Mary, Claudia, Jeff, Jackie, Kylie, Joy, Anne, Leanne:
Thank you all for the feedback on my "cyberthroats" question.
Maybe the Internet is a doorway to a new level of human
understanding. Using this brutally direct medium, without the
facial expressions and body language of face to face conversation,
maybe we can learn to understand each other better, do you think?
It has bothered me in meetings, etc., how often people SEEM to be
understanding each other but really don't. At the next meeting
it's like starting all over, because the members never really got
to the underlying worldviews driving their opinions.
Civility is good for getting along. But is it a barrier to better
understanding? (Or maybe it's best we don't really understand each
other, because then we'll just write each other off?)
I wonder if we'd be better off with no self-esteem, so we wouldn't
even _have_ hot buttons. You know, "I'm a jerk, You're a jerk."
If we could say things bluntly, (even generalities, which can help
understand things), without hurting each other's feelings because
no one _takes_ it personally. And then respond bluntly how the
generalizer is off his/her rocker.
Scientists do this all the time. But they have the advantage of
irrefutable evidence to prove or disprove a position (reproducible
results). Social issues don't seem to have the same foundation,
unless everyone agrees on some kind of basic code. Then, of
course, part of that code might be to avoid personal attacks. It's
all so circular and confusing.
All I know is, with nuclear weapons and global environmental crises
at hand, "We must love each other, or we must die."
(Lyndon B. Johnson, 1964)
Can that be a starting point? "So-and-so, you're a jerk, but I
still love you." If so, then we desparately need the help of
women, because very few men I know can openly express brotherly
love to other men.
This is why I'm interested in ECOFEM. Our male dominated society
can't seem to stop killing each other and raping the land. How can
men like me learn to be more generous and less aggressive? Carol
mentioned something about a "community" that developed on another
list. Is there a trick to it?
The tolerance issue is, in my opinion, a very important issue. We
desperately need to stop telling each other how to live. But then,
how much tolerance can we have and still protect the environment?
In this era of regulation "streamlining," I grapple with that one
daily!
Oh, and the "putting a price on life" issue... look out folks,
the risk assessment/cost benefit legislation under consideration in
Congress would lead right to that. Regulators would be faced with
determining how many deaths can be tolerated to avoid X billions of
dollars in pollution control. In fact, someone once told me they
saw some nuclear waste regulations that put a $200,000 figure on
human life. I, for one, don't want any part of that kind
regulating. But can we avoid it, and who's gonna make the call?
aVr
