On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, anne jordan dashiell wrote:
>
> > defending women at clinics is something all the lazy democrats out there
> > who vote for anti-demonstators legislation thinking their taking some
> > stand for womens' rights should be getting out in the street to do. there
> > are few more powerful political demos i have been involved with than
> > unified PHYSICAL blockades of operation rescue crazies at clinics. let
> > the people stand up for ourselves! laws like clinic defense are
> > encouraging us to sit back and let more people get run thru the legal
> > system when we should be defending women with our BODIES and resisting
> > these people through face to face confrontation.
>
> So, perhaps we should all simply arm ourselves with AK47s and shoot it
> out with Paul Hill and others like him? I am not saying that this is not
> a useful tactic, but I question whether it is completely adequate.
> Perhaps we need both?
SORRY folks -- I did not mean to imply that I thought shooting it out at
the clinic was a useful tactic. I meant -- using our bodies to defend
the clinics and the women trying to access them is a useful tactic.
Somehow, I missed a reference point in that sentence. :-)
Jayne
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 18 08:27:17 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Chaos...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 10:29:58 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Ani Mareck" at Nov 17, 94
11:41:12 am
Ani Mareck suggested...
|
|As I understand Chaos Theory (which, of course is minimially) folks are
|beginning to suspect that there is no such thing as chaos. That all the
You are right, what you understand is minimal, and even that is a little
off. (Sorry, I don't mean to be obnxious). Of course there is chaos,
since it is a mathematical construct that indeed DOES describe many
things (weather, life, perhaps some of evolution), and maybe part of the
motions of galaxies.
|universe, god and everything is part of a balanced order. Which some might
|think suggests that the universe is about order. How would the intellectual
|construct of 'anarchy' fit into such a universe?
What would the term "balanced order" mean in the case of the universe?
After all, there is the ineluctable trend towards greater entropy, and
that means maximum disorder. What does "balanced" mean in this context"
Evolution certainly is not about balance or order. WE humans do NOT need
to look towards grand unified theories for our information on how to live
on one small, jerkwater planet at the edge of the galaxy. We have enough
information in our social interactions, our intellects, and the example
of the destruction of life around us, human as well as plant an other
animal.
Once we recognize that we are screwing the planet, then certain
interactions become more sensible, as populations grow, some options are
open, others not. We merely need a rational discussion of the
recognition of the problems (social and environmental) and in that
context, decide what makes a sensible solution. Such a sensible solution
will be free of the kinds of issues on which many cannot aggree
(spirituality, for one example) yet still it will allow individuals their
forays into those realms. So, we need frame these ideas in a framework
that will include many people, without running many more off.
Murray Gell-Mann, a physicist had this commentary. After a big war,
people were talking about "The Moral Equivalent of War." in which we had
soemthing NOT war, which gave people what they considered that "positive"
aspects of war (adventure, cameraderie, travel, etc. - whether these are
desiriable is not hte issue here). Gell-Mann asks whether we can have
teh "Moral Equivalent of Belief." That is, is there a "way to capture
the splendid consequences of mythical beliefs without the associated
self-delusion and without the intolerance that often accompanies it?" In
other words, many of us do not believe in god (or gods), do not believe
in the utility of terms like "spirituality" or don't know what "unity in
diversity" means on a pragmatic level, yet we are still moral people, and
are concerned with the improvement of the social systems.
Excuse the ramble...
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 18 08:42:10 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Anarchy & Internet
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 10:44:55 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Brian A. Luke" at Nov 17, 94
06:14:49 pm
|> how <do> anarchists justify using the INTERNET to have this
|> discussion? Itais, after all, the result of enormous amounts of funds
|> "coerced" from the populice through impositional taxation at both the
|> state level (funding supporting the mainframe gateways at public
|> universities) and the federal level,
Brian gave a decent answer to this, but I think it may be misunderstood,
so I'll rant for a moment.
Would you not use a hammer just because you didn't like the guy that made
it? To use something that comes from a historical situation is NOT to
accept the rationale for that situation. So we use wter, food, etc, not
because they were built by a messed up system, but because these might be
part of a good system as well. Since the powers that be have control
now, does NOT mean we shoudl not use their own tools to bring them down.
There is no moral inconsistency in using the tools made available to one
for good ends, so long as in doing so, one does no harm to the system one
wishes.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 18 10:34:19 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 11:34:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Confrontation
To: Ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Amanda wrote:
> i am open to suggestions; what are alternative ways of fighting sexism
> perpetrated by men without confronting them on it?
I think that men do need to be confronted over issues of sexism. It is
much harder to realize one is being sexist than many of you may think.
Men need to have the impacts of their behavior pointed out to them, by
both men and women. For a good look at this subject I would recommend Paul
Kivel's "Mens Work." Mr Kivel is the director of the Oakland Men's
Project. A group dedicate to finding real solutions to the problems of
male violence in our society. His book is quite inexpensive and a good
quick read.
> p.s. i don't know what IMHO stands for...
>
In My Humble Opinion
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 18 10:45:18 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 11:47:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: anarchy (fwd)
To: Ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:05:08 -0700 (MST)
From: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: anarchy
jon wrote:
> were advocating. I must however take issue with your idea that we can
> live without any authority. Children need diciplin. Those who don't get
> any will suffer badly. A pediatrician I talked to once told me of a child
> he was seeing who was litterally running into walls, trying to get
> someone to tell him to stop. Children need diciplin to help them learn
> how to stop themselves. So in any case when we talk about a total absence
> of authority, we are at least talking only for teens and adults.
>
okay first thing is we need to define "discipline" because there are many
ways to help children learn to stop themselves from running into walls
than the traditional idea of "discipline". plus, the pediatrician is not
the best person to consult on this seeing as he is a product of the same
institution that treats cancer with radiation and enslaves women to the
birth control pill through guilt, fear and lies.
i havent had a kid yet but ive spent a LOT of time with them over the
past 5 years, and i was one only 15 years ago. and i absolutely 100%
disagree that they need "discipline" or authority. they need guidance and
they need to understand the natural dynamics between generations, and
they need to be respected and encouraged as individuals and they need
physical affection and they need positive models of interaction. thats it.
-anne
