Hi everyone. If you all, in this thread and/or in separate individual threads, could respond "yes" to "Add considered, considerate comments, on other people's posts" - it would be much appreciated. Nothing else, and nothing more than "yes" is required, needed. Thank you in advance. - John
Hey John. I'm actually kind of confused. What ramifications would saying "yes" involve? I'm very happy to think in advance about whether my comments on other people's posts are considered and considerate. I feel like I do that already, but I'm happy to give it an extra consideration. In saying "yes," I hope I'm not implying belief that other people will necessarily be able to follow this instruction, even if they think they can.
If everyone is doing their best, that is so much better than any which precision. Otherwise, the map eventually grows to be of equal size to the territory. Which is interesting, but not needed.
Every last single member in the CCFB, is free to interpret the "add considered, considerete comments on other peoples posts" in their own way. There's three thousand members - there's three thousand different interpretations. I'm happy with that. That doesn't affect the rule in any which way.
Since I am ignorant of what John considers "Considered, Considerate Comments" to mean in practice I will simply use my own best judgment and learn adaptively as we go.
Ignorance is seriously underrated. I can't force anyone to adopt such a stance, but I do recommend it. I almost always remind myself, that I do not understand other people at all. But, this is optional.
But, again, although I recommend Plotinus, Plotinus is not everyones cup of tea. There's three thousand takes, and my job, is to remain happy with eveveryone's interpretation and enforce the rule if someone's interpretation infringes on, oppresses, someone elses.
For the purposes of reducing anxiety in the event of missing the mark, it would be useful to know what happens if you judge a comment to have missed the mark.
Just want to be sure that adding comments isn't mandatory here. I actually think the best approach is often to ignore posts. If you disagree with a post or don't respect it, often best to just avoid comment entirely. And if you have a negative history with someone, all the more reason to let a post pass by without your participation.
It is good of you to ask though. I do realize it is an intensely human need, to understand well enough, if one's own interpretations are kosher or not. But really, there really is only one rule. All the rest is for us to resolve in the set of convivial complex responsive processes commonly known as conversations.
What I wonder about is this. If someone misses the mark, will they be able to study the thread and puzzle it out? Or will their access to study the thread and diagnose their error be denied?
Barry, it might help if you and all others in this thread, would jot down some kind of working distillation, synthesis out of all this, for the betterment of the conversations. Again, that would be optional. However, should you craft such a doc, I promise I will read it, and add it in the CCFB in some way that furthers our conversations.
To my mind, that means the construction of a mutually agreed-upon Social Contract spelling out mutually agreeable terms of engagement (include a recovery protocol it something goes off the rails).
Not outing the identity of someone mentioned anonymously in someone else's posted piece should be key. Also, no badgering the poster or any other commenter for a response to something you say. If you say something and people don't respond, so be it. And, of course, no insults.
On the other hand, if someone directly insults you, it might be understandable if you retaliate. This all needs to be looked at in context.
No, I can't work on anything in a group here. I just won't do it. I don't have the time. I wasted all last night on this and working with this particular group just doesn't suit me. I've shared my ideas and I hope you'll take them into consideration. If Barry is brought back, I just hope he can lay low with me. There are plenty of other people to interact with. I believe Jennifer has blocked him, so that shouldn't be a problem.
In any which kind of doubt, whether someting is ok or not, I've found it always a good approach, to ask all concerned, if sharing something, quoting something, is ok or not.
A post with all kinds of goodies along these lines is still on Barry's page. You have to scroll down a bit to find it. He shared all kinds of links to all kinds of things that had been deleted by moderators, and to his private conversation about me.
One of my personal intentions for why I distilled the rules in the CCG+ Conversation Community in Google plus, from five, to one rule, is to make it as crystal clear as possible, to avoid endless meta around the rules, and most importantly, to create and hold and offer a safe space for all participants.
Right: and I think the problem with Barry is that he tends to make online environments unsafe. He may not realize he's doing it. To him, it may be just fine to post a private conversation with a friend where they both criticize me, or to out the identity of someone I had kept confidential, partly for the person's own good. He seems to have some kind of internal sense of truth or fairness or something that compels him to do these things. But it creates disaster for those affected.
It is all there in the CCG+, our conversations, including our resolving our differences, from Nov 2012, until now. For context, re how all of this have been playing out in actual, conversational practice, nothing like the real thing. Any which post from the CCG+ and/or CCFB you would like to inquiry about, I'd be happy to answer, to the best of my ability. Outside of that, is outside of my chosen scope.
Again, having read this thread, I say a resounding Yes.
I am expressing the following neither to explain the Yes nor to defend a stance. I am sharing to give you context.
I do not subscribe to the concept of social contracts (Rousseau). I am a "word" kind of person. Yet legally binding contracts are not why I do not subscribe to "the social contract" of any sort. (Although if you have read Trump's history with contracts, you will note that legally drawn and binding contracts are an illusion except between parties who abide by their word - and I have been witness of this problem for the past 3 years on the ground in a private school). Social contracts are a means to control and guard the gate. And except if ALL are welcome and none excluded (in which case no social contract is needed), then the social contract will always be divisive.
I subscribe to the learning of discernment (ie good judgement) and responsibility. Hannah Arendt). Both of which demand experience in a role that requires judgment and responsibility. A minimum of 3 - 5 years.
In my view, "The Social Contract" has been the principle cause for and is the root of intractable human problems. The Social Contract that began with land ownership (agrarian and pastoral societies) and were designed to secure self-preservation from the unscrupulous. In my world, I would rather be duped a 1000 times than forego my default mode: Trust.
When I lose trust of Other, it is most often because I failed to listen to the pattern of "signals" that alerted me to whether the person is trustworthy or not (ie share my value of respecting human life and dignity). When I lose trust, it is either because the person is untrustworthy or I failed to adhere to one or more of my personal agreements.
In my universe, there is One agreement that supercedes the five that help me on my journey of truth, namely, unconditional love.
I abnegate all political lawmaking power (which are the root of divisiveness). I seek balance in "we."
We the people, for the people, by the people. All people indivisible.
This One rule, unconditional Love, measures a life worth living and supercedes all others.
I practice the 5 Agreements:
1. Be impeccable with my word 2. Do not make assumptions 3. Do not take insults personally 4. Do my best 5. Be skeptical but remain open to possibilities
No. 5 is an Agreement I made with myself since as early as I can remember (4 or 5) and has, by consequence, made me defer to YES by default.
Yes...for me, for you, for we.
The first four agreements, while compatible with my Being and Becoming, I've been working on for a decade far more conscientiously. Not yet mastered, I will continue my practice until my one and only rule is my default mode without an ounce of hesitation.
I also default to the arts and the scientific method.
Jul 23 · Sent from Messenger
Jennifer Grove
I don't know wtf is going on here.
"respond "yes" to "Add considered, considerate comments, on other people's posts""
I already have. This was the agreement I made to belong to the group. I did my best. I have emotional dysregulation issues and so I know that my ability to give considered and considerate comments is limited. I do my best to protect myself from triggers and other people from my reactions. I thot I did a pretty good job. But then someone decided to break my safety container. Any ethical code of integrity or map of an agreeable territory that makes it okay to do that to me without my prior knowledge and consent is oxymoronic and I will prolly not be able to interact in a considered and considerate manner from that point on. This is why I left the group rather than try and resolve my differences with certain folks. I feel the ends of my abilities the same way I feel the ends of my fingers. They only go so far, and then I have no control over the outcome. Certain therapeutic conditions can extend that somewhat, but those conditions have not been met here and I don't expect them to.
I have mentioned before in private that I am not the only one who has to work a little harder than most to meet standards of "normal" and I have extended grace and "the benefit of a doubt" to others. I feel as tho this grace and "b.o.a.d." has been spat on. I believe 2 people owe me an apology. But I don't expect this to materialize. This is another reason why I have left the group and why I have blocked these 2 people. Unless they grok their errors, and apologize, I'm really not interested in any further engagement. I'm sorry that I have failed. I am sorry that I don't meet up to other people's standards of wtvr. I am sorry that I couldn't meet your needs.
