Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Freedom of choice

Expand Messages
  • Gretchyn Lenger
    Yana, I didn t get involved in the last round about freedom of choice because I frankly didn t follow it. But what the heck - I ll try this one. I m not
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Yana,

      I didn't get involved in the last round about freedom of choice because I
      frankly didn't follow it. But what the heck - I'll try this one. I'm not
      exactly sure what you're asking. Maybe the thing is that, yes, we do have
      the freedom to make whatever choices but the consequences we foresee may
      not be the ones that come to pass because in our reality we operate to
      some extent as a collective. Meaning, I don't believe in objective
      reality, I believe there is however a consensus reality. You can choose to
      behave however you like but then you face the sometimes unpredictable
      consequences that this choice sets into motion when others react to it,
      thereby generating a whole slew of choices for the next act. Does that
      make sense?

      Now if you are talking about political freedom, that's a bit different. I
      think when trying to reach a desired outcome, you have to choose the
      action that is most likely to achieve it. I believe the organizations who
      originally led the demonstration in Seattle were aware of this. There were
      many credible groups represented from unions to the Sierra Club. Anytime
      you lead a demonstration you run the risk of attracting people who will
      use it ask an excuse to cause upheaval, and I believe that's what
      happened. The risk was worth it because I believe the message was
      important. But unfortunately due to a smaller group of people - most of
      whom I'll bet had NO idea what they were rioting for, what the WTO is
      really about or what the valid counteragruments are - that message was
      lost. Now, instead of there being news reports abou the NATURE of the
      demonstraion you have a media frenzy over the method gone bad. The real
      information was eclipsed by the actions of a few and a great opportunity
      was lost to educate each other. I don't think it's about freedom at all.
      All these people had the freedom to act as they did and face the
      reasonably foreseeable consequences. The question is whether they made the
      best choice based on the desired outcome. If what those few rioters wanted
      was simply to create chaos, they were successful. What about the original
      group of demonstrators? They lost an opportunity to get their point
      across. But this has more to do with human nature than it does freedom to
      be heard.

      So that's my two cents worth. Granted, I may have missed your point
      completely so let me know.


      On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:

      > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
      >
      > Hello All,
      >
      > while back every1 was excitedingly sharing their theories about
      > the freedom of choice. I questioned all if we were free here, and
      > I got many attacks from all angles. Today follwoing the news about
      > the WTO and the protest against it, I ask again, do we have freedom
      > of choice here?! How is it that people can NOT protest against some
      > thing they believe is wrong and would not benefit people's interest?
      > [please be kind in replying with simplicity, remember I am
      > not as educated as the rest of you folks :)] Thank You!
      >
      >
      > ~yana
      >
      > P.S. to Rajiv: is not hard to read Sartre, you only need to know French!
      >
      > > >From The Exist List...
      > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      >
    • Yana Youhana
      Dearest Gretchy, As usual you responded beutifully and I thank you for educating me sometimes!, you are absolutly right by saying the media did NOT (and mind
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Dearest Gretchy,
        As usual you responded beutifully and I thank you for educating me
        sometimes!, you are absolutly right
        by saying the media did NOT (and mind you, never does) explain the true
        nature of the protest and you are also right about some people being
        involved in the riot without knowing the cause but doesn't that also gives
        us a hint about the frustration people have now these days?!!!
        Also, how could freedom of choice be different than political freedom?,
        don't you think the choices I make as an individual will effect the whole?,
        i.e. I as a very rich person will choose to buy some forest up in Oregan and
        burn it becasue I like to, wouldn't that effect people's life up there and
        when they object to it, wouldn't that become political?!, furthermore, what
        do we realy mean by "choice",this has always been a confusion among people.
        if you look at history, all revolutions started with an individual
        questioning his/her freedom of choice. Thanx again and have a great day!

        ~yana

        p.s. I appologize for some (or alot) of misspeled words.


