----- Original Message -----

From: david@...

To: appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:27 AM

Subject: Re: [appliednaturalism] Re: lawyer speaks out on nfw, sees implications

Ken,
    Thanks for your feedback. I know following my own "de-conversion" I felt
generally pretty appalled by all religions and spiritual systems. The amount
of damage they've done and continue to do is a challenge to overlook. Yet I
didn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. And a gradual
exploration of NFW allowed a deeper compassion for religious explorers.
    There is obviously something beneficial occurring in the religious
traditions even if it isn't what they believe is going on. Maybe the main
benefit as Gulack claims is encouraging people to make ethical commitments.
But I think beyond that are the benefits of connecting people within a
community and helping them access compassion for themselves and their fellow
humans. This may be included in what Gulack calls ethical commitments. But
one more thing made available is a kind of personal empowerment.
    I'm not sure if the kind of empowerment that people experience when they
live within the fantasy of having an infinitely powerful benevolent parent
figure on their side, hearing their every thought, and supporting their
every good action, is as easily accessible through "natural" (vs.
supernatural) means.... but it has to be available. After all - it's not
magic - it's the results of living within a lie. Living something honest,
sense-able and true has to be at least as beneficial.
    I look forward to hearing about other's explorations and applications.
David


www.davidbeede.com

-The Code of Hammurabi
The oldest extant legal code, Babylon, 1780 BC.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Batts" <ken@...>
To: <appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: [appliednaturalism] Re: lawyer speaks out on nfw, sees implications


> David: Thanks for this profound perspective. There's lots here worth
discussing in your
> post, it's the very subject I'd like to explore with fellow naturalists:
developing and/or
> utilizing a method of paying attention to and deepening the effects of our
belief in nfw.
>
> Ken
>
>  --- In appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com, <david@d...> wrote:
> >
> > I greatly enjoyed that lawyer article. It seemed to lay out the issues
with
> > great clarity.
> >
> > I agree with Jim that altering a belief is a fundamental type of action,
for
> > beliefs and all the values, judgments and viewpoints they imply lead to
> > pretty predictable actions. So to change a belief does much more than
> > altering a behavior. To only force a change in action without a change
in
> > belief or viewpoint means the behavior change won't "take." Reminds me
of
> > how laws are sometimes implemented to try to compel people to behave
better
> > towards each other than they want to, in hopes that eventually their
hearts
> > will catch up with the compelled action. Ending slavery or the civil
rights
> > struggle for instance.
> >
> > I've been following TWC's  suggestion and "peeling the onion" of some
> > domains I've studied trying to sift through what is useful after the
> > supernatural fluff is removed and have concluded that many of these
systems
> > are about managing how our attention is directed. If I want to find out
what
> > my life is about, what I value, I can notice what my attention is on
> > habitually. This can also give insight into the quality of family life,
> > community life or perhaps whole civilizations... I'm not sure. Almost
> > everything can be seen as some means of directing or redirecting
attention.
> > These words on this screen, all media, advertising, politics
entertainment
> > etc.
> >     It seems attention comes in three "flavors" desire, resistance and
> > "neutral." Addiction is an extreme end of a continuum. It insists that
our
> > attention flow towards the procurement of the addictive substance.
Hatred or
> > xenophobia might be on the other end - of course paradoxically, my
attention
> > is then filled with what I despise.
> >     Buddhist have much useful to say about this subject. They speak of
> > desire, aversion and equanimity. If I notice the flow of my attention I
see
> > that it "sticks" to some things, slides over others and is repelled by
> > others. An odd thing is that both desire and resistance causes attention
to
> > fix on things. The old "don't think of a pink elephant." The goal of
many
> > meditations, Buddhist and otherwise is achieving a state of calm
awareness -
> > equanimity, neither pushed nor pulled but present, awake. Its been
called
> > neutral attention. Other things can lead to it. Hobbies, nature,
vacations,
> > exercise, prayer, talk therapy, journaling confession, and forgiveness.
> >     I've noticed a belief in CCFW tends to impart a lot of charge to my
> > attention... which I'm sure is the guilt-blame-retribution game.