I have a fucking emergency to deal with here at home and I'm not likely to have much patience for argument here. Once again, I am sorry.
Just want to add that as far as I'm concerned, Jennifer, you didn't fail in any way and have no need to apologize. You were put in a difficult situation and I thought you handled it very well. I don't think you're in this group because of anything you did wrong. You were in the midst of a conflict that wasn't your fault, so you were added to the group so you could see what was happening.
Carol Gilligan's Ethics of Care is applicable here, with respect to both Stephanie and Jennifer. But a prerequisite of the Ethics of Care is disclosure of special needs. Without that disclosure, the calculus of Ethical Best Practices in the context of Carol Gilligan's Ethics of Care is arrested at the starting gate. It does no good to have the function, f(•) if the value of the argument of the function is unknown (and perhaps unknowable). In CCFB, how is anyone to know the defining parameters of an individual with special needs if those special needs are not disclosed?
For the purposes of context, here is my understanding of the relationship between Rules, Social Contracts, and the Ethics of Care:
This knol reviews and integrates fundamental ideas on ethics, including seminal contributions by Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, John Rawls, Lonnie Athens, James Gilligan, Suzanne Retzinger, Ren…
My special need is simple: I need accurate information to plug into the function, f(•). If I am starved for accurate information, or if I am supplied with erroneous or misleading information, then my faculties of calculating "Considered and Considerate Comments" becomes unwired and dysfunctional. I am left in such a profound state of ignorance that my optimal comment becomes the Null Comment. And that empty calculus renders me a useless individual with respect to the purpose of participating in a Conversation that Minds and Matters. All I am able to do is sit quietly and weep.
I need a supply of artificial tears. For reasons unbeknownst to me, I was born with the ability to weep for joy, but not with the ability to weep for grief.
You may have heard the expression, "There was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth."
One can "weep and wail" or one can "gnash their teeth" but it is physiologically impossible to do all three at once. I am given to "gnashing of teeth." I don't grind my teeth (Bruxis), but I do clench them. Sometimes I clench them so hard I end up with TMJ and a Migraine Headache.
Imagine a scene on stage where there is "much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth." Some actors (perhaps mostly children and females) are weeping and wailing, while others (mostly adult males) are gnashing their teeth. Show me an actor who can do all three gestures at once. As far as I know, it is physiologically impossible with human anatomy.
Perhaps this is why the last words of Rabbi Yehoshua were, "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani?" That feeling of being Forsaken is perhaps the most Human Feeling of all.
To relieve the pain of clenching my teeth, I pour out my grief through my fingertips, upon the keyboard. That's why I write essays, allegories, poetry, parables, fables, song parodies, and comic operas.
I like your take on 'forsaken'. I described my feelings of sadness as being heartbroken when my partner of 10 years spat the dummy on our relationship. But, in fact, 'forsaken' as you describe it, is a much better description:"abandoning something that had once been valued or considered worthwhile."
I agree with Stephanie that there is no need to apologize because no one did anything wrong. Everyone did their humanly best in an otherwise impossible situation. There need be no scapegoats here. There need only be Discovery Learning.
I was apologizing for having been one of many to trigger Jennifer. It is clear that her special needs alerts me immediately to actions I would have taken. I was operating solely on the best practice of openness.
Clearly my daughter who is diagnosed as Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder and with a disposition of Asperger's would have been sent through the roof with all of this. I would not have expected her to have been present from the start, however, because she regularly deactivates her account. She does not block nor unfriend anyone, she removes herself from discussion.
In this manner, we collectively as a family and anyone who is friends with my daughter, are all free to be ourselves online. That is because she has a low tolerance for discourse on ethics.
I apologized because it is the right thing to do. I am not sorry for anyone or anything. We are all operating on the gifts of self and the only information we have at any given time. And I always forgive anyone for their blunders caused by a difficult gift (like my daughter's marvelous misfortune) and a lack of facts of the whole.
John you posted on CCFB something to the effect that our greatest blunders can only be caused because of a lack of facts.
I use the scientific method because it is the only method I know that cannot render anyone monstrous or dangerous without evidence of monstrous or dangerous behaviour.
My daughter's behaviours in full psychosis was enough to have had her vilified. She is half Lebanese. And visibly so. I can't imagine what would have happened to her if we had been living State side rather than in Canada.
I apologized because it is the right thing to do when I become aware of having triggered a disorder. With that knowledge I proceed differently.
*Correction: without a diagnosis that (1) explains monstrous or dangerous behaviours or (2) has sufficiently gathered enough evidence to predict the outcome.
Matthew Bannister introduces an arresting BBC Outlook story on learning how to cry in public:
When was the last time you cried?
If you're Japanese, it might have been a long time ago, at least according to business man, Hiroki Terai. He believes Japanese people aren't very good at expressing their emotions, so he decided to tackle this in a novel way.
He gave his fellow countrymen an emotional lifeline by teaching them how to shed tears without shame.
The BBC's Emily Webb went to Tokyo to find out more.
I know Barry to be without guile. In the same way as I know my daughter and my brother (also BP II - w/o psychoses) to be without guile despite having been vilified by members of the family, society and the law.
I know this for a fact that neither my brother nor daughter are capable of guile in the same way as I know this of Barry.
That does not mean that the people I love and care for as forementioned are never bad tempered because of having been triggered. But my brother has NEVER gone beyond telling someone to F**k off. And my daughter, even in the throes of psychosis with a strength of 10 men, has never hurt a fly.
It is not my fault or my family's fault that these conditions occur. We're just really, really lucky to be living in a country whose first mode of operation is politeness. And second mode is skepticism.
As we are not generally governed by fear in Canada, we are less likely to be involved in mob rule. Not to say that our record is clean. Just to say that in general, we feel safer to just be.
We do, however, keep to ourselves a lot. And that general alienation is making our country ill with loneliness. My daughter aches with loneliness.
PS Barry, I did not weep at my brother's passing 3 weeks ago.
*I had 2 brothers. In the first instance I speak of my brother still among the living. It is our middle sibling who has passed on.
To clarify: I cannot be held responsible for triggering someone if I am not privy to special needs. I can however sincerely apologize for the ensuing outcome in the same way as I offer condolences to someone who has suffered the loss of a loved one.
There is another party to this drama who is not present in this particular 5-way group discussion who is suffering now, precisely because of a lack of information. That information does exist. It exists in this 5-way way group discussion. But I am not at liberty to share it with her, because I have not been given the liberty to share it with her. And so I fervently wish she could become an attendant to the conversation, so that she won't continue the lamentable drama of alienation and scapegoating that has been underway in a round-robin fashion in these fractured and fragmented sub-conversations.
Elsewhere in recent conversations, we’ve been talking about “mirror neurons” in the context of empathy. But imitation (or mimesis) is not limited to the brain’s ability to e…
As I see it, we are all in a state of needless suffering as a result of the strictures against sharing information.
People are left with a subset of pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, such that they understandably assemble it into an incomplete picture and are thus tempted to jump to erroneous conclusions.
When I am aware of a missing piece that, were it known to all, would conclusively falsify the dangerous mis-impressions and misjudgments, I feel ethically bound to share it, knowing that I am violating an idiotic rule that mandates keeping everyone in a foolish state of ignorance and mutual suffering.
How do we get around this? By writing "fictional" stories where we tell the whole story, but disguise the names of the players who supplied the different pieces. As if disguising their names fools anyone.
There is a movie starring Denzel Washington called "Fallen" which is an allegory that presents this very situation. If you are unfamiliar with it, I commend it to your attention.
Denzel Washington plays Detective John Hobbes who is tracking down a serial killer named Azazel.
