Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning undefined

on 10/29/04 8:20 PM, Christopher Bailey <chris@...> wrote:

>
>> better off trying to talk to Bush supporters.
>
> yah, whatever happens, if there is ever to be a successful progressive
> movement in this country, there is going to have to be some kind of major
> effort to make connections with the Christian Right. I think it can be
> done, I mean, if most of the rank-in-file believe in a "culture of life"
> sincerely, than surely it can be argued that a senseless war does not
> promote a "culture of life". It will be an uphill battle to make the
> argument, but I think it could be done. there are just too many
> contradictions between the bush doctrine and what I think most Christians
> believe in their heart. It'll probably have to be non-partisan entities
> that make these connections; anyone who says "I'm on the Left" will not
> be listened to.

Yes, this is a particular approach. I agree with the general premise. I
take it upon myself now to try to learn to make some of these kinds of
connections. It is an unknown world. I do know just one thing, from
experience, however: if I don't talk politics and I don't talk religion,
then I can make a connection with people who I disagree with (on politics or
religion). It is the depth of that connection that must be the basis for
any dialog. Otherwise it risks being academic. I've got to learn to
recognize the connection and stay with it, be guided by it. I have to risk
being changed by the connection. Of course I know I won't suddenly decide
to vote for Bush. Yet at the level of the connection both people involved
will feel the degree of liveness and vulnerability. Both people have to
open up together. The degree of risk of what we *feels* to be at stake in
life is I suspect always equal on both sides, like a law of physics. The
actual changes in outward action or decision making are actuall secondary.
Since we are so much on the surface most of the time we are mislead by this,
by the apparent imbalance. This is just a convenience of how we see
ourselves when we are on the "side" that we know is "right". At the deeper
level things are balanced, we balance together, we move together together
(not a typo), or we move apart together. We need to risk moving apart, to
be ourselves. We need to risk moving together, for a greater reason.

There is also a place for the facts, for the surface. However this comes
much easier after a connection is established. Facts flow easily across a
connection. If I feel a connection I will be able to state facts without
extraneous value judgements that I might carry by habit, judgements intended
to reinforce the divisions that I have experienced. Across a barrier, facts
do not flow. They bounce off, or fragment into a part that goes through and
a part that comes back at an angle. That thought came to mind anyway. I'm
not sure how useful it is yet I suspect that the realm of the psyche is ripe
with analogies to physics. Our knowledge of physics and of communication
will perhaps change together.

-Kurt

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

on 11/9/04 10:23 AM, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:

>
>
>>>> better off trying to talk to Bush supporters.
>
> Duh.
>
>>> if most of the rank-in-file believe in a "culture of life"
>>> sincerely, than surely it can be argued that a senseless war
>>> does not promote a "culture of life".
>
> Sure 'bout that? Totally sure?
>
> I wonder if the author has considered:
>
> () The possibility that Bush supporters know what they're
> doing, and do it intentionally.

Sure, as long as I'm willing to concede that my entire intuitive sense is
simply nonsense, that all I trust is nonsense, and that I might as well just
kill myself so that I don't pollute some absolute truth which somehow lives
outside of me.

No I'm not willing to distrust what I gradually learn to experience of my
own nature, for the sake of an idea from someone who makes it clear he is
not interested in having any new experiences.

> () Opening a true dialog with them would mean that the
> progressives would stand an equal chance of being converted
> to Bushism.

Read my previous message. Opening a true dialog puts both sides at a
certain kind of equal risk of change. The very nature of such a true dialog
creates a third thing which encompasses both perspectives. Neither side
gets converted to the other. Rather both sides cease to be sides. That's
of course stating process as if it were a static result, which is helpful
for putting things into some kind of provisional language, but necessarily
inaccurate.

"(unknown)" is a good title for this thread.

-Kurt

🔗Jon Szanto <jonszanto@...>

Kurt,

As always, very eloquently put. Indeed, the most difficult thing is to
engage in dialogue with those parties we most dispise. Far easier is
to sit back and do nothing.

BTW, I know both you and Carl are up in the Bay area, so may already
see this stuff, but I've been drawing a bit of inspiration, as well as
gallows humor, from Mark Morford's columns, post-election. Today's is
very well done, on the matter of education and voting:

http://tinyurl.com/4lry5

...and especially see the astonishing graphic of the true fragmented
nature of the red and blue voting (the 'height' dimension, especially
evidenced in the blue areas, is the depth of the win on that side):

http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> >>> if most of the rank-in-file believe in a "culture of life"
> >>> sincerely, than surely it can be argued that a senseless
> >>> war does not promote a "culture of life".
> >
> > Sure 'bout that? Totally sure?
> >
> > I wonder if the author has considered:
> >
> > () The possibility that Bush supporters know what they're
> > doing, and do it intentionally.
>
> Sure, as long as I'm willing to concede that my entire
> intuitive sense is simply nonsense, that all I trust is
> nonsense,

If you're not prepared for that, it probably is.

> and that I might as well just kill myself so that I don't
> pollute some absolute truth which somehow lives outside of me.

You lost me here.

> No I'm not willing to distrust what I gradually learn to
> experience of my own nature, for the sake of an idea from
> someone who makes it clear he is not interested in having
> any new experiences.

I wonder what you're talking about here...

> > () Opening a true dialog with them would mean that the
> > progressives would stand an equal chance of being converted
> > to Bushism.
>
> Read my previous message.

I did.

> Opening a true dialog puts both sides at a certain kind
> of equal risk of change. The very nature of such a true
> dialog creates a third thing which encompasses both
> perspectives. Neither side gets converted to the other.

Why nitpick in this way? If the new thing leans closer
to one side or the other in some way, then there's
"conversion".

