamed of myself.
    
    For various reasons, many of us permit, advocate or even encourage
    violence at times that we deem appropriate. Sometimes it is the
    idea of a vicious criminal getting his just desserts. Even in the
    form of a lynching. In other times in this country, you could replace
    the phrase "vicious criminal" with "nigger", "witch", "injun" or
    anyone else whom the people wanted to hate. Right now its okay to
    hate criminals... its also okay to hate the opposing team. To hate
    referees, to hate countries and their citizens if we have poor
    relations with them, etc.
    
    I'm not going to take anyone's right to hate away from them. In
    blacknotes recently, someone asked why we keep advocating whites
    and blacks coming together. The person listed some of the atrocities
    that white people have committed, including lynching a pregnant black
    woman, cutting open ther abdomen and crushing the skull of the
    unborn in front of cheering mobs.(sorry to be sick, but its a true
    story.) And this person said WHY ARE WE TRYING TO LIKE THESE PEOPLE!!!
                                            
    It is sooooooo easy to justify hatred and bigotry and violence and
    vindication. I read the above example, and I can't blame any black
    person for hating whites. We've done so little to you, and we've
    been so unmercifully f***ed by you. On the other hand, I personally
    do not feel like spending my energy on such negativity.     
    
    Just in case the black/white issues are not relevant to so many
    of you... (yup, totally dripping with sarcasm!) I think about the
    stories of rape and abuse and battering and I want to LAUGH when
    men question what right women have to hate you. LAUGH MY HEAD OFF.
    Because its so painfully obvious that when you try to go your merry
    way, and constantly, time after time, there are people who believe
    that if you're not exerting power, then they will exert power over
    you... and these people jump you, mug you in alleyways, take advantage
    of your helplessness in stranded cars so that they can rape you
    and mutilate your bodies for vultures to find, so that they can
    confront you smiling at bus stations and offer to take you in when
    you have run away from home only to turn you over to thugs who break
    you so that you can be made into a prostitute, too scared to think
    of running, or pump you so full of drugs that your body tells your
    mind that its got to stick around... to have it happen, to see it
    happen, or just to know that it happens. DOES THIS NOT JUSTIFY HATRED?
    
    But still, there is the choice. Am I to hate people because they
    enact cruelty upon fellow men and women and children? My personal
    answer is no. I will not hate them, I will not seek vengeance, I
    will not wish death on them. 
            
    Maybe it is because I look deep within myself, and I see that I
    am equally capable of violence. Of fury, of pre-meditated evil.
    And though I enact such rarely if ever, the line is too thin for
    me to segregate myself from fellow beings. No, we are still of the
    same mold. 
    
    And I am not into hating other human beings. Or wishing violence
    on them.
    

    How I protect myself personally and how I choose to be protected by the
    military from outside forces are two different things.
    
    I would not choose to be protected by a volunteer militia...it may have 
    worked in the 1700's but it wouldn't work now.  
    
    Eagle, if you want to own guns that is fine, just don't do it under the
    premise that you are protecting me.  Do it for yourself.
    
    Some of my best friends own guns. ;-)
    

    I would like to gently suggest that we use this note to talk about how
    crime has been prevented and or how people have been rehabilitated
    without violence.
    
    I was mugged several years ago.  I have to admit my reaction was
    instinctive and very typical.  He was a young man probably 15 or 16, he
    appeared clean cut and neat.  He was a little unsure of himself.  
    
    I didn't notice him as I walked up the street.  My hands were full with
    school books and a pocketbook.  I was almost home and I my thoughts
    were on getting in and getting comfortable.  I could see the light in
    my window and I noticed that my neighbor was home on the first floor.
    
    He stepped out from between the parked cars and said "Where's the
    money?"  I looked at him and his hand was tucked to his waist and was
    holding the biggest gun I have ever seen.  My eyes went from the gun to
    his face...he looked like he would listen.  I lowered my voice and
    quitely told him I had $60.  I asked him if that was enough money.  He
    replied yes.  I told him that it was difficult to replace the books and
    my identification in the wallet...would he allow me to hand him the
    money.  He agreed.  As I started to take the money out he went to grab
    it but I reminded him of his promise.  
    
    During the whole thing I looked for idendifying marks and I observed
    his clothing.
    
    He turned to run down the street and in the same quiet voice I told him
    to take care.  I did not move until his back was to me...and then I ran
    into the house and called the police.  
    
    I was able to give a good description.  The young man was never
    caught...I lost $60.  I have no idea what might have happened...but
    given the many choices this is the outcome I would choose.
    
    

    There were two movements in this century were people successfully
    fought off a violent ruling class with peaceful means.  One was the
    Indian freedom movement led by the Mahatma, Gandhi.  The other was the
    Voting Rights movement in the US.
    
    In both cases there were many martyrs who gave their lives for the
    idea of freedom and dignity and achieved their ideals through the
    method prescribed by the ideal.  In both cases, to keep the illusion of
    power, the ruling class had to increase the violence until the level of
    violence was so terrible they had to stop.
    
    In both cases the movements rejected the idea that the ruling class
    actually held power over them.  They completely believed that they
    would "overcome some day."  For them, subjugation was the illusion
    and freedom was the reality.  (I know, sadly, that both peceful
    movements have changed to include violent elements.  The current Indian
    government has practiced incredible violence.  The racial tensions in
    this country underscore the daily violence of racism and the violence
    perpetrated color upon color.)
    
    World War II was against a truly "evil violence," to quote an earlier
    reply to the base note.  Over ten million people died as combatants,
    over six million died in the camps, I don't know how many millions
    died as a result of the war from bombs, lack of medical care,
    lack of housing, and other causes.  This is martyrdom on a large scale.
    
    Yet the evil was not all Hitler.  Much evil was in the Allied powers
    as well.  It was a widespread belief that there were undesirable
    classes and it didn't matter what happened to them.  Think of how many
    countries turned away Jewish refugees during the early years of the
    Nazis, before the invasion of Poland and also after the war began.
    The anti-Jewish violence was known about and ignored long before 
    the ovens were built.
    
    Violence is insidious.  Good people can become violent when -- without
    thinking -- they begin to believe that others are not like us.  That
    others deserve violence because the other has done or is something that
    places them beyond the pale of humanity.  This something may be that
    the other has done violence or simply that the other was born
    different.  Or of a different nation.
    
    Violence is demeaning to all of us, no mattter who commits it:
    a nation, a criminal, or a court-appointed hangman.  
    
    Yes, something should be done by a just society when wrong or violence
    is done against us.  But the emphasis must be on just society, not on
    violence.  Speaking violence may be cathartic but it is also 
    blunting.  Frying a rapist/murderer/drug dealer is the language of
    anger and violence.  It is the language of revenge.  It is sometimes
    the language of helpless rage that such heinous things happen.  It is
    also the language of proportion in a violent world.
    
    But proportion is a way that violence escalates.  When punishment for
    "getting in my face" is "blowing someone away," then what are the other 
    crimes and punishments?  How to punish Noriega or Phol Pot?  How to
    punish the murderers in Tianaman Square?  How to punish a drug-dealing
    rapist?
    
    Language HAS power. It defines and shapes our thoughts.  It gives us
    the means and metaphors to discuss and judge reality.  Think what you
    are saying and the power and impact of your saying it.  Say "I do not
    like rape, I want it to end forever so all may be safe."  I think
    that's what most of us mean. Yet in our anger and frustration we say,
    "Kill the rapist."  Vengence is heady stuff but does it get us,
    society,  what we want?  Do we want more violence or do we want to be
    able to walk and jog safely?  I think the latter.  
       
    I do NOT advocate that we should allow ourselves to be the victims of
    violence or that we should allow criminals freedom to hurt again.
    Speak out against violence.  Speak out thoughtfully.  Act against
    violence.  Act thoughtfully.   
    
    As we shape our lives with our speech we define the world we belive in.
    
    I have read the words of Mosad Ayoob (sp?) a specialist in self defense
    and firearms.  I have read the words Gandhi.  I try to live more
    like Gandhi.  His words shape a better world.

    
    re -.1 well said.
    
    You might also cite the Suffragettes movement. 
    
    I cannot help believing that it would be a more 
    peaceful world if women had a larger share of
    the leadership role...

    This is a moderator apology. We should have picked up on the
    fact that several of these last notes were on topics similar enough
    that they could have been one note, thus not diluting the file
    and spreading one rather depressing subject over several notes.
    One noter even mentioned in the hot buttons note that she felt
    they should have been combined, and I promised her that I'd try
    to do something about it. But both notes are now too long to
    reasonably combine and have gone off in rather different directions.
    
    I appologise to the membership..I don't like it when =wn= 'gets
    this way'.
    
    But one mod is on vaca, one is not feeling well, and the other two
    of us are working hard...please don't depend on us all the time
    to step in when you think things are going askue....remember =maggie
    started this file with the idea that the community who read it
    and contributed would 'own' it, and that the moderators are not
    and should not be 'notes police' or 'mommies' or whatevers.
    
    This shouldn't be used as license to be vicious or attack people
    without reason, but we do encourage the members of the file to
    use common sense and to write and argue issues they think aren't
    being represented right or that they disagree with.
    
    Bonnie

    The difficulty in using violence against the "bad guys" is in who
    defines what or who is bad. The United States was one of the
    countries that limited how many escaped Jews would be allowed in.
    We turned away Jews who had nowhere to go but back to Germany. We
    did not enter the war until we had been attacked even though those
    in power KNEW what was happening to the Jews. Now we laud ourselves
    for having fought a rightgeous war.

    I understand what Eagles is saying. If we don't stand against tyrany
    we aid it. Yet how can we decide what is right? Is there some
    universal right that can guide us? Religions all says their's is the
    way but they don't all agree on what that way is.

    When I hear of the South Africans demonstrating, being arrested and
    beaten and tear gassed, I'm ashamed. I fear that if it came to that
    in our country I'd be afraid to stand and risk my life for what is
    right. And that's the bottom line here. All the peacefull means of
    changing the power structure require martyrs who will be in the
    front line willing to die until the killing is too much for those
    in power to bear. How many died in Russia during the purges and
    still Stalin remained. Would the Klu Klux Klan have been sated until
    all the Blacks were dead? I don't know the answers, I do think we
    need to curb our desire to keep killing.

    There is a song from the Musical "South Pacific" with words to the
    effect

    "you've got to be taught to be afriad, of people whose eyes
    are oddly made, of people whose skin is a different shade. To hate
    all the people your relatives hate, before you are 6 or 7 or 8,
    you've got to be carefully taught"

    Until we break that cycle of hatred by teaching our children
    differently the world will not change. Until we are ready to subject
    ourselves to violence to stop violence how does the cycle end? liesl

<           <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
<                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
<================================================================================
<Note 775.11                   Harmony not conflict                      11 of 13
<SX4GTO::HOLT "Robert Holt @ UCS"                      8 lines   1-SEP-1989 18:30
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<
<    
<    re -.1 well said.
<    
<    You might also cite the Suffragettes movement. 
<    
<    I cannot help believing that it would be a more 
<    peaceful world if women had a larger share of
<    the leadership role...
<

    
    I beg to differ!
    
    Indra Gandhi ------- War with Pakistan
    
    Golda Mayer (sp) --- War with Egypt, Syria, etc
    
    Margret Thatcher --- War with Argentina, N. Ireland

    
    Sorry, that is simply not borne out by recient history.

    
    Steve

re: who should do what

It seems any 'plan' should be flexible enough to make the best of the strengths
of the participants. Some will fall, some will support, some will bargain, some
will radicalize. Why not support those who wish to experiment with peace and
harmony, and still do as your personal conscience or skills lead you? If you
feel the need to defend, do it, and hope or pray that you're made obsolete by
others, for instance. Come up with interim plans.

re: women leading

A single female at the head of a traditionally male government/culture, with a
predominantly male power base, is not even a _single_ data point, to my mind. I
don't make _any_ claims to the results, but I do claim we haven't seen the
examples.
	Mez

	Since we all are part of this society/world (I am sure you all
	realize that at this point in time there is no way to BE someplace
	eles), we all need to get along within it however we can.  The
	important point to remember is that our words/actions can support
	the violence we know exists or they can counter it.  This is a
	very personal choice for each individual to make FOR THEMSELVES -
	though there can be attempts at influence peddling.

	I learned in the 60's that if one uses the methods and means of
	the process you want to change the only thing that changes is
	who gets to make the SAME decisions - the methods and means remain.

	In order to have a society that is in harmony not conflict one has
	to refrain from using the methods and means of conflict AND when
	it is necessary to use those methods and means to realize the
	chance that one is taking.  It may be best to "loose" position
	rather than "loose" prespective.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess does not DO anything to one
			She allows one to do it to one's self.

Hey Eagle, You know there are some of us Dinosaurs that will fly dawn patrol
with you, or walk point for those who go in harms way.
But I do dearly love the idea that we be made obsolete by a better way,
don't confuse people trying for a better life with being ostriches(sp?)
there are some of both here.

I would love to see my sons grow up and not need to be taught the skills of 
war, I still would teach them to hunt and target shoot but for the skill
of it not for beating-back-the-canibals.

There are those of us, ol' bird that will never change some aspects of our
beliefs and actions, we will defend even those who wish/think they don't need 
it. just be being here we keep some of the barbarians at bay. if they don't
know who is and who is not ready to defend home-and-hearth-and-virtue
they are not as likely to roam looking for easy prey.

I salute the artist and songster, they have a talent I'll never have, and I
admire the person who works for peace like a mother Therasa(sp?) but until
someone finds a real answer to ending the senseless rapeing, looting, and
pillageing people like you and I will do what we can. remember in the 
revolution, one third of the people were against it, one-third were neutral
and only one third fought. there are some of us that when we try to make
the point about the animals around us, are jeered, mocked, and belittled.
so be it, we'll do  what we see as our part and if that turns out to 
have been wrong then we'll apologise. But I will defend those that I feel
need it, I know you will as well, the soldier has never been invited to
polite society but don't hold that against society.

Cheer, instead, for the peace-makers, Eagle, don't rail against them
it would nice to retire from these batles.

    What's the matter, guys? Soapbox busy today?
    
    I think you live in a differant reality than I do, eagle. One that
    is considerbly more paranoid and negative than mine. We look at
    the same external objective facts; we perceive the solution
    differently.
    
    I also resent the strenuous effort on your part to turn this into
    another forum for the macho breast-beating that goes on all too
    often among the keyboard cowboys in the "Box; i.e. the solutions
    to this nation's problems that we can solve if only we are a little
    tougher and more violent, and arm the public at large. In other
    words, another "I'm the NRA" anti-gun control note.
    