        >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>
        >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
        >To: existlist@onelist.com
        >Subject: Re: [existlist] Freedom of choice
        >Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:35:30 -0800 (PST)
        >
        >Yana,
        >
        >I didn't get involved in the last round about freedom of choice because I
        >frankly didn't follow it. But what the heck - I'll try this one. I'm not
        >exactly sure what you're asking. Maybe the thing is that, yes, we do have
        >the freedom to make whatever choices but the consequences we foresee may
        >not be the ones that come to pass because in our reality we operate to
        >some extent as a collective. Meaning, I don't believe in objective
        >reality, I believe there is however a consensus reality. You can choose to
        >behave however you like but then you face the sometimes unpredictable
        >consequences that this choice sets into motion when others react to it,
        >thereby generating a whole slew of choices for the next act. Does that
        >make sense?
        >
        >Now if you are talking about political freedom, that's a bit different. I
        >think when trying to reach a desired outcome, you have to choose the
        >action that is most likely to achieve it. I believe the organizations who
        >originally led the demonstration in Seattle were aware of this. There were
        >many credible groups represented from unions to the Sierra Club. Anytime
        >you lead a demonstration you run the risk of attracting people who will
        >use it ask an excuse to cause upheaval, and I believe that's what
        >happened. The risk was worth it because I believe the message was
        >important. But unfortunately due to a smaller group of people - most of
        >whom I'll bet had NO idea what they were rioting for, what the WTO is
        >really about or what the valid counteragruments are - that message was
        >lost. Now, instead of there being news reports abou the NATURE of the
        >demonstraion you have a media frenzy over the method gone bad. The real
        >information was eclipsed by the actions of a few and a great opportunity
        >was lost to educate each other. I don't think it's about freedom at all.
        >All these people had the freedom to act as they did and face the
        >reasonably foreseeable consequences. The question is whether they made the
        >best choice based on the desired outcome. If what those few rioters wanted
        >was simply to create chaos, they were successful. What about the original
        >group of demonstrators? They lost an opportunity to get their point
        >across. But this has more to do with human nature than it does freedom to
        >be heard.
        >
        >So that's my two cents worth. Granted, I may have missed your point
        >completely so let me know.
        >
        >
        >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
        >
        > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
        > >
        > > Hello All,
        > >
        > > while back every1 was excitedingly sharing their theories about
        > > the freedom of choice. I questioned all if we were free here, and
        > > I got many attacks from all angles. Today follwoing the news about
        > > the WTO and the protest against it, I ask again, do we have freedom
        > > of choice here?! How is it that people can NOT protest against some
        > > thing they believe is wrong and would not benefit people's interest?
        > > [please be kind in replying with simplicity, remember I am
        > > not as educated as the rest of you folks :)] Thank You!
        > >
        > >
        > > ~yana
        > >
        > > P.S. to Rajiv: is not hard to read Sartre, you only need to know French!
        > >
        > > > >From The Exist List...
        > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
        > >
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >From The Exist List...
        >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
        ><< text3.html >>
      • Gretchyn Lenger
        Yana, Thanks for prompt response. Yes, I agree, people are frustrated. I think the social analysis of that is a bit more than I could handle. I haven t had a
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Yana,

          Thanks for prompt response. Yes, I agree, people are frustrated. I think
          the social analysis of that is a bit more than I could handle. I haven't
          had a chance to read the whole thing but I think Susan Faludi did a good
          job from a focused perspective (the American male) in her new book
          "stiffed" about the disallusionment with the "American Dream", etc. But I
          think I'm digressing.

          I didn't really mean to imply that freedom of choice is different than
          politics, but maybe that the considerations are different. In terms of
          making choices in a collective, consensus reality, each choice leads to
          "counterchoices" or responses from others. I guess I think of it like a
          chess game (NOT to imply without emotion or greater significance - I use
          this as analogy only). Meaning, for whatever move one makes, that changes
          and hones in the available choices for others. Your example of the trees
          are perfect. When outrageous things like that happen, it sort of steps up
          the necessity that people on the other side of the issue make effective
          and responsive choices. I suppose I'm saying that it narrows your field of
          freedom. Instead of being able to picninc in that forest you maybe have to
          align yourself with the Sierra Club (this is just a hypothetical) and
          begin a letter writing campaign. Not that I'm naive enough to think these
          methods always work. That's part of the confusing blur of being human. I
          just mean based on one persons actions you are still free to choose but
          the consequences of that choice, the forseeable outcome, might now be
          different.


