From: sylvia m. (max@sentex.net)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 08:25:35 MDT
>Refusing to define and enforce non-violence or friendliness on the
>members of your society and even its enemeys is in my opinion uncivil,
>unsafe and unsustainable.
"non-violence" is not the same as "friendliness" (ie. 'Fight Club" or
occupation forces, or friendly fire...)
while the concept of non-violence has very old and rich and compled and
well documented philosophical, religious and political history, the
concept of "friendliness' has emerged mostly spontaniously in different
cultures. it has not been much analysed or criticized, at least
compared to the concept of "non-violence". however, i do not think this
means that "friendliness" is an easily understood or shallow or simple
concept or image, and can not simply be equated with "non-violence". to
study "friendliness", i spsuectone would have to consider such cultural
artifacts as the use of humour and social conventions for grettings and
gatherings, methods of comminication and methods of forming contracts,
as well as neuro-biological effects of socialization. (i suspect that
to actually do this would require a lot of academic warping and woofing
in the same way that turning "feminism' into an academic discipline did
(i mean, while relevent information WAS floating around, "feminism" was
not deliberately studied in and of itself, and "friendliness"is now in
the same boat that feminism used to be... sorry this last is a bit of a
stretch).
and
i find that in your stopry about the suppression of violence at the
Rainbow Gathering, your use of the word "impromptu" when describing the
leaders is crucial. impromptu leaders tend to be mor communicators and
facilitators for people solving problems, rather than rule-makers or
definers of status and authority.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:40 MST