    There are other ways to resolve differences among humans besides
    reaching for your sidearm, and I think it is time to start looking
    at them. This note was an effort to do that, before it got
    side-tracked.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
                                                       
    

    Let's not confuse a desire for a better, safer future with a refusal to
    face the facts of today's real world.
    
    Yes, human rights and freedoms must be safeguarded against those who
    would take them away.  And we have usually used armed forces to protect
    ourselves as tribes, nations, alliances.  We are alive now and enjoy a
    goodly measure of freedom -- although I'd like a lot more freedom for a
    lot more people.  It is possible we are alive and enjoying freedom
    because of the various wars fought on our behalf.  It is also possible
    that we have life coincidentally to wars having been fought.  Two
    truths *do*not*necessarily* mean cause and effect.
    
    There is no second guessing reality.  We have what we have and have
    done what we have done as people, as a world.  Like it or hate it,
    supposition of alternate realities is fiction.    
    
    Language evolves, in part, as a means of expressing the reality and
    concepts held by a group. Important concepts central to belief
    systems and reality have particularly rich troves of nuance. 
    
    Goodness knows we have a huge vocabulary to discuss mayhem.  Judging
    from the daily paper and the history books, we have developed the
    vocaublary appropriate to our society. We also have a rich vocabulary 
    for discussing peace, harmony, cooperation, justice -- concepts equally 
    appropriate to our society. Can I teach the use of either sword or plow 
    if I cannot name them?
    
    The words we choose indicate the reality we perceive and the way we
    have thought about that perception.  Words frequently are precoursers
    to action; rallying calls, calls to the mob and to the faithful. 
    Words have power precisely because they voice thought and underlie action. 
    
    Advocating violence as a way of dealing with things we don't like
    (cries of "fry the rapist" advocate violence) perpetuates
    violence as a rational, reasonable response.  The <****> was violent,
    need we be violent in response?
     
    Words of peace enable us to discuss peacefully.  Soldiers know not to
    bring a gun to the treaty conference.  
    
    (And yet I brought a gas mask to many a peace march.  :^)   

     re:22
    I assume you are addressing me with this comment:
    
    >    There is no second guessing reality.  We have what we have and have
    >done what we have done as people, as a world.  Like it or hate it,
    >supposition of alternate realities is fiction.    
          
         I maintain that reality is inextribly caught up with our
    perception of that reality. My point was to show that I perceive
    reality differently than eagle, and quite possibly from you. This
    is how I respond to exhortations from the eagle to face the "reality"
    that he presents us with.
    
    What we are really talking about is a personal world-view, not reality,
    and mine is different than his. I don't care to have his world-view
    presented as a reality to me. That's all.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
           
    

    -roger, it's obvious that your 'world-view' is one in which
    all two-legged creatures that walk upright are human. This is
    where we differ. I know too many snakes, wolves, weasels
    and rats in 'human' guise to hang up my guns. (Actually,
    were-beasts is closer to truth and less insulting to innocent
    critters.)
    
    Then again, I don't drink in 'fern bars'.

    Dana

<re: women leading
<
<A single female at the head of a traditionally male government/culture, with a
<predominantly male power base, is not even a _single_ data point, to my mind. I
<don't make _any_ claims to the results, but I do claim we haven't seen the
<examples.
<	Mez
<
    Your opinion only. This is the real world. They had the ultimate
    responsibility (Thatcher, Gandhi, Mayur) to decide whether their
    countries went to war. 
    	The fact that they may not have conformed to the mold of a
    true feminist regime as defined by someone else does not change
    history, or invalidate what they did. 
    	There is an opinion that a strong conservative woman leader
    is somehow either not a woman, or invalid when measuring women in
    leadership roles or accomplishments.
    
    Steve

re: Steve

Let's take it to another topic.
	Mez

    >< Note 775.24 by SA1794::CHARBONND "It's a hardship post" >


    >-roger, it's obvious that your 'world-view' is one in which
    >all two-legged creatures that walk upright are human. 
    
    Yep! 
    
    >Then again, I don't drink in 'fern bars'.

    Me neither.
    
    -roger
    
                                                               

    Curiously enough, I found this on the usenet.  It was posted by
    Lisa Chabot, a former womannoter who migrated to another company,
    and I have excerpted the pertinent parts (it was brief discussion
    of a book called "The Gate to Womens Country", which I haven't read
    but sounds like it's worth reading).
    
    -Jody
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    It is difficult to say much more (about the book) without dropping
    spoilers here and there, so I will stop with saying that the Womens
    Country is a place where a conscious decision is daily made not to
    cultivate the killing and violence characteristics of human nature,
    barring that needed for self-defense.  Even today we don't have to look
    far to find examples of killing as a lust or wars fought for everything
    other than continuing life.....
 

    Yeah, I almost bought a copy of it, Jody.  It looked as though it might
    be formulaic though, so in the event I didn't.  Maybe I'll look again.
    
    						=maggie

    EAGLE
    
    What in the world does the Kennedy family, past, present, or future
    have to do with the issue of 'harmony versus conflict'? Your dislike
    of the Kennedys is evident, but I don't see how it is relevant
    to this discussion. There is a lot of conservative "kitchen sink"
    in your note, that isn't relevant to this issue.
    
    
    Also, your slaps against the elite intellectuals aren't relevant,
    either, as elitism is not the property of intellectuals, but of
    any group that thinks they are superior to another group, such
    as the Nazis, who were certainly not intellectuals, but believed
    themselves to be the master race. Elitism is the problem, not
    intellectualism. 

    me, and you talking:    

>>   I think you live in a differant reality than I do, eagle. One that
>>   is considerbly more paranoid and negative than mine. We look at
>>   the same external objective facts; we perceive the solution
>>   differently.

>	And what _is_ your solution?  What is wrong with COUNTER-violence
>and ANTI-assault_rifles ..
                                                   
>	What if some of us who argue that Continual Counter-Violence is 
> the ONLY possible response to a world over-populated with that violent
> and greedy species we call humans?  What if we REALLY MEAN EXACTLY THAT?

    I believe that such a philosophy is an overly paranoid and negative view
    of human nature. Violence only begats more violence, as the unending
    circle of revenge begins. "Continual Counter-Violence" is destructive,
    not productive, demeans us as humans, and contravenes our own values. 
    
    > How can pacifist philosophy possibly hope to overcome if we-who-will-fight
> don't choose to stop as long as we see sufficient reasons to be paranoid?
     
    It can't until you start examining that paranoia.
       
    
      >	Many are quite willing to live in conflict - as long as they win.
 >Many want all the abundance they can exploit as long as they are alive and
 >to heck with anybody else or future generations.  Many don't care how much
 >they waste and demonstrate daily that they have no inclination to share.
 >How does this "religious" approach to harmony answer the problem that most
 >people (not just males either) feel no compulsion to reduce their affluent
 >life-styles.  Some don't even intend to give up smoking until they die.

  Your right. This is a terrible problem of limited thinking, of thinking
    only of ourselves, of selfishness, and fear. Until we start to think
    more globally, and get away from fear-based strategies, we will
    continue the cycle of violence to our mutual, ultimate demise.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    	



                                                                               

    aside..
    
    Maggie and Jody, The Gate to Woman's Country is excellant...tho
    I'm just beginning it. DougO read it on the plane coming east and
    told me that he was very impressed with it.
    
    Bonnie

re: .all

My oh my.  And all of this heated discussion in just a couple of 
days.  I actually read through every bit of this note just now; 
it does in fact demand a response.

This discussion to me is crying out for BALANCE.  Why is it that 
everything in this world is "either-or" but never "possibly 
either depending, on the situation"?  The topic we're grappling 
with is basically no less than the entire effort of humankind  to 
understand ethics and morality and the proper relationship 
between conflicting ideas.  A trip back to Plato's _Republic_ 
would do the conversation a great deal of good as many if not 
most of the topics of state power vs. individual liberty and the 
limits of force are addressed there.

But to those who would say, "Just so much intellectual BS,"I'd 
have to offer something a bit more, shall we say, personal.  What 
I am led to is the "hot topic" of recent times: the role of myth
in our society and the impact that the abandonment of our
previous mythical structure and guidelines has had on our
understanding of our sense of right and wrong and on our view of
our place in the world. 

Examples:
   Judeo-Christian:-- "To everything there is a season...A time to 
kill, and a time to heal...a time for war, and a time for peace."
   Greek Mythology: "All things in moderation"  which was 
explained to me by those more familiar with it than I as follows: 
There are many gods (Bacchus: the god of wine and revelry; Zeus, 
Apollo, Aphrodite, etc.) who must be appeased and therefore each 
person must in turn satisfy each of the competing deities;  one 
day you must get drunk as can be to appease Bacchus and the next 
you must love to appease Aphrodite and so on so that in total 
your life is one of moderation -- that is to say it is moderated 
by the different aspects of yourself.
   Catholicism:  The seven deadly vices in each of us as a 
recognition that none of us is all one way either peaceful or 
violent.

(I must admit -- or rather acknowledge -- that these are all 
male-dominated religions, with the exception of the Greek 
perhaps, but that is a rat-hole I'd rather not get into.)

This brings me to a Jewish (I believe) saying roughly translated 
as, "Serve God with the evil impulse."  In other words, we all 
have evil impulses of violence, hatred, pride, etc.; the 
challenge is not to ignore these impulses but to use them in a 
manner that enhances the good.  

This is the challenge to societies of people as well; it is when
the people making up a society lose sight of basic guiding
principles (such as "equality for all", the golden rule,
accountability for actions, the value of justice and its
necessary existence as a precondition for peace) that we flounder
into vigilantism and/or tyranny of one sort or another. 
Admittedly, the world does not have a great record as far as
fairness and justice goes, but that should not deter us from
reaching for a better world.  Idealism is exactly that: a view of
an ideal toward which we strive.  We know of course that, like
perfection, ideals are unattainable as such; however we should
not, in my opinion, give up the effort. After all, we _are_ 
working in a very real sense _toward_ the goal of infinitely 
fast, 100% efficient, cheap, small, intelligent computers are we 
not?  Why bother; we'll never get there.

To quote my favorite song version of the idea: "What's  so funny 
'bout peace, love and understanding?"

-GlennS.


I'll save more specific comments on the specifics for later; it's 
bedtime.

   I do not believe that harmony and conflict are mutually exclusive things.
Each has its place in the world.

   Violence, along with conflict, also has its place.

   Violence is useful to protect yourself and those who cannot always protect
themselves from individuals or groups whose respect for other people's rights
and lives are measured by their potential for violent retaliation. Believe me:
such individuals and groups exist.

   Harmony between people, however, is needed to create an environment where
the kinds of violent people mentioned above will be less likely to be created
-- at least within the sphere of influence of the harmonious group.

   The problem is discovering the balance between the two. Too much emphasis on
violence obviously creates a paranoid atmosphere which breeds more violence.
Unfortunately, too much emphasis on harmony translates as weakness to those who
do not understand harmony, since those who don't understand its meaning usually
will not want to.

   I have found a kind of balance between them in my own experience: I try to
seek harmony within my own world as well as with others. I expect and respect
conflict -- as long as that conflict is constructive for all parties (I do
believe in constructive conflict and respectful disagreement). When confronted
with violence or the threat of violence (any kind of violence, whether it is
physical, verbal, or even economic), then I try my best to reach a peaceful
solution with the person or group threatening me. If such a solution cannot be
reached, or if the solution would be unacceptable to me, or if the
threatener(s) insist on performing their violence, then I will take out my Big
Stick (literal or figurative, depending on the situation) and "beat" them until
they cease to be a threat.

   Afterward, if they desire to explore the meaning of harmony, I am willing to
work with them. I will form a harmonious relationship with them through mutual
understanding and creative (constructive) conflict. 

   If they do not desire to explore the meaning of harmony, then usually we all
go our seperate ways.

   In other words, for me harmony is the goal which I actively promote in all
my relationships. Conflict, to me, does not necessarily equate with violence; I
seek forms of conflict which will help me (and others) grow and avoid all
unnecessary, destructive forms of conflict.

   Violence, in all of its forms, is a tool of last resort which I use when
others seek to disturb my harmony through violence.

                                                    -Robert Brown III

My very favoirte Greek symbol of balance is the story of Apollo, god of
intellect and logic, giving his temple to Dionysus, god of wine and theater, 2
months out of every year.
	Mez

Well, the topic of peace is certainly generating a lot of violent
debate!  ;-)

One of the most striking facts of my life is that at any moment, with
only ten seconds of warning, I can be fried by a nuclear weapon.  Not
only that, but all the people I know and love, and everyone could
suffer the same fate.  Worse, the environment of this planet could be
destroyed for all life forms [not only the silly humans who are the
only species capable of such lunacy].  To me, this represents a
problem.  Maybe others don't have a problem with this.  I find it to
be something to question and examine.

In examing things, I like to start with myself.  Myself is really the
only thing I can really speak about with authority (even this could be
questioned).  But when I look inside, I see a laboratory in which I
see all the problems that I see on a wide scale inside.  Inside, there
is violence, prejudice, lust, desire, wants, anger, hurt, and fear. 
There is fear of groups different from my own experience which results
in prejudice. There is hurt which results in anger which results in
tendancies to strike back (and the mind creates endless justifications
and rationalizes for this behavior - none of which I really beleive).

So, do I deny these things?  Do I create a picture of myself that is
pure and unblemished by the human condition?  Do I create a me in here
who is right and a someone else out there who is wrong?  And then
these things come up, do I fight it, deny it, create all kinds of
defenses and barriors to stop me from seeing what really is?  Or do I
let these be, see them as they really are, understand them without
judgement or fear?  My experience is that in the latter case, there
can be a letting go, a release, a dissipation of fear, anger, hatred,
taught conditioning.  Any without much thought and analysis, it is
clear what action (if any) needs to be taken.

Is it any different between two people?  If I look at myself in
relation to lovers, roommates, other noters, what do I see?   How
often do I really try and understand the other person's view of the
situation?  How much energy do I expend buttressing up my view, my
ideas, my experience?  Do I ever really listen to the other person?
Or is there a dialogue within my own head?  A discussion between the
"lawyers" in my own head?  How much time do I spend coming up with
counter-arguments when another person is still speaking?  Am I
listening when this happens?  How much time to a spend planning what
I am going to say to other people I percieve that I am in conflict
with?  Why is that? 

Do I endlessly cling to my ideas, my judgements, and try and classify
into right and wrong ideas?  Is there space allowed for real
understanding outside of pre-existing thoughts and conceptions?

So when I look at myself in relation to others, I see many of the same
things I see in myself.  When fear comes up, when I find myself
defensive in relationship with someone, I can be fairly certain there
is something in myself that I need to examine.