Confession
> > and forgiveness were used by the church to corner the market on
neutralizing
> > attention. I find it interesting that letting go of FW also neutralizes
> > attention. As per the Lincoln quote the article mentioned  "malice
towards
> > none." It seems that when my attention is less charged I can more easily
> > direct it, and achieve chosen goals.
> >     I liked the part in the article that said we are free to do what we
> > want, but we aren't free to want whatever we want. It does feel to me
that
> > my preferences are pretty much "hard wired." So the many practices that
I've
> > explored - even though they may not have been accessing the freedom of
> > willed action they thought they were, it still appears that (small cap)
will
> > is real, and like a muscle can be strengthened with exercise - or
refined in
> > some subtle but tangible ways.
> >     Can anyone feel how aligning with the premises of Naturalism effects
the
> > quality and flow of your attention? Has anyone on the list found that
the
> > transition to a NFW perspective has allowed you feel more compassion or
> > tolerance for people you relate with regularly?
> >     I'm of course open to comments on any of the notions I've attempted
to
> > communicate.
> >     Sorry if I've been a bit wordy...
> > David
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Batts" <ken@k...>
> > To: <appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 7:18 PM
> > Subject: [appliednaturalism] Re: lawyer speaks out on nfw, sees
implications
> >
> >
> > > Sonny: Changing beliefs IS action. It's the deepest, most effective
form
> > of social change,
> > > and in the case of free will the least likely to lead to bloodshed.
Free
> > willers will always
> > > have a tendency to kill each other, because they are furious at their
> > opponents for freely
> > > choosing to commit bad acts. We know better: no one has free choice,
we
> > all do what we
> > > must, and it's appropriate to treat each other with empathy, if not
always
> > approval.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com, "Sonny Williams"
<sonnyw@m...>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ken,
> > > >
> > > > Programs designed by people who are committed to eliminating the
concept
> > of contra-
> > > causal free will (CCFW) would be wonderful (like Tom Clark's program
> > regarding criminal
> > > justice).  More importantly, in designing such programs, we better
> > illuminate the dangers
> > > of a belief in CCFW.  That's a better "warring strategy" than what you
> > propose.  I guess I
> > > like action better than words.
> > > >
> > > > Sonny
> > > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > > >   From: Ken Batts<mailto:ken@k...>
> > > >   To:
> > >
> >
appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >   Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 11:59 AM
> > > >   Subject: [appliednaturalism] Re: lawyer speaks out on nfw, sees
> > implications
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >   Sonny: Programs designed by people who are committed to free will
will
> > be flawed, so
> > > let's
> > > >   start with changing the belief, and see what types of programs we
end
> > up with.
> > > >
> > > >   Ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >   --- In
> > >
> >
appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "Sonny Williams" <sonnyw@m<mailto:sonnyw@m>...> wrote:
> > > >   >
> > > >   > Jim,
> > > >   >
> > > >   > Thanks for these enlightening and very important historical
> > perspectives.  Unlike
> > > Ken,
> > > >   I'd like to continue this line of thought because we're getting
closer
> > to understanding
> > > why
> > > >   Americans (at least) resurrected a strong belief in free will
after
> > some years of decline
> > > (as I
> > > >   interpret your summary, this would be the '60s and '70s, a period
of
> > social movements
> > > >   and, I might add, "the hippy movement").
> > > >   >
> > > >   > You seem to imply that social movements during this era,
generally
> > characterized by
> > > >   less reliance on a free will concept (I don't think you said it
was
> > completely absent),
> > > >   resulted in some sort of harm to capitalism.  Greater
international
> > competition came
> > > along
> > > >   (you say, "by the mid-1970s"), and "by 1975 or so, something had
to
> > give."  Both the
> > > "new
> > > >   left and new right argued that many of these programs had been
> > ineffective," you say,
> > > but
> > > >   both offered different strategies.  Most illuminating, you say,
"as it
> > turned out it was
> > > the
> > > >   New Right . . . that had the political muscle to get its proposals
> > turned into public
> > > policy."
> > > >   And, as we both agree, those policies emphasize "radical
> > individualism, which [means]
> > > >   among other things, resuscitating the old concept of contra-causal
> > free will."
