Conference hydra::dejavu

    I would say that it is not the understanding that we are made in
    God's image but a misunderstanding of what it means to "rule the
    earth".  Many of us take that as a mandate to act as slave-master,
    but therein leads to the destruction you talk about.  A more help-
    ful understanding is the we should learn to rule the earth as a
    healthy mind rules a healthy body -- in mutual respect and love.
    
    DR

    Joe,
    
    Perhaps man's so-called 'doom' was not when he saw himself in
    God's image and 'separate' from the rest of the world.  His 
    troubles came when he saw himself as 'separate' from God and
    therefore not in harmony with the Universe.  This illusion
    of separateness (the ego) is what keeps the 'fires burning'.
    
    Just a thought,
    
    Ro

re: .0

This really brings home the idea that if anything is going to happen
to straighten the mess out, it has to happen inside of each of us, 
one at a time.  Unless "I" say, "That's it, I'm not going to participate
in the distruction or our Mother Earth any longer!" and move into action
it ain't gonna happen.  We all keep waiting for someone else to do it
for us (separation as Ro states, I-they).  We are they, we are the
only "someone else".

Terry

    Reply to .0,
    
    I have to agree with you. The psychological reality is that for
    whatever reason, wo/mankind feels the Mother as just dirt under their
    feet. 
    
    In the last installment of the Joseph Campbell series he said that the
    next great mythology, the next collective dream, will have to be one
    that unifies wo/mankind with planet as bio-sphere. The Gaia hypothesis
    fulfills that need. I hope it catches on. 

               
    	I was charging the "God's image" idea itself of causing the
    contextual seperation of man from beast and the earth itself. I
    *know* that the Darwin theory of evolution was the first to upset
    this great idea, and that the fundamentalists of *today* are active
    with their intent to "downplay" the theory of evolution, because
    it goes against it's grain. 
    
    	Of course, it'd be too much to ask for religion to be as
    evolutionary as perhaps science is; whoever wrote it down and decreed
    it *first* was right and knew all there is to know about everything,
    world without end, Amen. OH, it was the very hand of God himself
    who wrote it down - so it *has* to be right.
    
    	ALL one has to do is open their eyes to see that this is perhaps
    not necessairily so. The most relatable example is the contexting
    of the 10 commandments. It is *known* that one cannot motivate another
    to a positive end with a negatively contexted instruction. Most
    of the 10 are "Thou shalt nots". Would God, in His (God has an gender?)
    *infinite* wisdom make that mistake; or would that "slip" be more
    likely wrought from the mind of man, who just might have "other"
    intentions?
    
    	Likewise, one can show that this "God's Image" thing is not
    necessairily a good idea, as it has ramifications which are manefesting
    themselves across the Earth, and just might kill the whole thing.
    Funny, how a chosen belief of man may actually allow him to dispense 
    with what just may be "God" itself, by this made-up contextual
    seperation from it!  
    
    	.3 - While you may have heard the same song on the radio yesterday
    morning, part of the message of the 'Voyage program was that although
    you *can* build another day from the ashes, it'll never be the same.
    In fact, it'll be so different that the "new day" stands a good
    chance of collapsing in on itself! There's irreplacable structure
    missing from the whole now. The "missing rivets" from the airplane
    wing analogy. How many before failure_catastrophic?
              
    	Joe Jas

    Well, I'm not sure where the statement "man is made in God's image" 
    comes from, however, I interpret it to mean that our spirits are part 
    of the All-That-Is - we are made of the same *stuff*.  Our world, as 
    well, and all things of it contain this same spirit.  We are all a
    part of everything else.  Mikie, I believe the world myth is catching
    on.  This past Friday night I attended a lecture at Interface (east
    coast) entitled "New Myths To Live By - The Call to a New
    Spirituality" - Fritz and Vivienne Hull, co-directors of Chinook 
    Learning Center near Seattle.  To quote "...an emerging
    creation-centered spirituality that celebrates the divine presence in 
    all things and the sacramental nature of everyday life....the key to a 
    new spirituality is our capacity to experience the pattern of meaning 
    which connects humanity, spirit, and earth".  This is also the work of 
    Matthew Fox (an RC priest from California) that has caused the
    Catholic Church to put a lid on him for 6-months.  He has written a 
    number of books and has been on the lecture circuit presenting
    Creation Spirituality.  Probably what really got to the RC Church is 
    the fact that he has been working with a Wiccan (Starhawk)!;-).  
    I am currently associated with a number of women's groups that are
    working to bring the Feminine back into balance, and one particular
    group is in the formulation stages of creating "Gaia's Island" - a
    place to source the work of Feminine balance and Mother healing.

    Things are happening and I believe we each can play a roll in 
    nurturing into fruition this new world myth.

    Carole

    > Well, I'm not sure where the statement "man is made in God's image" 
    > comes from...

      Somewhere in the Bible, Genesis, I think.  At any rate today it's
      more of a matter of "God has been created in man's image" anyway.

    > Things are happening and I believe we each can play a roll in 
    > nurturing into fruition this new world myth.

      I agree.  We all soon will have to agree.  It's the only way to
      change things.

      Terry

RE: Note 1023.5,   Joe Jas,

>>    	I was charging the "God's image" idea itself of causing the
>>    contextual seperation of man from beast and the earth itself. 

	I think the separation was caused, not by the idea that we
    are "God's image", but by the birth of ego consciousness.
    Animals can clearly hold a mental image of the world in their
    minds (to memorize a maze of local trails, for instance) but
    ego consciousness is not born until the mental model of the
    universe can become complex enough to include one's self as
    a part of that mental model.
    