When I look at couuntries, I see the same patterns on a bigger scale.
Fear, intolerance, hatred, and predudice abound!  How much of this
could be avoided by understanding and real listening?  I am often
reminded of spoiled brat children when I listen to the emotional level
the rhetoric of the US and USSR.  If it wasn't resulting in possible
destruction of the earth at any moment, it would be very humorous. 
But we cling to me being right and the other being wrong and all kinds
of other intolerance.

This does not mean I let myself be hurt or I want to take away every
one's precious weapons.  I beleive that you can be strong and loving
at the same time.  But I think we are very caught up battles and
patterns that could be dissolved.  There are other ways of defending
countries.  Non-violent resistance has been used successfully to
defend countries.  But everyone must be stronger.  It involves total
and complete non-cooperation with the invading forces.    

In my view, non-violence is a way of thinking, a way of being.  The
best place to start I think is with oneself and work outward from
there.  To see many examples of non-violence and violence approachs
and how they work, we need look no farther that this note.

There is a story of a head monk those monastery was being invaded by
robbers.  The monk sat is meditation not moving a the head robber
ransacked the main room.  The robber was taken aback by the lack of
response from the monk and got angry.  He started ranting and raving
at the monk, "I will chop off your head with my sword."  The monk did
not move.  Very moving by this, the robber put down his sword and
became the disciple of the monk.

Peace is the ends, peace is the means.

So I hope we will all learn how to live with each other in peace and
harmony.