Azazel, if you don't know, is the Demonic Spirit of the Wilderness who receive the Goat for Azazel in the Yom Kippur Ritual of transferring the collective sins of the community to an otherwise blameless scapegoat.
Fallen (1998 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fallen is a 1998 American supernatural thriller film starring Denzel Washington and directed by Gregory Hoblit. The film was a critical and financial failure, earning only 25.2 million in its theatrical run.
More on Azazel here. That story inspired me to create one of my occasional Internet avatar characters, Caprice, the Fantastic Flying Scapegoat for Azazel.
One night few weeks ago, a handful of friends who occasionally get together for Bible Study were slated to talk about Baptism — the Christian sin-cleansing ritual that signifies acceptance of the tenets of the faith.
Then Caprice was led by the Dementor into the desert to be tempted by Azazel. After meandering forty days and forty nights, Caprice became lost in the wilderness.
Love changes the course for self. Love changes the course for others.
In 2005, during my first doctoral seminar, we were asked to write weekly on a personal topic by donning all the research paradigms beginning in the 20th Century. Each week, we were expected to consider the method by which we come to "know" our topic. To write upon it, give evidence for it, reference it and present in class.
It felt as a silly exercise but we all complied. What we gained from that experience is immeasurable. Each research paradigm, from phenomenology to postmodernism, offered a means to the small imperceptible clues into our individual topics. Each clue offered up possibilities. None gave the full answer for none of our topics could present a falsifiable hypothesis. For the most part, we were dealing with existential topics of an ontological or epistemological nature that have been explored since the beginning of our recorded history.
My topic was on love. I traveled through the times from pre-Socrates through to Dante and beyond. It was the most fascinating semester for me for I was in the throes of discovering love. For though I had been married thrice, though I had given birth to three children, I knew not love...
It is not possible for me to speak on love today despite my decade long continual search (for that assignment awakened in me a thirst to know love).
Aside from the classics on love (including Ovid, Kahlil Gibran and Rumi), a countless list of modern literature from Dickens and Steinbeck to Julian Barnes gave me insight. Scientists like Oliver Sacks gave me insights. Buddhists like Pema Chödrön gave me insights. Psychologists and neuropsychiatrists like Magda Hollander-Lafon, Boris Cyrulnik, and Brené Brown gave me insights...
But it is only in sitting with my "enemies" that I have gained the most. Chödrön calls it "making friends with my enemies." And enemies are not necessarily persons. They can also be that which we fear the most.
I like your take on 'forsaken'. I described my feelings of sadness as being heartbroken when my partner of 10 years spat the dummy on our relationship. But, in fact, 'forsaken' as you describe it, is a much better description:"abandoning something that had once been valued or considered worthwhile."
As Madeline Kahn once said so well..."They're always coming and goin' and goin' and coming." We do not want to "sit with their enemies." We flee from this thought in horror. Why would we wish to sit with our enemies? Why would we wish to sit with our fear, anger or sorrow? We are in a society that gives us license to annihilate our enemies. To anesthetize the pain. We live in a society where we must walk on egg shells.
What kind of a life is worth living if we must be forever dodging imagined or real bullets?
My daughter suffers tremendously. Everyday, she reaches out and then withdraws in agony. In fear and loathing she finds herself trapped by her mind's worst enemies. I worry my daughter will not find a way to free herself from her suffering.
But that is what a person who has been bullied, shunned, rejected, forsaken, misunderstood, misjudged, labeled, stigmatized, and otherwise made to feel superfluous to our existence comes to expect...
She comes to expect bullets fired at her...and so she regularly deactivates her account with Facebook, regularly ignores phone calls, regularly retreats to her bedroom in despondency. And in her lonely world, dodging imagined bullets, she suffers.
I can only imagine what it must be like to live in Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq. I can only imagine what it must be like to live in a drone war zone. How does one escape the despair? How can one sit with the enemy (we are the enemy or at least those who wage war) under such conditions?
To walk on eggshells is to live with a lover who manifests Borderline Personality Disorder. Have you ever seen Sandy Skoglund's installation art entitled, "Walking on Eggshells"?
No I haven't. Living daily with a person with Schizoaffective BPD also leads one to "walk on eggshells." But no one can live that way for long without losing one's mind...
I came to understand that to walk on eggshells is to be held hostage to someone else's emotional disorder. Which is funny when you pause to think on it because my daughter's manic depression is an emotional disorder.
But her disorder is only the tip of the iceberg for I sense that were it not for having grown up in a shunning, scapegoating, and shaming environment, her disorder may not have been triggered.
But I do not blame anyone around her. They knew not what they did because we all have been operating on partial facts. We simply did not hold all the pieces of the puzzle to her oddities in learning and expressing. And still do not...
There are three different presentation formats for a PM Chat. In some of them, I see Jennifer's name. In other presentation formats, she is listed as 'Facebook User' with avatar pix.
I have responded to Jennifer's thoughts because I feel it is imperative that I apologize for that which I did not know.
And that is why I stand with you Barry. You have been unfairly characterized because of your method of communication. And while I agree with many people that you are like a dog with a bone, I understand perseverance. It is both a quality and a disadvantage. Just as is my exuberance.
My exuberance and enthusiasm can (and has) come off as pretentious or arrogant. I don't know why that is so but I have been told as much.
Each quality has a dark and light side and it depends on which side people sit that this quality is regarded.
So your perseverance is extremely advantageous in the field of science. Think Kinsey for instance.
But in interpersonal relations that require more levity and less heavy-handedness. More "shooting the shit" and less "clearing out the shit" perseverance is seen as bullying.
Nonetheless when it comes to being blocked (shunned) from a whole body of work that you contributed to...
I don't know if John anticipated that, but everyone needs to know that the functionality of Facebook's operational mechanics abrogated Jennifer's desire that I not be privy to her remarks.
And I presume it's reciprocal, that Jennifer can see everything I wrote.
Barry, I have been shunned by several communities (wittingly or not). Stephanie spoke of the fact that when she is rejected by one community, she goes in search of another. That doesn't mean that she or I don't exist. But that only describes capricious communities. I don't belong to religion (which shunned me) and I'm perfectly happy not to. But what if it were a community that mattered to me? What if it was the scientific or artistic communities? I'd be devastated. Utterly miserable to the shunned by that which I love. And so the problem is why would we be shunned at all by any community? Why would we accept that? Why can't we move from one group to another because of our love and passion for the content of that community? Why so much divisiveness? Why nation states? Why borders? Why war?
I'm frankly sickened by all the fear in the world that is causing so many to suffer needlessly.
"I have mentioned before in private that I am not the only one who has to work a little harder than most to meet standards of "normal" and I have extended grace and "the benefit of a doubt" to others. I feel as tho this grace and "b.o.a.d." has been spat on. I believe 2 people owe me an apology. But I don't expect this to materialize. This is another reason why I have left the group and why I have blocked these 2 people. Unless they grok their errors, and apologize, I'm really not interested in any further engagement." ~Jennifer Grove
In 1832, when a Cholera outbreak hit France, the level of sheer panic was horrific (as it was chronicled in the French movie, "The Horseman on the Roof"). A upstanding, young stranger (the Horseman) enters a town and goes to drink from a well. The people shout, "Empoisonner" (the poisoner) and he is lynched by a mob. Mobs are ruled by fear.
If I understand the root of someone's fear, I can make adjustments to reduce their fears. But if that adjustment is to go mute and withdraw from the world, then I frankly have a problem with that proposal.
Jennifer blocking me makes no difference to me. I would be saddened to be blocked from public forums. That is a sign that I am no longer wanted by anyone.
And that is what I objected to with Rebecca
And that is what I object to here also.
It is unfair and unjust and inhuman and that is all there is to that.
All of this has occurred -- in my view -- from the unfortunate incidents in TBC and it has spilled over into other forums because of the cross over of people. And it makes me heartsick.
Thank you. I accept that there were two people (known to me) who had joined CCFB and who did not care for me. Such is life. Everyone has their antagonists and their nemesis.
