| |||||||
|
Bio: Tamim Ansary is a native Afghani, whose American mother taught English at the first girl's school in Afghanistan. His dad taught science and literature at Kabul University. He came to America in 1964 with a scholarship for high school. He graduated with honors from Reed College and took to the 60's counterculture wholeheartedly. Besides a having solid writer/editor career, his commentary has been heard on the Bill Moyers show, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, the Opra Winfrey Show, Hardball, and numerous NPR radio stations. This very short bio hardly does him honor, but only serves to put these notes here. His website, complete with list of his books as well as a number of other interesting features, is at http://www.mirtamimansary.com/ === from the Tamim Ansary talk at (Seattle) TownHall May 14 2009 === Tamim said, if I can paraphrase him correctly, that the word "Taliban" should be replaced with "Talibanism" because that was more akin to the actual reality in [Tribalistan]. That is, there were "good"/useful people as well as "bad"/destructive people that believed (to one degree or another) in the *ideas* of the Taliban. eg: If you want to rid the land of destructive ideas, killing "the bad people" was far from the best solution available. On the more pro-active side of things, Tamim said (in effect, I believe) that he hoped Obama would use the military (so long as it was there) for protecting those support projects that the communities themselves expressed need for. These projects would be the actual objectives to be accomplished by the US presence, and "killing the bad guys" may happen only as necessary to accomplish the objective (and probably would, given the apparent tenacity of resistance to any outside military presence). I don't remember if Tamim said the military should also try to initiate such community support projects, but I'm assuming he would prefer they be initiated by those who were the best available for the work at hand. Which in some cases the US military might be (?), at least until their NGO betters can get to each situation in question. Military initiation and maintenance of community projects seems to be what President Obama is hinting at. I've yet to hear more real details just yet [5/15/09]. But from this point, I can see a US strategy that would be drawn fairly directly from the above: select as many towns and villages, and networks there-of, as can be supported in their best interests, provide that support on an ongoing basis until the communities are sufficiently self-supportive and/or intra-supportive as a community network, and protect that community/network as necessary until they can be self-protected or protected by Afghan nationals; bring more communities into the those developed networks as resources allow, keep the network of networks growing and expanding as appropriate for long-term stability as can be managed by Afghan national government authorities. Assist in the stabilization of the later to the degree that it supports a true Afghan autonomy. Set goals for all the aforementioned such that the US military involvement has a stopping point as regards it's interaction and deployment. Provide motivation and assistance as needed for NGO's taking over community/network support roles where this will serve the higher good of Afghanistan. Extending this to the areas that are officially parts of Pakistan should be far less complicated (in the long run certainly) than any military strategy that we've heard about so far. I'm not calling all this simple, nor is it as non-violent and peace-oriented as I'd prefer. But given where we already are (Spring 2009), not to mention where we most apparently are already going, the above can be a strategy that, for starters, may be sufficiently clear-cut, do-able, *and exitable* for the US in "Tribalistan." [-cp, 5/15/09] |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Come home America.” Washington, May 14 [2009] - Speaking on a Supplemental Appropriations bill that would continue to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement: “America went to war against Iraq based on a lie. We were told back in 2002 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The previous administration even pursued torture to try to extract false confessions in order to justify the war. It is time to tell the truth. The truth is we should not have prosecuted a war against the Iraqi people. The truth is the Democratic Senate could have stopped the Iraq war in 2002. The truth is we Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 to end the war. The truth is this bill continues a disastrous war, which has cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers. The truth is the occupation has fueled the insurgency. The truth is the Iraq war will cost the American and the Iraqi people trillions of dollars and as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war. “Don’t tell the American people that you are ending the war by continuing to fund the war. Don’t tell the American people that the war will end when their plans leave 50, 000 troops in Iraq. Don’t tell the American people that the way out of Afghanistan is to escalate our presence. “Get out of Iraq. Get out Afghanistan. Come home America.” Kucinich on Bombing in Afghanistan: "Misguided Military Hand Tragic" Washington D.C. (May 6, 2009) – Speaking on the U.S. bombing that resulted in the death of possibly 100 individuals in the Farah Province of Afghanistan, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement: “While the details of the events in the Farah Province remain unclear, what is known is that noncombatants were killed as a result of the continued fighting that occurs daily in Afghanistan. As we learn more about the bombing, we must take steps to ensure that mistakes of this magnitude are never repeated. Further, we must clarify our mission in Afghanistan. While we cannot ignore issues of national security nor the moral imperative to help the Afghani people, our ultimate mission must be withdrawal. The people of Afghanistan have historically taken poorly to imposed nation building, and events such as this bombing prove once again that a misguided military hand is not only counterproductive but tragic.” Kucinich: I simply cannot endorse a budget ...a conflict which has the potential to become this generation’s Vietnam.” Washington D.C., Apr 2, 2009: Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today issued the following statement after voting against H.Con.Res 85, setting forth the Congressional Budget for the fiscal year 2010: “I am committed to doing everything I can to put our community and our nation on the path to economic stability. I led opposition to the bank bailout program TARP, I worked vigorously in favor of the stimulus package, and I have worked to save the automotive, steel and aerospace industries in America. “This budget is a statement of principles for the upcoming year, and I cannot accept it in its entirety. I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. The Washington Post reports today another 10,000 troops may be sent to Afghanistan, bringing our total number of troops there to as much as 78,000 by 2010 – a more than 100% increase from today’s troop levels. This budget is a plan that authorizes the expansion of the war. I simply cannot endorse a budget or a plan that sends more of our brave men and women to Afghanistan, a conflict which has the potential to become this generation’s Vietnam.” Peace Group Warns Obama to Reconsider His Plan in Afghanistan commondreams.org, March 27, 2009: Peace Action organized 19 other national organizations to petition Congressional Representatives to sign a letter to the President asking him to reconsider the escalation... Our current presence in Afghanistan costs the American tax payer more than $2 billion per month. The proposed plan for Afghanistan would increase that figure by 60 percent this year. When asked about the increased costs Martin said, "Here in the U.S., Obama's escalation, and the continuing occupation of Iraq, threatens the president's, and our country's, urgent economic and domestic agenda." ...According to CNN the suicide rate for U.S. troops has surpassed that of the general population for the first time since Vietnam. The occurrence of suicide is highly correlated with more than three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. ... Founded in 1957, Peace Action, the United States' largest peace and disarmament organization with over 100,000 members and nearly 100 chapters in 34 states, works to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs and encourage real security through international cooperation and human rights. Obama's Afghan War is 'His Opinion,' Says Kucinich Friday, August 29, 2008; "CNSNews TV On the Scene" 1:16 min Video Former Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) says that Obama won the nomination and his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan is Obama's "opinion," not that of Kucinich, who would pursue a different foreign policy.