> > > >   >
> > > >   > To fall back into my Alabama dialect, "That ain't good."  So,
Jim,
> > here's my question,
> > > one
> > > >   I think pertinent to our emerging discovery of real causation:
"Why
> > did the New Right
> > > have
> > > >   this political muscle?"  Your post leads me to conclude that the
> > social programs of the
> > > '60s
> > > >   and '70s, those which relied less on radical individualism,
failed.
> > Presumably, these
> > > >   failures were apparent to most people, and isn't it also probable
that
> > these failures
> > > were
> > > >   linked to the absence of individualism, the turn toward a no free
will
> > concept?  If this
> > > isn't
> > > >   the case, then what else gave them their political muscle?
> > > >   >
> > > >   > So, Jim, might we resurrect those apparent failures in otherwise
> > worthy programs of
> > > the
> > > >   '60s and '70s, and then redesign programs to eliminate those
failures?
> > Wouldn't this
> > > be a
> > > >   helpful step in slowly turning people's thoughts away from radical
> > individualism and
> > > >   toward naturalism, or at least more toward the no contra-causal
free
> > will concept?
> > > >   >
> > > >   > Can you pick your brains again and try to detail those failures
in
> > the '60s and '70s
> > > >   programs?  Or, if that's not the primary reason for the New
Right's
> > political muscle,
> > > then
> > > >   some thoughts on what gave them this power.  I have some thoughts
of
> > my own, but
> > > this
> > > >   post is already too lengthy.
> > > >   >
> > > >   > Sonny
> > > >   >   ----- Original Message -----
> > > >   >   From: Jim Farmelant<mailto:debfar@g...>
> > > >   >   To:
> > > >
> >
appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >   >   Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 11:51 AM
> > > >   >   Subject: Re: [appliednaturalism] lawyer speaks out on nfw,
sees
> > implications
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >   I would say that the shift in the political climate came in
> > response to the economic
> > > >   crisis of the
> > > >   >   mid-1970s which as those of us who are old enough to remember
was
> > > characterized
> > > >   by both
> > > >   >   rising rates of inflation combined with growing unemployment,
what
> > was called
> > > back
> > > >   then, "stagflation."
> > > >   >   What needs to be remembered was that on the one hand, the
economic
> > boom of
> > > the
> > > >   late 1960s had
> > > >   >   generated tight labor markets which made it possible for
workers,
> > both union and
> > > >   non-union to
> > > >   >   push for generous pay raises in excess of productivity gains,
> > which in effect
> > > >   constituted a redistribution of
> > > >   >   income from capital to labor. On the other hand, at the same
time,
> > the celebrated
> > > >   social movements of
> > > >   >   the 1960s and 1970s were enjoying great success. The civil
rights
> > movement, the
> > > >   student movement, the
> > > >   >   antiwar movement, the women's movement, the environmental
movement
> > etc. were
> > > >   able to get significant
> > > >   >   portions of their respective agendas enacted into law and
> > implemented as public
> > > >   policy.  To a large
> > > >   >   extent these successes resulted in increased costs being borne
by
> > capital.  Also,
> > > this
> > > >   saw the emergence
> > > >   >   of a counterculture which questioned, if not rejected
outright,
> > many traditional
> > > values
> > > >   including the
> > > >   >   old Protestant work ethic.  That at a time of tight labor
markets,
> > weakened labor
> > > >   discipline, especially
> > > >   >   among younger workers, much to the consternation of capital.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >   For some years, capital in the US, tried to pass along the
costs
> > (which included both
> > > >   higher labor costs
> > > >   >   and higher regulatory costs) on to consumers by raising prices
> > (what was called
> > > back
> > > >   then, cost-push
> > > >   >   inflation).  But by the mid-1970s, there was a resurgence of
> > international
> > > competition.
> > > >   Both Germany and
> > > >   >   Japan, which had been devastated by the Second World War had
by
> > now fully
> > > recovered
> > > >   and were once again
> > > >   >   players in international markets, thus threatening the
hegemony
> > that the US had
> > > >   enjoyed since the end
> > > >   >   of WW II. This made it increasingly difficult for capital to
> > continue with its strategy
> > > of
> > > >   handling rising costs
> > > >   >   by simply raising prices.  And last but not least there was
the
> > energy crisis that
> > > came in
> > > >   the wake of the
> > > >   >   embargo by OPEC which resulted in skyrocketing energy prices.