	There came a point where people can do some thing, while
    also imagining an image of their self doing that thing.   It
    is this process that allowed us to build a concept that we
    are separate from the universe.

	I agree with your basic thesis in .0, that we humans are playing
    a major role in the destruction of our own planet.   Your comments
    on the third world loans are appropriate and I believe correct.
    We shouldn't allow the "I'm gonna get mine" attitude to allow
    every resource to be raped.   Right now (false) economic justifications
    exist for every misuse of resources.    It is too easy to just
    go on making money just the way you have been, it's too hard to
    recycle the trash, buy the cheapest food regardless of how it's
    been grown...    Economic habits are at the bottom of this fire
    that is burning.
    
    	However, I see no need to bash Christianity with regard
    to this.    Doesn't this become a form of "negative contexting"?

						Alan.

      This topic has sure stirred up some strong feelings.  I agree
    with what's been said.  The change is *not* going to be a voluntary
    one!  Man is too self centered and comfortable.
    
      I have just finished reading the first book in a trilogy by
    Mary Summer Rain titled "Spirit Song".  It makes some very heavy
    predictions.  I don't know if I believe it or not yet.  I am reserving
    that decision until I finish the series.  However I am very interested
    in hearing what others feel about it.  It certainly gets to the
    heart of this note's discussion.
    
    								Larry

    
    	Re .8,
    
    When I say negative contexting, I mean the way a communication is
    rendered; it's wrapping or presentation. The best example of this
    is the Angry person who bellows: "I AM NOT ANGRY WITH YOU!!!"
    Certainly, one can see that the "presentation" is at right angles
    (if you will) to the intent of the message; that everything's OK.
    
    Likewise, describing anything in terms of what it's not is a confusing
    way to present an idea or to motivate someone to do something. In
    fact, it's been shown they'll do exactly what you asked them "not"
    to, simply as a result of asking in that manner.
    
    I have bashed Christianity, and have chosen to do so because the
    "we have been rendered in God's image and are therefore seperate
    from and "above" apes, monkeys, giraffes, gazelles, newts, toads,
    frogs, ardvarks, mice, rabbits, porpoises, etc etc etc" is a *current*
    issue in our society. It's *still* debatable, in some people's minds
    considering their beliefs.
    
    I believe that this "contextual seperation" via "God's choice" was
    also what made possible the idea of seperation of the "ruling class"
    from the "subject class" of people in England, for several hundred
    years there. The King's word was law, because he was the chosen ruler
    allegedly by the hand of God himself, and therefore was "above"
    the subjects he had power over. That all the subjects believed this
    to be The Truth made for a very stable integration of church and
    state. 
    
    We all know where everyone went who just didnt buy into that idea.
    
    I do realize that people have been "classed" in other societies,
    such as the caste system of India, by means that has nothing to
    do with Christianity. But that's not a current issue in the society
    I live in.
    
    While the relative success of this "way" may just be incomparable
    with any alternative (England did conquer the world under these
    beliefs, God know's how many thousands of years the caste system
    "worked" in India's history) it still doesnt make it "good", "right"
    or "best".
    
    But I'm getting away from the basic idea of a general religious
    belief that teaches contextual seperation of man from beast and
    all else, vs one that teaches contextual integration with such.
    And the eventual ramifications of these teachings, when one looks
    down upon the world from their lofty God-appointed position...
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    	RE: .10
    
    	So, it appears to me that you are discussing two separate
    issues here;  
    
    	1) The way in which religion has created or propagated a
    	concept which justifies or enhances the feelings of being
    	separate from the universe.
    
    	2) The abuse of the planet, perhaps because we feel separate
    	from it, and the hope for our learning how to live in balance
    	with the planet.
    
    The form of "negative contexting" is at it's most obvious when
    it appears all within the structure of the single sentence, as it
    does in your excellent example;   ("I'M NOT ANGRY AT YOU!")
    Yet there may be more subtle forms of negative contexting;
    
    	I am wondering if the overall stucture of your arguement
    happens to conceal a bit of "negative contexting";
    By talking about the separation of self from the universe
    you focus on the separation, when what you are really trying 
    to say is that we are (or at least should be) one with the 
    planet we have been destroying.   You have placed your plea for 
    oneness within an arguement that talks mostly about separation 
    and your disatisfaction with a particular religion.     Thus I 
    believe you have done an accidental bit of negative contexting 
    here.   
    
>>    	Since Man is "different" and obviously "superior", he can simply
>>    eliminate all the trash that stands in His way. The contextual
>>    seperation of man from beast is what allows this action to manefest
>>    itself.
    
>>    Could a stupid, yet non-trivial monetary debt be driving the
>>    eventual destruction of this planet - which is now known as a relative
>>    *paradise* among planets?
    
	If it is economic forces driving this, then maybe it's not
    religions doing the damage?   Your note .0 seems to place the blame
    on both religion and the economic system.   I think there have
    been some damages propagated through religion, but it does seem
    to me that the damages you described are mostly caused by exploitation
    of resources caused by economic pressure, not by the feeling
    that we are separate from the animals and plants.

    	If it is necessary that we overcome the false beliefs that
    we are separate or above the rest of creation, can this be done
    by focusing on the beliefs that may have caused that separation?
    I would think it's better to focus on just how and why we are
    all one.   Discuss the Gaia theory, then, rather than focusing
    on the religious history that may well have been a part of the
    genesis of this problem.   Focus directly on the potential for
    oneness, rather than placing your arguement in the negative
    context of railing against the separation.
    