|
The "Chalice-Scale" represents the bridging and balancing of polarities within each conscious Being. Conceptually, the bio-electric charge of opposites in the universe forms a dynamic vortex of tension, hence the motivation for humanity to evolve. |
The [ ] Momentum - Notes on Hope, Balance, & Opportunity - and Challenges to Faith in Our Potential for Our Transition The mandala on the right is about humanity sufficiently believing in our capacities to see and make the best of opportunities now and into our future - no matter the degree to which President Obama leads and inspires us into such an era (or frustrates us into doing it ourselves) - wherein we approach the world's problems politically and spiritually, internally and externally. The elements depicted represent (parts in) ALL of US. And ...the Eagle recedes, the Dove proceeds, as the Owl see's through the darkness... OUR relationship with our Earth Mother clarifies as we realize our own interconnectedness... |
![]() "Beliefs in Potential «§» Transition" (Large Version & more on it's symbology at World Healing Prayers Page) |
To see the articles that these comments were originally posted with, please go to the (efficient) search-engine-equiped PolyPsy List Archives. [Below, edits of such quoted postings are denoted by brackets or strikethru's] |
|
|
10/25/09: I'll just refer you to PolyPsy List postings (for which the titles give brief summary), "Fwd: US effort to 'extend reach of central government' is a primary cause of Afghan insurgency", "Fwd: ACTIVISM/UFPPC STATEMENT: Demonstrate opposition to US escalation in Afghanistan!", "Fwd: Will Obama become an accessory after the fact -AWOL Bush et al" (re: detainees at Guantánamo Bay & Bush administration's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program). Also please note the posting as regards Iran: "US intel agencies insist 'Iran has not restarted work on weapons design' " In this PolyPsy List folder - Important that we recognize when the media is blowing smoke to stir things up. Which statement also applies to... And for the Colombia/Venezuala situations: "Fwd: Colombia to be focus for US military build-up in South America" In this PolyPsy List folder- Like Nicuragua in the 80's, a state of confusion, if not pure ignorance, exists with regard to news accounts and actualities. Oil is the key issue with regard to Venezuala, burning bridges with Columbia, & nothing to do with drugs. Is about the misuse of huge amounts of prime farm land leading to many starving & poor - economic drain of small countries for corporate profits. This is particularly disturbing given President Obama's claim to represent the poor and downtrodden. Granted, the drug war czars and corporate mogels have had a powerful momentum going in these areas for decades. Perhaps the question is "How soon can Obama effect change here - without getting himself assassinated?" 10/16/09: I have practiced patience with regard to entries about issues related to this section. My activist associates have given up on me, I'm sure. My last entry on topic (12/27/09) was about unknowns. Unknowns can be totally frustrating to leftists who want to really put their foot down somewhere - which of course they/we all do very well, it's just that we like it when we can respect consideration of other's viewpoints. Defining the context and interpretation of *Respect for others' views* can be the confusing tricky thing (inclusiveness without ambiguity) - especially given so much influence by conservatives of context, builders of the "keep it simple" primacy (who spawned those responsible for the "technology" of soundbyte communication), may their warrior gods blissfully shield us from irony and paradox. Notice that I've just said virtually nothing that a policy could be built on, and yet really good leftist politicians can get away with this - for months (this progressive admits)! And I appreciate the thoughtful approach Obama presents... but we progressives have been totally sidelined by the Obama "we've yet to begin, just wait..." approach. Accountability has gone from 'denied' to simply 'not in fashion'. Also notice that I've edited the title and subtitle notes of this Section (formerly "The Obama Momentum"). I REALLY wouldn't mind feeling like I can return that to it's original - or even to "Obama Lead Us To It !" - however, the words, "believe it when I see it" seem to overshadow things. 10/12/09 re: Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy: Things might change in Afghanistan. Well, there's talk of change, at least. ...I suggest Google Searching: Pashtun Taliban strategy "October 12" - which keywords are clue to the involvement of various factions complicating things there (including embedded influence of some Indians that are not so democratically oriented)... Just posted a couple of summaries (at lists.riseup.net): * "Fwd: Afghanistan Policy - 'UnPrepared'" a collection of chosen short postings from different perspectives - which strikes me as very useful for illuminating the current debate. * "Fwd: Summarys & Links McChrystal, Obama, Afghanistan Policy precipitates 'crisis'" - chronological assembly of 3 weeks of those originally posted on the subject by Mark Jensen of United for Peace of Pierce County. * As Needed Reminder: Robert Greenwald's newest video documentary ( on Rethinking Afghanistan ) ... [ Spring / Summer Commentary: surprisingly (?) seldom, but occassional at my facebook page "Christopher Pringer" ] ... 4/9/09 re: "An *Exitable* Afghanistan/Pakistan ("Tribalistan") Strategy" (on this page) 12/27/08 re: "New Kinds of Leadership" (on this page) 12/7/08 re: There's one thing we absolutely know about the future of Obama's administration: And that is that there are so many unknowns, that one has to ask: Why would some activists expend so much energy posting so much half-evidence, obfusticating misrepresentation, and guesstimated extrapolations onto the future as if it's already history, splattering the air with bloody maybe's (if you will pardon my imitative choice of words to 'hammer' home a point), as if to try to bludgeon away any opportunities and possibilities that might lead people to engage their creative minds? Why continue this when given good reason to consider other perspectives (per posts such as [for 12/1/08-2 and Obama's 'keeping the faith of the Doves'])? I'm referring to a very small percentage of postings on the SNOW-News list, at least until recently. [But seems there's one on most every activist list that uses primarily/exclusively this "rhetorical, hyperbolic style that often come across more as tirade than serious analysis" (to quote Jeremy R. Hammond [see 12/1/08-1 below]). IMO, such a style says something more about those who continue in that style than a simple difference of opinion. Or they might be so energized (adrenalized) from ranting that they become free of the pain of that earlier disappointment. At worst, they may become temporarily dispossessed by the habituated high (with delusions of total freedom from pain), before seeping "back into the inevitable" dark mood.