-Carl

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

on 11/12/04 6:16 PM, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:

>>>>> if most of the rank-in-file believe in a "culture of life"
>>>>> sincerely, than surely it can be argued that a senseless
>>>>> war does not promote a "culture of life".
>>>
>>> Sure 'bout that? Totally sure?
>>>
>>> I wonder if the author has considered:
>>>
>>> () The possibility that Bush supporters know what they're
>>> doing, and do it intentionally.
>>
>> Sure, as long as I'm willing to concede that my entire
>> intuitive sense is simply nonsense, that all I trust is
>> nonsense,
>
> If you're not prepared for that, it probably is.

The point is that this is what I have to enter dialog with. I'm not just
throwing it away. Its what I put in with what someone else puts in in order
to have something greater come out. You can't start with nothing and enter
a dialog. Bush, unfortunately I admit I have written off as someone not
subject to influence by dialog. His "core values" are static. The actual
core of an actual human is not a static thing, I don't believe.

>> and that I might as well just kill myself so that I don't
>> pollute some absolute truth which somehow lives outside of me.
>
> You lost me here.
>
>> No I'm not willing to distrust what I gradually learn to
>> experience of my own nature, for the sake of an idea from
>> someone who makes it clear he is not interested in having
>> any new experiences.
>
> I wonder what you're talking about here...

Maybe the below will be clearer, I don't know.

>> Opening a true dialog puts both sides at a certain kind
>> of equal risk of change. The very nature of such a true
>> dialog creates a third thing which encompasses both
>> perspectives. Neither side gets converted to the other.
>
> Why nitpick in this way? If the new thing leans closer
> to one side or the other in some way, then there's
> "conversion".

The best of what dialog can offer is something that neither side would have
anticipated. This makes trivial the issue of leaning one way or the other.
The felt importance of a good process between two people (when it can
happen) transcends the felt importance of the "outcome". Then of course the
outcome may come, but to the degree the outcome is from a larger perspective
than any individual, then for anybody involved to gloat about having been
right (or some variation of that) will only throw the person involved back
into a propensity for another failure of dialog.

I'm going to repost something I posted elsewhere which *maybe* is a bit
clearer. We'll see. Anyway, this was my commentary accompaning the "Don't
Blame the People" essay which I got from Christopher Bailey's "Don't Move to
Canada--move to Alabama" post, when I posted that essay to another list.

on 11/8/04 9:12 PM, Kurt Bigler wrote:
> I resonate strongly with this article, and believe "we" lost the election
> largely because of the degree of polarization that our side (like the other
> side) continued to engage in. Such polarzation blocks any possibility of
> communication or understanding between people on "opposite" sides. When I
> talk to activists I find myself trying to help them to understand the
> consequences of the polarization they often choose to engage in. The problem
> is not Bush. The problem as I see it is first of all that half of this
> country can't talk to the other half. Without such barriers, I doubt that
> Bush could have been elected, because in at atmosphere of trustful
> communication, information would have flowed through, and people would have
> made difference choices. To engage in dialog both sides have to risk being in
> some way vulnerable, subject to being changed by the dialog. I may know that
> I will not vote for Bush as a result of talking to a Republican. Yet I must
> risk being changed in order to have a new understanding, and so must the
> Republican. If we are both interested in something beyond ourselves then
> dialog may lead to a point, to an understanding, that neither of use could
> have anticipated. If the Republican seems less likely to engaged in a dialog
> on such terms, then I must trust in my capacity to inspire by my own trust, by
> my willingness to risk. In our most rigid moments, any of us can be changed
> by another's vulnerability. Yet my own status quo must be at risk or I can
> inspire nothing in anyone. It is not my knowledge that will inspire, but
> something greater that I allow myself to be touched by. A divided country is
> "stupid" on both sides of the fence. In any case I think the "people" are
> less divided than the politicians, and too often the activists are more like
> the politicians than like the people.

-Kurt

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

One take on it is that this list is basically a public place, and whatever
anyone says here can be freely quoted, including the person's name, email
address, etc. (Or maybe there is even an official policy? If so it's
certainly not evident on the list home page.)

On the other hand I have in general trimmed out such information in the
past, not only removing email addresses, but also names.

Now I'm thinking that that might be being overly careful, and might even
compromise some people's desires to have their points of view spread
areound, and possibly to be reachable by people with similar or opposing
views.

My tentative conclusions are as follows:

(1) To be respectful I should simply ask permission of each person who I
might want to quote with their name included, and ask also whether they want
their email address included.

(2) On the other hand I can probably feel ok about freely quoting anyone
anonyously. I guess that's fairly obvious. Yet the anonymity may not be
the person's desire so to respect that I might as well ask their permission.
Yet that may be a bit of work in the long run, so I might just skip it.

Fact is: I quote a lot of stuff from this list, and am very thankful for
its existence as that kind of resource. This is something I do rather
quickly in an otherwise too-busy life, and in fact my participation by
quoting metatuning content elsewhere exceeds my general participation here
by a factor of 2 or 3. Maybe I can do better though.

Thanks to everyone. Thanks in particular to people who have taken the time
to learn things I have not learned. I'm grateful also for the people who
post here who live in places or contexts that lack some of the biases of the
contexts I find myself embedded in (e.g., the US).

-Kurt

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

bush claimed he was in this area (even if he is in red china)
and we relied on afghans to catch him, hence out sourcing rthe job. the best thing he said

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >
>>You understand that my comment about "core values" came
>>from what he said in the debates.
>> >>
>
>And Kerry said that 'we had Bin Laden surrounded in Tora Bora,
>but we outsourced the job'. Best I can tell, there's nothing
>even remotely true about this statement.
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

undefined

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jonszanto@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>