You have done nothing to deserve this Barry. Nothing to deserve the humiliation, the backstabbing, the PM's, the blocking from forums with subjects that mind and matter. I am frankly disappointed in Facebook altogether...
It disturbs me too, but that is what makes me look like a dog with a bone. That's what makes me look like Detective Columbo or Detective John Hobbes in "Fallen."
All of it is circumstantial and without the full picture. If Jennifer is allowed to disclose her special needs, why can no one give you the same courtesy (or Jesse or anyone else with Asperger's whose sensitivity for Bullshit is very high)?
My daughter cannot abide by novels and romantic stories and flights of fancy and anyone who takes the imaginal realm into delusional states because she is Schizoaffective and knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those things are close to lunacy. She is also borderline Asperger's so she really prefers honesty as her default mode without ambiguity or innuendos. And she DOES NOT catch all the social cues so it troubles her deeply because she is always having to second guess herself because people do not say what they mean and do not mean what they say.
I am witness to Carol and Lisa fuelling the rumour mill. There are people who get exasperated with your stories. It must be (as far as I can tell) because they do not understand them and it sounds like white noise to them. But that rumour mill is precisely the rumours that surround the Aspies that I teach. It is precisely the root of their bullying.
Administrators, teachers and children fall into the trap of negative talk because of behaviours they do not understand, find strange, do not know what to do with, does not fall into the "norm" of behaviours, does not present itself in socially acceptable ways and...the Aspies are then subjected to shunning, humiliation, rejection, and prejudice.
Nancy can tell you about the times I saved their ass when they had a problem with the systems at USU.
By the way, I'm unclear if Stephanie has decided to stay in CCFB or not. She sounded ambiguous about it, saying she didn't have time to deal with it. Do you have any better knowledge? Is she still a member? Is she sitting on the fence? What's her status?
As far as I know Stephanie continues to be a member of CCFB.
Hans Asperger was born Feb 18 (same day as Marco). I find it curious that the DSM-V has removed Asperger's Syndrome preferring the more current view of Autism Spectrum. I find that refreshing. Though I still have respect for the man who put it on the map (not being fully recognized until 1991). I have a deep admiration for teachers or parents who have supported their loved ones in their search for meaning (Einstein,Temple Grandin, Daryl Hannah...).
It would seem, however, that if you are on the spectrum, you're most likely to be accepted only if you reach a level of "stardom."
Last week, in an archive edition of "On Point" on NPR, host, Tom Ashbrook, spent an hour on the topic of Autism, with a close-up look at Hans Asperger.
From the blurb:
"Go back in the annals of history, read closely, and you will find people and behaviors that fit our modern understanding of autism. But until the middle of the 20th century, no one had given it a name that was more than an insult. Now, we are in the midst of what some call an epidemic of autism. But that may just be about our evolving understanding of the syndrome itself. A new history tells the story of how that understanding has deepened and spread. This hour On Point, how we’ve come to understand autism." ~Tom Ashbrook
Elsewhere in recent conversations, we’ve been talking about “mirror neurons” in the context of empathy. But imitation (or mimesis) is not limited to the brain’s ability to e…
Elsewhere in recent conversations, we’ve been talking about “mirror neurons” in the context of empathy. But imitation (or mimesis) is not limited to the brain’s ability to e…
My mother had traits of Narcissism, and Beth was diagnosed as a textbook case of Borderline Personality Disorder. I was at a loss to alleviate their suffering.
With respect to Beth, Dr. Evan (who diagnosed her) said I was lucky to get out alive.
Yutiel has suggested to me that I share this peer-reviewed paper which I presented at the AAAI Fall Symposium 14 years ago.
Experiences with Civility and the Role of a Social Contract in Virtual Communities
Authors: Barry Kort, Nancy Matlack Williams, and Rob Reilly
Presented at the AAAI Fall Symposium, 2002
This brief paper summarizes notions about the role of Social Contracts in online communities.
It is curious why group policy-making for things such as social contracts and civility standards in virtual communities is so problematic.
There appears to be a 3-layered model, that we call ‘Communitas’. Successful online communities, that we are familiar with, are structured according to this model. The foundation layer of ‘Communitas’ is Communications Technology. This is the ‘soil’ out of which everything else emerges. Only about 5% of the population will muster the technical — and at times arcane — skills to create and develop the underlying Communications Technology.
The second layer of ‘Communitas’ is Community Building. This is the social and leadership layer where 90% of the participants spend their time getting to know their colleagues, identifying and understanding goals, missions, and issues of concern to the community, and building trust. If Communications Technology is the ‘soil’, Community Building is the ‘garden’.
Once Community Building has reached a level where there is a substantial level of participation, interaction, and trust, a remarkable third layer emerges. This layer can be referred to as ‘Communion’. ‘Communion’ is a profoundly transformational relation of People-to-People and People-to-Ideas. These are life-changing ideas and interpersonal relationships, which fundamentally redirect individuals to focus their time, energy and talent in ways that promote personal and professional growth, clarification of individual and community values, and adoption of meaningful personal and group goals. Communion is the ‘fruit’ of the ‘garden’ of Community Building, growing on the ‘soil’ of Communications Technology.
So to summarize, the ‘Communitas’ model looks like this:
Communications Technology ⇒ Community Building ⇒ Communion
So the next question is: “How to craft an online community in which Communitas flowers?” In our experience the key ingredient is a Social Contract, which establishes the terms of civility. The Social Contract sets forth the purpose and goals of the community and an agreement among the participants as to how they will interact, treat each other, and resolve conflicts. It has been our experience that communities fail when the Social Contract is abrogated.
It has been our experience that communities are successful when they are founded on a mutually understood and agreed upon Social Contract. Note that it is not possible to have an imposed Social Contract; a Social Contract can only exist if all participants voluntarily agree to it. For this reason Social Contract communities tend to small private communities. Large public communities are not amenable to the Social Contract model. Large public communities with an open-door policy tend to run toward ill-mannered political factionalism. These communities do not support horizontal dialogue; they tend to be dominated by a small number of outspoken partisans who collectively construct, what we charitably refer to as a ‘lunatic drama’ characterized by mutual disrespect. Such communities can be long lasting and even entertaining but they rarely foster insight, problem solving or personal growth. By contrast the small Social Contract communities can carry their participants along collaborative and profound transformational journeys.
This paper was originally presented at the AAAI Fall Symposium, 2002, with co-authors Nancy Williams and Rob Reilly.
Jul 24
Jennifer Grove
You two have completely misinterpreted my behavior. I cannot make you understand. I cannot take the understanding that I have and put it into your brain. Or wherever you put your understandings of other people. If I could, I would. That's why we have language. But since I've already spent quite a few words on this project and you guys still don't understand, I'm going to cut my losses. And yours. Because there is a loss for you, tho it will be a source of satisfaction for you to imagine that it is not.
I generally don't repose a mental model of another person's frame of mind unless I know them very well. Theories of Mind are notoriously hard to construct, even under optimal conditions.
A Clinical Psychologist might interview a typical client for months and months before constructing a Theory of Mind of a client.
I have less than zero information about you, Jennifer. Therefore I don't have any model of your character at all. The best model I can put forward is the Null Model, which is the model one starts with when one has no information.
Re: Beth. Sometimes violence is a threat and there is little we can do to prevent it from happening. This remains as a big question.
Just as it is clear that animals from the wild raised from birth in domestic settings may forever be gentle and never cause their owner harm. Nonetheless, it is difficult to predict if, when or why violence may occur. We simply don't have that kind of predictive ability anymore than knowing our end. If we live in fear of death, however, we can never taste the fruit of life.
Also Barry, no spouse or member of a family should be burdened with all the responsibility. As Kay Redfield Jamison expressed it, family members are undoubtedly the most complex caregivers. Much is at stake...
As far as Jennifer goes, I was certain she would leave. Our conversation is like nails on the blackboard to her.