It seems such people would have to be so angry at someone who has long ago ripped their dreams away so completely, and are projecting that anger upon anyone else who would dare remind them of the pain of that experience. Perhaps anything is better than the pain of not knowing and the fear of having more hope destroyed (at least to such people). The cure, according to some authorities that I consider wise, is forgiving the source of the original insult - and dropping the misplaced judgment upon themselves that they are partially the source of that insult. But that requires work, of course - including the early step of admitting that one is helpless otherwise. eg: The original insult needs to be addressed. There are many sources of assistance and relief available for those who decide to engage some hope in themselves towards their own recovery. And they may learn more about HOW and WHEN to trust others (as well as distanced parts of themselves) in the process. [All this is assuming, of course, that the style is personal and not essentially politically motivated, expressly for the purpose of sickening, burning out, or disillusioning and disempowering activists and citizens] 12/5/08 & [L's comment]: "Maybe [Obama is] a Christian, and therefore believes in righteous war...." in response to my 12/4 posting [below], "Feeling obsessive, ..." My Response: I don't know these things for sure, of course, I'm just feeling it out, but...
12/1/08[2] & Obama's 'keeping the faith of the Doves': It might be good, even important, to site Michael Moore's article, "Obama Team Tilts Right, Doves Keep Faith" 11/28, where he quotes Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog: " 'We are in an Obama bubble now. And it's tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble.' especially before the bubble takes shape. '...You've got some people like myself who are saying there may be an interesting design in what Obama is trying to do. Maybe it doesn't fit easily in a neatly sculpted box of liberal pacifist and warmonger hawk. Maybe it's more complex than that.' 12/1/08[1]: Two or more articles for your discussion if you like: ["Obama Pledge on Treaties a Complex Undertaking"], and "Analysis: Iraq, U.S. Would Control Profits from Iraqi Oil Exports Under Agreement". Also to note, given Obama's desire to make headway in Afghanistan, tho' possibly not as central to the topic of Treaties, is the article "New York Times Misleads on Taliban Role in Opium Trade" Keep in mind the source of the latter two articles is Jeremy R. Hammond, the editor of a new web site that seems to revelle in the kind of headlines that Jeremy talks about in his site promo: "...Other sites that do provide content from outside that framework often present it in a very rhetorical, hyperbolic style that often come across more as tirade than serious analysis, even when the information being provided is useful." However, these two articles do come across decidely as serious analysis (tho' I have to admit I don't know enough about him or the topics yet to say he's done a good job of it or not.)
11/24/08: It's not looking good, according to this article. [This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites, And Neocons To Watch For In Obama's White House, By Jeremy Scahill, Alternet 11/20/08] Yeah, I could think of a few explanations (for Obama's questionable choices) that might apply, followed by a number of *IF this* conditionals. And they might even be true. For example, listening to "To the Point" (via KUOW, last Fri) I was reminded that Bush & crew can still have plenty of ways and means to pre-empt Obama's plans [- that is, if Karl Rove & the PNAC gang thought they would need to to maintain/insure control of the most powerful military in the world (incl. via assassination of Obama by one of those Nazi nuts Palin encouraged). For more context, see this. Oh yeah, and then there's the current intelligence gathering by the Bushies including on Obama's communications. I'm assuming my email isn't that important to them, that these views aren't news to any official stringpullers]). If I were Obama, and had reason to think that was a real possibility, I might not want to show all my cards (plans for appointments, planned changes to appointments, etc). Especially since Obama is a poker player, maybe a chess player. But am I just dreaming he could be playing it that smart? If/when I come to believe too many people are too naive -- which we'll likely know more about by next Summer, if not before -- then I'll be back on the "watch out for" wagon. [<=repeat] In the meantime, he's going to need us to remind him he has a mandate to insure accountability. And (all IMO, of course) we need to keep people motivated enough that they can at least shoot for the high goals now and then. Maybe I need to get another prayer for these considerations -- altho' I remember the citizen prayer covering most of this. Watcha think? 11/22/08[2] re Israeli-Palestinian Peace: Some Very astute perspectives on a current issue [re Discussion, Scrowcroft and Brzezinski on Primacy of Israeli-Palestinian Peace; Related to 11/19/08[a] note below]. From one of the local activist lists, (and therefore the id's have been removed). [The posting can be found at the PolyPsySpirit list Archives via the search engine, using KEYWORDS: "Scrowcroft and Brzezinski on Primacy".] 11/22/08[1]: [re: my optimistism on these notes:] My main goal (as far my own "media" is concerned) is long-term citizen/activist health, preventative health maintenance as/where needed. I don't want us to miss any true opportunities to make things better. EG: IF/when Obama truly has something for us (us as world citizens), even in foreign relations, I want a sufficient number of us (American citizens) to be able to respond and help make it happen. One of the things that could get in the way of that is too many folks being overly skeptical -- to the point of discouraging effective alertness for too many citizens. EG: (IMO, as all this is) there needs to be a balance of perspective put out if we don't want our primary activist teams (if you will) going with their most familiar emotional momentums (powerful passionate protesting) - where there is not a true purpose for it. After all, our biggest enemies are ignorance and hate, and not specific individuals and groups (who would have no power unless others gave it to them). If/when I come to believe too many people are too naive -- which we'll likely know more about by next Summer, if not before -- then I'll be back on the "watch out for" wagon. PS: In case you haven't been there in a while, I've added a number of sections to the Machiavengelicals page (as for other pages) over the years -- trying to keep that balance there also. So it's not all (creative) rant as it used to be. For a while I thought I might retire that page when(if?) the bushies left, but then later realized there's always going to be that 30+% of cult/addictive folks who need that exposure so they don't evangelize other sheople (who are also susceptable to machiavengelical power lords). 