By
> > 1975 or so,
> > > >   something had to give.
> > > >   >   The prevailing social democratic/New Deal consensus that had
> > prevailed both in
> > > >   Europe and the US
> > > >   >   since 1945 began to break down.  Both the New Left and the New
> > Right offered
> > > >   competing solutions
> > > >   >   that broke with the old consensus but as it turned out it was
the
> > New Right, not the
> > > >   New Left, that had
> > > >   >   the political muscle to get its proposals turned into public
> > policy.  In the US, the
> > > New
> > > >   Right enjoyed
> > > >   >   strong support from the energy industry (which was eager to
> > decontrol prices and
> > > >   rollback environmental
> > > >   >   regulations) and from many of the newer industries that had
taken
> > root in the
> > > Sunbelt
> > > >   such as aerospace.
> > > >   >   Many of these industries were much more hostile towards
regulation
> > than older
> > > >   industries which had often
> > > >   >   been able to make government regulation work in their favor.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >   It is interesting to note that critiques of the social
programs
> > that had been adopted
> > > >   during the 1960s came from
> > > >   >   both the New Left and the New Right.  Both the New Left and
the
> > New Right argued
> > > >   that many of these programs
> > > >   >   had been ineffective but they proposed different kinds of
> > alternatives to them.
> > > Radical
> > > >   leftists, not surprisingly
> > > >   >   argued that the answer was to push beyond what they saw as the
> > tepid social
> > > >   democracy of the post-WW II
> > > >   >   era on to a full-blown socialism. People on the New Right,
turned
> > to economic
> > > thinkers
> > > >   like Friedrich Hayek,
> > > >   >   Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman to argue that what was
> > needed was to end
> > > >   price-wage controls,
> > > >   >   deregulate industries, rollback the welfare state, and in
Europe,
> > to privatize state-
> > > >   owned industries. The
> > > >   >   New Right sought to resurrect the ideology of radical
> > individualism  which meant
> > > >   among other things,
> > > >   >   resuscitating the old concept of contracausal free will.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     ----- Original Message -----
> > > >   >     From: Sonny Williams<mailto:sonnyw@m...>
> > > >   >     To:
> > > >
> >
appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >   >     Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 11:25 AM
> > > >   >     Subject: Re: [appliednaturalism] lawyer speaks out on nfw,
sees
> > implications
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     Jim,
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     I don't disagree with your comments here, but they beg the
> > important question
> > > of...
> > > >   why "the political climate began to shift rightwards after the
> > mid-1970s."  I believe you
> > > >   correctly recount the problems with this shift ("retributive
approach
> > . . poverty as the
> > > >   fault of the poor"), but why did the shift occur?  That's a whole
> > different question than,
> > > >   "What was its effect?"  Isn't finding the source of the shift
> > important to reversing it?
> > > And in
> > > >   determining why people's attitudes changed for the worse, we
should
> > avoid falling into
> > > the
> > > >   trap of attributing it to some sort of free will.  There was a
cause
> > for the shift in
> > > people's
> > > >   attitudes.  What was it?
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     Here, I can only imagine an answer, say a rising frustration
> > with inadequate
> > > >   rehabilitation efforts, maybe leading to an increase in
recidivism, a
> > particularly heinous
> > > >   repeat offender, or, perhaps, a growing trend toward excessive
> > leniency and
> > > >   permissiveness, with (again) socially harmful results.  While we
> > naturalists eschew
> > > >   retribution because it stems from a false belief in contra-causal
free
> > will, we do not
> > > >   eschew effective social control via rewards and sanctions.  Were
those
> > social controls
> > > >   perceived as defective?  And remember, the public's perceptions
(right
> > or wrong)
> > > sprang
> > > >   from something, had some cause.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     I'm belaboring this point, this attempt to persuade us not
to
> > accuse our
> > > "adversaries"
> > > >   of taking action of their own free will.  Frankly, I see that too
> > often when we cite the
> > > bad
> > > >   social programs espoused by people who believe in free will.  They
> > were caused to
> > > believe
> > > >   it, so what caused it?
