Conference hydra::dejavu

>His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert.

>Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. 

>Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. 

>Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

    I think so.

    to the extent that the word means anything at all, that is.

>    Was he an angel?

  If it's at all possible to determine from this translation of his
  speech (which it may be), *I* am not competent to say. In fact, it's a
  safe bet that I'm not competent to distinguish to any finer resolution
  than that a person is spiritually more advanced than myself. What
  plane he/she might dwell in may be farther from my ability to
  determine than it is beyond a bacterium's ability to understand
  quantum mechanics.

>  determine than it is beyond a bacterium's ability to understand
>  quantum mechanics.
    
    Or for that matter, a Quantum Mechanic's ability to understand
    a bacterium.
    
    	:*)
    
    			todd

Note 1472.5                  
ENABLE::GLANTZ 
    
    
>  If it's at all possible to determine from this translation of his
>  speech (which it may be), *I* am not competent to say. 
    
    Why not?  You seem as competent as the rest of us.  Pick a card... any
    card at all. :-)
    
    >In fact, it's a
  >safe bet that I'm not competent to distinguish to any finer resolution
  >than that a person is spiritually more advanced than myself. What
  >plane he/she might dwell in may be farther from my ability to
  >determine than it is beyond a bacterium's ability to understand
  >quantum mechanics.
    
    You assume that it is the plane one dwells in that determines what one
    is, right?  I don't think thats necessarily the case.  There are some
    pretty smart bacterium evolving these days. :-)
    
    mary

   Sorry too spoil anyones awe of chief Seatle, but...

   Last year about this time I was listening to a public radio station while
   traveling through western Mass. They were interviewing the guy who actually
   wrote that speech an the 1960's. I forget his name and what play/movie/???
   he wrote it for. He was perturbed that they did not credit him for the
   speech or indicate that this speech were "possible" words spoken by chief
   Seatle if he were alive today. The only record of any speech by chief
   Seatle came from what someone wrote 20 years after the speech, and hence
   there is no "real" detailed record of any speech by chief Seatle. If you
   read the speech carefully, you can definitely see the tone of 1960's style
   environmental views. ... don't it always seem to go, you don't know what
   you've got till its gone, ...

   wayne

    re: .8 (Wayne)
    
         Yeah, Wayne, so don't go away so much!
    
    ;-)
    
    Frederick
    

    Doesn't matter who wrote it or who finally got to say the words.  
    Whomever says them speaks as an angel.
    
    mary

        I think the speech is right about a lot of things.
        
        But most of it's righteousness is in regard to spirituality.  The
        writer's perplexity  with  regard  of  how  men  differ  in their
        beliefs and the  resulting  behaviors and attitudes stemming from
        these belief systems and  the  spiritual purpose for the mingling
        of the two different peoples -- red and white -- brings me to the
        same question.  Why?

        Think pink.  The mingling must  be  to  repair  the dysfunctional
        families among the red and white.   The  red  have always revered
        the  mother and the white have always obeyed  the  father.    The
        reverence  of  mother  has  kept  us  near  her  breast  for  our
        sustenance and not too compelled to venture far.  Obeying  father
        has  kept you away from your heart and made you try  antics  that
        you  think  are  grand  just  to  promote  your standings in your
        father's kingdom.    Mother  says:    "I have a fine son", father
        says:  "I have a obedient son".  And everyone says it's love.
        
        Are we all right or all wrong.   Both spiritual causes have their
        merits and their voids.  I think if  we  blend  the  both  causes
        together,  we  can  multiply  the merits and fill the  voids  and
        become the whole functional family of his most high, the  Creator
        of us all.
        
        I know it sounds way to simple an explanation  but even the most
        complex configurations of things all stems from a simple entity.
        
        Hozhozh��/Harmony&Beauty be your path,
        
        Anthony

    sounds right to me.

    Thanks for sharing those thoughts, Tony.  I hadn't thought of it
    in those terms before, but it make sense to me.
    
    In balance...
    
    Ro
    

    
    Sorry to join this so late, I was away all last week.
    