11/19/08[5] re: Pre-empting Bush Pardons: ...There is a petition promoting this resolution, through which you can write to your representative and senators at http://democrats.com/nadler-pardons 11/19/08[4]: On the downside of considerations... and (to me) this doesn't mean we (citizens) can't effect change (as per commentary w/ previous posts, etc). [re:] "AP: Obama administration 'unlikely to bring criminal charges' for torture" 11/19/08[3]: I think these kinds of things happen more often when you get common sense in hi places. Regardless of what Obama said before he was elected, I'm willing to bet there will be far less build-up in Afghanistan than Obama's been interpreted to actually intend. Hmmm, I'd also be willing to bet there's going to be lots of bets on that. [re:] "Iraqi cabinet approves US withdrawal plan that 'matches Obama's vision'" 11/19/08[2]: A month or so ago, some friends (who read lots of books) forwarded something on the economy. It's sat in the back of my mind ever since, so I did a little research and here's the results- 3 articles about Brooksley Born: "The Woman Greenspan, Rubin & Summers Silenced", "The Lessons Of Long-Term Capital Management L.P." (Oct'98), and "The World According to Brooksley Born" (May'97). Falls under the heading of "What 'they' didn't want us to know," of course. My own 2cents for Obama on the economy and... (after listening to KUOW's "To the Point" Report, "Reshaping the Pentagon for a Dangerous New World"): It's said that in sex, death, and taxes, the biggest weapon or tool, is one's imagination. (Ok, maybe the saying only applied to sex, but who would dispute the relationships? But more to the point:) That especially applies when it comes to the economy and and national defense (or offense). We can save a fight by using our head, not to mention our heart - like most things, they work best when used together. (EG: making enemies is expensive in most every way). That means foregoing (LOW-prioritizing) instant gratification, what LOOKS sexy, and most other image-maintenance. This may be asking for a lot (perhaps a paradigm shift), but it also means emphasis on education, broad-reading/viewing and context-awareness, emotional intelligence, and preventative maintenance (for anything of essential value, but especially body-mind health), AND (education about) the implications of having those as major priorities - personal and communal. That also implies education on the downside (ie: end products) of [previous trend of wrong] emphesis on sound-byte communications, winner-loser competition, glitz-flaunting, as well as the more commonly acknowledged addictions. (I think there's some really great books on all this, including one entitled, "What I learned in Kindergarten" or something like that... Wow, google that!). Part of that broad view might include public radio (ie: KUOW in Seattle Area) which has been including MANY discussions from a broad variety of perspectives on these and related topics, by the way. HA! talk about synchronicity: after I wrote the above, I got this email posting (by Andy Borowitz) on Obama's complete sentences - includes a great Sarah Palin quote to boot!] 11/19/08[1] re Israel-Palistine issues: Here's to hope & prayer that Obama is and/or will be in discovery mode when comes to the Israel-Palistine issues. It took me "forever" it seems to see the light in that regard (5 years ago), even tho' I woke up in many other ways 25 years ago. How many movies have we seen that portray Israel in a light that, well, just keeps us from looking into things? Many jews in Israel (in peace & justice organizations like ours here) tell us that (nationally) they're just not the perfect martyrs they are portrayed as. That the circumstances have been "great for business" of course - oil & weaponry especially. And, in spite of the radical elements that bomb them, they do their best to keep the Palestinians from loosing more rights, land, freedom, and lives. Ok, I'll stop there. [re:] "A BONE IN AMERICA'S THROAT," by Jeff Halper 11/17/08[2]: 3 articles (and links to more)... re: Obama, Civil Rights (especially domestic wire-tapping, Bush-Cheney), and more. As I go back through articles looking for these, I'm noticing a great deal of conflicting 'who's for' and 'who's against' --and WHEN-- the various Patriot Act related legislation since 2001. Seems most everyone in congress voted for "it" AND against "it" (!). Since "it" comprises a complex array of bills over the years (house and senate versions differing in widely varying degrees), and who was trying to get who to get along or trade votes or ... I mean, if anyone can figure out some consistency on this, I want to know. I'm guessing we have to take a wider context. And of course, that means beyond these few articles ... [The posting can be found at the PolyPsySpirit list Archives via the search engine, using KEYWORDS: "Power We Didn't Grant"] 11/17/08[1]: ...if Rove & Cheney have anything to do with it, [Bush will] likely only do a few pardons [!!! as I entered that here, KUOW announces "the first round..." !!! After which I said some things I won't write here...], but especially Cheney & Rice, explaining something like " 'unscroupulous radicals' in foreign countries who might try to arrest them while conducting normal business," but including someone like Rice because most everyone sees her as innocent anyway. I just really want Obama to be a go-getter on this, and fear that he may not be. I'd love him to appoint some "questionables" just so he can "discover" them to be who they are and then burn their... Sorry, I'm just sharing my fantasies. But y'know, Obama could actually do it and do a great job of it. He's got the potential, I just hope I'm not totally dreaming. ...In any case, he's going to need us to remind him he has a mandate to insure accountability. ...we need to keep people motivated enough that they can at least shoot for the high goals now and then. 11/15/08, on strategies in Mid-East policy: a great discussion regarding Obama's possible moves. Besides being encouraging, it acknowledge's Obama's complexity in dealing with difficult situations, not to mention difficult or unscrupulous people. Another strategy-puzzler, Renewed talk that Israel may strike Iran before Obama's inaugural, thank you Mark Jensen. ...something to put in the prayer time. [key point from Mark Jensen's summary: "On the surface, Obama's comments represent a pro-Israeli stance. However, they could also be interpreted as an attempt to lessen the likelihood that the sort of pre-inauguration strike that Benny Morris advocates will take place."] 11/14/08[2]: [bracketed notes/edits added later] Remember McCain's claiming Obama was so socialist? I responded to an associate's posting of something from one of the socialist factions. Here's the quote: "Obama's No. 1 Job is to oversee the ongoing and outrageous raid of the U.S. treasury in order to subsidize major corporations and Wall Street—to the tune of more than $2 trillion and counting. Obama's No. 2 Job is to give an illusion of change that can assuage people's well-founded distrust of the U.S. government." Ok, so... I responded: I support much of the socialist agenda (well, I'm not a well read student of it these days, but there's so many different factions & agendas, so... but I digress. Anyway...) -- this "article" reads more like a "join my church or y'all are goin' to hell" kind of flyer - appropriately long-winded however, considering the source. Which reminds me of some of the showbiz going on at some of the local organizing meetings when most of were there to just get things done. (I know, "digress, digress, digress...") But yes, progressives still have competition at all levels of influence, and there's no rest for the wicked (wear the shoe as fits ...I trust Obama to be Obama, but I'm still learning who that is, therefore am still learning what to expect. I think that for people to act like they have it all figured out before they do is, well, to be selling something. They might be selling themselves, they might be selling their organization, they might be selling a belief system, etc. Some of my perspective on that depends on how sophisticated