    Well, the topic of peace is certainly generating a lot of violent
debate!  ;-)
~~~
    Gee! I thought I was the only one feeling this way! Glad I'm not
    alone!
~~~    
One of the most striking facts of my life is that at any moment, with
only ten seconds of warning, I can be fried by a nuclear weapon.  Not
only that, but all the people I know and love, and everyone could
suffer the same fate.  Worse, the environment of this planet could be
destroyed for all life forms [not only the silly humans who are the
only species capable of such lunacy].  To me, this represents a
problem.  Maybe others don't have a problem with this.  I find it to
be something to question and examine.
~~~
    John, I know this is the wrong notes file, but I'm curious. From
    your perspective, why does total world destruction represent a problem?
    As opposed to a potential reality? (I can't put well into words
    how it could not be a problem from a Buddhist perspective because
    it doesn't lend itself to words well. I hope you understand.)
    I see it as a problem, but in the same way, I see it as a symptom,
    a larger karma, quite parallel to my own. Something that cannot
    be eradicated until individual humans are incapable of
    self-destruction, etc. But enough of my thoughts!
    
    When I think about the situation, and I think about the monk, and
    the outcome of your story, it is as though his pending death was
    "not a problem". But also did not occur. On the other hand, is it
    a true story, or just another allegory.
    
    Please share... we can move the whole thing to the other conference
    if you wish.
    
    'ren

	This topic was not meant to be yet another "stomping" ground
	for the barechested hero.  In fact I am appalled at a number
	of the responses to the base note.  It is this very mind-set
	and behaviour that has lead Western society to the brink of
	total distruction.

	There is no reason for all of us to agree on the right path,
	BUT to demand that the path you choose is the right one and
	if you don't agree prepare to have your head removed is pure
	lunacy.  One's manhood is not something attained by violence
	done to others (any form of life) it is attained by BEING.
	This is the same for womanhood.  One does not NEED to prove/
	do anything to attain it.

	As has been well illustrated in this conference - control-over
	is an illusion that requires both sides to agree to for it to
	exist.  Not agreeing to control-over is the most subversive
	act one can make in this society.  In truth it is no more
	dangerous than to agree to control-over.  The difference is
	that to not agree/to not conform means that one has to have
	knowledge of who one is and where one fits in "reality."  The
	belief in self has to be stronger than the threat by the
	controller.

	_peggy


		(-)
		 |

			I am so glad this is womannotes and not
			mennotes - it is so good to hear women's
			voices unhampered by male domination.

RE:    'ren

If I understand you correctly, you are asking why death is a problem
if like the monk, death is not a problem?

I think I see it as you do reflection of our collective inner state in
the world situation.  To me, this represents suffering individual and
collective.  So, I also see it a symptom as you do, and also as a
cause of suffering in that it is a painful reality to think about.
Also, there is, I suppose, a personal fear of death, although I'm not
aware of this a big factor right now.

I remember about 5 years ago when I had taken care of a problem that
had preoccupied me for sometime and I had more clarity, that I woke up
to the fact that I could be destroyed by a nuclear weapon at any
moment without any warning and without any personal provacation on my
part.  I recall being very upset by this.  Now, I don't see it so much
as a question of personal existence (but I could be kidding myself).

I see things as world as being full of extraordinary amount of
suffering right now and I have made the choice to try and do something
about it in the ways I see fit thru standing up for peace, women's
issues, gay issues, race issues, etc.  It's a difficult question, I
think, of the best way to do this and one that everyone must answer
for himself/herself.  I certainly worry about causing more problems
that I solve in getting involved politically knowing what I know about
my present confused and imperfect condition.  I thought this might be
what you were getting at...

It's an important issue for me.  Why I am here?  Who am I?  And how
can I best be of use when the above questions are answered?

peace,
john

    
    I guess what I'm struggling with (this REALLY belongs in the other
    conference!!!) is the difference in how different sects are taught
    to perceive the Boddhissatva. In my faith, the Boddhissatva chooses
    to stay on earth to lead others away from suffering. His/her acts
    are the ultimate in compassion. Whereas the state of Buddhahood
    itself... hmm. It almost seems an isolated state, to act while in
    the state of Buddhahood is almost to manifest the image of a
    Bodhissatva.
    
    But when I read about others who seek enlightenment, it is such
    a personal, "I'm in it for me, I just can't admit it 'cause then
    I'd be succumbing to the self and I'd never get there" kind of thing...
    and the concept of Bodhissatva changes to one whose acts are primarily
    based on self-denial and purposeful suffering. 
    
    At that point, when the idea of saving the world from destruction comes
    up, the response is "why save the world - just accept it as an event
    which occurs...". Perhaps because destruction of things as WE know
    them does not mean that the atoms, molecules, protons, etc are
    destroyed. And perhaps in that sense "we" continue.
    
    I guess what I'm saying is some forms of Buddhism seem to exclude
    Darwinian concepts, i.e. the survival instinct. And I wonder, is
    desire for survival something I'm supposed to let go of? Or more
    to the point, is survival of my home planet something I'm supposed
    to let go of? And I can ONLY see letting go of it, if in the end,
    it helps me to achieve it, as happened with the monk. Even though
    you just don't know if that was the aim, simply must accept that
    this was the consequence.
    
    Odd. And perhaps too much to think about. Please let me know if
    you understand my confusion... :-)

    Some very interesting replies, and points of view expressed. I like
    all the different, and more thoughtful views on this subject,
    particularly Peggy's "control-over" ideas, Skutt's comparitive
    religion/myth approach, and Hennerson (sp?) view on constructive
    conflict, as well as Mike Valenza's conscience approach. 
    And that "other" Brown, as well!
    
    Such interesting contributors!
    
    and my favorite phrase, Randall's "rich trove of nuance"
    
    Thanks!
    
    -roger                   
    

    re:44
    
    One person's myth is another person's reality. It is all a matter
    of one's perceptions of the world.                                                   
    
    "The concept of counter-violence at least
    empowers individuals to take action against what offends them.
    The act of taking counter-violent action can be understood by
    even the evil and greedy as a social cost they may not wish to
    pay ..."
    
    What comes after counter-violence? Counter-counter-violence, then
    counter-counter-counter-violence, then counter-counter-counter-
    counter-violence. This is the endless circle of revenge. There
    are huge political consequences to be paid, as well, by earning
    the enmity of the world, by interfering in the sovereign affairs
    of other nations.
    
    And, who decides what counter-violence is appropriate, or what
    target? The president? The congress? And what makes you think
    U.S. power is unlimited, and how many U.S. lives are you willing
    ot sacrifice, in your counter-violence? 
                                           
    What value does this express, this philosophy of yours? That
    no one pushes us around? Are we to be the world's bully boy?
    
    -roger
    
    
    

    Sometimes it appears that society is divided into camps of those
    who want violence (eg nuclear annihalation) and those who are against
    it.  I question whether those who want to disarm really think that
    the other half really wants to be fried.  Do you think that half
    the world is utterly mad?
    
    Or can it be accepted that those who have arms to defend themselves
    want the same peace as those who want no arms?  (Of course I am
    not including the smaller group in my opinion who might want to
    do harm to the others.)
    
    I want arms so that I can live peacefully.  I much prefer harmony.
    (My social style is =Amiable.)  I will fight if pushed to the wall.
    
    I presume that you, like me, have formed your opinions from your
    life's experiences.  I was a boy, smaller than average, in a large
    violent city.  Being attacked was a normal part of an average week.
    I believe that my size was what invited the attacks, just as I believe
    that size is the main reason for attacks on women.  I became rather
    tough and defended myself rather well, but my preference was to
    not be in a fight.  I learned to scare my attackers into taking
    pause and then leave me alone.  (Frankly, I think I should be in
    Hollywood for my acting ability.)  I used the same method 16 years
    ago when I lived in a neighborhood that was being terrorized by
    a small gang.  I stopped them without violence or help (thanks to
    all those big men who suddenly went to bed when they saw the
    confrontation).  I'd rather call it Contra-violence than counter
    violence.  It was a threat made clear before the action started
    that had more to lose than gain by continuing.
    
    One step closer to the purpose of this note: I was once jumped by
    five young men while walking in a Philadelphia ghetto.  (I was there
    because I wanted to meet people and have harmony, although I knew
    the danger and left my wallet behind.)  With two knives in my throat
    and one in the small of my back (pricking but not piercing), I simply
    refused to let them take my watch (although I was considering giving
    it to one of them if he had asked rather than demand.)  Obviously,
    I was no threat, but something caused them to leave me alone.
    
    Finally to the spirit of this note: I quite agree with an earlier
    statement that LISTENING or the lack of it, is the cause of much
    violence.  This includes the harsh words.  Can you really claim
    to be non-violent when you attack (verbally) an opinion AND the
    holder of that opinion because it differs from yours.  It would
    be a good exercise, especially in this particular note, to try using
    ACTIVE LISTENING.  For anyone unfamilar with the term, it requires
    careful listening to the speaker and paraphrasing back the speakers
    meaning in your own words.  The goal is to first communicate that
    you heard and UNDERSTOOD their point of view before you are free
    to expound your own.  you can't do it when you are working on your
    next attack instead of listening.
    
    I love the old Indian proverb that admonishes "Before you judge
    me, walk a mile in my moccasins."
    
    It's really disturbing how polarized public opinion is becoming.
    Zero tolerance of a differing opinion, sex, race, religion, etc.
    
    While I have come to believe intellectually and morally that killing
    people is wrong, I can still be carried away by emotion when I read,
    see, or hear of stories such as the gang rape and brutal beating
    of the young woman in central park or the incident of raw bestiality
    in an earlier reply about the mother and baby.  I could in outrage
    kill the attackers in both cases.  How is it that, I grew up among
    Blacks (I am White) and had no inkling of discrimination until I
    was denied a ticket to a theatre that served only Blacks and then
    I can be labelled a racist to be hated today because of the color
    of my skin?  I walked away from the theatre that day unable to
    comprehend the illogic, and continue to be puzzled and sad today.
    Why are there leaders of various groups, who somehow have some physical
    characteristic(s) different from me, that stir up lies and hatred
    of me simply because I am different?
    
    Frankly, I have entered this conference because I was curious whether
    it was just a forum of male bashing.  I now believe it is mostly,
    but not completely otherwise.  I believe in harmony and equal
    opportunity completely. I do, however, believe from personal experience
    that one must deal with bullies from a position or perceived position
    of strength on personal, group, or national scales.  My life
    experiences have consistently reinforced this belief.
    
    Bud

Bud:

   I liked your note, especially where you mention verbal violence
(which I am all too familiar with).

   There does seem to be a number of people around who are, for lack of a 
better term, "violently non- violent". They are mostly against physical 
violence, but they make up for their physical non- violence with verbal 
abuse, psychological cruelty, and sometimes more than a little self- 
rightiousness.

   Such people more often than not contribute a great deal to this society's 
tendency toward conflict and violence. They often "put down" anyone who 
even appears to disagree with them, thus perpetuating the negative 
atmosphere that leads to violence.

   My own experience has taught me that harmony comes from within. Inner 
harmony is the primary source of inner strength. By keeping in tune with my 
inner harmony, I find myself able to be strong in all situations. And, of 
course, I have my own figurative "clubs" for those who, despite my 
attempts to deal with them respectfully and in harmony, insist upon 
resorting to verbal violence in their dealings with me.

   The need to use violence -- whether physical, verbal, or otherwise -- is 
an expression of inner weakness. Hostility in any form reflects inner 
conflict and a desire to project that conflict into the inner world of 
others. Unfortunately, sometimes we must deal with such people on their own 
terms (thus briefly weakening ourselves) in order to preserve our Selves. 
The only way we can console ourselves is by defending ourselves without 
malice -- and without returning the hostility that is directed at us.

   I guess what I am trying to say is that I understand and appreciate what
you've been saying, and that it has given me much to think about. Thank you
for your note.

                                                 -Robert Brown III 

    Few will disagree that violence breeds violence.  An insult receives
    a worse insult, a blow a more severe blow, etc etc.
    
    Personal opinion: I, as a woman, have a very LARGE stake in reducing
    the level of violence in my world, because the violence is the single
    greatest threat to my human-ness.  I can be an equal partner with a
    man on an intellectual basis, a creative and artistic basis, an
    emotional or spiritual basis, any constructive basis.  I cannot be
    equal to a man in physical violence.
    
    Where civilization prevails, where "violence is the last refuge of the
    incompetent", I can be a full human being.  Where violence prevails,
    where maximum physical strength is THE determinant of who makes the
    rules, I am diminished into some THING that must be protected, kept
    in a safe place, not allowed to contribute along with the "real people"
    (i.e., men) -- all for my own good, of course.
    
    This is why I react so strongly against the suggestion that we live
    in a violent world that can be no other way.  This is why I react so
    strongly against people who insist on "protecting" me (or my "honor")
    by violent means, whether I need protection or not.  The same disparity of
    physical strength that makes me vulnerable to aggressors also keeps me
    from preventing the "protection" of those who believe that they have
    the right and duty to "protect" me even from my own peaceful instincts.
    
    To the protectors among you: Thank you for caring about my safety.
    Now, please care enough about my humanity to allow me to protect myself
    in the manner *I* think best.  Be assured, I do sometimes need your
    strength and violent protection.  But please allow me the dignity of
    reserving violence as the "last refuge" -- and determining my own 
    destiny until that point.  If I need you, I *will* ask.
    
    Beth

        re .48
    
        >I cannot be equal to a man in physical violence.

        To paraphrase an old folk saying, "God didn't make all
        persons equal, Colonel Colt did."
    
        You may indeed reserve violence as the very last option.
        We all should. But *are you capable* of being violent
        if/when it becomes necessary ? Or will you play the 
        helpless female and holler for a white knight ? Try taking
        responsibility for that worst-case, as well as the rest.

    re .48
    
    I can definitely relate. I told someone the other day that I felt
    that killing was wrong. (Not you, Nancy, but we've certainly had
    the same conversation!) And that I would not take a life. I was
    asked if I would "defend my constitution". And I stated that I would
    die for it, but I won't kill for it. I was asked what if I was
    attacked. And I have to admit, I don't honestly know what I would
    do in the moment. But if a gun was nearby, I don't think I'd fire
    it, except perhaps in the air.
    
    I'm not looking forward to death by any means. But I'd rather die
    than have another person's death on my hands.

    RE .48 & .50
    
    I respect your views. Who knows what will happen in the future
    to all of us. We all really don't know if we could/would kill, regardless
    of what we profess here. 
    	I suppose the argument is that if people have a different view
    from that of yours, do you favor imposing you views (gun control
    for an example, though not specifically) on others? Some who do
    not hold the same views as yours might think so, rightly or wrongly.
    
    On the subject.
    
    Harmony is nice and desirable, however some issues/problems seem to 
    defy solutions. I will give you two:
    
    Abortion, and the middle east. 

    Steve

Re: <<< Note 775.50 by DEMING::FOSTER >>>
    
>>                      But if a gun was nearby, I don't think I'd fire
>>    it, except perhaps in the air.
    
    Gun Safety Rule #3: Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
    
    Please, fire it into the GROUND.  You don't know where that bullet will
    come down if you fire it into the air.
    
    Also:  By firing a warning shot, the person you're trying to scare now
    can shoot you and claim self defense and get off free and clear.  It
    has happened.
    
    The bottom line is that you should not have a gun unless you're
    prepared to use it and take a life to protect your own (just a general
    comment not aimed at the author of .50)
    
                          Roak

    re .52
    
    Okay fine. I will try to make absolutely sure that I NEVER have
    a gun. 
    
    I can do with a weapon whatever I wish. If I have one, and the other
    person does not, I am quite content to fire in the air or on the
    ground. But NOT at the other person.
    
    PLEASE don't waste your time telling me safety rules about something
    that I NEVER want to deal with. How many times must I tell you:
    I WOULD RATHER DIE THAN KILL.

    re .53
    
    You seem quite angry about the gun issue.  You certainly have a
    right to choose (according to our Constitution) whether to use a
    gun or not.  It is, IMHO, a very good decision that you have made
    to not have a gun because having a gun could easily lead to an armed
    attacker shooting you in perceived self defense.
    
    You must have missed the point of .52, however.  The gun safety
    rule referred to is intended to prevent people from shooting other
    people.  There have been many people, believe it or not, who have
    been shot by bullets fired into the air.  One landed in the back
    of a boy who was a student in a school I once attended.  The doctors
    decided to leave it lodged in his spine, because trying to remove
    it was far too risky.  All this is a moot point if you indeed will
    never have posessession of a gun, but your anger and insistance
    that you be listened to when you claim the right to fire into the
    air and the self righteous simultaneous claim that you would not
    shoot anyone really doesn't make sense and scares me.
                                
    <Active Listening to .53> Do you mean that you will never have a
    gun?  That you believe having them is likely to cause injury or
    death to another?  I believe you are saying that you believe killing
    another is morally wrong.  That gun safety is immaterial to you because
    you would never have a gun anyway?
    
    If all this is true, I fully accept your decision as reasonable.
    I also accept the position that having a gun can and does sometimes
    save lives so that some who chooses to have one is also making a
    reasonable decision.  Not having one certainly removes you from
    the wrenching moral decision of what to do when facing a someone
    with a gun who is threatening to kill you.  You may be right in
    leaving the decision of whether to kill another in that person's
    hands.  Finally, I accept that the incongruity of saying you would