    Re. a few back (Wayne)
    
    In regards to these not being the exact words of Chief Seattle, does
    the exact wording matter? Remember we do not have Jesus Himself's exact
    words, either. People who wrote down Jesus's teachings did not do so
    until many years after His death. Does that diminish His message?
    
    I am not usually a very outwardly emotional person, but when I read
    those words I almost wept, for the white man and woman, not for the
    Indians, they learned their lesson. How long will it take us to learn
    the same? The speech mentioned that God had meant the White man to take
    over the land, when the final reckoning comes, and God/Goddess/ATI
    looks at what we took and what we left behind, we will have much to
    answer for........
    
    
    Sadly,
    
    Marilyn

   re .14 

   Hi Marilyn. I had this speech posted on my office wall for a long time and
   sympathsize with the message very deeply. With respect to Jesus, I would be
   very interested in his actual words. But, thats another deep rat hole I
   should probably steer clear of.

   re .9

   Hi Frederick. I backed out of these notes some time ago to clear my mind.
   Maybe it's clearer now, who knows.

   Wayne

    I just read this note and replies, so please excuse the lateness.  The 
    Chief's real name was Chief Sealth.  The word Seattle was derived from
    his name.   When I was a kid I went to Camp Sealth on an island in
    Puget Sound.  Here they taught us that Chief Sealth was a very wise man
    whose ideas should be revered.  I am glad to see them here.  Our
    children's education should include these thoughts in a very real way. 
    Wilderness training is very valuable especially when coupled with the
    spiritual dimension.
    
    Julie               

    Marcos, nice to hear from you.

    I've been pretty inactive lately, and saw the latest in this topic, so
    I went back and read .0 and all of the replies.  It is interesting to
    me that Wayne says in .8 that he's sorry to spoil our awe of Chief
    Sealth, but...
    
    >>Last year about this time I was listening to a public radio station
    while traveling through western Mass. They were interviewing the guy who
    actually wrote that speech an the 1960's. I forget his name and what
    play/movie/??? he wrote it for. He was perturbed that they did not credit 
    him for the speech or indicate that this speech were "possible" words 
    spoken by chief Seatle if he were alive today.<<
    
    Then the string that follows takes Wayne for his word and allows that
    Sealth maybe didn't say all that stuff but he was a good guy anyway.
    
    I was born and raised in Washington.  Sealth was well known as a
    visionary and what we would call a true ecologist.  I have seen the
    speech in .0 before and had no reason to believe it wasn't his speech. 
    .0 says where it was published in writing and the year and
    circumstances of the speech.  But, being a class 2 skeptic, I am not so
    sure Sealth ever made that speech but on the other hand, Wayne's guy on
    the radio with forgotten name and play/movie was just full of it.
    
    It's like none of the history books give me credit for the "Four score
    and seven years ago.." speech.  You can imagine how upset I must be.
    
    Grins,
    Bob 

    Unfortunately, due to work constraints I too have not been in this file
    as much as I'd like.  But, today I got a chance to get in and this
    topic caught my eye.
    
    Just for the record:
    
    The July, 1993 edition of the Reader's Digest gives a very good story
    of how what is erroneously referred to as Chief Sealth's speech got to
    be what it is.
    
    In a nutshell, what is erroneously referred to as Chief Sealth's speech
    was actually written by Ted Perry, a professor of film at the 
    University of Texas at Austin.  Ted Perry took a real speech from 
    Chief Sealth, applied creative license to it, and created a screenplay
    for an anti-pollution project he was working on for the Southern
    Baptist Convention's Radio and Television Commission. The program aired
    on ABC in 1972.  
    
    Ted Perry had no reason to expect any issues since the credits would 
    display his name as having written the piece.  However, at the time of 
    the airing, producer John Stevens changed the original
    credits from "written by" to "researched by" Ted Perry to create more
    impact by attributing the speech directly to Chief Sealth.  Typical
    Hollywood deliberate deceit.
    
    Ted Perry has been speaking out ever since to get the truth out.  But,
    no one wants to hear it.  This society is content to accept and hold
    onto lies and distortions.  
    
    Peace,
    Bill