    						Alan.

    Re.0                                   
    
    Hi Joe,
    
    In the Bible way back when, in Genesis if I recall correctly, 
    it was said/written that humans shall have 'dominion' over the 
    Earth.
    
    The problem with this is that some people along the way managed
    to turn things around so that 'dominion' meant 'domination', and 
    this is where I believe things started to go downhill at a very 
    fast pace.
    
    Our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to turn this 
    situation around to the way it should be - the way it was 
    originally meant to be.
    
    We certainly have our work ahead of us.
    
    Cindy

    Re "Man in God's image":
    
    This is indeed, as Cindy has pointed out from Genesis.  The relevant
    passages are:
    
    1:26 -- And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
            and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
            over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
            all the earth, and over every living thing that creepeth
            upon the earth.
    1:27 -- So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
            created he him; male and female created he him.
    1:28 -- And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
            and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
            have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
            of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon
            the earth.
                                        
    Note here "dominion" comes after both "subduing" and "replenishing"
    the earth.  If we must argue in terms of Biblical literalism,
    a few points:
                 
    Assuming a single God, how can both men and women be created "in
    His own image"?  The logical answer is that the "image" in question
    wasn't physical, but spiritual.
    
    How about "dominion"?
    
    This is strongly suggested in Genesis 2...
    
    2:5 -- [God made] every plant of the field before it was in the
           earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the
           Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there
           was not a man to till the ground.
    
    Thus, "dominion" means something akin to "one responsible for the
    proper management of" rather than "one who rules with an iron heel."
    
    I've met "old Country" folk who claim "everything -- every animal
    -- was put on the Earth for a purpose to serve Man.," or sentiments
    to that effect.  Here, they've got it backwards: if anything,
    it's Man's responsibility to preserve and protect animals and plants
    ("replenish the earth") as part of the responsibility.
    
    This need not be put in a theological context, but if we choose
    to, let's get the concepts straight and in perspective.
    
    As it happened, I, too, saw that episode of _The Infinite Voyage_,
    and the most telling thing in it was the currently successful efforts
    to replenish a forest.  There is a Yin for each Yang.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
              

    
    	Re .11 -
    
    	Arrgh! Seems you caught me being negative! Yes, I am "full of
    it" if you will, and could have contexted my argument in a more
    positive, constructive manner. I actually do try to speak in positive
    context when I write, as I notice my natural tendancy is to write
    in the negative, (especially if there's *any* emotion involved in
    doing so) and I'll try to "improve" the packaging if I detect
    it.
    
    	That I cannot see the "forest from the trees", so to speak,
    is because I'm doing this correcting pretty much line by line, ignoring
    that the overall context may be negative, perhaps in a subjective way.
    Thanks for pointing this out. It stemms from my feelings about it.
    
    	I do realize it's these feelings that need to be worked through,
    and that explicitly making effort to correct the negativity in my
    contexting will, er, not "make it go away" either actually or
    virtually. It's the so called "sausage effect" - squeeze here with
    some effort, and things inside just kinda 'squish over' - and end up 
    coming out anyway only in a different manner, way, time or place. This
    kind of effort is a good example of what can happen when one adresses
    the symptom of a problem, instead of the problem itself.
    
    	Joe Jas 

        I posted the following note in this other conference, but I think
    it applies to the discussion here.   I believe it shows, in a kind
    of microcosm, how we have been going wrong in our treatment of
    the planet...


     <<< WASHDC::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ENVIRONMENTAL_ISSUES.NOTE;1 >>>
             -< Current topics concerning the natural environment >-
================================================================================
Note 41.22               Consumers, consuming the Earth.                22 of 23
SSDEVO::ACKLEY "Mediumfoot"                          59 lines   2-APR-1989 10:45
                        -< the competitive advantage; >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    	Recently I have been reading Alston Chase's "Playing God In
    Yellowstone", a powerful and disturbing book on the history of
    the management of the park.    
    
    	It seems there are large herds of elk in Yellowstone, which
    are in danger of starving.   The problem is that the elk never
    belonged in Yellowstone in the first place.   When the park was
    formed, it was around the same period when the plains were
    being fenced off and the buffalo were being killed.   The elk
    were deliberately herded into Yellowstone, as part of the official
    policy to create an impressive herd.    But elk had *never* naturally
    wintered in Yellowstone, since there is very little winter
    forage for them there.    Since the elk are larger than many of
    the other herbivores in the area (such as beavers) they had
    a competitive advantage when looking for food.   The elk then ate
    the food that previously would have been available for many other
    species.    This is why there has been a drastic drop in the
    populations of many species in yellowstone;   there is no food left.
    
    	The elk, who like the bark of aspen trees, have stripped the
    bark off all the trees, up to the height of their reach.   They
    also eat the young trees, so that the older ones are not replaced.
    
    	On the radio the other day I heard a report that the elk were
    trying to leave Yellowstone, and were starving out along the edges
    of the highways.   All the surrounding range land where they used
    to winter, has all been fenced off into private plots.   The fragile
    ecology of Yellowstone *never* could support a herd of elk in the
    winter, but now they have been there since the turn of the century.
    There is no wonder why the beaver are gone.   The elk have tipped
    the balance of the local ecology, and have eaten *all* the food,
    including that which the other spieces needed.
    