    shoot in the air but not shoot anyone was just not really thought
    through, however IMHO your reply was unfair to .52.
    
    Bud

re: .53 ('Ren Foster)

You said this in .53 (referring to Roger Oakey's .52)

>    PLEASE don't waste your time telling me safety rules about something
>    that I NEVER want to deal with. 
            ^^^^^
but in .50 you said,

>    But if a gun was nearby, I don't think I'd fire it, except perhaps 
>    in the air.

When I read your .50 I thought,  [oh geez, I hope people reading that 
realize that shooting into the air is the wrong thing to do.] - for
precisely the reasons Roak mentioned in .52 - that you don't know where
the bullet will fall, and that *in the eyes of the law*, you have just used
lethal force, and if *you* didn't feel justified in using the gun against
the attacker to save your life, you weren't justified in your use of 
lethal force.

I was later thankful to see that Roak pointed out that your idea of
shooting into the air is an unsafe and legally unsound thing to do...
for the education of other readers of =wn=, as well as yourself.

Ren, after reading .53, it sounded like you were responding to Roak trying
to convince you that carrying a gun is the right thing for you.  I reread
his .52, and he in no way tried to change your mind - he discussed gun
safety as it related to what you *said* you would do in a particular 
situation with a gun.

As a matter of fact, what he said below is (IMHO) another reason why you
in particular should not opt to carry a gun for protection...i.e., his
statement *supports* your conviction that a gun is *not* right for *you*:
    
>    The bottom line is that you should not have a gun unless you're
>    prepared to use it and take a life to protect your own (just a general
>    comment not aimed at the author of .50)

To which you responded in .53  -< I think you missed my point. >- :

>    How many times must I tell you:
>    I WOULD RATHER DIE THAN KILL.

I agree with (.54) Bud Luebkert in that your response to Roak was
kinda harsh for what he said.  I hope Roak doesn't take it personally,
since I think your strong response stems from a repulsion to guns.

						nancy b.

It is heart-wrenching for me to read that a woman would rather be
be killed  or  severely injured  or  raped  (I've heard it all)
... than kill or counter the attacker with appropriate means of
self-defense (aka : counter-violence) in defense of their person, 
their body, their humanity.


WHY?     In the name of non-violence or harmony?  

         For the sake of putting your attacker's humanity above
         your own?  Your attacker is worth protecting more than
         yourself?

         As a way to decrease the amount of violence being 
         perpetrated in society?


Sorry, I just can't grasp it at all.  That concept makes my 
stomach turn.  If you choose to try to explain this to me,
please be patient.
						nancy b.

    'ren follows Buddha's Way; he taught that there is too much misery in
    the world as it is, and that therefore we shouldn't add to it by
    killing or harming other living things.  Since we continue to be reborn
    over and over again until we purify our souls, it's almost immaterial
    whether in some life our pacifism results in our premature death at the
    hands of another:  it's that person's karma that gets screwed up, not
    ours (and therefore it would be an act of kindness to non-violently
    prevent the killing...kindness to the would-be killer, that is, and
    thus probably beneficial to ourselves)
    
    						=maggie

    Nancy, you've got to ask yourself: what is death, and what is humanity.
    If killing another person makes me less human, but death does not,
    then I must choose death. For in the end, death does not mean that
    I will not be reborn as human. Killing another human would probably
    squelch all possibility.
    
    So, in this effect, I'm not saying in any way that the attacker's
    humanity is above mine. His (hers) is forfeited when I am attacked;
    mine is not. But how precious is life? And must I be so attached
    to this one that I would kill? I hope not.
    
    But in the moment, I cannot say. I cannot say I won't kill, I cannot
    say if someone put a gun in my hand that I will do the right or
    wrong thing. And I'm DEFINITELY not saying that I won't defend myself,
    or run or try not to have bodily harm come to myself. Still, I do NOT
    want another person's death on my slate.                    
    
    To those of you who advocate gun safety, the best way is to keep
    the thing away from me. And then I won't fire in the air.
    
    In my personal view, perpetration of violence, including self-defense,
    is humanity robbed. And an empowerment that is frightening. When
    fear of another's violence forces ordinary human beings to take
    up arms and empower themselves do decide their fate, possibly through
    terminating the lives of others, then their own humanity seems diminished.
    For it is no longer just you. 
    
    When I ask myself: what is human dignity, and can I maintain
    my own dignity and humanity, and am I determined to do so, I find
    that life's "obstacles" take on a new meaning. I look at war
    differently, and national defense differently. Both lose meaning,
    because I lose more in participating than I do by not. Yes, I lose
    my way of life, my freedoms, and possibly this life, but my
    humanity is not diminished. Somehow, I look at personal attack in
    the same way. I will defend, I might run. I might try to fight.
    But I will not kill. I have to be above that. My being, my humanity
    loses something when I return violence with violence. 
    
    These are my values, the tenets of my faith, ideals that I wish
    to uphold. It is not easy. At times I am angry enough to contemplate
    violence. I cannot predict my actions if attacked. If I truly lost
    the things I hold dear as an American, I cannot truly predict my
    actions then. But if there is any point to developing myself and
    my faith, then it is so that when these challenges occur, I can
    meet them courageously, with the right words, the right thoughts
    and the right acts. Violence is simply not included.
    
    There are people in the world who simply cannot be harmed by external
    means. Truly, their bodies suffer if you maim them or harm them,
    but you cannot touch the person inside, that is inviolate. They
    are not passive people, they are committed to "good", to the betterment
    of man. And they set one heckuvan example. Christ was like that,
    one of the less obscure examples that comes to mind. Is it truly
    such a bad ideal to strive for?

    re .58
    
    I appreciate your viewpoint.  Frankly, I find that my happiness
    diminishes as my possessions increase, so I'm not terribly worried
    about losing them (although this view scares my wife).
    
    Life itself has little importance to me, because I believe that
    I will continue to be forever regardless of when my present state
    terminates.  I believe the next state will be better.  Finally,
    I believe that the difference between a one year lifetime and a
    100 year lifetime is so miniscule, except for what good you might
    do, as to be meaningless.  Relationships wont end.  They too will
    last forever.  So there is nothing to fear in death, but rather
    there is much to look forward to.  
    
    The above is my moral response to the gun issue and are mostly 
    why I support Foster.  Emotions are much harder to control.  I am
    capable of violence especially in response to a threat to those
    I love.  I simply don't know whether I could go from hurting to
    killing, but if I did it would be my emotions controlling my actions
    and not my intellect.  
    
    But as I said earlier, I am capable with words and body language, 
    to make an attacker sense a threat and back off.  The only time in 
    my whole life that this hasn't worked for me was when I was being 
    attacked by a drunk, and he was quite easy to handle anyway.  I 
    believe that social groups of humans tend to function similarly
    to individuals, and therefore the same tactic can work on a national
    scale.  Thus, I remain in favor of a strong defense (body language)
    and words to cause a potential attacker to back off.
    
    Bud
    
    

    I think .54 and .55 covered it for me.

    I'm a firearm safety instructor; whenever I hear or see a safety
    violation I try to educate.  If it helps no one, who cares?  The effort
    to educate was small.  But if it helps avoid one accident, the return
    on my investment is termendous.

    I may not agree with your position (I did get your point in .50) but I
    support it, for I feel that is the price of freedom.  You and I may
    disagree, but I will *never* try to force my feelings/beliefs/morals
    on another.

    The action of forcing beliefs on others is the only action I cannot and
    morally will not support.

                        Roak
    
    Now, back to our regurally scheduled string...

    I can not help but feel the attitude expressed in the last several
    replies is a cop out. "this life is not important therefore I will let
    someone one kill me and they will hurt their karma".

    Where is the responsibility to "this" life? Wouldn't standing up for
    the victims and preventing a savage (what else would you call those
    who would kill for personal gain or pleasure?) from killing you and
    then the next guy be the way to personal salvation?

    It takes a lot of courage to not fight back, I certainly don't deny
    it, but it also takes courage to stand for what is right and fight
    for the rights of others. What if everyone had decided that Hitler's
    karma was punishment enough and why bother fighting him? How about
    all the folks that Stalin consigned to death in the labor camps?
    Does his future karma sooth the lovers of the millions of victims?

    If the world and after world are indeed a sphere of on going
    influence then the waves of evil that have passed in this life will
    lap on the shores of the afterworld as well if we don't take action
    here.

    This whole philosophy makes me think of the Christians telling
    Blacks not to worry about being slaves here because they will find
    salvation in the afterlife. A lot of this seems to me to be no more
    than those in power telling those who are not in power that they
    shouldn't bother trying to change things. Like they say "God must
    really like poor people, he made so many of them".

    We were given free will do something, when we chose to do nothing
    we have abdicated our responsibility to the human race. liesl

        I respect the right of others to believe in an afterlife,
    or rebirth, or immortal souls. However, I do not share those 
    beliefs. I believe 'this is it'. My only chance at the 
    wonderful thing called life. And I will not let it be 
    taken from me without resisting, with as much force as
    necessary. (This to me is the only moral use of force -
    self defense.)
    
    I would ask that those who believe different than I not
    try to disarm me, thus forcing me to live by their 
    beliefs through depriving me of the means of protecting
    *my* life. 

    I admit this is a tangent, but I just had a thought:
    
    It's in the late 1930s, and you have a chance to kill Hitler.
    
    Two options:
    
    	You don't kill Hitler, and millions of people die in WW2.
    
    	You do kill Hitler and WW2 never happens (well, in the West anyway)
    		and million of lives are saved.
    
    How does your action (or inaction) of killing Hitler affect your Karma?
    
    Another way of putting it: Does fighting against evil improve your
    Karma?  Is there such a thing as "evil?"
    
                            Roak

    .61
    
    There was a time, when I was a teen, when I thought that the attitude
    that I have proscribed was passive and to be scorned. I am NOT
    advocating turning the other cheek. And not being a parent, I am
    not in a good position to explain how protecting one's family and
    loved ones comes into play.
    
    But I am saddened by your feeling that what I describe is a cop-out.
    It truly is not. Although it may be somewhat outdated - Buddhist
    teachings frequently deal with one-to-one conflicts more frequently
    than mass violence.
    
    If I were to elaborate on the why's of my beliefs (I will not here
    because the background is rather Eastern and you have to get used
    to it before you can respect it.) you might be able to see that
    in the ULTIMATE condition of thinking right thoughs, saying right
    words and committing right actions, your life is actually extended.
    The tendency is to survive, and to triumph, in part perhaps because
    the state of the spirit is so "exalted". (Not the best word.) There
    is a belief that some people hold that as you learn to "do the right
    thing", you also learn to overcome ANY AND EVERY conflict. Including
    those where your life is threatened.
    
    There are notes in the Buddhism file reporting incidents where bullets
    have exploded before reaching the body. I won't try to explain.
    Just submit for thought. There are frequently cases where the little
    person triumphs, defending him/herself successfully, without causing
    death.
    
    But at the same time, there is the understanding that life holds
    more than I can truly fathom. The things that happen to me are part
    of life. And not always escapable. If I cannot deal with things
    that happen in my life, then I struggle with life itself. Buddhism
    has shown me ways to deal with life. And as I grow, I am learning
    that I cannot divorce myself from my environment, and always come
    up with an "us vs. them" analogy. Within everyone else is a piece
    of myself, within even the people I abhor is something common. So,
    to negate them is to negate myself. I'm fighting like crazy to learn
    not to.
      
    re .62
    
    Dana, the people who know me know that I live a VERY full life. That I
    work hard to expand my capacity to do as much as can in this world, and
    that I value the time I have here. I have EVERY intention of making the
    most of it. Perhaps on a practical scale, I simply acknowledge that it
    would destroy my psyche to kill. I'd have nightmares. I could not feel
    good about myself. I would not be able to justify it, because I know
    that *I* had a choice, and I made the wrong one for me. Here, the
    tenets of my faith, and my personal beliefs are in sync. And to
    be VERY honest, I've spent a lot of time, too much time, not feeling
    good about myself, and harboring negative thoughts about others.
    After finally getting a chance to feel good about myself, I'm not
    going to muff it all and say "I'm OK, you're NOT."
    
    I'm sorry if it bothers you that I will vote for gun control. Sometimes
    its hard to reconcile spiritual and legal rights and responsibilities.
    But I do have the legal right and responsibility to vote for what I
    think is correct. And you and I disagree. I will never walk up to you
    and try to remove your weapon from you. But that's the best I can do. 
                                                      

    re: .63
    
    The sci-fi writers have play this one a few scazillion times.  It's
    as plausible to say the two options are:
    
    	You don't kill Hitler, and millions of people die in WW2.
    
    	You do kill Hitler and <insert another name> rises to power,
    	is more monstrous than Hitler and doesn't make Hitler's 
    	mistakes.  This other individual's scientists are able
    	perfect nuclear weapons before the allied forces and 
    	consequently, significant portions of allied countries are
    	vaporized, dimming the WW2 casualty count into insignificance.
    
    The point is that there's no way to know that killing Hitler wouldn't
    have yielded more misery than less.
    
    Steve

    re .63
    
    Forgive me for extending your fantasy... why can't I just send him
    to Jupiter with a space suit and 100 years worth of supplies?  :-)
    
    
    I don't know how to say this.... I guess the best way is to think of
    Hitler as a natural disaster. When Mt St Helen's erupts, you get AWAY.
    When hurricanes strike, you evacuate. When forest fires break out, you
    try to contain them, (and yes, eventually extinguish). When elephants
    stampede, you RUN. Some human beings are natural disasters. They wreck
    havoc on everything that crosses their path. And they kill. Man fears a
    natural disaster, and fights to save himself from it, and possibly
    contain it. But there is also an element of respect. 
    
    You can not go out with a gun and shoot down a bolt of lightening that
    kills your loved one. It is not even a rational thought. It is more
    important to protect yourself if possible, and also accept the event.
    
    Part of humanity includes natural disasters. I'm not 100% sure how
    they should be dealt with. But anger and vengeance don't seem to
    be the answers.
    
    Roak, please realize that if in the 1930's we had had your foresight,
    some non_Buddhist probably would have volunteered for the job. On
    the other hand, you cannot hold Hitler alone responsible for all
    of the deaths of WW2. There was far more than just a single individual
    doing the killing. Its QUITE possible that given the state of the
    German people, and Europe itself, the killing may have continued.

	Along the way to knowledge,
	Many things are accumulated.
	Along the way to wisdom,
	Many things are discarded.
	Less and less effort is used,
	Until things arrange themselves.

	Harmonious action maintains control;
	Exertion upsets the balance.

	Develop a man's strength,
	But learn a woman's gentleness.
	Attract without struggle;
	Become a river of the world.
	Like the river,
	Return to the source.
	Leave your egotistical ideas behind;
	Become a child again.

	Understand the energy of light,
	But know the protection of the shadow.
	Teach the truth by living;
	Become a mirror of the ways of heaven.
	As the mirror shines,
	Reflecting light as well as darkness,
	Show that life depends on both.

	Achieve the highest,
	But appear the lowest.
	Attain humility;
	Become the valley of the universe.
	All things are brought to the valley;
	All things come to those who open themselves.

						-- from the Tao Te Ching

          re: .58 (Ren Foster)

          >   Nancy, you've got to ask yourself: what is death, and what is
          >   humanity.

          Ren, since it has not been scientifically established to my sat-
          isfaction that humans have more than one life, I am living my
          life as though it is the only one I'll have.  I am not claiming
          that the possibility does not exist that we have more than one
          life, but until it is *scientifically* proven, I will not accept
          that notion.

          >    If killing another person makes me less human, but death
          >    does not,

          Hence, until it is scientifically proven otherwise, I believe my
          death will destroy...nullify my humanity.

          >    His (hers) [humanity] is forfeited when I am attacked;
          >    mine is not.

          I feel a person who is a victim of violence indeed has their hu-
          manity diminished by the attacker.  This diminishment of their
          humanity could be temporary, lasting only as long as the crime
          itself...it could be lengthy, lasting as long as 10 years...it
          could be permanent.

          I feel my humanity was indeed diminished as a result of having a
          violent crime perpetrated against me.

          Humanity diminished in terms of how I relate to others...I don't
          know if I will ever be able to trust a man to the extent that I
          am capable of having an "SO" type of relationship again.  I cer-
          tainly have not been able to do this since I was raped 3 years
          ago.  The concept of feeling strongly for and loving a man again
          presents a struggle within, an inner conflict, that I not-at-all
          felt before I was raped.

          Humanity diminished in terms of how I relate to nature...not able
          to be totally at peace with the world when alone at night out-
          side...not able to shake a very subtle, nettlesome feeling that I
          don't quite belong there, in the dark, outside and alone.

          Humanity diminished in terms of how I relate to myself...
          certainly not peacefully when I awaken with nightmares.

          A person who commits violence against another is breaking a
          social contract; violating a respect that humans *must* show for
          each other if communities are to survive.  In violating that so-
          cial contract, they prove themselves not worthy of the respect
          that treating people in a non-violent manner upholds.

          >    I cannot say if someone put a gun in my hand that I will
          >    do the right or wrong thing.

          It is not realistic to imagine someone "putting a gun in your
          hand".  If *you* have a gun in your hand, *you* choose to put it
          there, and you *must* take responsibility for your actions.   In
          your writings with reference to using a gun, you have always used
          the context that you obtain the gun through a choice *not* of
          your own, as if it magically appears.  NO.  It would be your