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     Similarly, I've seen few laws passed without some cause,
some
> > basis (rightly or
> > > >   wrongly considered).  New Jersey's law preventing the introduction
of
> > the no free will
> > > >   concept must have sprung from something.  Why was it passed?  Most
> > state
> > > legislatures
> > > >   have excellent records, so a study of what the New Jersey
legislators
> > said before
> > > passing
> > > >   this law would be helpful.  And such research does not require
legal
> > training.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     (As an aside, everyone should read the Congressional record
> > regarding the U.S.
> > > >   Constitution's treatment of slavery, and the similar record in
passing
> > the 14th
> > > >   Amendment.  You'll find damning evidence against Southern
theocrats,
> > those arguing
> > > that
> > > >   the Bible supported slavery.  Those wanting to recant the 14th
> > Amendment's
> > > application of
> > > >   the Bill of Rights to the states, especially separation of church
and
> > state, will forever
> > > have
> > > >   their argument tainted with the blood of slavery.)
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     Does anyone know the proper/legal citation for the New
Jersey
> > statute in
> > > question?
> > > >   And if it's not a statute but a legal decision, does anyone know
the
> > proper citation?
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     Sonny
> > > >   >       ----- Original Message -----
> > > >   >       From: Jim Farmelant<mailto:debfar@g...>
> > > >   >       To:
> > > >
> >
appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >   >       Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:24 PM
> > > >   >       Subject: Re: [appliednaturalism] lawyer speaks out on nfw,
> > sees implications
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >       Robert Gulack wrote in his article:
> > > >   >
> > > >   >       "I went to law school at Columbia and Yale in the 1980's.
> > When I raised this
> > > issue,
> > > >   my law professors told me, "Everyone used to talk that way in the
> > 60's."  Obviously, no
> > > one
> > > >   talks that way anymore."
> > > >   >
> > > >   >       That to my mind raises the question as to what happened
after
> > the 1960s so that
> > > >   people including jurists and law professors stopped talking that
way,
> > or in other
> > > words,
> > > >   why was American society a bit more hospitable to determinist
> > explanations of
> > > behavior
> > > >   including criminal and deviant behavior, up through the 1960s but
less
> > hospitable
> > > >   afterwards.  I think the answer is that determinist explanations
were
> > seen, quite
> > > correctly,
> > > >   as promoting a more favorable climate for a more social democratic
> > approach to social
> > > >   problems. In other words, determinism was seen as favoring
approaches
> > to crime that
> > > >   place emphasis on rehabilitating offenders and upon prevention of
> > crime in the first
> > > place
> > > >   through efforts at reducing poverty, unemployment, racial
> > discrimination etc. When the
> > > >   political climate began to shift rightwards after the mid-1970s
such
> > that efforts began
> > > to
> > > >   be made to scale back the welfare state, determinist explanations
too
> > came to be
> > > rejected
> > > >   and contracausal free will came back into favor. In other words,
if we
> > were not going to
> > > try
> > > >   to rehabilitate criminals anymore nor do much about prevention and
if
> > were not going
> > > to
> > > >   try to eliminate poverty then all these changes in the direction
of
> > public policy would
> > > be
> > > >   best justified by going back to an ideology that emphasizes a
> > retributivist approach to
> > > >   punishing criminals and which views poverty as the fault of the
poor.
> > That is from the
> > > >   mid-1970s on, we saw a concerted effort to resuurect the old
ideology
> > of radical
> > > >   individualism, and that ideology was based on the presupposition
of
> > free will.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >         ----- Original Message -----
> > > >   >         From: twclark2002<mailto:twc@n...>
> > > >   >         To:
> > > >
> >
appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >   >         Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:58 PM
> > > >   >         Subject: [appliednaturalism] lawyer speaks out on nfw,
sees
> > implications
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >         Over at the philosophy forum, Steve (philosopherknight)
> > suggested we
> > > >   >         read this:
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=34/Free_Will.htm<http://
> > >
wwwethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=34/Free_Will.htm><http://<http:///>
> > > >   wwwethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=34/Free_Will.htm>
> > > >   >
> > > >   >         Many thanks Steve, this is quite good indeed and it's
always
> > > >   >         encouraging to discover like-minded proponents of nfw.