          On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:

          > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
          >
          > Dearest Gretchy,
          > As usual you responded beutifully and I thank you for educating me
          > sometimes!, you are absolutly right
          > by saying the media did NOT (and mind you, never does) explain the true
          > nature of the protest and you are also right about some people being
          > involved in the riot without knowing the cause but doesn't that also gives
          > us a hint about the frustration people have now these days?!!!
          > Also, how could freedom of choice be different than political freedom?,
          > don't you think the choices I make as an individual will effect the whole?,
          > i.e. I as a very rich person will choose to buy some forest up in Oregan and
          > burn it becasue I like to, wouldn't that effect people's life up there and
          > when they object to it, wouldn't that become political?!, furthermore, what
          > do we realy mean by "choice",this has always been a confusion among people.
          > if you look at history, all revolutions started with an individual
          > questioning his/her freedom of choice. Thanx again and have a great day!
          >
          > ~yana
          >
          > p.s. I appologize for some (or alot) of misspeled words.
          >
          >
          > >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>
          > >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
          > >To: existlist@onelist.com
          > >Subject: Re: [existlist] Freedom of choice
          > >Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:35:30 -0800 (PST)
          > >
          > >Yana,
          > >
          > >I didn't get involved in the last round about freedom of choice because I
          > >frankly didn't follow it. But what the heck - I'll try this one. I'm not
          > >exactly sure what you're asking. Maybe the thing is that, yes, we do have
          > >the freedom to make whatever choices but the consequences we foresee may
          > >not be the ones that come to pass because in our reality we operate to
          > >some extent as a collective. Meaning, I don't believe in objective
          > >reality, I believe there is however a consensus reality. You can choose to
          > >behave however you like but then you face the sometimes unpredictable
          > >consequences that this choice sets into motion when others react to it,
          > >thereby generating a whole slew of choices for the next act. Does that
          > >make sense?
          > >
          > >Now if you are talking about political freedom, that's a bit different. I
          > >think when trying to reach a desired outcome, you have to choose the
          > >action that is most likely to achieve it. I believe the organizations who
          > >originally led the demonstration in Seattle were aware of this. There were
          > >many credible groups represented from unions to the Sierra Club. Anytime
          > >you lead a demonstration you run the risk of attracting people who will
          > >use it ask an excuse to cause upheaval, and I believe that's what
          > >happened. The risk was worth it because I believe the message was
          > >important. But unfortunately due to a smaller group of people - most of
          > >whom I'll bet had NO idea what they were rioting for, what the WTO is
          > >really about or what the valid counteragruments are - that message was
          > >lost. Now, instead of there being news reports abou the NATURE of the
          > >demonstraion you have a media frenzy over the method gone bad. The real
          > >information was eclipsed by the actions of a few and a great opportunity
          > >was lost to educate each other. I don't think it's about freedom at all.
          > >All these people had the freedom to act as they did and face the
          > >reasonably foreseeable consequences. The question is whether they made the
          > >best choice based on the desired outcome. If what those few rioters wanted
          > >was simply to create chaos, they were successful. What about the original
          > >group of demonstrators? They lost an opportunity to get their point
          > >across. But this has more to do with human nature than it does freedom to
          > >be heard.
          > >
          > >So that's my two cents worth. Granted, I may have missed your point
          > >completely so let me know.
          > >
          > >
          > >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
          > >
          > > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
          > > >
          > > > Hello All,
          > > >
          > > > while back every1 was excitedingly sharing their theories about
          > > > the freedom of choice. I questioned all if we were free here, and
          > > > I got many attacks from all angles. Today follwoing the news about
          > > > the WTO and the protest against it, I ask again, do we have freedom
          > > > of choice here?! How is it that people can NOT protest against some
          > > > thing they believe is wrong and would not benefit people's interest?
          > > > [please be kind in replying with simplicity, remember I am
          > > > not as educated as the rest of you folks :)] Thank You!
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ~yana
          > > >
          > > > P.S. to Rajiv: is not hard to read Sartre, you only need to know French!
          > > >
          > > > > >From The Exist List...
          > > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >From The Exist List...
          > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
          > ><< text3.html >>
          >
          > > >From The Exist List...
          > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
          >
        • Yana Youhana
          Gretchyn, The Chess game dictates that each move you make, must be to your benefit to win. So, if the available move is not to your oponent s benefit, then we
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Gretchyn,
            The Chess game dictates that each move you make, must be to your benefit to
            win. So, if the available move is not to your oponent's benefit, then we
            can conclude his/her freedom was stolen?!
            If we live life like a chess game, we will end-up
            with whole lot of wounded persons! :)
            have a great day :)

            ~yana

            >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>

            >
            >I didn't really mean to imply that freedom of choice is different than
            >politics, but maybe that the considerations are different. In terms of
            >making choices in a collective, consensus reality, each choice leads to
            >"counterchoices" or responses from others. I guess I think of it like a
            >chess game (NOT to imply without emotion or greater significance - I use
            >this as analogy only). Meaning, for whatever move one makes, that changes
            >and hones in the available choices for others.