          choice, and to contend otherwise is nonsensical.

          And since you have stated very clearly that you never want to use
          a gun, I don't understand why you continued to do 'what if' sce-
          narios where you are indeed using a gun - it appears very contra-
          dictory to me.

          >    My being, my humanity loses something when I return
          >    violence with violence.

          According to your beliefs, would it be possible for your humanity
          to lose *more* by reacting to violence with non-violence than it
          would have by successfully countering violence with self-defense?

          What if you don't die but, rather, you are injured (mentally and
          physically) to the point that your humanity is attenuated far be-
          yond which would have resulted if you had been successful in
          countering the violent attack?

          >    There are people in the world who simply cannot be harmed by
          >    external  means. Truly, their bodies suffer if you maim
          >    them or harm them, but you cannot touch the person inside,
          >    that is inviolate.

          When I read that, I thought [no way].  I'm having a very hard
          time understanding this.  Could you give non-religious examples
          of a real human being who is like that?  Do you think you are?

          We are constantly being influenced and affected by the world
          around us, by what our friends say, by what the media says, what
          we read, what happens to us, in both negative and positive ways.
          I don't believe a person can be truly inviolate in the sense you
          suggested above.

          re: .59  (Bud Luebkert)

          >    But as I said earlier, I am capable with words and body
          >    language,  to make an attacker sense a threat and back off.
          >    The only time in my whole life that this hasn't worked for
          >    me was when I was being attacked by a drunk, and he was
          >    quite easy to handle anyway.

          You, as a man, have a distinct advantage in this case (using
          words and body language to intimidate).  We (women) are generally
          not as fortunate.

                                                            nancy b.

>    I'm sorry if it bothers you that I will vote for gun control...
>  I will never walk up to you
>    and try to remove your weapon from you.

 Yet by voting for gun control, you are saying that it's ok for someone else
to do just that. Are you saying that though you personally wouldn't kill an
attacker, you'd find it acceptable if someone else did the dirty work at your
bidding?

 I'm trying to see how you can justify this. It seems contradictory (to me).

 The Doctah

    I would have difficulty not resenting the "pacifist" in a situation
    where someone would inflict some kind of violence against me or my
    family, after commiting violence against someone who chose to "die
    instead of kill".

    I understand the desire to behave and think in terms of pacifism, but it
    is my opinion, that in certain situations it is ones' *duty* to prevail
    (even to the point of fatal force) over those who would be a threat to
    the rest of us.

    Bob

           
    re .69
    
    Nancy, now that you have come up with answers as to what death and
    humanity are for you, you are free to make your own choices. As
    I make mine. And yours are as valid as mine, so there is no argument.
    However, because we have such different points of view, it may be
    very difficult for you to see mine. I explained it as best I could,
    but you bring different fundamental assumptions to the question.
    If you do not have the view that humanity can be a continuum, and
    then 1 year or ten years is nothing, then your view is quite logical.
                               
    I should no longer say anything about having a gun. It was something
    that someone said was a possibility. Like if I was sleeping in your
    home, someone attacked us, and the gun was tossed to me. I'd feel
    I had to hold onto it, if it was the only one, because I wouldn't
    want an attacker to have it. That's why I postulated it. But you're
    right. You'd probably shoot the person long before you'd do anything
    as stupid as toss me a gun.
    
>              According to your beliefs, would it be possible for your humanity
>          to lose *more* by reacting to violence with non-violence than it
>          would have by successfully countering violence with self-defense?
 
    I did some reading last night, and there is a letter pertaining
    to the situation. It does not say whether people died, just that
    a man successfully defended himself from attack. And that was okay.
    
    At the same time, our working definitions of humanity are so different
    that I can sense that my answer will be insulting to you. Within
    my definition of humanity, humanity cannot be tainted by the actions
    of anyone but the self. However, in reference to the question. I
    must admit that passive response is as repugnant as violence. The
    appropriate response falls somewhere in-between. I am having a
    difficult time defining it; I have to believe that I'll know it
    when the time comes. I guess the best thing to say is that you must
    be assertive, but not aggressive. That would be the "Middle Way".
    To cower in fear doesn't get it; to dominate and squash doesn't
    get it either.
    
>              What if you don't die but, rather, you are injured (mentally and
>          physically) to the point that your humanity is attenuated far be-
>          yond which would have resulted if you had been successful in
>          countering the violent attack?
    
    Again, this question involves a difference in definitions of humanity.
    Having healed my share of mental scars through Buddhism, and coming
    out better for it, your question doesn't seem to apply to someone
    who is Buddhist. You simply repair and continue.
    
>              When I read that, I thought [no way].  I'm having a very hard
>          time understanding this.  Could you give non-religious examples
>          of a real human being who is like that?  Do you think you are?
 
    Can I think of a person in real life who did not kill but survived
    to live to a ripe old age? I *think* Gandhi did. I can also name
    a LOT of martyrs who *I* feel have not lost their humanity. King
    comes to mind. But again, what is the definition of person? 
    
    Do I think I am? Good question. Considering how many things bother
    me! :-) But when I work through them, I am a better person, and
    I grow from the experience. So, can you truly touch the center of
    my being? No, I guess not. Is my life-force strong enough to stop
    a bullet before it enters my body? Maybe not. Is it strong enough
    to repel an attacker? I don't know. I don't walk around trying to
    test this stuff. On the other hand, the number of things that I
    think I would recover from or get over has grown tremendously over
    the years. So in answer to your question: I don't know.
    
    
    Now, in another note you have talked about gun control issues. I
    don't know why it surprises you that I would vote my opinion, any
    more than pro-life people vote their opinion.
    
    But if what happens from this one issue is that you feel that we
    cannot be friends, I will respect your choice.
    
    I have a sense that pacifism is not welcome in WN. And that some of
    those who disagree are going to start attaching other words to it. Like
    low-life scum-bag. Passive scallywag. Wuss. Wimp. Fool. Well, pacifism
    and passivity are very different concepts. I think many who opt
    for the former truly believe that counter-violence is only a short-term
    solution to a symptom of a long-term disease. On the other hand,
    I am NOT out to preach. I'm saying what is right for me, and I'm
    saying that I vote based on my beliefs. 
    
    The whole reason why this topic started was because there are some
    people in this file who, like me, do not advocate violence. I'm
    sorry that there is no safe place for us, that this viewpoint needs
    to be condemned. If it makes you folks feel any better, I'm leaving.
    I don't feel like committing energy to this.

    RE: 72..
    
    Your view of life and your religion is very beautiful.  Thanks for
    sharing it.  Your inner strength shines through.
    
    Suzanne

re: .72 ('Ren Foster)

Thank you for explaining the basis of your opinions to me, Ren.

I hope you didn't take my questions as a deprecation of your
beliefs.  That was not my intent.  (And I warned whoever decided
to try to explain this to me in .56 that they'd have to be patient :-)!

I am very interested in this topic because I am looking for potential
solutions to the question:

    How the *net* amount of violence in the world can be decreased?

Ya know how when you're in brainstorming mode, no solution is a bad
one...no solution should be rejected as silly?  Rather, all ideas
should be carefully and logically considered.

What I look for in this topic is an argument for using harmony...
non-violence... as a potential solution.  For me to accept this as a
solution, the effect would have to be that the *net* amount of violence
in the world be decreased...i.e., you are decreasing violence in that
you(general) do not react violently, but does this permit someone else
to continue to act violently, hence an overall *increase* in the total
amount of violence?

But maybe I'm too screwed up by reality to look at this philosophically
or spiritually.

What I do know is that if I had not reacted violently to the extent
that I was hurt (well, he was hurt also, but that didn't matter in
the end) when I was attacked, statistics show that I would have had
a *much* harder time getting a conviction.  I believe this, because
it was difficult enough getting a guilty verdict in the face of
overwhelming evidence against him.      If he was not convicted,
I am fairly sure (based on his previous record of 'minor' sexual 
offenses) he would have continued committing violence against women.
So while the overall amount of violence in our encounter was very
high, I believe it is less then if I had been non-violent and he had
gotten off free and continued his violent ways.   But he's probably 
going to be released very soon, so what-the-hell?

							nancy b.

Ren, I really have gotten a lot out of your contributions.

It _is_ true that womannotes is not a 'safe' space for anything; women,
secretaries, or passivists. I appreciate their contributions all the more for
this.
	Mez

    <--(.72)
            
�    I have a sense that pacifism is not welcome in WN. And that some of
�    those who disagree are going to start attaching other words to it. Like
�    low-life scum-bag. Passive scallywag. Wuss. Wimp. Fool. ....
    
    'ren, I really don't think you're correct in this pessimism, though
    considering the violent energy that goes into argument I can almost
    understand how you would come to see it that way.
                                                   
�    The whole reason why this topic started was because there are some
�    people in this file who, like me, do not advocate violence. I'm
�    sorry that there is no safe place for us, that this viewpoint needs
�    to be condemned. If it makes you folks feel any better, I'm leaving.
�    I don't feel like committing energy to this.
   
    This feels a bit unfair, 'ren. What is it that you mean by "advocate
    violence"?  To me, "advocating" something means arguing that
    whatever it is is a good thing and there ought to be more of it.
    
    						=maggie  

    RE .75
    
    I too have gained a lot out of this note and this notes file in
    general. However, I do not think that this place _is_ not 'safe'
    for anything; women, secretaries, or passivists.
    
    If you only interact with people who have similar thoughts, you
    will feed off of each other, sometimes to the good of that particular
    thought, sometimes, however you will think that your view
    is the only one, and worse (for your cause) that everyone, or most
    believe as you do. 
    
    As an example, consider the last presidental election. If the liberal
    agenda; gun control, pro-choice, etc was all that important, as
    judged by the demonstrations/rallies you see on TV, George wouldn't
    be pres. I use this as an example, not to discuss the last election,
    but to show a point.
    
    I don't think that the treatment that most women receive in this
    notesfile is terrible. Yes, some may feel frightened off because
    someone disagrees with them, but there is not physical violence.
    If I personally have contributed to that I appologise. But to isolate
    oneself from other thoughts and associate with only those who are
    of like minds or thoughts, is to deprive yourself of the understanding
    that might some day bring harmony, not conflict.

    Steve

'Ren:

   Please continue to express your ideas -- especially concerning this
topic.

   While I don't agree with everything you've said so far, I feel that 
your ideas are too important to be left unexpressed.

                                                  -Robert Brown III

    How do we reduce the world's total sum of "violence"?
    
    One person at a time.....one situation a time....
    
    -Jody
    

    
re .72:           
    
    >You simply repair and continue.
    
    Not all wounds can be repaired, even by extremely religious people
    (enter your favorite) - loss of limbs, nerve damage, and lots more
    examples that come to mind.
    

    If people bail out of this discussion or conference because I or someone
    else express the opinion or belief that "in certain circumstances
    pacifism is inapropriate" then I don't feel this is "safe" place to
    express *that* opinion.  I'm sorry this happens.

    Bob
    

    

    Re .49, Dana, I think if it came right down to it I'd "play the
    helpless female and holler for a white knight."
    
    I find guns depressing and uninteresting and would rather spend
    my time doing more fun things.  I think it is the obligation of
    those of you who find guns fun to protect me, if and when
    the time ever comes.  Thanks! :-)

    (This isn't sexist either because I'd also accept protection from
    a woman, (or a black knight), for that matter.)
    
    This issue really confuses me.  I do hate guns.  When I look at
    them I see blood and death and it depresses me.  I hate hunting
    and hate thinking of animals being killed.  I also honestly do find
    guns boring.  I'd rather not be bothered.  I don't want to waste
    my precious weekends at some rifle range.  Yuck!  I'd rather pretend
    they don't even exist!
    
    I am afraid that I wouldn't be able to learn to use one the right
    way, and that if I did have one in my home, or carry one, that I
    would wind up making some would-be attacker shoot me all the sooner
    because they were afraid I was going to shoot them, which I might
    not be able to do at all, anyway!  On the other hand, if I ever
    did learn to use a gun, I'm afraid I might shoot somebody in a fit
    of anger over some insignificant thing.  Sometimes I get so angry
    at other people I feel that it really wouldn't bother me much to
    kill them.  Some people do such awful things, I feel they've forfeited
    their right to fair treatment.  I don't blame anybody for acting
    in self-defense, but I'd be afraid to keep a gun in my home for
    fear an innocent person would get killed in an accident, or that
    I might kill somebody in a fit of anger.  (Or somebody might shoot
    me in a fit of anger!)  I'd just rather not have guns around.
    
    On the other hand, I have voted for gun-control because I do have
    an idea that it would be better to limit the number of guns as much
    as possible.  But, then, I really do question my right to do that
    after hearing views such as Dana's.  I really haven't come to any
    conclusion on the matter except that I don't see guns as being fun
    or interesting, and I wish they'd never been invented.
    
    Lorna
    

	It is my view that this note and many others in this file
	have become space for the "putting down" of views that are not
	macho.  I wonder about this and think - "The intensity of
	reaction is a gage of the severity of the threat."

	Explaination:  If I was to state that I think that male
	is the weaker sex I would have a lot of people jumping - right!
	Why?  Because I have stated the obvious (XX are less inclined
	to problems then XY) situation but have stated it in a way
	that threatens what this society is based on.  That male
	is the stronger sex and therefore female needs to be protected
	by male.  BUT what are we really talking about.

	I have two children, whom I love and adore.  Would I kill to
	protect them?  Well, in order to feed them I have bought meat
	of dead animals.  "Oh that is different" you say.

	NO, I say.  They are the same.  Each of us do what we need
	to do to survive - physically, spritually and emotionally.
	For me to kill anything takes away from MY sense of self -
	so I eat as little meat as possible.  This is not a perfect
	society/world but those of us who have a clear view of what
	we want or will except from ourselves, we are usually willing to
	accept the dysfuntions in our lives and change what we can.

	I started this topic for many reasons, and it has turned out
	to be for me the final try to have a discussion about
	another way of being.  

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			It is the way we live our lives that
			in the end really matters and the only
			person who's actions we are responible
			for are our own.

     Somebody (I really don't remember who) defined the birth of
    civilisation as the occasion on which an ancient hunter/warrior 
    decided "I will not kill today."
    
     So how do we reduce the amount of violence in the world?  By more
    people saying "I will not kill today" and making it stick.
    
    				Nigel

re: 775.82 (Lorna St. Hilaire)
    -------------------------

>    On the other hand, I have voted for gun-control because I do have
>    an idea that it would be better to limit the number of guns as much
>    as possible.  But, then, I really do question my right to do that
>    after hearing views such as Dana's. 

YEA, LORNA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEA, DANA CHARBONNEAU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I NEARLY FELL OUT OF MY OFFICE CHAIR WHEN I READ THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lorna, was that really you who entered that from your account ?!?!
(or was Dana holding you at gunpoint :-)? oooh, ouch, bad joke!!)

Watching someone learn and reason is truly an uplifting experience.

						just floatin' by,
						nancy b.
 

p.s.  For reference, the note Lorna referred to is appended after the
      formfeed.



================================================================================
Note 775.62                   Harmony not conflict                      62 of 84
SA1794::CHARBONND "It's a hardship post"             13 lines  20-SEP-1989 13:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        I respect the right of others to believe in an afterlife,
    or rebirth, or immortal souls. However, I do not share those 
    beliefs. I believe 'this is it'. My only chance at the 
    wonderful thing called life. And I will not let it be 
    taken from me without resisting, with as much force as
    necessary. (This to me is the only moral use of force -
    self defense.)
    
    I would ask that those who believe different than I not
    try to disarm me, thus forcing me to live by their 
    beliefs through depriving me of the means of protecting
    *my* life. 

    
    re:.82
    i agree completely with ms. st. hilaire: i do not like guns, i fear
    guns, i wish guns didn't even exist. i will never own a gun, i will
    never have a gun in my home. i have never touched a gun and pray that
    i never will. (i have stated these feelings elsewhere and was 'attacked').
    i also agree with those who believe that working for peace begins with
    ourselves. each of us must say '*i* will not use violence'. and as for
    the multitudinous 'what if...' i merely reply that i have no time for
    contrived, fictional circumstances and that when i was mugged (new york,
    1980) i gave them the money (in fact, i told them truthfully that there
    was no money or credit cards in my wallet and gave them every penny i had).
    
    i am particularly dismayed that ms. leedberg's original intention of
    exploring peace and harmony in our lives has so quickly become derailed
    into an argument over the justification of violence. call me an idealist,
    but i thought womannotes was better than that.
    

    
    oops, after reading ms. bittle's intervening reply i must unfortunately
    append that i guess i do not *completely* agree with ms. st. hilaire
    (sorry, lorna).
    
    mr. charbonneau does not convince me that there should not be some 
    restrictions on guns.
    (sorry, nancy)
    
    

    I find I'm a bit miffed at hearing I will next start name calling
    against someone who doesn't agree with me. I guess I'm not allowed
    to disagree either without being told I'll escalate the issue and
    become "violent". Thank you ren for your impression of me and my
    fellow noters. I can see how my violent language makes you see me as
    that sort of person. (perhaps sarcasm is too violent also)

