From: uncle@milton.milton.u.washington.edu (Milton Friedmen)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Dualistic vs Wholistic (was Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large))
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:00:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.UNCLE.92Aug13120042
	<1992Aug10.182911.11865@eskimo.celestial.com>
	<1992Aug11.031512.1856@seanews.akita.com>
	<1992Aug12.210537.14350@eskimo.celestial.com>
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Sublime Thoughts and Actions Corp.

In article <1992Aug12.210537.14350@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:

>All I did was suggest that the concept of ownership be reexamined, and

You can reexamine it all you want.  *I* know what you are talking about and I
sympathize with your desire to do away with *land* ownership.  It would
certainly make society different.  Once you get people to understand what you
are talking about, however, you are still faced with the problem of explaining
to them why it would be better.
>>>o	Stop stacking the social/civic deck against alternative organizational
>>>	forms/processes and ways of doing things
>>
>>	What does this mean?

>Laws against unrelated people living under the same roof, for one thing.
>Laws against people taking their clothes off, for another.
>Legal forms that say, demand that the "President" of an organization
>sign the form, as if that were the only legitimate way of organizing a
>group.  Now a collective could have somebody "be the President" (and in
>fact this is what is usually done), but there's an assumption operating here
>that says that collectives aren't a really "legitimate" grouping.
>Another example is the assumption that groups be run by a democratic process,
>as opposed to a consensus process.
>Another example is the concept of "tribal council," run by a democratic
>process, essentially a Western concept foisted on to the Indian
>tribes by the BIA (and repeated throughout the world WRT aborigines and
>BIA analogs).  The latter example reflects the schism between the
>"traditionals" and the "progressives" among American Indians.  This schism
>is exploited and manipulated.
>
>Those are what I mean by stacking the social/civic deck against alternative
>organizational form/processes and ways of doing things.

This I can completely agree with.  This problem goes all the way back to the
first *land* deal that the Europeans made with the Natives.  The assumption
that they had a leader who could make such a deal was the cause of many
atrocities.


>>>o	Stop confusing symbolic things with real things
>>
>>	Again, fuzzy-thoughts.  What does this mean?

>THIS IS REALLY EXASPERATING!!  Will somebody please explain about
>symbols, referents, map-vs-territory and other concepts?  My fingers are
>getting tired.

Please be more patient.  I think I have a vague idea of what you are talking
about but your reference to a symbolic/real dichotomy is somewhat ambiguous
and/or cryptic.

>[...]
>>>o	Adopt LESS Aristotelian, meddlesome/interventionist, hard-line,
>>>	"masculine", dualistic, ...<countably infinite chain of negative
>>>	parts of dualities>, MORE integrated/wholistic, "feminine", diverse,
>>>	..., <countably infinite chain of "positive" parts of dualities>
>>>	world-views
>>
>>	This has got to be the *fuzziest* muddled line of the entire
>>	post. 
>>
>>	Again, rather than some feel-good claptrap rhetoric, explain
>>	what should be *done*.
>
>Discard world-views that encourage dualistic, absolutistic, rigid
>thinking, because they are inherently restrictive and map poorly to
>the universe.

This is the bit that actually prompted me to join this topic.  I've heard lots
of people use lots of these buzzwords and dichotomies but I've never had a
clue as to what they were talking about.

Kurt, you've done a good job of explaining a lot of your statements which I
originally thought were hopelessly vague handwaving rhetoric.  I believe you
actually trying to communicate some idea or set of ideas with the this
dualistic vs. wholistic deal.  What is it?  What does it have to do with men
vs. women?  I would like to understand people who talk about stuff such as
this because there seem to be quite a few of them in Seattle and when they
start off like that it usually signals the end of the conversation.  Either I
get quiet because they continue to say things I don't understand or they get
quiet because I say things that apparently offend them.

>>>o	Simplify, simplify, simplify.  Loosen up.  Get happy.
>>
>>	Fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy.

>Yeah, yeah, yeah!
>Warm fuzzies to all!


-- Milton
--
Go on, EMOTE!  I was RAISED on thought balloons!!