    	If we feed the elk, to save them, they will then continue to
    place a burden on the food sources in that region.   Eventually
    the herd will either starve or migrate from that region.   I would
    hope they are allowed to migrate.   What will the owners of all
    the fenced off plots in the area want?   Will they be willing to
    let the elk cross or use their lands?   Will they say that the
    elk should be shot if they knock down fences?
    
    	As I read all this it occurs to me that we humans are in a
    similar situation to the elk.   We are more competitive for
    food sources than other species.   Sadly, though, where the elk
    can strip a tree as high as it can reach, we humans have the
    ablilty to strip the entire tree, and even dig up the roots.
    We not only strip the forests, but we are also stripping the
    oceans, depleting the soils, and in fact we are stripping every
    single ecological niche on the planet.
    
    	It is a well known process, how overpopulation leads to famine.
    Soon there will be far fewer elk in Yellowstone, then the beaver
    and other small animals may begin to return.   It is clear to us
    that the elk herd goes on reproducing and growing right up to
    the point where all the food is finally gone.    The elk never pause
    to wonder if the advantage they have will ever be gone.

    							Alan.

    
    	Like the elk, we are a favored species.   We favored them,
    thus in misunderstanding we herded them into a situation where 
    they can't live naturally.   Now we have fenced them in there.  
    By favoring ourselves we have overpopulated the planet.   By 
    favoring the elk we have allowed them to overpopulate Yellowstone 
    park.   We tried too hard.
    
    	We have herded ourselves into this modern civilization,
    where we have developed dependencies on fuel and technology.
    We view our own selves as natural resources to be reaped.
    (When are you going to make something out of yourself?)
    
	I believe the potential for a garden of Eden is always 
    there.   We may pave over the field to make a parking lot, 
    but if we leave the parking lot alone for a few years, trees 
    are breaking through the pavement.   Our own lives are like
    that potential Eden, and we expend great amounts of labor to
    keep the parking lot of our minds paved over.   What would
    grow there if we weren't driving ourselves, herding ourselves
    into this corner?

	We only need to tear down the fences around Yellowstone,
    and the elk will find a place to live, on their own.   Just the
    same, the trap humanity is in was created by our own procedures,
    habits and rules.   I believe if we can give up the false fantasy
    of centralized governmental control, that natural mechanisms exist
    which will rebalance the Earth.   But first we must stop paving
    over Eden;   the Eden of the world, and also the Eden of our souls.
    We must see what can grow naturally before we know what path nature
    can take.   The answers cannot come from the frenzied plans of the
    people who drive their selves, and pave over their own souls.

        The answers can come to us easily, naturally, in dreams and visions.

						Alan.

    If you feel so strongly about what you saw, what are you doing about it 
    in practical terms?  Other than railing at what you see everybody else
    doing/not doing, that is.  For those of you reading all the Doomsday
    books, how many of you work in your own small way in the other
    direction?
    
    I did not see the Infinite Voyage segment, because we have no
    television.  (We're actually very poor consumers.)  But I did not need
    to see it, because I have known its truths for quite awhile.  I do not
    need to read the doomsday books either.  I can rely on my eyes and ears.
    
    And I do those silly little things like recycling everything I
    can; turning off the water when soaping in the shower, scrubbing the
    dishes, brushing the teeth, shaving, peeling the veggies; washing dishes
    by hand; taking bags when shopping; taking along my Co-Op America
    Buyer's guide when shopping (lists companies and how they rate on
    various social responsibility scales and environment is one of them);
    keeping our lights off and thermostat low; refusing to have an air
    conditioner put in my car or home; carpooling; travelling as little as
    possible; staying out of fast food restaurants; changing cosmetics
    brands to avoid excess packaging; writing letters to companies,
    congressmen, et al; avoiding beef; using bioactivators in my septic
    tank instead of having the raw sewage pumped; mulching down all my
    yard's leaf/grass/branch trash for future fertilizer; gardening;
    contributing to the groups working to rebuild damages (like those
    forest rebuilding projects mentioned earlier); by choosing not having
    children (I finally decided that instead of having my own, I wanted to
    work toward giving my friend's kids a healthy world to grow into)...
    
    I haven't listed all the stuff possible, (others can almost certainly
    educate me) or even all that I do every day.  You may all laugh at me,
    and assure me that my puny little efforts are pathetic.  This is
    certainly true if I'm the only one doing them.
    
    Marcia
    

    RE: .17  Marcia,
    
    	I think your efforts are honorable and certainly have an effect.
    I stongly encourage you to continue recycling and saving resources.
    You are a good example for us all.   Over the past few years I
    have been getting more and more into recycling, and it's good
    to see Colorado Springs finally developing some good recycling
    alternatives to the "throw it all away" trash companies.   It
    was a little more difficult for me to give up my car, but I knew
    it was wrong, and finally now I am back on the bicycle.   In
    future months I hope to apply my writing talents to supporting
    some local "save the Earth" publications...
    
    	But recently I have been wondering;  There are the easy things
    we can do, but some of the things that need doing will be much
    harder.   As animal populations react to the weather changes in
    coming years, there will be an increasing need for migrations.
    Yet many animals (such as the elk mentioned in my previous notes)
    cannot migrate because they are blocked by fences.    I have come 
    to a personal conclusion that land ownership has provided much of 
    the justification for abuse of the Earth, and that in the
    final analysis humans do not really have the right to fence off
    plots of land for their private abuses.   I would like to start
    a movement toward "unfencing" the Earth, although I am not quite
    sure where to start.   I'd take down my own fences but I don't
    happen to own any.   Clearly I don't have the legal right to
    take down other people's fences, although I'd like to.