and/or consciously aware of various things they seem to be. I do my best not to steriotype people or groups, and instead I study the elements of change that engage the subject at hand - what effects what, what doesn't, how, when, etc. I like to forgive, but I don't forget much when comes to certain kinds of things. I learn HOW to trust people by giving them (certain amounts of) opportunity to do the right thing. ...I'm not responsible for their anger - they are. [Here I was referring to certain activists who, well, there are a few activist groups that are mainly composed of those who are habitually angry, mainly because they have been all their life without being aware of it... some may be agents provocateurs, but some are just folks who found other like-'emoted' folks. We all have our crosses... ] And the quicker we get responsible for our own stuff [and constructively express it], the quicker we will be clear about our strategy as citizens, as activists, as people who want a planet that works as fairly as we can create it. We just might make it. Or we'll [damage] each other by choice or non-choice as we entertain ourselves with cut-throat competition based survival TV and other winner/looser attitude-building krap and let the planet shake us off like it damn well aught to in that case. I'm just doing what I can, and trying to give a chance to those who seem like they can help. And no one man, certainly Obama, can do it alone. We're stuck with getting people who disagree trying to work things out between them. So here we are. Related Note & Quote from the Recovering Democracy page: "...As for real solutions, we don't need to focus on, or even have, "isms" in government. We do need to find what works best where we all work together -- instead of calling people socialists or communists whenever they try to keep a governing body from legalizing hi-way robbery or a corporation benefiting from it. Riane Eisler, a meticulous Cross-Discipline researcher, puts it right in (her book) *The Real Wealth of Nations*, where she writes about the potential for economics to reflect what we truly value, quality of life, and quality of the environment, and provides strong and uplifting evidence to backup her recommendations. She "expands the scope and practice of economics beyond capitalism and socialism to a new economics in which equity, justice, and environmental sanity prevail..." ~Morris Dees, Co-founder, Southern Poverty Law Center 11/14/08[1]: An associate wrote to me, "As evidence continues to accrue that Obama is another Clinton I see nothing disheartening or discouraging in simply relaying and posting such. If, on the other hand, you have evidence that Obama is really acting in accord with the principles and ideals of VFP and the peace movement, then by all means, post them. I haven't seen such evidence and would gladly welcome it." I responded: I have evidence of neither absolutely one way or the other. And I appreciate the warnings (I'll call them) about Obama. On the otherhand, doomsayers blaming Obama before we really know anything provide the kind of message that, well, needs to be balanced with corrective, or more complete, or more in context type of information. And I'm one of those people who seem to naturally can't help providing that when noticing the need for it. So, it's not like I'm going to wait until I have Total Knowledge about key people or key points anymore than you will (and thank you). When I pre-emptively post warnings about something, I generally try to have good info, and when I don't I tell people up front to consider the source. Really, I actually do that. I'll even provide a partial disclaimer to that, saying that I'm human, I have bad days, I'm not always as awake as [on] some other days - just like you. Looking at it from a metaphysical point of view: between you and I, we probably provide a kind of balance of info on the SNOW list... [SNOW is Sound Non-Violent Opponents of War, a coalition of peace & justice activist organizations in the Puget Sound (Seattle, WA) area.] 11/12/08: [Written in response to someone emailing that Obama's "winning is due to record donations coming in from the same corporations backing the Republicans":] ... I seem to remember it wasn't actually the *same* list of donors as those buying the republicans, certainly not near the same amount from the same donors... [and] that the difference was significant, if not "pure." And he did get way beyond record percentage, not to mention a relatively high percentage of donations in the very small amounts. ... NOT TO WORRY - I don't plan to drop my sword (of truth, that is) nor encourage others to do so. And I WANT your feedback. But vetted info is easier to deal with - and of course that includes sites such as Common Ground and TruthOut and so on, but I'm very suspect of the Libertarian-based sites - they seem to just love to exaggerate. Same for some of the socialist sites, which is particularly disappointing, especially when they seem to just want to keep people [ticked] off. Which may work for the hardcore, but I run on a wider mix of fuels (emotions as drives), as do many people on my lists, as do many people that I sincerely want to encourage to get/stay active (without burning them out with guilt/fear/anger/worse). 11/10/08, on the Rahm Emanuel Appointment: ...I agree AIPAC has too much influence, but don't quite see them seeping through every crevice. Meanwhile we shall see how much these appointments actually influence Obama - having taking at least two AIPAC folks out of more powerful positions and putting them next to him... [Added 11/13/08:] Who is obviously no pushover, and who has shown himself to be a very astute poker player. (No one's mentioned anything about his chess skills yet, but I'm betting they're formidable). I'm thinking, certainly hoping, this could be a VERY good thing. 11/10/08, on the Rahm Emanuel Appointment: Obama's appointment of Emanuel need not indicate Obama's position or direction with respect to Israel, or to tactics to be used. The others paint a picture with more dire implications/potentials. Already, we've seen plenty of evidence that Obama can use different tactics. Having read Bill's article, I might like to raise the anti to say that Obama is confident of his abilities to convince thinking men to consider advanced perspectives. And having done so, a most powerful message is sent. Afterall, that is exactly what he did with his election, is it not? Also (as Bill aludes [in article that this comment accompanied]), if Emanuel had succeeded Pelosi, he may have become a most difficult opponent in congress. Now he is close by, and will have to do Obama's bidding. [If this sounds a little like my thoughts about Obama's consideration of General Powell (see 10/31), maybe there's a reason.] 