> ... And given that my host in SF works for Pacific Bell, recently
> acquired by SBC, a Texas-based communications kraken now seeking
> to acquire Ameritech
SBC is Southwestern Bell Corporation. Southwestern Bell Corporation is also a
major stockholder in TELMEX (Telefonos de Mexico), along w/ Sprint.
> ... Thanks for listening to those of you who choose that; apologies
> to those of you annoyed by this.
I won't apologize. I'll just say that what follows describes a philosophical
issue that not all may may ready for (or interested in).
> Human society can be structured either according to the principle
> of authority or according to the principle of liberty.
> Authority is a static social configuration in which people act as
> superiors and inferiors: a sado-masochistic relationship.
Misha, [I've noticed below that you're quoting here, but the point is the
same]. I'm going to have to disagree. To me, this does't describe
authority. Authority is a moral quality, while your description fits what I
would call the USURPATION of authority; i.e., false authority, a travesty of
> Liberty is a dynamic social configuration in which people act as equals:
> an erotic relationship.
I'd call it a creative relationship (a difference in emphasis, not in
> In every interaction between people,
> either Authority or Liberty is the dominant factor. Families,
> churches, lodges, clubs, and corporations are either more
> authoritarian than libertarian or more libertarian than
I'd say there are differences in the quality of one's concept. The polarity
described here doesn't exist. There ARE different givens presumed by any
given approach, but it's much more complex and not so handily generalized as
> All authority is a function of coding, of game rules.
Once again, rules are a map (which describes a terrain), that can be more or
less accurate, and the orientation of it may well presume a given destination.
> Men have arisen again and again armed with pitchforks to fight armies with
> cannon; men have also submitted docilely to the weakest and most
> tottery oppressors. It all depends on the extent to which coding
> distorts perception and conditions the physical (and mental)
It also depends on the degree that the means to ones end is important.
Sometimes it's better to submit to an agressive force momentarily, (roll with
the punch, absorb, transform and retransmit the force, redirect it to a truer,
freer more morally congruent authority; redirect the issue to a more
responsive, comprehensive arena / forum. (This is equivilent to changing the
rules of the game, along with the focus).
> The mechanism by which authority and submission are implanted in
> the human mind is coding of perception. That which fits into the
> code is accepted; all else is Damned. It is Damned to being
> ignored, brushed aside, unnoticed, and--if these fail--it is
> Damned to being forgotten.
It's hard for me to even want to read this. It ignores the above (of mine)
and principles as basic as Ying / Yang. (The heartbeat is a good example -
the diastlolic is not exactly submision - except to a force greater than false
authority, an authority surrounding all lesser or often more presumptuous,
less conscious levels of authority. It's a moment of rest, of gathering
strength, before orchestrating the next heartbeat). Your response (or lack of
one) will be of interest.
> A worse form of Damnation is reserved for those things which
> cannot be ignored. These are daubed with the brain's projected
> prejudices until, encrusted beyond recognition, they are capable
> of being fitted into the system, classified, card-indexed,
> buried. This is what happens to every Damned Thing which is too
> prickly and sticky to be excommunicated entirely. As Josiah
> Warren remarked, "It is dangerous to understand new things too
> quiickly." Almost always, we have not understood them. We have
> murdered them and mummified their corpses.
Some people are more concerned with their place in the context of historical
flow. Whoever wrote this, doesn't fully identify with it. (The polarity is
also internal, dividing him or her).
> A /monopoly on the means of communication/ [authors' italics] may
> define a ruling elite more precisely than the celebrated Marxian
> formula of "monopoly on the means of production." Since man [sic]
> extends his [sic] nervous system through channels of
> communication like the written word, the telephone, radio, etc.,
> he who controls these media controls part of the nervous system
> of every member of society. The contents of these media become
> part of the contents of every individual's brain.
I first read that as "the celebrated Mexican formula of "monopoly on the means
of production." (Funny, huh). Things have changed & are still changing here
though. The U.S perhaps represents a greater challenge and need. It will give
you space if you're "successful", but cheapen your message - co-opt your
heartbeat / force. The system's been so damn self perpetuating, and people
tend to sell out, sooner or later.
> Shea and Wilson, /The Illuminatus! Trilogy: Leviathan/, pp.
> 792-796, Dell, 1975
These thoughts / criteria are best understood within the framework of a given
application. Maybe someone could benefit from it's being spelled out (i.e as
in a manifiesto), but that generally happens in a corrective context.
Otherwise, why bother [to cut down trees and make books, appear in print
etc.]. While the need is there, those that need it may not need to be told).
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".