	I support recycling.   But, I believe it is not enough.
    For generations, the Native Americans lived in balance with the
    Earth, recycling all their resources.   Yet their land is now
    being raped and destroyed, in spite of their ecologically balanced 
    lifestyle.   It's not their fault.   And, Marcia, it is not your
    fault or my fault that the Earth is in trouble, yet it is.
    People in Japan recycle as if it were a religion, yet the
    sheer overpopulation on their islands still has a massive impact
    and recycling alone has not turned around the trend.   Please
    don't take this wrong, recycling is necessary.   It just is not
    enough to turn around the trend.   It is not enough to make the
    difference that is needed.

	As I look across the abused and eroded land, I am reminded 
    of the desolation described in Tolkein's fantasy, in the land 
    of Mordor.   It was the "Dark Lord's" will to see the Earth
    destroyed and it's creatures perverted.    There is much to
    be said for keeping one's own garden safe and healthy, but, I
    believe there is also a time to admit that keeping one's own
    garden will not be enough if the "Dark Lord" is not defeated.
    Some of you may think I'm daft talking about the "Dark Lord"
    here, but I am somewhat serious, since there are many who
    pursue power and weath as if it were a war against us all.
    It is a war, and our lives are in the balance as corporations
    and individuals target resources to be reaped and new areas
    to be fenced off from the common domain.   If they are allowed
    their way, all the earth will look like Tolkein described the
    land of Mordor;  dark and burned, supporting little life.

	So Marcia, please understand, we are on the same side, but
    we may be fighting on different battlefields in this war.
    
						Alan.    	

RE: .17 (Marcia)

    I too commend you for your efforts to do the right things with regard
    to helping heal our Mother Earth.  Although I must confess, I'm not
    nearly as dedicated as you.  I would like to be but every time I sit
    down and try to think of all the things I could do differently to help
    make a difference I get stuck.  It seems that it is going to take more,
    that we are caught in a web we can't get out of, "Married to the Mob",
    so-to-speak.  For example, we all work for a company that indirectly 
    supports the manufacture of nuclear weapons and probably sells equipment 
    to several of the companies listed in your Co-Op America Buyer's guide.  
    Even worse, we all pay taxes.  Look what they are used for.  When it comes 
    to earning a living and paying taxes maybe most of us feel we don't have a 
    choice (actually we do) but like it or not, no matter how much we do, it 
    isn't going to be enough.  We are part of fire burning inside of a great 
    machine, a machine determined to destroy the only home it knows, Earth.  
    Something bigger has to change and I don't know what.
    
    I don't mean this to be an excuse to sit back and do all the wrong things.
    We should all do as much as we can.  The more people involved in the
    right (healing) activities and staying away from the wrong (destructive)
    ones will help, however, it will take more.  Any ideas?

    Anyone see the movie, "King of Hearts".  In it, a soilder is separated
    from his company and ends up in an evacuated town.  He comes across an
    institution for the insane, the patients still locked inside.  He lets
    them out and they all take up places in the town "playing life".  Working
    the stores, walking down the streets, passing time, etc.  Then two opposing
    combat forces approach from opposite ends of the town and begin to do 
    battle.  The 'crazies' watch all of this.  When the battle ends and the
    troops leave, they go back to the institution, take their usual places and
    lock the doors.  Who is really crazy?  (I don't know what this had to do
    with my reply, but it came to mind as I was typing...)

    Terry (who_wants_to_know_the_answer)

    The answer I evolved for myself was to be a virus, a virus striving for
    balanced symbiosis rather than destruction.  When I look at historical
    "solutions" to problems they always seem to involve complete
    destruction of something.  In the main, the attitudes revealed in the
    last couple replies appear to be no different to me: allow the earth to
    be destroyed so the machines killing it can die off themselves, or
    actively kill off the machines.
    
    Why not transform instead, without violence?
    
    Why blindly accept as "fact" the assumption that transformation must
    _always_ involve violence?
    
    Why not try for something _really_ revolutionary?
    
    Now, I am a synthesist.  Some part of me is always looking for new
    places to apply valuable philosophies.  And my attitude toward
    practical salvation was born of two things.  One is the attitude I have
    always taken toward women's and men's liberation.  Freeing women, to
    me, does not mean destroying men, and vice versa, as so many of my more
    "activist" friends have propounded.  Many, especially the strongest
    fighters, appear to me to come from an attitude that they are
    disempowered, and must display "proof" of their power through force,
    and then force men to give them their power back.  The other thing 
    involved my work with eating disorders (I suffer from mild forms of
    them from time to time).  The author I consider the most revolutionary,
    Geneen Roth, leads workshops to help people accomplish their
    transformation without violence: no controls, no rules, no diets, no
    demands to appeal to Higher Powers to help you out, etc., but
    discovering and applying one's inner power.  One doesn't have to avoid
    or "control" food to control one's weight.
    
    Now: as so many of you point out, transformation only really works from
    the inside out.  I am an inside part, a molecule if you will, in my
    societal fabric.  How can I expect societal fabric to change if the
    molecular structure in it, doesn't change?  And how can I expect my
    societal fabric to change if I remove myself from its warp and woof?  I
    have never liked spiritual practices that claim that to become saved
    one must remove oneself from daily life.  The real challenge is
    manifest one's salvation through daily life.
    