11/10/08: There's one more way those things that I mention at the Brass Resistance Page could come into play. Referring to the "In Context" & "Impeachment Myths" sections. And that's if Obama is assassinated during Bush's watch. (eg: we should never underestimate Karl Rove & the PNAC gang's *continuing* efforts for control of the most powerful military in the world.) Obama's strengthening ties with the Israeli power structure (indicated by his choice of Biden, Immanuel, and some others) might be one way to lock the PNAC/oil boys out. On the other hand, Israel has been playing "little Russia" in the Mid-East region (paranoid, impulsive, & heavy-handed) especially whenever their own fundamentalists are in power. I think they just shifted to much more moderate governance. But that still means potential hair trigger situation with Iran. But less interference with a more pin-pointed campaign to get bin Laden without trying to convince people we are winning any wars on people. Tho he might call it defeating hatred, extremism, and injustice -- wherever or within whomever that may be. AND Obama has talent, of course. And I believe Obama can prevail. [He has to if we are to get beyond this critical period he is taking over the leadership in, and into an Earth-sustaining momentum.] All IMO, of course. Thank you for your support. Prayer couldn't hurt in ANY case. 11/6/08: I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this, but I don't know what else Obama could've said (essentially about bin Laden, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) if he was going to get elected, if PNAC & Karl Rove via McCain was *not* going to be re-empowered. And I can't help but feel very, no, extremely thankful about the election. Besides, very few people would've complained if the main/essential/primary/sole target early on was bin Laden. 11/6/08, on *realistic goals* for activism under Obama: I don't think all negotiating has to be "chipping away at" [the opposition's points] -- I mean, there IS middle ground (in a democracy, not to mention the dimension of short and long term [and you thought I was going to say "time & space" But, IMO, activism has different levels of approach, in terms of how far ahead of the populace it can be in terms of what/how much it asks for or demands. On some issues, the best activism can do is get the populace aware of an issue. Often activism can only expect to get that which the populace will immediately recognize as needed/valuable. That's besides all the considerations re the elected representatives. And I don't pretend that's complete, just what first comes to mind relative to the primary point (realistic goals). But I think sometimes we activists forget who our audience is, how to modify the message depending on the level of understanding of that group (not to say that's simple to always keep appropriate focus for). Speaking of realistic goals, IMO, coalition building and maintaining among activists should not have been as difficult as it was. Except that burnout (primarily from expecting too much too soon) was a key part of the dissolution where it happened, as well as a few groups that demanded too much [conformity to their methods, ideals, etc] from other activist groups.] 11/6/08: IMO, Unrealistic goal-setting was essentially, strategically speaking, the internal flaw that brought down the bushies. (speaking of internal elements) Even though everyone else (in the world) knew they were asking too much, the trouble with that - in view of the other republicans - was that they had too much power to resist, and besides, they believe very strongly in standing by the leadership when it's opposed. So now they are disillusioned -- which is the piper being paid, since one of Karl Rove's key strategies was to cause disillusionment, disorganization, and/or conceptual confusion among the voters that would not vote for them -- primarily via reframing of issues and redefinition of terms, and then powerfully marketed repetition with "winner" imagery. All that hammering of their catechism, then they ripped it out of context with reality (in the minds of their followers) when they inadvertantly projected so many contradictory images - Palin's imagery magnetized so much of that - and up on their big-sceen it went, and only their "base" was left. 10/31/08, on Gen. Powell (just before Obama chose to not choose Powell): In the end: Will Obama count on Powell, trust him with anything that Obama should know better to? I have a strong feeling that Obama not only knows Powell's weaknesses, but also the culture of Powell's upbringing and how it influenced how Powell moved through the carreer channels, how powerful white men found it useful to use that to keep him half-aware of what they knew they could latter use against him. Given that, his "plausable deniability" in the Iran Contra Affair need not have been Powell's plan, as I can not imagine that it could NOT have been enforced on him - from those around him. I'm wondering whether the fact of the movement of missles from the European realm to Iran was known *before or after* the Cold War ended (with the secret only much later realized, that we knew the Russians had relatively few working missles of their own, and that we won that war by out-spending and much thereby out-psyching them)? To cut to the current chase (to put it almost literally, given the timing of the book), considering Obama's awareness and P's experience, I'm led to conclude that Powell just may be implicated in past crimes - if he dares to not protect Obama to his fullest capacity. But I'll be watching, and trust many others will too. 10/30/08, on O'Bama's pre-election approach: I actually enjoyed O'Bama's 30 minute talk - about OUR potential. Why I say "OUR" potential is illuminated well here: "ENFP and ESTP Personality Types (ie: Obama's & McCain's)" - from a Myers Briggs Personality testor (and husband of 'Terri', a friend of one of my friends). It's a great piece for helping understand who Obama and McCain is, how they work, what makes them tick, and some very likely implications for the next presidency. IMO, Barack has needed to do what he's been doing in order to get elected. He is the only one around who may open up the dialog -- under the pressure (from *us*) that (I believe / hope) he counts on continuing -- so that accountability for the crimes (many of, at least) will be brought about. He will need protection if he is to accomplish this. He needs a few pentagon experienced friends who will do anything for forgiveness and a chance to prove their real worth. Hence General Powell. He's a tactics man who was over-zealous in his desire to prove, to the point of blindness (I've been there) -- which Rumsfeld recognized long ago, & which Rove & Cheney used to their best advantage. Does he have a conscience? I believe he truly suffers for what he helped bring about. I do know one thing. And that's that McCain would do the Gerald Ford pardon thing for the Bush crew. As far as Barack (and cabinet choices like Powell), I sure as hell hope I'm right. I feel Barack will be our opportunity - but it's still going to mean a LOT of work from us. And that means our input on Afghanistan/Pakistan - and that dialog I believe he will open up (as planned, IMO, if we do our part). The thing is, if we don't at least look for the better potentials, we will certainly miss some valuable opportunities. I know that from the personal healing realm of things. And since *society* is the aggregate of the personal... well, you get what I mean. 9/26/08 Prayer Offered: Barack Obama is Communicating w/Clarity -- for the Divine Guidance that is available to him -- Especially on the points that are important -- Clearly & Effectively to all who are watching, listening, and voting in November. Thanks to God/Goddess All That Is for all who are focusing to increase this momentum.
ENFP and ESTP Personality Types (ie: Obama's & McCain's) This file was sent to me from a very good friend (a friend of Terri, who wrote the following, and) who's stuck by me for over 10 years, and who's also an ENFP (Extroverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceptive). She's a health administrator type, who I've seen mostly on a personal basis, which makes it hard sometimes to fathom how she does what she does in the work world. Except that I've seen her do her special communications thing on the phone -- wow, talk about putting her heart into pragmatic action - amazing stuff.