As to Communitas, which I have enjoyed learning of since you first posted it when I was able to catch it. Notwithstanding, it still needs work. While size is important, there is historical evidence that large communities can achieve remarkable peace and equanimity. And there is enough evidence to show that a small group can fall apart.
I have been working on this community problem for 35 years in the classroom and because of my diverse teaching (K-12, university undergrads, grads made of small seminars) I have come to a different conclusion based on my data set.
The following factors are of significance:
Dynamics are dependent on random composition but the composition most likely to succeed is one that has few, if any individuals, who seek to control the situation (individuals who seek to dominate or "hold court"). This includes: attention seeking behaviours along with demonstrative poor cognitive skills/high emotional displays, show low empathy yet are highly sensitive persons.
Yes, Beth occasionally had psychotic breaks where she would explode in violence, seemingly without cause. But at least I eventually got enough observational data for Dr. Evan to make a diagnosis.
I still have the audio tapes of messages she left on the answering machine. When I played them for Dr. Evan, he exclaimed, "My God, she's a beast!" And when I played them for the divorce lawyer, he exclaimed, "She's demonic!"
Dr. Evan said it would take a world-class shrink a decade to bring someone like that out of Borderline Personality Disorder.
The marriage counselor told me that Beth's behavior was sociopathic, that she was extremely immature, and that I was doing all the work.
"Our conversation is like nails on the blackboard to her [Jennifer]." ~Anne-Marie
Can you unpack that a bit more? What were the features of our conversation that grated on Jennifer, and what emotional state did that throw her into?
MicroMuse never grew to more than a few hundred participants. And we had one participant in the Blooming Lotus Forum who (as I found out later) was also Borderline Personality Disorder. She was very hard to deal with, but she did write the Javascript code for the BarryMatic Response Generator (along with the original set of quips that would use from time to time to inject some levity into the conversations).
John doesn't seem to have much interest in the Social Contract Governance Model either, and I'm confused by the notion of One Rule that is basically a vaguely worded variation of Hillel's Law. But Hillel's Law would not have embraced alienation and scapegoating as a penalty, along with a sequestering of the corpus of contributions from a participant. Jennifer and Stephanie can elect to depart from CCFG and still continue to read it as a non-member. I don't understand the point of denying me the opportunity of accessing CCFB along with all the other billion people on FB who are not members.
When I was starting up MicroMuse some 26 years ago, I relied on "Different Drum: Community Making and Peace" by M. Scott Peck. That was my 'bible' for that project.
And then, the dark side. I eventually got around to reading Peck's gloomiest book, "People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil." That one was grim.
M. Scott Peck: People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil- The Open Mind PBS (1983)
M. Scott Peck author of The Road Less Traveled talking about his then latest book People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil with Richard D. Heffner ...
I lack experience in dealing with individuals manifesting Axis II Cluster 'B' traits, especially traits that SBK calls The Dark Triad.
Such individuals appear to be beyond the pay grade of even the most experienced psychologists. Andrea Kuszewski counsels to run away from them as fast as you can, and don't look back. (She calls them "Crazy-Pants").
I know I am sounding arrogant. I know that saying John is a greenhorn is the height of assuming and arrogance. But yet, I feel deeply that there is a lack of experience in this matter alone. I feel that this thesis of mine is correct based on my hypothesis on community building. But I can't detail this right now. If I am wrong, then I will take back what I said and apologize.
Those of us in the STEM disciplines are not always the best at managing people. It's one thing to manage a complex non-living system (like the telephone network or the Internet or a fleet of computers). It's quite another thing to supervise a community of 3000 people.
MicroMuse, which never had more than a few hundred participants, had a team of 12 Directors, most of which were the teenagers.
Prepublication draft 3.0 Prepared to appear in Peter Kollock and Marc Smith (eds),Communities in Cyberspace Routledge Press, 1998. Copyright 1997 by Anna DuVal Smith. All rights reserved. Comments to the author at adsmith@advs.net are welcome and invited.
Just a quick note to say that I'm staying in the group. I never said I was leaving. (Just don't want John to get the wrong idea. I have no idea why anyone thought I was leaving.)
You tend to misinterpret things and then make your misinterpretations public, like with your assumption that I was brought up ultra-Orthodox. It's very dangerous. This is one of many reasons you should keep private stuff private. You often don't interpret thing properly.
Do you understand that multi-party Group Conversations are functionally public? For example, unlike CCFB, Jennifer could see my comments, and I could see hers.
That was my understanding from reading the blurbs about your work.
Nobody sane would agree with your interpretation. I have private and personal FB chats with friends all the time. We absolutely assume thatt they're private. You break rules of decorum all the time. Now I'm leaving.
Did you not live in an Ultra-Orthodox Community for the duration of your field work?
Are you suggesting Anne-Marie is insane? She agrees with me almost all the time.
The one thing she doesn't agree with me on is the utility of the Social Contract Governance Model.
Why do you make assumptions like that? Functionally group chats are demonstrably public.
I've been on the Internet for 40 years, and we assume that anything said to two or more people is functionally public (both in actual practice and in law).
Stephanie, this icon in the Blue Title Bar of a Group Discussion (like this one) means that anyone in such a Group Discussion can add new people at any time. That means that a Group Discussion such as this one is Functionally Public, by Software Design.
None of my friends make that assumption. All I can tell you is: when you make this stuff public, you make enemies. People grow to despise you for breaching their privacy. You can think it's wrong and unfair, but that's how it is. Chew on it and hopefully reconsider your conduct. You've had problems interacting with people. Think about why.
I count you as someone I wish well, but absolutely cannot deal with. Even now, I'm wishing I had held back. I count you as someone I so wish would leave me alone, in peace. I want to wish you well from afar, with no contact whatsoever.
And I'm leaving. This is wasting my day! And I stay here because I want to make sure I don't wind up tacitly agreeing to some kind of public co-authored document. You scared me with that threat. So I feel the need to keep monitoring things, unfortunately. I want to make sure I don't get harmed. It's awful. I wish it would end. I don't enjoy any aspect of it. I feel I have to say for my own security, so I know what's happening.
And I am a little afraid of other possibilities. My mother knows what's happening and she isn't sleeping because of the situation with you. You create such awful feelings, You need to just lay low and be peaceful.
John Kellden has requested that I work out an agreement with Stephanie and Jennifer.
This is the agreement that I am submitting to John. If he approves, I will delete this post and proceed per this tacit agreement.
[QUOTE Barry to John in PM]
OK. I worked out a tacit agreement.
Jesse has tacitly agreed not to recognize the existence of Stephanie, nor to ever attend to anything she says or writes, but to simply adopt the convenient fiction that she does not exist.
Jennfier and Stephanie have both tacitly agreed to pretend I do not exist, and, going forward, to never attend to or respond to anything I say or write.
I have agreed to reciprocate in kind by ignoring the existence of both Jennifer or Stephanie and to refrain from attending to or responding to anything either of them says or writes in CCFB.
Thus we have tacitly arrived at a mutually agreeable resolution. You can independently poll them to confirm that this is their policy, as well.
For all practical purposes, I don't exist for them and, going forward, and they don't exist for me.
We need to add that you do not refer to us in any way, even if you don't address us directly. And this needs to extend throughout the whole internet. You can NOT publish anything I said to you here or in any other private discussion group, anywhere on the internet. Nor can you publish any private conversation you may have had about me, or Jennifer.
I want you to just agree to those terms. I don't want to work anything out with you. Of course, I also want an assurance that you won't physically harm me. My mother is very afraid.
An agreement has to be a Meeting of the Minds, spelling out mutually agreeable terms, and signed by the parties to the agreement, and also witnessed by neutral parties.
You will never find a more peaceable soul on this planet. I abhor violence. Just ask my brother. I refused induction at the time of the Vietnam War. I am an exponent of Gandhi, ML King, and Thich Nhat Hahn.