    As I said in my previous reply's title: I'm giving practical salvation
    _my_ best shot.  Forget that so many others feel so hopeless and
    disheartened that they won't try.  Forget the many others who don't
    even care to try.  I'll live my philosophy to the best of my being.  So
    I look for more and more things to do each day, and I work to
    incorporate them into my daily living habits.
    
    That especially includes my workplace habits.
    
    When I contribute to environmental organizations, I make sure to
    include the matching gift form with my check.  That way, my company is
    contributing to a cause I believe in.
    
    Our facility recycles paper.  One other "private activist" and I have
    put little signs up by the wastebaskets next to copiers, hinting that
    the recycle bins are nearby, and to use them.  We've placed little
    boxes next to our office printers, marked them: Recycled Paper.
    
    I have my own coffe cup, and extras for guests: less plastic.
    
    I brownbag my lunch, and have a set of silverware in my drawer: also
    less plastic.  (Also lots of money savings, too.)
    
    I turn off my terminal when I leave for the night and weekend.
    
    I throw all my office trash in the big "public wastebaskets" rather
    than my own.  (Besides, the walk does me good.)
    
    I do all the little pickly cost saving measures that our facility asks
    of me.  The less operating costs they have, the less excuses they have
    of "can't afford this expense" if the legislature asks them to
    institute toxic waste source reduction programs.
    
    When doing test copies of a document (I do some electronic publishing
    in VAXdocument) I print out a page or two, rather than the whole thing.
    
    I work at the terminal rather than automatically making copies.
    
    I hardly save any mail via copies - 99% of it isn't relevant to
    anything I do anyway - I delete it instead.
    
    I carpool with two other people.
    
    I wash with as little water as possible in the restroom.
    
    I go around snitching paper out of wastebaskets in the places I
    normally frequent and put it in the recycling bins.
    
    I have as many meetings by phone or by tube as possible (so as to drive
    less).
    
    I turn in the cans or bottles I may have bought in the cafeteria to the
    redemption centers.
    
    I bore people to tears writing replies like this :-}.  After all, I'm
    using what is, in effect, polluting technology, to give people
    information about doing otherwise.  I call that kind of subversive,
    don't you?  Heh, heh, heh.
    
    
    The "something more" Terry mentions is, I submit, made up of making it
    habitual to do the small things that, if enough people do them, _could_
    make a big difference.  I say "could" because I freely admit I have yet
    to be proven entirely correct.  I am conducting an experiment, you
    might say.  I submit that my experiment is preferable to giving up and
    participating miserably in something I am pretty sure is eventually
    disastrous.  I find my experiment preferable to jumping off a bridge,
    which is, in the harshest Malthusian sense, what I really "should" do
    in order that the planet not have to support me and my trash anymore,
    and which, before I began my experiment, I was strongly inclined to do.
    
    My basic question when I wrote my original reply was (and I admit to a
    lot of frustration and exasperation when I wrote it): doesn't anyone
    else out there want to participate in this kind of experiment?  Because
    if you don't, you are indeed sealing yours, mine, and everyone else's
    doom.  Is that how you want it to be?
    
    And I admit I also wanted to let others who may be into practical
    salvation too, know that they're not alone.  And finally, I wanted to
    see if I was, myself, truly alone.
    
    Marcia

         I believe that what Marcia is doing is demonstrating what
    love of and for life is really about.  She is taking RESPONSIBILITY
    for the world and is working to make it harmonious to her life.
    She is absolutely correct in working from the inside and letting
    the outside fall into place from that.  This is what so many
    of us have talked about so often.
         While I don't do "all" that Marcia does, I do several similar
    things to the extent I can.  I get upset when I see the trash along
    the sides of roads and wonder how people can be so inert and
    unconscious as to do as they do.  But my concern cannot be for them,
    for I do not control their lives.  What matters is how I conduct
    my life and what impact *I* have.  I will do all that I can when
    I can find myself being conscious.  What good is it to claim
    being at least moderately enlightened and then pointing fingers
    at the mostly unenlightened and expecting them to respond in some
    enlightened way?  Yes, I can make that distinction and I will.
    But I will pick up whatever enlightenment I can from whatever source
    it comes and use it towards my own sense of responsibility.
         It continues to amaze me that individuals, even in this
    notesfile, insist on the doom-and-gloom scenario.  Okay, folks,
    let's gather our rocking chairs and sing hymns waiting for the
    inevitable destruction.  At least that's what you seem to be saying.
    Forget logic, forget consensus reality, forget what you think is
    likely to happen.  Start looking at possibilities, the ones
    that could be termed miraculous, start looking for a positive
    outcome without insisting on understanding how.  Understanding
    will come in time (isn't this what scientists do?)  It is ours
    to be the dreamers, to offer an alternative future, to do
    the impossible.  But if we fail, there is likely little hope
    for the rest of our reality.
         Though I have not yet finished "ONE" by Richard Bach, there
    is a place in the book where he and Leslie visit an alternate
    reality where war has been replaced by "war games".  That is,
    countries compete with each other in combat for money and glory
    on television.  Killing is not the goal, winning is.  While I
    haven't done this idea justice here, the point I am trying to make
    is similar to Richard's, that is, there *are* alternative realities
    available, using the same resources but producing different
    results.  The most reasonable place to start, however, is from
    within.  If you don't do your part, it can only be hypocritical
    to expect others to be doing it.
    