    I would indeed be very resentful of someone who watched me being
    raped and did not help because to attack my attacker would diminish
    their humanity. I do not see violence as the solution to all issues.
    I do not see it as the solution to MOST issues. There are times it
    may be necessary to protect what, IMHO, is right. If saving someone
    from violence requires violence then so be it. I don't particulary
    believe in the death penalty. That to me approaches murder in cold
    blood. I do believe we have the responsibility to intervene and
    prevent a crime while it is happening. 

    As regards my feelings on life and man's relationship to gods, "the
    good lord helps them that helps themselves".

    One of my favorite stories is about the Christian caught in a flood.
    He  climbs to the roof of the house and he begins praying to be
    saved. A boat comes by but he turns it away saying the lord will
    save him, a helicopter comes by but he turns it away saying the lord
    will save him. As the day wears on and he has not been saved he
    turns his face towards heaven and cries "Lord why have you ignored
    my prayers and left me here to die?" A great voice booms down from
    the heavens "I sent a boat and helicopter what the h*ll do you
    want?".

    Re: Peggy, why is anything I have said macho posturing? Wouldn't you
    use violence to stop someone from molesting your children? Is that
    macho? It sounds maternal to me. liesl
    

    re .87
    
    I can't speak for Nancy or Dana, but I don't believe that they
    *ever* espoused the notion of *no restrictions* on guns.  There
    are already limits on what types of firearms may be purchased and
    born.  A person must be registered and have a permit to own guns.
    There's more in some places too.
    

    re .83, Peggy, darn it, I'm not yet caught up with the file; 
    please don't go away yet.
    
    re .0-
    
    >	As of late there has been an exceedingly large number of notes	
    >	and replies in this file that "screem" for violence against
    >	someone.

    Observation seconded.  And not only here; the external media world
    seems to have been on a 'report the atrocities' kick ever since the
    war ended, and people everywhere are reacting to this manipulation.
    
    >	If we as a species hope to survive the next 25 years, we as
    >	a species will have to learn that there are other ways of dealing
    >	with problems other than to distroy someone or something.  It 
    >	is through the continued use of violence that women and men are
    >	kept "in their place" by those who think that they have power.

    I think our views and understanding of our society and our world are
    shaped by the media images which present that world to us.  I think 
    our perceptions that the world is more violent are self-fullfilling
    prophecies fostered and continued by our media monster.  Orwell saw it
    coming first.  McLuhan tried to push it into less dangerous paths.
    This badly-misunderstood media has driven us in awful directions.
                  
    Perception:  Conflict attracts interest.  Conflict sells papers (and
    more sophisticated, manipulative, intrusive, media).  The purveyors
    who manipulate us are not using direct violence to keep us in our
    places.  They are using the "appearance of violence", by posing every
    news story as a battle between competing interests.  Goal: profit.
    
    Species-Pathological Side Effect- 
    we are conditioned to view *all* situations as confrontations.
      
    >	The power is to control but no one has real control so the 
    >	power is based upon an illusion and to maintain that illusion
    >	more and more brutal methods must be used.  The only way to 
    >	stop this foolishness is by not surcoming to the illusion ourselves.
    
    I agree that illusions of power and control foster the violence
    problem.  I think, though, that 'brutal methods' aren't the problem
    really facing us; insidious manipulation is.  That manipulation is
    presenting more 'brutal methods' of violence to us because the
    formerly-presented levels no longer attract the attention of a jaded
    audience.  Countering that negative manipulative side-effect requires
    that we find an alternate means to reach the same goal; profitable
    information services without socially disastrous side effects.
    
    >	The power to distroy is the supreme being that many worship and
    >	it is very dangerous to us as a species.  The use of a language
    >	that is violent supports the illusion.  
    
    Yes.  Both of these are useful observations.  One may postulate that
    fostering the creative power is much the more useful to the species.
    And that language is one of the powerful tools which can be used in
    that task.
    
    >                                           The only way out of 
    >	this situation is for each and everyone to try to THINK REAL
    >	hard before they use a violent word - "Do I really mean what I
    >	am about to say???"  Sometimes they answer will be yes but most
    >	times it will be no.
    
    This is one way, which we can all use.  Especially as a means for
    denying illusions within the conference community, I second your
    call for all of us to *watch our language*.  The words we use carry
    such extraordinary power.  'Ren has gone to amazing lengths; her words
    have shown a refusal to let honest differences devolve into a brawl,
    and those who have responded to her have similarly maintained an
    impressive decorum.  This is a great example of how it *could* be,
    were we conditioned to seek solutions, rather than confrontations.
    
    You suggest 'other ways of dealing with problems'.  Perhaps our task
    lies in finding other means of presenting public information that can
    1) avoid presenting all stories as conflicts and 2) yet retain audience
    interest, to be profitable.  Well, sex sells, but the side effects of
    that are just as bad.  Anyone else know the right triggers into the
    human psyche that provide an interest-handle for a new-format of
    information dissemination, that will have *positive* conditioning
    impacts on the people it reaches instead of negative ones?  Up above,
    the creative urge seems to offer a step in the right direction.   
    
    [Meta-level; Peggy, I know that I'm saying that violence isn't the
    real problem, only a symptom of something worse wrong.  I *don't*
    disagree that we must solve the violence, I agree with you fully,
    though that may not be clear from the above.  But I'm hoping that 
    you, too, might agree that the illusions under which we labor must 
    be overcome at their source, or we'll never really solve the violence.]
                               
    DougO

 Safeness. Pacifism. Macho Posturing. Violence. Power. Inner feelings. Control.
Hmmmmm.

 I do not devalue another's view of life in which they are unwilling to resort
to violence under any circumstances. I find that view to be impractical for
my own life, as I abhor pain and suffering. I find that I cannot allow my family
or myself to endure pain for the sake of another without attempting some means
of prevention or cessation. It is a personal decision on my part.

 I always try non-violent methods first. Violence is the last resort for me.
While violence is not a virtue, often the mere threat of violence is sufficient
to resolve the situation, whereas passivity would have exacerbated it.

 I have no problems with the pacifistic. I leave them alone to follow their own
inner paths. I do wish they'd allow me to do the same. I am saddened when I
hear people say things like "I don't like guns. I don't think people should
be able to have guns." I think that many people (myself included) would be
angered and saddened if someone were to say "I don't like valuing differences
notesfiles. Let's stop them now."

 I think there is a certain attitude, live and let live, that is very beneficial
though not terribly popular. Everyone seems to want everyone else to live by
their own personal standards. Many people look down upon others that don't
live by their standards. "Oh. They're just macho pro-violence people." It's
so demeaning. 

 I wish that everyone would learn to mind their own business, and let people
be people. If God wanted a cookie cutter world, He (She?) would have made it 
that way.

 The Doctah

	I went to the talk by Gloria Steinem last night and she asked
	everyone in the audience to do one outrageous thing today. (Here
	is my one, picture cheshire cat smile.)

	DougO brought up the real point of all of this.  Name the desease
	not the symtom.  Gloria talked about it last night.  Marilyn
	French devotes a whole chapter (maybe a whole book) to it.  I
	have mentioned it many times in discussions without recognizing
	the immense implications of change.

	"Who benefits from the world that is divided?"  Do men benefit?
	Do women benefit? Do Third World countries benefit?  Does the
	earth benefit?  Why does this problem exist?  Because it is the
	way it has always been?  Because that is the way humans are?

	Then why do we have to teach over and over to every single
	member of society that this is how life has to be?  All I ask
	is that you take a moment or two to think about this.  If men
	were naturally violent they would not need to be taught from
	birth that killing was good and that loving was bad.

	What is the greatest fear we all have?  That we be killed or
	that someone we love reject our love and not love us in kind.

	Again, I will state that this is not a perfect world so I 
	need to make modifcations to my actions, BUT I do this knowing
	what it is that I am choosing to do.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			I choose not to kill and when and if I am
			forced to do so I must live with it and 
			some day I may choose not to live with it.

    If men have been taught that killing is good and loving is bad, then I
    must have missed the boat somewhere, because I was never taught those
    things.
    
    -- Mike

    Peggy, I think you've hit the nail right on the head, here:
    
    '	"Who benefits from the world that is divided?"  Do men benefit?
	Do women benefit? Do Third World countries benefit?  Does the
	earth benefit?  Why does this problem exist?  Because it is the
	way it has always been?  Because that is the way humans are?
    '
    
    I have to agree with all the utopian socialists/communists:  human
    greed is the driving force.  The ones who benefit from a divided world
    are the arms peddlars, the politicians, the generals, the terrorists,
    and the psychopaths.  The greedy.  Whether their lust is for money or
    power, or whether its direct or indirect, it's always aimed at personal
    gain at the expense of others.
    
    						=maggie

>    Peggy, I think you've hit the nail right on the head, here:
>    
>    '	"Who benefits from the world that is divided?"  Do men benefit?
>	Do women benefit? Do Third World countries benefit?  Does the
>	earth benefit?  Why does this problem exist?  Because it is the
>	way it has always been?  Because that is the way humans are?
>    '
>    
>    I have to agree with all the utopian socialists/communists:  human
>    greed is the driving force.  The ones who benefit from a divided world
>    are the arms peddlars, the politicians, the generals, the terrorists,
>    and the psychopaths.  The greedy.  Whether their lust is for money or
>    power, or whether its direct or indirect, it's always aimed at personal
>    gain at the expense of others.
>    
>    						=maggie
>
Well who benifits? Women and men both. You would not want to live in
    <fill in the country> because of the way someone/group runs it.
    Look, our western countries are NOT perfect, however the communist/
    heavy socialist countries are worse IMHO. If you think differently,
    try one, I can suggest many. The general/soldier does not want the
    division to become heated. He (women in the US are prohibited from
    combat) is the first one to die. Kind of a high price to pay. The
    arms murchants? We just about put them out of business in the 20's
    and 30's in the US. Didn't do much good in the 40's. Almost allowed
    us to be speaking German right now. The terrorists? There seem to
    always to be people who have been wronged and carry it on for
    generations. Psycopaths? They will be with us forever. Unless of
    course you believe in everyone being 'Orwellianed' (is there such
    a word?) [monitored for bad/unusual/different thoughts].
    
    Having said this. I agree that greed for $$ and lust for power do
    create a lot of problems. 
    
    Greed IS a problem. Lust for power over others is probably even
    a greater problem. To place the blame, we need only to look at
    ourselves. We are ALL imperfect and subject to human frailities.
    Countries are run by large or small groups of people. Can we expect
    different?
    
    Steve_who_is_sorry_this_sounds_like_rambling.

    <--(.95)
    
    hmmmm...what gives you the impression that I think east-bloc countries
    are better than ours, Steve?  I don't think I said that, did I?
    
    						=maggie

    Re. -.95:
    
    Can we expect different?  YES!
    
    Will it require work?  YES!
    
    Do we have people willing to do that work?  YES!
    
    Do we also have people who say, "We've always done it that (violent)
    way, so it must be OK"?  YES!
    
    Are they right?  NO!
    
    Karen                             

>                      <<< Note 775.64 by JURAN::FOSTER >>>
>                 -< This is the HARMONY NOT CONFLICT note... >-

    
>    If I were to elaborate on the why's of my beliefs (I will not here
>    because the background is rather Eastern and you have to get used
>    to it before you can respect it.) 

That is a big mistake on your part as far as ROAK and DANA are concerned 
they, and I, can respect a thing easily, perhaps we don't have the background
to understand but we can respect.


    
>    I'm sorry if it bothers you that I will vote for gun control. Sometimes
>    its hard to reconcile spiritual and legal rights and responsibilities.
>    But I do have the legal right and responsibility to vote for what I
>    think is correct. And you and I disagree. I will never walk up to you
>    and try to remove your weapon from you. But that's the best I can do. 
 
By voting for gun control you hide behind the hired guns of the police and
military who will come to take our guns. The world history is filled with
war aftwer war caused by those who wish to impose their form of control
on others. Most gun owners and I kbnow I can count ROAK and Dana only wish
to be *LEFT ALONE* we don't want your police and army coming to take away
those things we legally and *morally* have a right to. 
Be aware friend when you send your armed thugs, though they wear badges
many of them will die as we defend what is ours, and those deaths
will be *YOUR* fault.
Amos
                                                     

    <--(.98)
    
    Amos, I know you feel strongly about the issue but the heat of your
    response to 'Ren does your position little credit.  
    
    						=maggie

    re .95:
    
    That was a pretty incredible leap, IMHO, to think that anyone
    at all (not just =maggie or peggy) has *ever* said that they'd
    rather live under communism.  I've *never* seen that opinion
    expressed in this file.  Saying that Western systems leave a lot
    to be desired in some ways doesn't equal saying that communism is
    better.
    

I think that Doug O and Peggy are getting to the crux of the issue.

We can argue about gun control until we are blue in the face.  I see
it as a sympton of a bigger problem.  Why do we need weapons in the
first place?  Does this have to be so?  I think one could argue (and
many people have made the choice) that given the state of the world,
that they have a gun for self-defense.  But do we need to arm everyone
to feel secure?  This has happened on a larger scale between the
"superpowers", has it not?  We could be blown to smithereerns at any
momemt?  Does that make you feel secure?  I know I don't.  And
tremendous resources are being used to keep these weapons going and to
invent new ones (some 1/2 of scientists and engineers in the US are in
defense related work for example).  

People have stated that greed is the cause.  But what is the cause of
greed?  That is a very interesting question!  

I'd like to take a slightly different cut from Ren on the Buddhist
teaching.  Buddhism has a number of precepts which you can vow to try
and upkeep.  They are guidelines for living as enlightened beings.
But they are just that- guidelines.  Who can say beforehand what one
should do in any given situation?  To try and do that would, by
definition, limit the possible compassionate responses one could
realize.  One of the precepts is not to kill anything.

Of course we break this all the time.  One good example is when we
eat.  So how do I deal with this?  One is to acknowledge where my food
has come from and to apprecaite it and not waste it.  This means being
aware of what I am eating, where it has come from, and how am I eating
it.  Am I really eating it or is my mind elsewhere making plans for
the day or reading the newspaper?  To eat consiously is to acknowledge
the underlying unity of everything and the interconnectedness of all
beings.

Let's say you are riding a horse and you both fall and the horse is
seriously injured beyond repair.  Then probally I will put it out of
its misery.  Really, I think, only one precept is needed.  Am I acting
out of compassion for all sentient being when I act?  Or am I acting
out of self-interest in all its glorious guises?  So I don't beleive
in moral absolutes.  Note also that the Buddhist precepts help to tell
me how to live but they don't tell me that I should judge how others
should live - only to help if I can.

We've spent alot of time arguing and causing each other a lot of
suffering arguing about the apparent conflict between gun use and
pacifism.

I hope we can remember the values we share such as living
in harmony, appreciating each other, and appreciated the wonderful
life and earth we have been given (even the state of affairs being
what they are).

To me, it all gets back to who am I and why are I here?

peace,
john

    re: .101 and others
    
    I agree completely.  
    
    In logic philosophy class we learned about the structure of arguments;
    and that one thing that was difficult to pinpoint was the old "hidden
    assumption."  The hidden assumption here is that violence is inbred in
    humans and will never be absent.
    
    Is it?
    
    Is it in all people?
    
    If so, can it be overcome?
    
    Do we want to overcome it?
    
    Can our society overcome it?
    
    Does it serve some need for us because at our most basic selves we are 
    animals who have an instinct to fight to survive, and that at our
    abstract level of society "fighting to survive" is misdirected to be
    greed and powermongering?  Can we *redirect* that instinct to survive
    to be something more constructive? 
    
    (Or is the assertion that "our most basic selves are animals" a hidden
    assumption on its own? )
    
    I'm confused now.  :-)    What an interesting series of replies!  I'll
    go home to ponder... 
    Pam

    Re: .102
    
    >The hidden assumption here is that violence is inbred in humans and
    >will never be absent.
    
    I don't know about violence, but I certainly think aggression is
    inbred.  It's a terribly useful trait for survival, too, so I don't see
    it disappearing.  As to whether it can be overcome, well, I think that
    question requires a more detailed study of the "flight or fight"
    reaction to stressful situations.  How much of that reaction is
    biologically hard-coded?

    	� If men were naturally violent they would not need
    	to be taught from birth that killing was good and
    	that loving was bad. �  [.92 -- Peggy]
    
    	� If men have been taught that killing is good and
    	loving is bad, then I must have missed the boat
    	somewhere, because I was never taught those things. �
    	[.93 -- Mike]
    
    Well, Mike, that just goes to prove that you're naturally violent
    and didn't *need* to be taught those things. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    Ah hah!  That must be it.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

>           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
>                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
>================================================================================
>>Note 775.94                   Harmony not conflict                      94 of 94
>RAINBO::TARBET "Sama budu polevat'"                  16 lines  22-SEP-1989 10:23
>                             -< i'm sorry to say >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Peggy, I think you've hit the nail right on the head, here:
>    
>    '	"Who benefits from the world that is divided?"  Do men benefit?
>	Do women benefit? Do Third World countries benefit?  Does the
>	earth benefit?  Why does this problem exist?  Because it is the
>	way it has always been?  Because that is the way humans are?
>    '
>    
>>>>    I have to agree with all the utopian socialists/communists:  human
>>>>    greed is the driving force.  The ones who benefit from a divided world
>    are the arms peddlars, the politicians, the generals, the terrorists,
>    and the psychopaths.  The greedy.  Whether their lust is for money or
>    power, or whether its direct or indirect, it's always aimed at personal
>    gain at the expense of others.