Just work it out with John. I'll accept any decision he makes. He can see here what's important to me. Just leave me and Jennifer alone, including publishing conversations with or about us, and all will be good.
One of my projects is even called "The Non-Violence Project" and it includes this scientific model of the etiology of violence in the schools, so that we can understand better how prevent it.
The violence in the schools, like conflict and violence everywhere, follows a model. The model presented here was developed by Stanford University Professor Rene Girard. It applies in general to conflicts at any level of intensity. It has 5 stages.
Dr. James Gilligan - Youth and violence The role of education inspiring solutions
Dr. James Gilligan is on the faculty of New York University where he is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the School of Medicine, Adjunct Professor in the ...
This knol reviews and integrates fundamental ideas on ethics, including seminal contributions by Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, John Rawls, Lonnie Athens, James Gilligan, Suzanne Retzinger, Ren…
"No one questions that building skills such as self-control, perseverance and conscientiousness can help children thrive. A 2011 meta-analysis of 213 of the best evidence-based SEL [Social and Emotional Learning] programs found that they led to significant improvements in social and emotional skills, behavior, attitudes and schoolwork. “It's what people want for their kids,” notes developmental psychologist David S. Yeager of the University of Texas at Austin."
I have never been more saddened than what has happened here and elsewhere.
I will continue to do my best but Barry, it appears that there is no means by which to address the fear, the terror that seems to have arisen in Jennifer and Stephanie for posting verbatim their words publicly. This is no doubt how Hillary must be feeling, or how anyone whose words have been made public by Snowden and Assange. I do not compare your innocent posting to exonerate your good name since the TBC fiasco but it does strike me that your actions goes against the "secret" protocols that govern political, economic, legal and educational institutions. We are not even allowed to email our students any more from UBC accounts that is not directly related to course work.
The world is on a state of fear and loathing.
I am going to be very clear here. I have absolutely no interest in pursuing our discussion here in this chat. It is as far as I am concerned a pointless endeavor. Perhaps in the future, our paths will cross again with greater understanding. We are at an impasse. And I will not stand by and listen to someone state they fear for their life. The very words make me sad.
There is no reason whatsoever for Barry to defend himself here. That is utterly inappropriate. However, despite this, I think it is best Barry to depart from this thread and any other with Stephanie.
I promise to stay away by (1) reading John's personal posts and CCFB posts but neither comment nor engage. I've already done so with TBC.
John, you will need to remain in suspense regarding my data snd conclusions of community & relationship building in an educational context that parallels online communities due to its mixed virtual and real contexts. I'll make that available to you, however, as I esteem your mind and your work tremendously.
And (2) staying as far away from Jennifer and Stephanie as is possible on line. My door always remains open for discussion but I will never make the first step in this instance for either parties.
I've provided Stephanie with copious evidence to overthrow the chimeras of her imagination. Perhaps it will take some time for her to review her beliefs in the light of evidence that her fears are unground flights of fancy.
... ungrounded flights of fancy
Jul 24
You named the conversation: Fear and Loathing in Lost Vagueness.
Philippe Van Nedervelde said something recently that I like. It isn't about neuro-atypicals learning to "normalize" or neurotypicals learning the language of Aspies, it's about learning to bend toward each other.
Please take note of Facebook's own definition of Bullying.
What Is Bullying?
Bullying is any kind of repeated aggressive behavior that involves an imbalance of power such as social status or physical size. Along with physical or verbal attacks, bullying also includes making threats, spreading rumors or deliberately excluding someone from a group.
You're on a Mobile. Let me see if there is a comparable version for Moble.
Evidently this page doesn't yet have a version for Mobile. Go to your regular web browser application and open the page that way. It comes up OK in Google Chrome on my iPad.
There is a video section on that page with three videos. One of them is about solving conflicts on FB. (Underneath the video window are three white dots. The third dot is the one for Conflict Resolution.)
In that video, Facebook Product Manager, Jake Brill, says, "More often than not, when somebody doesn't like something that they see, it doesn't necessarily violate Facebook's Community Standard. It's a violation of the Social Contract between two people."
I have offered to negotiate a mutually agreeable Social Contract with those who have a bone to pick with me. If someone declines to negotiate a mutually agreeable Social Contract, then (by default) the Social Contract is the Null Social Contract.
There is a gentleman named Robert Levine who has written a book entitled "The Pace of Life." Philip Zimbardo talks about how we perceive time in this fabulous RSA animation of his talk on the subject.
On the first day, without hesitation, both Anne-Marie and I gave you an unqualified 'Yes'.
Stephanie demurred from providing you with an unqualified 'yes' or 'no' and also declared that she was adamantly against any kind of mutually agreeable social contract, neither an express one nor a tacit one.
So I see that as an impasse which leaves the three of us in a Double Bind, where there is nothing we can do, except Do Nothing. It's like Waiting for Godot.
The "yes" has been followed by quite a lot of words, quite a few of which signal "no". Which is ok by me, it's process. I can check back in here in a week.
I have frankly lost faith in you, John. I expected you to keep your word but I am chagrined to say you betrayed my trust. I can no longer trust you to live up to the set of ethics that I long understood you to abide by.
Unilaterally, you deprived me of access to the corpus of my work in collaboration with other members of CCFB, sequestering it without just cause and without due process.
Unilaterally, you cut off my ability to continue to converse and dialogue with my correspondents on CCG+, without notice, without explanation, and without the consent of the community.
I cannot fathom why you would do such a thing, John. That left me in a state of apoplexy, in a state of alienation, and feeling scapegoated. I am now in a Double Bind, damned if I do, damned if I don't, and walking on eggshells. I now fear for the future of our relationship and for the future of the Conversation Community as it resides on the Social Networks.
And so I am obliged to therapize myself in the manner I have employed in these scenarios for the past twenty years.
As you know, my therapeutic method is to write song parodies and comic operas which are reflections on the Zeitgeist of the experiences of my life.
In this experience, I am writing a Meta-Play entitled "The Final Absolution."
You may freely attend the PlayWriting Sessions here, if it pleases you to observe, comment on, or participate in the Creative Process.
I've discovered that there is truth to our journeys. Some people like some places remain in our lives whilst others are just passing through.
I've discovered that many pass through for several reasons but one always stands out: I've gained all the insight I needed to gain in that place with that person.
I find that people and places that stay in my life are a never ending source of friendship and joy, and in the way life and love do, always and forever offering up new insights.
I agree with Pema Chödrön that we should never carry expectations of others rather observe them in kindness.
I wonder if John has not experienced bullying, alienation or emotional blackmail. And is more likely to view situations of aggressive behaviour as one of "not rocking the boat" or "not stirring the s**t."
Teachers often tell children to ignore aggressive behaviours. To walk away, to not provoke, to maintain peace at all costs. This is the diplomatic way. It does little to improve the situation but it does relieve teachers when students leave each other alone.
Look at the difference between how two boys were mentored through their argument in "Être et Avoir" (a French documentary) versus how we in NA deal with arguments - it takes patience (time and space) to mediate.
Pema on Powering Down; Omid Joins On Being; Parker Proffers Poetry; Courtney Says Do Not Ask; A Physicist in Fargo
Sometimes the lead is the anecdote. A humorous story from a Nobel laureate that will bring a smile to your face and other instruction on powering down, offering help, bearing responsibility, and mystical connections.
Barry, as much as it pains me to have you exiled away from your body of work (whether that is from the seeds you planted in TBC, ToM, or CCFB) and in light of the exceptional contributions to the thinking of so many (I doubt any would be as advanced without you) I find it extraordinary how the quality has been reduced or the contributions overall gone stale. ToM of course is defunct. The off shoot also. The conversations dried up. TBC has gone closed. Like Auroville, India, its incapacity to sustain utopia evident. I don't know about CCFB. I have lost my enthusiasm. It's been poisoned somehow. I have accurately described the state of ToM (a ghost town) and TBC (a walled in town). My sentiments of CCFB are perhaps singular to me. And who am I? Nobody really...