    Frederick
    

re: last two (Frederick and Marcia)

    I know my note may sound like I'm the doom-and-gloom type, that
    I'm sitting in my chair waiting for the worst to happen to me and
    the rest of the world, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.
    I don't believe that is our fate nor do I expect it to be.  Nor do
    I believe violence is even remotely a part of the solution (we all
    know it is a BIG part of the problem).  

    As I said, I do many of the things mentioned to do 'my part' and I am
    very much aware of when I'm doing things that are contrary to
    what I'm working for and try to change when I can.  What I am trying 
    to work out is not what more can I do, it's easy to find new things 
    to do, I want to find out how to stop doing things that contribute to 
    and feed the causes of the "machine", things that we seem to be hooked
    into.  It's tax time.  I cannot, with good conscious, look away (don't
    worry, be happy attitude) from the fact that the money I willingly give 
    to the government is going to partly be used to support many of the 
    activities that I feel are destructive, things I can't even imagine I 
    would do myself if I had the power to - but is there really any difference? 
    I think it was Lazaris who said, "If you are aware of the problem, you are 
    part of the problem", not to mention help fund the problem(s).  I pay my 
    taxes, like most of us out of blind duty and partly out of fear.  The fear 
    that I might lose some or all that I have aquired if I didn't cherrfully
    pay them. (I feel cynicism coming on, I'll slow down...).  

    Anyway, I think that supporting the wrong things by our actions in the 
    ways mentioned (and I can think of more than the tax and work-related 
    examples) does more harm than refusing to drink out of stryfoam cups helps.
    This doesn't at all indicate that I'm giving up on the 'little things',
    rather I want to start working on the 'big things'.       

    I'm looking for an answer and I know the only place to really find it is 
    inside.  I have confidence that I (and everyone else) will eventually find 
    it.  I just hope I can follow the advice I receive.  For now I'm stuck
    (but not at all giving up!)

    Terry

    Been looking for a place to enter something I experienced this weekend
    and since Marica and Fredericak are both writing about taking the
    RESPONSIBILITY oneself for bringing about changes in the world I'll
    enter it here.  I attended a community building workshop based on
    Scott Peck's Different Drum.  I don't want to lessen the experience
    by trying to put it into words but will explain the premise of
    community.  
    
    Community is 'safe' place in which people reach a stage where they
    can overlook their differences and just accept each other.  Masks 
    fade away and differences seem unimportant, all that is left is
    a feeling of unity, love, and 'oneness'.  Receiving 'community' was
    a gift which I felt I need to share.  So it becomes my 'responsibility'
    to do that; to encourage community by my own actions and example.
    
    Thanks Cindy for your words which inspired me to attend.
    
    Ro
    

Re. .22
    
    The question regarding how to be effective against the big machine
brings to mind _Pogo's_ discovery: "We have met the enemy and he is us".

As long as there is a corporate "them" from which we exclude ourselves,
we feed agreement and power this notion and cause it to exist.
As long as there is a "them" we feel safe being "us".  It takes a great
deal of courage to admit we are all them and they are all us.

The next, and more difficult, admission is that we all operate out
of truth-based systems which are so pervasive as to never be examined.

*We all "know" that there isn't ever going to be enough money to do
everything which needs to be done.  If "they" printed money in huge
quantities, it would ruin the economies of the world.  If we keep
money scarce, we'll all be safe.*

I used money in the above example.  Money is not the problem.  Substitute
the word money for anything you hold to be of value. Try food.
The problem here is _shortage_ and how it get's coupled with value and
the need to survive.

We all live in a world which operates with shortage and insufficiency
as unquestionable truths. And the odd thing is that we believe without
shortage we would not survive.  UUnnhhh...you want to run that one by
me again?

Why do people trade gold for grain?  Think about it: It's STUPID!
And we all do it and think little of it and operate as if it's
normal and wouldn't know how to stop it anyhow.

Talk about dis-empowering to discover one is going along with a humongous
fallacy just to survive?  We continue to feed the machine and feel disempowered
as we begin to gain some realization of the trouble we are in.

What to do , what to do?  First off do nothing.  Second, examine one's
own personal unexamined truths and look for the events which created
them and which continue to feed them.

Want to tear down the machine?  Well, start at the beginning and discover
how it was created in the first place and ourselves, personally,
got trapped, convinced or cajoled into feeding it.  Meanwhile, next
time you go into the market and buy $60 worth of groceries; smile
and know these fools are going to feed you for another week in exchange
for some green paper.  Know you are going to get this green paper in
exchange for something you do which is not growing food directly.

The way to defeat the machine is to laugh at it an not get caught
and not to exchange your soul for the green paper.

The Wright Brothers would have never gotton off the ground if they 
weren't willing to challenge the imortal truth "If man was meant to fly,
God would have given him wings".

It is not the money, the food, or the flying here.  They are only examples
of current and past fallacies which we hold true, operate out of and
hence keep "them" and the machine alive.

                                              
    Re.23  Hi Ro - that's great about your weekend!  Thank you for helping 
    me to identify and confront my most recent fear.  All went well.  
                
    Re: Inspiration
    
    I went to Boston on Sunday and saw 'Lawrence of Arabia' - the
    reconstructed 4 hour version.  It was the first time I'd ever seen
    it in any form and this film inspired me greatly.  For those of
    you who have seen it, you will recognize my new VAX Notes header 
    above.  It seems so appropriate right now.
    
    Cindy

    Cross-posted with permission. More ways of being a "virus".
        