>    
>    						=maggie

    
    PLEASE notice the 4 carat lines. If you agree with "all the utopian 
    socialists/communists:", and the Socialists/communists have various
    countries to choose from (Albania-Hungury-Sweeden...), you don't
    think one of those controlled or semi-controlled economies/societies
    is a better solution? Please correct me, but I thought that that
    is what you said.
    
    Steve

     <--(.108)
    
�     I believe that another way of asking the question, "why is there
�     conflict rather than harmony?", is to ask, "why do some people need to
�     believe that 'different' and 'wrong' are the same?"
    
    *WELL* said, Brian!
    
    
    <--(.107)
    
    Steve, you missed the significance of "utopian".  In utopian socialism
    and pure communism the social contract is "from each according to her
    ability, to each according to her need".  That is not the social
    contract in Hungary, Bulgaria, Sweden, or any other country that we
    would identify as socialist or Communist.  
    
    						=maggie

RE:                     <<< Note 775.108 by SIETTG::HETRICK >>>

Brian,  I apprecoaeted your note and found it illuminating.  One thing I
question though is that following statement.

>     Other things that appear
>     to be alternatives, such as discussion, or passive resistance, work
>     only when the coercive is acting out of ignorance instead of
>     conviction:  for discussion and passive resistance are fundamentally
>     educational tools.  But these are useless in dealing with one who
>     deems coersion morally correct, for he has already dismissed those who
>     disagree as "wrong," and justified his opression of them through
>     somehow convincing himself that they are sub-human, less than he.

Are you sure there is such a fine line between these classes of
people?  Is there no self-doubt in the case of the latter?  If if
there isn't, is there still a way to break through?  I have a hard time
beleiving that there is no way (in general).  I would tend the view
the latter as a case of ignorance as well.  Something to consider...
Also, it seems like non-violent action has indeed worked in latter
case (for example, in the Civil Rights Movement in the US to at least
some extent.)

john

 

	...In order to prevent ourselves from destroying ourselves,
	we must have a greater consciousness of the consequences
	of the life patterns we set up for ourselves. We must do
	what we can to stop perpetuating evil in our world. By 
	getting more in contact with our Selves and freeing
	ourselves from the shadow- play, we can find better ways of
	generating and perpetuating good in our world.

                                          -From "Shadow- Play"
                                           by "Resh Beth Gimmel"
                                           copied with permission

   Harmony exists in this world. So does conflict. While conflict does result
from the unwillingness of some to "give in" to the coerciveness of others, I
also believe that it is a natural force in this universe.

   Where there is fire, there cannot be water. Where there is water, there
cannot be fire. Light displaces Darkness. Darkness covers Light. Creation in
our universe often comes from destruction.

   Harmony and conflict are two sides of the same thing. Despite the conflicts
of the opposites mentioned above, the opposites also create a harmony that
makes up this universe. Fire and water together creates steam (among other
things). Light and Darkness interacting creates "shades of grey" as well as the
colors we appreciate. Life and Death are part of a continuing cycle of creation
and change. The opposites both conflict and work together.

   All that I have said above leads to an important point: that as opposites,
neither Harmony nor Conflict can exist without the other. Conflict results when
opposites meet (fire and Water, life and death, coercive people and those who
will not be coerced), but Harmony is the force that allows opposites to exist
in the same universe.

   I believe that the key to the question of Harmony vs. Conflict is in one's
ability to control how these forces manifest in one's life. This can be done
best by finding the Center between them. In my previous entries to this topic,
I have tried to describe how I balance them. My own balance is in orienting
myself to Harmony, while being willing to engage in conflict IF IT IS NECESSARY
to maintain my own harmony.

   Others have found their own balance. 'Ren, for example, is actively
nonviolent; my understanding of what she has tried to say seems to indicate
(please correct me if I'm wrong, 'Ren) that she will focus on harmony and
nonviolence and actively seek resolutions that promote harmony. This is not
"wimpiness" or "weakness", merely a conscious choice -- and a hard one to make
in this age where conflict and violence are overemphasized.

   Conflict can never be entirely eliminated, because in this universe there
must always be opposites. But by finding the Center between Harmony and
Conflict, both can be controlled and properly directed. The best way for us to
find this Center is to find our Selves.

   The Self is the Center of all opposites. The Self is stable and permanent.
All else is memory and experience. It is through our Selves that we can
emphasize Harmony or Conflict, Love or Hate, Light or Darkness. We cannot
create or destroy them; they exist in this universe and influence all things.
But through our Selves we can choose which of these things we wish to have
dominance in our lives, and we can direct Harmony or Conflict to whatever place
in our lives that we choose to.

   Note that I said "in our lives". We cannot manifest Harmony in the lives of
others unless they are open to it. If we attempt to, we will create Conflict
instead -- or worse, we become coercives who lose our own inner Harmony. The
key is to bring forth our own inner Selves, and manifest our inner beauty.
Since all of humanity is connected, the bringing forth of our Selves will
effect others and help them find and manifest their Selves.

   Even so, Conflict will be inevitable. Even though our Selves are connected,
they are not the same. Like notes in a song, some of us "vibrate" on
wavelengths that are discordant to others. This, however, does not matter. The
developed Self cannot be threatened, even by other Selves. The developed,
Harmonious Self is always nourished and beautified -- even by its opposite.

   Harmony without Conflict leads to stagnation and death. Conflict without
Harmony leads to destruction and death. Harmony balanced by Conflict leads to
dynamism and growth.

   I guess what I am trying to say is that the way to bring more Harmony into
this world is for each of us to connect with our inner Selves. When we do this,
we connect with our inner Harmony. Connecting with our inner Harmony helps to
manifest Harmony in each of our lives. When we do this, we become less
susceptible to those who impose Conflict, and by example encourage others to
seek their own inner Selves -- thus causing more Harmony to be manifest.

   If you've gotten this far, thank you for reading this.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    Robert, that was wonderful. I wish I'd been able to express that
    need for both styles of reality and self. liesl

          Note 775.112  (Robert Brown III)

          The following excerpt of your reply was one of the most thought-
          provoking I've read in this string.

               >  I believe that the key to the question of Harmony vs.
               >  Conflict is in one's ability to control how these forces
               >  manifest in one's life. This can be done best by finding
               >  the Center between them. In my previous entries to this
               >  topic, I have tried to describe how I balance them.

          And your description below of your own Harmony vs Conflict
          resolution sounds practical enough for even me to attempt to
          strive for!

               >  My own balance is in orienting myself to Harmony, while
               >  being willing to engage in conflict IF IT IS NECESSARY to
               >  maintain my own harmony.


          So, in a typical week of your life, how do you attempt to control
          the manifestation of the forces of harmony and conflict?

          You said above that this can be done best by finding the Center
          between them (harmony and conflict).  Can you provide me with a
          couple specific examples of this solution at work?

                                                       nancy b.       

RE:  112  R_BROWN

Another interesting entry from Robert.

I don't disagree that conflict and harmony are two sides of the same
coin.  However, you seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that the
non-violent philosophy implies a desire to have no conflict.  In my
view, there is nothing inherently wrong with conflict.  It's how it
resolved and one's relationship with it that can be a big problem (and
is for our present society). 

I confused about what you mean by Self. You say that "The Self is
stable and permanent".  Can you name one thing about the self that is
stable and permanent?  Do you mean the individual ego when you say
Self or something else?

john

Answering the questions of the last two entries:

   I have found that the first step in establishing a balance between Harmony
and Conflict was to take a long look at myself and to learn the ways that I
manifest both forces in my own life. This also requires an understanding of the
forces themselves. Initially this was a hard thing to do, but once I got into
the habit of looking at the effects my actions had on others, it became
automatic and largely unconscious.

   To find the center between the forces, I had to determine what states of
mind I could attain which would be conducive to allowing both Harmony and
Conflict to exist within my world. I had to look and feel inside myself,
to understand and accept the ways in which I responded to harmonious situations
and situations of conflict. I knew, through experience, that I could not
manifest one and completely exclude the other, so I had to find a way where
they could "live together". I wanted Harmony, but I knew that I could not
eliminate Conflict. The more I tried, the more Conflict I seemed to manifest.

   It took a long time, but eventually I learned to seek Harmony while allowing
Conflict to exist within its context.

   I learned that Conflict can be directed into creative channels. This is
done through the proper use of Harmony. Conflict is exclusive. Harmony is
inclusive. By creating a space where conflicting forces are included, we can
create newer and stronger harmonies. The newer harmonies, of course, bring
growth -- which in turn stimulates more conflict. The exclusive nature of
Conflict helps to change/eliminate things that do not contribute positively to
the Harmony. And once again, a new Harmony is born from Conflict.

   The Center, for me, is that the two are constantly creating and merging with
each other. I partake of both their natures and reap benefits from both. One of
these benefits is to be able to choose which one I want to manifest, and use
BOTH to manifest it.

   I apply this principle in everyday life. I have an inner and outer Space
which I keep in balance with each other. People in my Space who are in accord
with me are easy to accept in my space, but when someone opposes or conflicts
with me, I accept that person, also. I allow him/her expression in my Space --
provided he/she  doesn't try to unbalance it. Anyone attempting to create
discord within me will feel my "club". And the "club" is usually effective,
because those who try to coerce or create conflict with others usually have an
inner inbalance that they are projecting outward. A person with inner Harmony
is usually stronger, more robust, and can outlast a person with inner
Conflicts.

   An example of the principle: listening to others without judgement,
regardless of how "far out" or "off the wall" their beliefs/ideas/viewpoints
seem to be. I don't have to agree with the person, merely refrain from judging.
If, however, someone tries to judge me, or project some strange image they have
onto me, then my rejection of their image or judgement will be a form of
conflict which, hopefully, will eventually help both of us to understand and
relate to each other better.

   Another example is allowing all those within my Space to have free
expression of their feelings, regardless of whether those feelings are positive
or negative. For example, when someone is angry at me, I acknowledge the anger
and accept responsibility for any actions I did which caused it. Note that I
said "any actions"; if I don't feel that I did anything to justify someone's
anger, I don't accept responsibility. This is important, because it is easy to
take on the emotional baggage of others if one accepts responsibility for all
of people's reactions to him/her. Personally, I have enough baggage of my own
to carry. I don't need anyone else's! ;-)

   Conflict would come when someone tries to project responsibility onto me
which I will not accept. I do not strike back in such situations, I merely keep
rejecting the blame firmly until the person accepts his/her own
responsibilities or simply leaves my Space. Either way, a new balance is found,
and new things are learned.

   It is all a question of inclusion. Harmony tends to include, and infinite
Harmony includes All. A person who truley emphasizes Harmony is one who can
accept and reconcile opposites both within and without. Such a person can
accept Conflict, and actually use it to promote greater Harmony.

   Of course, I cannot say that I emphasize Harmony perfectly all the time. I
certainly don't always handle Conflict properly. I'm working on it, though.

                   *                *              *

   I did not mean to say that non- violence implies a desire for no conflict.
My understanding of the philosophy of non- violence is that it is violence that
they seek to exclude, not conflict. Non- violent people promote harmony by
"standing firm" against violent solutions to conflicts. In fact, non- violent
people often bring about conflict by not giving in to the coercive tactics that
violent people, groups, and societies use. Active non- violence is actually a
form of Conflict which promotes Harmony by exposing the evils of violence and
making others seek more constructive ways of relating to each other.

   Of course, since non- violence is not a philosophy I actively practice, the
above is only my impression of what it is. Please, 'Ren: come back and share
what you know about this philosophy. You can do a better job describing it than
I can!

   As for the Self: it is not the ego, or the intellect, or even the Will. To
adequately describe my beliefs concerning the Self would be to go into some
somewhat esoteric mystical beliefs which are beyond the scope of this NOTES
topic. Maybe someone should start another topic to discuss the Self, or send
me MAIL if you are interested in my specific ideas.

   For the sake of this discussion, however, I shall define the Self as being
synonymous with the soul. Synonymous, not exactly the same. The Self is that
which "rides" the body and mind, using the ego, will, emotions, instincts, and
intellect as "interfaces" to relate to the world around it. It is like a
"central core" with everything else flowing and manifesting around it. That is
why I call it "stable and permanent".

                  *              *               *

   I sincerely hope I've adequately answered your questions. If not, I will be
happy to further elucidate.

                                                   -Robert Brown III

    Thank you, Robert.  Well stated, clear, helpful, interesting.
    
    Alison

    
    
    
    
    
                         Conflict is stressful.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    			  Amen ! ! ! ! ! !

    I ran across this quote from a poem by William Blake. It seems to
    fit here but I'm not clear even why I think so. It does have some
    thoughts worth considering.

    "He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars.
    General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and
    flatterer."

    I think also of Mother Theresa who said (paraphrased) that she could
    not save the world, but she could save the person next to her.

    And from ee cummings "Better worlds (I suggest) are born not made;
    and their birthdays are the birthdays of individuals. Let us pray
    always for individuals not worlds." liesl
    

    The November issue of the magazine "Friends Journal" contains  an
    article by Elise Boulding (who, it seems, lives up in Boulder),
    entitled "The Pacifist as Citizen".  In the article, Boulding outlines
    what she considers to be the four kinds of pacifism:

        There is an enormous ambiguity in the term _pacifism_...because of
        the diversity of views held by people who go under the label of
        pacifist.  The term has been used to refer to people who are
        primarily internationalists, who when it comes right down to it
        will support military action by their government in wartime.  There
        is no reason why they shouldn't call themselves pacifist if they
        want to, and some of them do.  We just have to know that this is
        one of the varieties of people who have traditionally called
        themselves pacifist.

        The second variety, and we saw many people in this category during
        the Vietnam war, is the anti-war person, self-identified as
        pacifist but believing there are certain wars it's OK to fight and
        certain wars that it isn't OK to fight.  This kind of pacifist
        reserves the right to choose which war to fight.

        The third variety is perhaps the one we usually think of when the
        word pacifist is used, the person who refuses all war and all
        taking of life (not all of this type are vegetarians, but many are). 
        This kind of pacifism is based on religious and/or moral grounds. 
        These pacifists, known as conscientious objectors, cooperate with
        their government in wartime by undertaking alternative service of a
        humanitarian nature, welcoming the opportunity for community
        identification, but always in the context of furthering the welfare
        of the international community.

        Finally there is the absolutist, who not only refuses all war and
        all violence, but refuses all cooperation with the government in
        relation to national defense on the grounds that governments are
        basically organized as a war system.  These are the resisters who
        refuse to register for the draft and who, when they go to jail,
        refuse to cooperate with the prison system--another part of the war
        system...

    I think the above definition is very useful.  In the past, I have often
    avoided calling myself a pacifist because I don't entirely agree with
    the more dogmatic views associated with the third and fourth
    categories, which represent the popular conception of "pacifist". 
    However, according to Boulding's analysis, I can comfortably place
    myself in the second category without being locked into a dogmatic
    position that I don't really accept.  I do suspect that, although I do
    not agree with a dogmatic interpretation of pacifism, the conceivable
    instances in which I feel I can justify the use of armed force may be
    few enough that my differences with those in the third category may not
    be all that significant in practice.

    In the previous issue of the same magazine, there was an article by
    Arthur Clark, "A Response to Violence", which poses the question , "Can
    force become an act of love?"  The author suggests that armed force may
    be justifiable in certain circumstances, but what is refreshing about
    his argument is that he rises above the sort of knee-jerk amorality
    that, for example, characterizes certain others as "feral humans" or
    "mutant monsters", or that desires to castrate rapists.  Rather, at all
    times his central concern is the expression of unconditional love; and
    while the conclusions that one draws from that premise can be debated,
    at least the premise itself does not stoop to the Neanderthal level,
    but rather stands on firm moral ground.

    In the article, he does not offer pat answers so much as raise some
    serious questions.  At one point he says:

	If force can properly be used to express love, what are some of the
	implications?  Is there a role for the warrior, deeply committed to
	unconditional love, to be called upon to deal with torturers,
	tyrants, and despots?  If so, who should assume this role?  Is it
	possible to distinguish between force as expediency and force as an
	expression of love?  Do we have a right to call upon police to enter
	a conflict situation with weapons while we abstain from involving
	ourselves?

	Why do I write this statement even though it is unpleasant, even
	painful to do so?  Because I believe that those of us who struggle
	to follow the Inner Light, the path of unconditional love within,
	are obligated to strive to be very, very clear in our motivation.
	Certainly there are occasions when we feel led to allow our bodies
	to be violated, as occurred with Brian Willson's feet and legs when
	he sat on the tracks to block a trainload of weapons in California.
	But each conflict situation needs a unique response based on
	circumstances, which can only be perceived in proper perspective, I
	believe, through unconditional love.

    -- Mike