The one thing I have gained from being invited, as you so kindly have done, to be part of and witness to 3 (+4 counting the off-shoot from ToM) forums from which you've been a part but no longer, is insight.
There are a handful of people now that no longer impact my life in positive ways to the degree they had done before. I don't know why. I suppose that's what happens to the spellbound when the curtains are drawn back.
I like the quote (in the link you posted above) by Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel,"Some are guilty, but all are responsible."
I also like "bone tired" with an image of an exhausted mother. I know this too well. I can only offer up my sustenance and support as I know how as a grandmother for as a mother, I have known the hollowness of "call me, I'm here for you."
Oh I left a sentence dangling (As much as it pains me)...to which I wanted to add but it's probably not worth the lament. Write the parody, feel better, and move on...
There's no means by which to rebuild. No one seems interested in meeting you in no man's land. I don't know why since we are all doing battle with what Heidegger called,"Still not thinking." But it would seem that your outlier thinking is too far out of orbit.
I remain curious but withdrawn from discussion on several forums (beyond TBC and CCFB) with a crossover of individuals. I remain curious but...
I sense we now have a reasonable diagnosis of the toxic dysfunctionality that you have independently witnessed in TBC, ToM, and now in CCFB. The next phase is to sharpen up the diagnosis and devise a therapeutic method of resolution.
For starters, I propose to therapize myself (with participation and help from any who care to observe, comment, or join the crew of Amis Créatifs) in the production of "The Final Absolution."
I don't mind discontinuing from participation in TBC, ToM, NiG, or CCFB, but I do object to having my contributions there forever sequestered from access. How am I to review and diagnose where things went awry or off the rails without access to the raw data?
It substantially blocks and impedes the diagnostic reasoning process. John wants me to meditate, but I need the evidentiary record to review. My own personal episodic memory is simply not reliable or complete enough to see what I didn't see at the time the kerfuffles were underway in real time.
When I review my thoughts in context, which I do often, I am frequently taken by surprise. What I gain is remarkable. As an archiver of letters, the words I am able to re-read are like a sling shot that sends me to the other side of the moon. The side I cannot see while engaged. Always fascinating to see the other side (of me and of them).
Last night, with Georges, I was sharing with him an archive from more than a decade ago. As we walked through it, I observed that I had then used almost the same language as I have used here an on my own TimeLine the last few weeks.
(E.g. Manipulative Practices (i.e. Double Bind), Lambaste, GERD (i.ei Shpilkes in the Gennecktegessoink), etc).
There probably are others like me, but we're pretty few and far between. At least for much of the time, we are typically alone, in a class by ourselves -- segregated, marginalized, excluded, alienated. Every now and then, one of us tries to re-enter the social milieu of the more typical population.…
The master of ceremonies (Joel Gray) and miss Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli) perform "Money" in the 1972 muscial Cabaret directed by Bob Fosse. I do not own th...
From "All That Jazz" 1979, directed by Bob Fosse. Joe Gideon(Roy Sheider) is treated to a performance by his daughter Michelle(Erzsebet Foldi)and girfriend K...
"The fact is, I am irritated by your jejune manipulative practices, and annoyed by the fact that you haven't yet apprehended my fervent desire that you model your own peripatetic advice."
Peripatetic is one of my favourite words. Put that with advice and it's hilarious!!!
Sigh. All that Jazz made me very sad...
It is what I have seen again and again and again in classrooms, with teachers, with parents...the wrong advice, the wrong behaviours thought to be corrected...
When conversations were sweller And every forum had only one Quellor No need to remember them 'Cause every story told is new again
Researchin' with Google, Facebook crazy larks Noam, bring us some considered remarks We'll rediscover now what they reviewed back then 'Cause every story told comes around again
Get out your thinking cap, your keyboard and mouse Let's go defensive when you encounter a grouse And leading edge thinkers you thought were alone Are now viewed as dogs picking away at a bone
Don't throw the pa-ast away You might need it some rainy day Dreams can come true again When every story told is new again
Get out your thinking cap, your keyboard and mouse Let's go bananas when Conversation fails Better leave Barsoom Tork alone Be an Existential Thinker on your own
And don't throw the past away You might need it some other brainy day Fantasies can come true again When every story told is new again When every story told comes around again
"We may choose to roll over and play dead or we may choose to refuse to play." ~Anne-Marie
Or, as I explained to Georges a coupla days ago, we can Jump Out Of The System (JOOTS). That's a term of art introduced by Douglas Hofstadter and later reified by Daniel Dennett in his recent book, "Intuition Pumps."
Jumping out of the system is actually a mathematical notion which says that if one is embedded, ensnared, and trapped in an N-Dimensional System, one can always add a new dimension and expand into an (N+1)-Dimensional System.
In this case, my plan is to jump to Theatre, to craft a Meta-Play that amounts to an allegory that reprises the Ethical Conundrum and Double Bind that I am currently ensnared in.
Now, since I have less than zero talent in writing plays, this will necessarily be an utterly atrocious and sophomoric work of utter drek. But who cares? Maybe someone who knows what they are doing in the Theatrical Arts will pick up the basic idea and run with it.
If I am not mistaken, John Kellden has also picked up on this notion, which I understand is called "Scenius."
Kevin Kelly explains:
Scenius is like genius, only embedded in a scene rather than in genes. Brian Eno suggested the word to convey the extreme creativity that groups, places or "scenes" can occasionally generate. His actual definition is: "Scenius stands for the intelligence and the intuition of a whole cultural scene."
I am happy to release my new book: The Inevitable. It is about the deep trends in the next 20 years that will shape your life. I suggest we embrace these changes, including ubiquitous tracking, accessible artificial intelligence, constant sharing, getting paid to watch ads, VR in your home, etc. I a...
Comedian John Cleese is taking advantage of the huge tax breaks given to churches by founding a new one - The Church of JC Capitalist. Praise be the almighty $.
"The fact is, I am irritated by your jejune manipulative practices, and annoyed by the fact that you haven't yet apprehended my fervent desire that you model your own peripatetic advice." ~Barsoom Tork in "All That Jazz"
"This has to be re-worked somehow... Peripatetic is one of my favourite words. Put that with advice and it's hilarious!!! " ~AM
Do you have a suggestion for how or where to insert it into "The Final Absolution"?
Let me think on it. I'm sorting out my thoughts as I prepare to head back to Vancouver.
Ah John Cleese. And the whole gang of Pythons. I wish I were as funny. But if I were, it would be a huge responsibility. I wonder if their gift is what caused their personal lives to be turned upside down? The ability to speak such outrageous truths with humor has to be both a blessing and a curse. It seems to me that the life of John Cleese or Robin Williams (especially Robin) is a reminder of the burden and the cost of one’s capacity to capture the absurd through humour.
We all cope with the absurd in our own way don't we? I suppose then we all are burdened by our gifts. The gift to see, the gift to write, the gift to be funny, or the gift to ignore the gifted...hmm.
I was thinking of the years I spent as a child and youth "turning, turning to turn out right..." in the Church. Georges and I were so well indoctrinated (he even went on a two year mission at 19 as Mormons are wont to do).
But...we never did turn out right. To my parents' credit, they continue to love us despite our apostasy.
One of Socrates' excellent exercises was in building a "just" city (Plato's The Republic). I have always enjoyed rereading passages at different times in my life. This seems rather on point to me now...
"Adeimantus expands Glaucon’s defense of injustice and attack on justice by asserting: the reputation of justice is better than justice itself, so the unjust person who is able to keep the reputation of being just will be happier than the just person; discussion of various ways that the unjust can acquire the reputation for justice (362d-366d).