          <<< HYDRA::DISK$USERPACK02:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HOLISTIC.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< Holistic Forum >-
================================================================================
Note 397.0                       Practical Magic                         1 reply
SSDEVO::YOUNGER "Smile when you feel like crying"   103 lines   7-APR-1989 12:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The following article was written by Meg Evans for Windfire Magazine.
    Posted with permission of the author.
    
    			   PRACTICAL MAGIC

One of the problems with many neo-pagans, new agers, and witches is the
lack of use of Practical Magick.  Most of us realize that our Mother Earth
is beginning to resemble a floating sewer, and that something must be done
about it.  We do warm, fuzzy, heal-the-earth rituals, and go home feeling
like we at least did something.  Meanwhile, the air we breathe, the water 
we drink, and the ground we walk on is becoming more poisonous by the 
minute.  When are we going to wake up?  

Ritual Magick by itself can be useful for increasing awareness, but only
if we add our own energy in the "mundane" world can it have a lasting
effect.  After all, our physical well being is dependent on our eco-system,
and those of us who believe we are rooted to this planet for all of our
lives should have an interest in not returning as sentient cockroaches
in the future.

There is a practical spell for healing the earth.  It has been used for
centuries:  "Use it up, wear it out; Make it do, or do without!" In
other words, Think twice before you add anything to a landfill.  Can
it be recycled, added to a compost heap, fed to the pets, given to a
thrift store?  If your food is in non-recycleable packaging, can you
buy a different brand?  No?  Write a letter to the manufacturer.  Their
public relations people read every complaint, and enough of them will
generate a change.

Your garden is a wonderful resource for recycling all kinds of household
trash.  Every veggie scrap, eggshell, tealeaf and coffee ground has a 
place in a compost heap.  If you don't know how to build one, ask any
established organic gardener, or your local county extension office.  If
you don't garden and have the space, start.  Your local earthspace will
thank you and you will have pesticide-free veggies to boot.

Separate all of your trash.  Stuff your newspapers into paper bags and
drop it off at the paper recycler, scout troop, or even churches that
have paper drives.  Glass that you can't re-use is also easy to recycle.
Aluminum cans can even be profitable, and pay for the rest of your
recycled refuse.  If you are fortunate enough to have curbside pickup,
as some towns do, support it.  It only takes a few extra minutes a 
month to cut your landfill load to almost nothing.  

Share your magazines around.  There is no need for three or more members
of a circle to have the same subscriptions.  Make full moon a time to
trade reading material, as well as warm feelings, gossip, or tapes.  This
saves money, as well as landfill space and results in a better read circle.

If you have children, and make the choice to use disposable diapers, (ick),
dispose of the waste as properly as possible.  Flush what can be flushed,
so that you don't add untreated human waste to the eco-system.  If possible,
use a diaper service or wash your own cloth diapers.  Your infant's butt
will thank you as well.                                        
    
Walk any distance less than a mile (or two or three).  You will save gas
(read money), improve the air quality, and improve your own health.  
Carry a bag with you and pick up litter as you go.  You may not feel
that you are making a dent in the trash on the road, but every piece
that is disposed of properly is one less for our mother to have to deal
with.  (You can also make a profit on those ubiquitous aluminum cans.)
Carpool or take the bus on longer trips whenever possible.

"Adopt" a neighborhood park, roadway, or alley and spend an hour or two
a week removing trash.  Not only will you be improving your environment,
but others are less likely to trash a pristine area, and may think before
they toss.  Where circles are public and the state has an Adopt-a-Highway
program, adopt a quarter mile.  This is good press, as well as practical
Earth healing.

When having an outdoor Circle or campout; always leave the area cleaner
than when you found it.  Not only are you healing our Mother, but you
are improving the image of all Pagan groups and protecting our right to
use the outdoors without harassment.

Improve the habitat around your home, remembering the wild things you share
it with.  Don't spray your yard with poisons.  They kill beneficial plants,
insects and animals, as well as the pests.  Plant some native wildflowers
and shrubs for the birds and small animals.  Put up feeders and birdbaths,
and remember to keep them full even through the winter.  Plant trees, they
clear up pollution as well as adding shade and beauty for years to come.
In low rainfall areas, learn about xeriscaping and save water.

Finally, donate money to your local chapter of Greenpeace, Earth First!, or
the Audobon Society, and get involved on a large scale healing.  Work to
elect conservation minded representatives.  Write letters encouraging
legislation that contributes to the well-being of our Earth, and deter
those who don't think of what they are destroying.  This is large scale
Practical Magick to save our planet.  The first small battle you win will
fill you with more warm, fuzzy feelings than three hours of chanting,
honest.

Saving our Mother is a major task that often seems overwhelming, but if
each of us does our part, we can only improve the odds that we will
survive.

    Hi Cindy, (.25)
    
    Will be in touch offline to talk about the weekend.  I'd like your
    feedback, but I can't quite put my thoughts into words yet.  Scott
    Peck's son, Chris, was one of the facilitators.  He was great.
    
    BTW, a girl friend saw you at the movies on Sunday (she remembered
    you from my DEJAVU party).  I asked her if she spoke to you but she
    was afraid you wouldn't remember her so she didn't.  That's what it
    is all about, letting go of fear.  Those fears keep us 'a part of
    the fire that is burning'.
    
    Ro
    

          
    Re.27
    
    Hi Ro,
    
    Oh dear - that's too bad about your friend.
    
    That's exciting about Chris!  Will look forward to talking with
    you about it when it starts to come together.  It is rather intense
    and I still come up with things that mirror that experience even
    today.                                       
    
    Cindy