The
> > author,
> > > >   >         who was addressing the Ethical Culture Society of Bergen
> > County, NJ,
> > > >   >         has dug up some excellent and (to me) new citations of
those
> > > >   >         skeptical of contra-causal freedom, plus he draws the
right
> > > >   >         conclusions about what nfw implies for our attitudes and
for
> > policy.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >         What also caught my attention was the fact that it's
illegal
> > in New
> > > >   >         Jersey to raise the nfw defense at trial.  If so, this
seems
> > > >   >         unconstitutional, since it rules out of court
(literally) a
> > > >   >         scientifically supported truth about ourselves.  As the
> > author
> > > >   >         says "This is a violation of the constitutional rights
of
> > the
> > > >   >         citizens of New Jersey to free speech and representation
by
> > > >   >         counsel.  It's also an unconstitutional imposition of
the
> > religious
> > > >   >         dogma of free will upon the courts and defendants of New
> > Jersey."
> > > >   >
> > > >   >         To challenge this law would make a nice legal case
relevant
> > to our
> > > >   >         mission, right?
> > > >   >
> > > >   >         Tom
> > > >   >         CFN
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >     SPONSORED LINKS Philosophy make
> > up<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?<http://
> > > groups.yahoo.com/gads?>
> > > >   t=ms&k=Philosophy+make+up&w1=Philosophy+make+up&w2=Philosophy
> +beauty
> > > >   +product&w3=Philosophy&w4=Philosophy+beauty&w5=Philosophy
> > > +of&w6=Philosophy
> > > >   +amazing+grace&c=6&s=143&sig=jrtOD1n0UrFqlaP-WH5eOg>  Philosophy
> > beauty
> > > >
product<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+beauty<http://
> > > groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+beauty>
> > > >   +product&w1=Philosophy+make+up&w2=Philosophy+beauty
> > > >   +product&w3=Philosophy&w4=Philosophy+beauty&w5=Philosophy
> > > +of&w6=Philosophy
> > > >   +amazing+grace&c=6&s=143&.sig=IIr6Qn4Vuke3CDqsaNwcow>
> > Philosophy<http://
> > > <http:///>
> > > >   groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy&w1=Philosophy+make
> > > +up&w2=Philosophy
> > > >   +beauty+product&w3=Philosophy&w4=Philosophy+beauty&w5=Philosophy
> > > >   +of&w6=Philosophy+amazing
> +grace&c=6&s=143&sig=0OScAbksENukYtCspevT3w>
> > > >   >           Philosophy beauty<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > t=ms&k=Philosophy<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy>
> > > >   +beauty&w1=Philosophy+make+up&w2=Philosophy+beauty
> > > >   +product&w3=Philosophy&w4=Philosophy+beauty&w5=Philosophy
> > > +of&w6=Philosophy
> > > >   +amazing+grace&c=6&s=143&.sig=rq4mTcyfQ59Qiy328F81lg>  Philosophy
> > > of<http://<http:///>
> > > >   groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+of&w1=Philosophy+make
> > > >   +up&w2=Philosophy+beauty+product&w3=Philosophy&w4=Philosophy
> > > >   +beauty&w5=Philosophy+of&w6=Philosophy+amazing
> > > >   +grace&c=6&s=143&.sig=bYgRAbQm0vF-wiwyLgRAig>  Philosophy amazing
> > > >
grace<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+amazing<http://
> > > groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Philosophy+amazing>
> > > >   +grace&w1=Philosophy+make+up&w2=Philosophy+beauty
> > > >   +product&w3=Philosophy&w4=Philosophy+beauty&w5=Philosophy
> > > +of&w6=Philosophy
> > > >   +amazing+grace&c=6&s=143&.sig=Ql8NK-_eph4o0z_gFV_JEw>
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > >   >     YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >   >
> > > >   >       a..  Visit your group
> > "appliednaturalism<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>
> > > >   appliednaturalism>" on the web.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >       b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >   >
> > appliednaturalism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism-
> > > >   unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >   >
> > > >   >       c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> > of Service<http://
> > > <http:///>
> > > >   docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >   >
> > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > >   >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > --
> > > >   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > >     a..  Visit your group
> > "appliednaturalism<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
> > > appliednaturalism>" on the web.
> > > >
> > > >     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >
> > appliednaturalism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:appliednaturalism-
> > > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > >     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service<http://
> > > docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>