Socrates is asked to defend justice for itself, not for the reputation it allows for (367b). He proposes to look for justice in the city first and then to proceed by analogy to find justice in the individual (368c-369a). This approach will allow for a clearer judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates begins by discussing the origins of political life and constructs a just city in speech that satisfies only basic human necessities (369b-372c). Socrates argues that humans enter political life since each is not self-sufficient by nature. Each human has certain natural abilities (370a) and doing only the single job one is naturally suited for, is the most efficient way to satisfy the needs of all the citizens (370c). Glaucon objects that Socrates’ city is too simple and calls it “a city of pigs” (372d). Socrates describes a city that allows for luxuries (“a feverish city,” 372e-373e). Socrates points out that the luxurious city will require an army to guard the city (373e). The army will be composed of professional soldiers, the guardians, who, like dogs, must be gentle to fellow citizens and harsh to enemies (375c). The guardians need to be educated very carefully to be able to do their job of protecting the city’s citizens, laws, and customs well (376d). Poetry and stories need to be censored to guarantee such an education (377b). Poetry should: (i) present the gods as good and only as causes of good (379a); (ii) as unchanging in form (380d); (iii) as beings who refrain from lies and deception (381e)."
Plato: The Republic | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Plato: The Republic Since the mid-nineteenth century, the Republic has been Plato’s most famous and widely read dialogue. As in most other Platonic dialogues the main character is Socrates. It is generally accepted that the Republic belongs to the dialogues of Plato’s middle period. In Plato’s ea...
I love Simple Gifts. It's one of my all-time favorite melodies and motifs.
Here is a brief clip from Howard Goodall's fabulous BBC series on music, in which Daisy Chute sings the Shaker melody, "Simple Gifts." Goodall then segues into the dance for Appalachian Spring
If we didn't laugh at the absurdity of the world, we would be obliged to go mad, become depressed, or escape into a fantasy world like Calvin and Hobbes.
The GateKeepers invariably go awry. They invariably go off the rails and end up protecting themselves from the inhabitants of the city, who don't want to live in a walled city protected by self-interested and self-important GateKeepers.
Victim and Anti-Victim establish their mutually agreeable terms of engagement. This animation is a parody of Norman Finkelstein's War on Victimization. [http...
That is so sad isn't it? It is why I keep sounding like a broken record. Boris Cyrulnik, French neuropsychiatrist and holocaust survivor has said this about moving beyond aggressor/victim suffering:
"One can choose to identify with the victim of aggression or one can choose to identify with the aggressor. There is a third way out that is love."
Or in my case, turning the drama into a cartoon animation, which may or may not be an act of love. I suppose it depends on whether anybody learns anything, since I consider teaching to be an act of love.
Oh my my yes Barry. You teach and that is an act of love absolutely. That is precisely how I have seen your teaching: an act of love. And that has been confirmed for me over and over and over. Not just in my own learning but by reading so many transcripts with people who have expressed genuine love for your ability to teach them. People who have felt destroyed by a world without ethics.
I know you remember the discussion we had on the Urim and Thummim way back when on The Brain Cafe. Here is a snapshot of it:
This knol reviews and integrates fundamental ideas on ethics, including seminal contributions by Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, John Rawls, Lonnie Athens, James Gilligan, Suzanne Retzinger, Ren…
Many people who first learn of Urim and Thummim think of them as mesmeric crystals or divination dice. This unfortunate misconception arises because of the way the Ephod is described in the Old Testament. The original English translators of Exodus 28 imagined the Urim and Thummim to be physical artifacts (e.g. divination dice and mesmeric crystals) to be worn in a pouch in the breastplate of Aaron’s Ephod. However, it is clear from the metaphors (“Lights and Perfections”) that what Aaron, the High Priest, must have upon his heart when he enters the Holy of Holies to seek Divine Guidance is something more abstract and sensible. He needs enlightenment (insightful awareness and mindfulness) in his left hemisphere, and graceful perfection (empathy, mercy, and compassion) in his right hemisphere, to divine the best ethical practices for leading his people out of the darkness of uncertainty and into the light of God’s grace. Today we modernize the language and the Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology to place the same ancient wisdom on a scientific and philosophical foundation. But fundamentally we get the same answer today as our forbearers obtained three and half millenia ago.
As I was thinking about seeing "in the light" versus attempting to see in the dark (by adjusting one's eyes or with a flashlight), it occurred to me how much you have shone a light with your public postings.
But also how wonderful it was that you taught me the architectural flaws of Facebook. Even though I have been blocked by John to seeing Conversation (CCFB), I have my own Urim and Thummim that allows me to see it all. It's not that complicated. While some people might take on an alias and remain as "flies on the wall" in order to peer into forums and such (as we have rooted out), you aptly pointed to the lack of ethics in doing so. But one doesn't have to do anything shady to be able to read what a billion other people read. One only needs intimates willing to read over their shoulder. It's quite funny really. All that blocking and unfriending...
It's exactly what Esteban Trev mentioned elsewhere. Pedagogy of the oppressed is about making people think they have privacy and think they are masters of their lives. But that is in order to allow those in the shadows to keep doing what they do.
And yes. It's uncomfortable to be standing in the light, the naked truth is always uncomfortable. Yet...that is the greatest joy of it. Truth is what sets us free isn't it? Not self-preservation, not self-interest, not political moves. It is and always will be those who confront their fears and stand straight that bring the rest of us into a movement where light and truth governs.
Thank you my friend for continuing to stand straight. Your methods are hard. Like the hard Zen Masters who put their pupils through fire to soften them up for the truth...
That's why I wanted JK to add Yutial to this thread. She was despondent in the other parallel thread because that thread was missing a crucial piece of information that only existed in this thread. I reckoned that if she had the missing piece from this thread, it would have dispelled her gloom.
Oh yes to Yutiel. I know how she must have done so. It was an act of faith on my part after ToM to do likewise.
I know that I have always blundered when I tense in fear of losing the little tiny bit of turf I think I need to survive. I had to lose my soul mate (though he returned four years later). I had to lose my career and lose the paltry "make-up" job I depended upon for my livelihood to feed my family. I had to lose my daughters for a time when they furious with the choices I'd made "to survive." I had to lose my reason whilst in the midst of a deep depression...to come back from the dead.
Oh that Zen Master -- whomever she is -- has been tough with me. But oh what blessings I have had because of my deep need to learn. I would imagine that is what has brought me to so much gratitude.
Gratitude especially to have had a teacher like you at this time in my life when I am poised to do what I am poised to do in life and love...
I suppose...I would be remiss to not mention gratitude for Jennifer, Stephanie and John whose opposition created a perfect storm.
The theater arts have always been my short suite. If it weren't for these intractable dramas, I would have no material and no motivation to take the Normal Exit from live dialogue in the social networks to Mystery Science Theater 3000.
I agree with Anne-Marie. We determined that we are at an impasse. Anne-Marie and I have unequivocally said, 'Yes,' without hesitation and without reservation to the One Rule.
Jennifer, near as I can tell, has decamped.
Stephanie has waffled and vacillated, saying neither Yes nor No, and declaring that she is adamantly opposed to any agreement or social contract, be it the Null Social Contract, a Tacit agreement, or any Express Written Agreement.
Stephanie clearly stated her position:
"I don't want to work anything out with you. ... No, I'm not working with you on anything. Work it out with John." ~Stephanie Wellen Levine, July 24
Since we are at an impasse within the affordances of the space John has created here, the remaining option, as explicated by Doug Hoftstadter and Dan Dennett is to Jump Out Of The System (JOOTS).
And so I am going to emulate that solution, as recently demonstrated by Ron Scroggin in Sceenius.
I am also considering my options, under Facebook's guidance in their new resource pages on Safety and Bullying, where Facebook, in cooperation with the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence provides this definition of Bullying:
What Is Bullying? Bullying is any kind of repeated aggressive behavior that involves an imbalance of power such as social status or physical size. Along with physical or verbal attacks, bullying also includes making threats, spreading rumors or deliberately excluding someone from a group.
She is half Lebanese. And visibly so. I can't imagine what would have happened to her if we had been living State side rather than in Canada.
That's English for ya. It is also capricious and quite absurd.