Hi All, My husband is a certified Myers Briggs personality tester. He found this article analyzing our candidates very interesting. I bet you will, too John McCain is an Artisan, and his specific type is an ESTP, what Keirsey calls the Promoter. The ESTP is, according to Keirsey, "practical, optimistic, cynical, and focused on the here and now." If the ESTP portra it gives you a feeling of déjà vu, it's because George W. Bush is an ESTP, too. They are a common presidential type: Both Roosevelts, JFK, and LBJ were ESTPs. "Artisans need to be potent, to be felt as a strong presence and they want to affect the course of events," writes Keirsey. They hunger to "have a piece of the action," "to make something happen" whether "on the battlefield" or "in the political arena." So many politicians are Artisans because "politics allows not only for maneuvering, excitement, and riskbut for powerful social impact." In a Newsweek profile of McCain, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said, "He's a real player in the Senate. He has tremendous impact." As McCain said to Esquire, "I get attacked everyday because I'm working with Ted Kennedy. How can I work with Kennedy? Because I want to get something done." "Artisans also make everyone else look like amateurs when it comes to improvising survival tactics," writes Keirsey. Their wily ability to make do in dire circumstances makes them "successful scroungers as prisoners of war." Newsweek describes how "McCain survived in prison camp by sheer cussedness." Artisans "are not threatened by the possibility of failure in themselves or others, so they are likely to take risks and encourage others to do the same." That is how a man whose election prospects were dim only a few months ago can say to the Washington Post of the campaign, "Actually, it's been very invigorating, it really has been." Promoters have strong people skills, but it is not the warm sense of connection one gets from an Idealist like Obama. "Promoters are so engaging that they might seem to possess an unusual amount of empathy, when in fact this is not the case," writes Keirsey. "Rather, they are uncanny at reading people's faces and observing their body language." Or as the Wall Street Journal recently wrote, "When Mr. McCain took the stage in Sun City, the applause was polite. When he finished, he got a standing ovation. [H]is ability to sense and ride the emotional flow of an audience is astonishing." Grand theories are not for the ESTP. "No high-flown specu lation for the Artisan, no deep meaning or introspection. [They] focus on what actually happens in the real world , on what works, on what pays off, and not on whose toes get stepped on." This is how you get labeled a "maverick" and "Sen. Hothead." This is why the Wall Street Journal writes, "Mr. McCain's great political strength has also been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological." Keirsey says Artisans "are the world's great risk-takers. They delight in putting themselves in jeopardy, taking chances, facing hazards." (Does this sound familiar? See: Iraq.) When times call for careful planning, or consistent, long-term management, you don't call on the ESTP. Keirsey writes that they "may be careless about details" or "they can be unprepared at times when preparation is called for, and can spring the unexpected on colleagues." "They are like firemen who, having nothing to do set fires so that they can put them out." Barack Obamano one will be surprised to learnis an Idealist. His specific type is an ENFP, what Keirsey calls "the Champion." ENFPs, says Keirsey, are "filled with conviction that they can easily motivate those around them." Champions work to "kindle, to rouse, to encourage, even to inspire those close to them with their enthusiasm." Idealists "usually have a tongue of silver" and are "gifted in seeing the possibilities" of institutions and people. Here's Obama on leadership: "[W]e need leaders to inspire us. Some are thinking about our constraints, and others are thinking about limitless possibility." This ability to move people through imagery and rhetoric carries a danger for the ENFP, says Keirseya belief in "word magic." "Word magic refers to the ancient idea that words have the ability to make things happensaying makes it so." This is the basis of the critique of Obama by his less-soaring opponents. Hillary complains that people ask her to "give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and then, you know, get everybody all whooped up." (As if she could.) Says John McCain, "To encourage a country with only rhetoric is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." Keirsey says Idealist leaders should be called catalysts because "[t]he individual who encounters such a leader is likely to be motivated, animated, even inspired to do his or her very best work." The New Yorker's Packer writes, "Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship. " Idealists are deeply introspective. According to Keirsey, their "self-confidence rests on their authenticity," which makes them "highly aware of themselves as objects of moral scrutiny." Idealists, such as Thomas Paine, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., tend to be leaders of movements, not office-holders. If Obama is elected, not only would he be the first black president, but according to Keirsey, he'd be the first Idealist president. (Kroeger speculates that Lincoln may have been an Idealist.) Idealists are rare in any executive position. In a survey Kroeger did of the personality types who make it to top management, less than 1 percent were ENFPswhile almost 30 percent were Hillary's type, the ESTJ. But the 16 types are not evenly distributed in the population and ENFPs themselves are rareKeirsey estimates only about 2 percent of people are ENFPs. Kroeger says the ENFP can be an effective boss. "At their best they bring a refreshing alternative style to top management and decision making." Keirsey says that the Idealist is the unusual leader who is "comfortable working in a climate where everyone has a vote." In a V anity Fair profile, Todd Purdum quotes a Harvard Law School classmate of Obama's describing his collaborative style as editor of the Law Review. Obama was "someone who wanted the group decisions to reflect the group's intent, not Barack's intent." (This classmate added, "I actually would have been happier for him to say sometimes, 'This is how we're doing this, and shut up' ") Wanting inclusiveness has been a hallmark of Obama's career and his campaign. Purdum noted that in the Illinois Legislature, "Obama made friendships across the aisle" and used his people skills to get some difficult legislation passed. In a speech, Obama described this ability: "If you start off with an agreeable manner, you might be able to recruit some independents into the fold, recruit even some Republicans into the fold." As leaders, Keirsey says, the Idealists possess a "diplomatic intelligence." They "seek common ground," want to "forge unity," arrive at "universal truths," and are "trusting." Given these qualities, it should be no surprise that Obama says that as president, he would quickly sit down with our enemies. He told Paris Match, "I want to have direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria because I don't believe we can stabilize the region unless not just our friends but also our enemies are involved in these discussions." Plans such as this have resulted in Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and others accusing the possible next commander in chief of naiveté. Keirsey says the Idealist has to be careful not to make errors in judgment by projecting "their own attributes onto others." Because they tend to have a positive outlook, they can be "surprised when people or events do not turn out as anticipated." The ENFP can have a problem with "restlessness," says Kroeger. "As a task or responsibility drags on and its mantle becomes increasingly routine, the ENFP can become more pensive, moody, and even rigid." Obama himself referred in a debate to his disorganization and dislike of paperworkand his self-knowledge that "I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run." But as Purdum writes, it is Obama's "restlessness" that prompted him "to take a chance, to aim higherwhen others told him to wait his turn."
|
Back to Political Page (PolyPsyArts Home Page)
To TOP
of PAGE
![]()
|
Back to Political Page (PolyPsyArts Home Page)
To TOP
of PAGE
![]()
Ok, so here's this situation with President-Elect Obama - with his lights out. That is, last night (Dec. 27, 2008) there was a power loss on the island of Oahu, and good explanations for it were slow to come forth. When reserve power options were offered to Obama, those that others would wait for, he basically said not to worry, he had other things to focus on for the time being. Not a big deal perhaps. But what does all this say - aside from Obama's commendably humble attitude and response under the circumstances? We could ask a number of "what if's" like, what if someone was trying to embarrass Obama before the world by making him feel and/or look powerless, not in control, or worse, not worthy of it? That is the basic strategy of typical 13 year old males, but also of the more competitive market places and some sports. It's definitely characteristic of dictator-type leaders, including, it seems, too many people we have known in our own government. I mentioned this to a friend with an eastern spiritual outlook, and she basically said, "yeah, all that and he handled it so maturely." And I said, well yes, he did, and would be beautifully so - if he were the Dalai Lama. But how appropriate was that response for the president of the United States? Have people in the world, in the US, actually evolved to the degree where he can be respected as a leader - given such a response that the typical competitive mind might consider weak, effeminate, exploitable, or "new-age," off-planet/un-grounded, carefree, and irresponsible. But (it's said, essentially that) only 5% of the world's population fully recognize how & why this is true, and actually live according to that world-view or cosmology, while the rest generally a) sees such an event as a test of power and expects/awaits some response (overt or covert) or else believes the tested one does lack power, b) goes into denial to some degree because they'd rather not put their mental and emotional bodies through the worry (while occasioning various perspectives for entertainment), c) trusts that all is working out according to [higher power] and it's not their responsibility to deal with such matters (while occasioning various perspectives for entertainment). This is because many people live by a lot of rules based on tit-for-tat "make them pay so they don't do it again" (or worse, "...so they'll hurt like I do.") The more fundamentalist their belief systems, the more rules about reward and punishment. When comes to raising children, we call this "structure." Most sociologists and psychologists, not to mention most(?) parents, agree that kids need structure - varying amounts of power and control via rules and consequences implied thereby - for different types of parenting situations, for different ages, phases of growth, etc. Again, the more fundamentalist the belief system, the more structure is expected and provided - with adults, in general as well as in practice of civil authority and correctional institutions, as well as on children. I don't actually know off-hand what the percentages are for how many people think which way as far as "power-testing" others, or how many believe what degree of structure is appropriate for what situations. I *like* to err on the side of seeing higher percentages with more evolved outlooks and expectations (towards that 5% that believes structure needs to be customized for the situation at hand, that recognizes when, where, and how things can and do change). But I usually recognize that tendency (to see things like that) as not so objective, certainly at least for making plans "in the world" with most people. I mean, look at how we got to where we can spend so much money for what we think will buy security for so many years (talking about the last 40 to 60), while that same amount would've provided every person on the planet with so abundant a lifestyle, not to mention an abundantly beautiful and healthy environment, and wherein no terrorist (or dictator type) could convince anyone that he could make things better by taking others' power for himself, and destroying anything, let alone anyone. So, what should Obama's response be, and should it be done covertly or overtly? Should I pretend to know what actually effected that power grid, whether or not it was done by a hard-core republican or a jihadist, whether it's occurred once or 10 times for G.W. Bush without our ever even knowing about it, whether...? How about this question: "What would the Dalai Lama counsel Obama to do, if such unlikely(?) advise-seeking were to occur?" Will someone create a play dramatizing a scenario of intrigue around any such events? Back to what I consider more important questions (because addressing these questions might improve how we handle all the above): Will we someday use our power to reconcile, to forgive ourselves? Might we then allow all of our naturally diverse selves to live together - as all people recognize each other person as diverse (to one another in various ways), when we really come to see each other? Or will we just have to wait for an afterlife or yet another round of incarnations to do more balancing-out of things? And what might any one of those look like (believe them likely or not)? [-Chris Pringer, 12/27/08] |
Back to Political Page (PolyPsyArts Home Page)
To TOP
of PAGE
![]()
Obama's Change.Com [Feedback Page] [Another strategy-puzzler, thank you (see Mark Jensen summary) -cp] [Related to "Renewed talk of Israel strike" above] [Related to "Renewed talk of Israel strike" above] which allowed reporters to gather behind-the-scenes information on the presidential campaigns with an agreement that none of their reporting would be published until after Election Day."
|
![]() | Is here and now to inspire the creation of the *real* UNITED STATES PEACE ACADEMY. Courses are now being set up to be taught in the Seattle area [Spring '07]. In the interim the VusPA is here for students choosing alternatives in peace, to facilitates resources and connections to institutions of higher learning for lasting global peace. In utilizing this site, young people can also create a vital and permanent record of their sincere desire and choice to learn and wage the arts of peace, rather than the art of war as taught at the military academies - as well as establish Conscientious Objector Status. |
![]() |
|
|
Personal Quotes on Body-Mind Awareness [ cp, 12'07 ] BODY-MIND AWARENESS, at the core of preventive health awareness, is one of the most simple, efficacious, & cost-effective forms of HEALTH INSURANCE there can be. Hence, massage is far from just "a luxury item," and bodywork therapies can be indispensable for the healing of certain conditions. MUSCLES RELATE TO ATTACHMENTS - to what we use to take our stance, to hold our place, to perceive and respond to our environment, and to extend who we are and/or want to be. Or used to be (in too many cases, perhaps). That speaks not only to the body's condition and function, but to how it communicates awareness of where one is along one's path (of becoming who one truly is). THE BODY IS . . . among other amazing things, a unique communications system -- intimately linked with one's TOTALITY. Establishing rapport with one's body can be a PATH to self realization. ONE OF MY DREAMS is a society where/in all children are taught how to feel/see/read their own body-mind communications such that preventive health maintenance eventually becomes second nature. And actually, for the most part, they would be encouraged to re-awaken and build upon what I believe to be a NATURAL INCLINATION - conscious self-healing and continuous expansion of awareness. And the above goes FOR ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, to the degree that one utilizes them to improve such awareness and causative/pro-active connection with one's body-mind, and to employ the most effective tools for maintaining/improving one's health under any given condition or circumstance. WHY DOES BODY AWARENESS = OPTIMUM HEALTH INSURANCE ? And How does "Body-Parenting" relate to that in Body-Mind Integration ? |
(c) Chris Pringer, Christopher Pringer, |
![]() |