            Your example of the trees
            >are perfect. When outrageous things like that happen, it sort of steps up
            >the necessity that people on the other side of the issue make effective
            >and responsive choices. I suppose I'm saying that it narrows your field of
            >freedom. Instead of being able to picninc in that forest you maybe have to
            >align yourself with the Sierra Club (this is just a hypothetical) and
            >begin a letter writing campaign. Not that I'm naive enough to think these
            >methods always work. That's part of the confusing blur of being human. I
            >just mean based on one persons actions you are still free to choose but
            >the consequences of that choice, the forseeable outcome, might now be
            >different.
            >
            >
            >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
            >
            > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
            > >
            > > Dearest Gretchy,
            > > As usual you responded beutifully and I thank you for educating me
            > > sometimes!, you are absolutly right
            > > by saying the media did NOT (and mind you, never does) explain the true
            > > nature of the protest and you are also right about some people being
            > > involved in the riot without knowing the cause but doesn't that also
            >gives
            > > us a hint about the frustration people have now these days?!!!
            > > Also, how could freedom of choice be different than political freedom?,
            > > don't you think the choices I make as an individual will effect the
            >whole?,
            > > i.e. I as a very rich person will choose to buy some forest up in Oregan
            >and
            > > burn it becasue I like to, wouldn't that effect people's life up there
            >and
            > > when they object to it, wouldn't that become political?!, furthermore,
            >what
            > > do we realy mean by "choice",this has always been a confusion among
            >people.
            > > if you look at history, all revolutions started with an individual
            > > questioning his/her freedom of choice. Thanx again and have a great
            >day!
            > >
            > > ~yana
            > >
            > > p.s. I appologize for some (or alot) of misspeled words.
            > >
            > >
            > > >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>
            > > >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
            > > >To: existlist@onelist.com
            > > >Subject: Re: [existlist] Freedom of choice
            > > >Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:35:30 -0800 (PST)
            > > >
            > > >Yana,
            > > >
            > > >I didn't get involved in the last round about freedom of choice because
            >I
            > > >frankly didn't follow it. But what the heck - I'll try this one. I'm
            >not
            > > >exactly sure what you're asking. Maybe the thing is that, yes, we do
            >have
            > > >the freedom to make whatever choices but the consequences we foresee
            >may
            > > >not be the ones that come to pass because in our reality we operate to
            > > >some extent as a collective. Meaning, I don't believe in objective
            > > >reality, I believe there is however a consensus reality. You can choose
            >to
            > > >behave however you like but then you face the sometimes unpredictable
            > > >consequences that this choice sets into motion when others react to it,
            > > >thereby generating a whole slew of choices for the next act. Does that
            > > >make sense?
            > > >
            > > >Now if you are talking about political freedom, that's a bit different.
            >I
            > > >think when trying to reach a desired outcome, you have to choose the
            > > >action that is most likely to achieve it. I believe the organizations
            >who
            > > >originally led the demonstration in Seattle were aware of this. There
            >were
            > > >many credible groups represented from unions to the Sierra Club.
            >Anytime
            > > >you lead a demonstration you run the risk of attracting people who will
            > > >use it ask an excuse to cause upheaval, and I believe that's what
            > > >happened. The risk was worth it because I believe the message was
            > > >important. But unfortunately due to a smaller group of people - most of
            > > >whom I'll bet had NO idea what they were rioting for, what the WTO is
            > > >really about or what the valid counteragruments are - that message was
            > > >lost. Now, instead of there being news reports abou the NATURE of the
            > > >demonstraion you have a media frenzy over the method gone bad. The real
            > > >information was eclipsed by the actions of a few and a great
            >opportunity
            > > >was lost to educate each other. I don't think it's about freedom at
            >all.
            > > >All these people had the freedom to act as they did and face the
            > > >reasonably foreseeable consequences. The question is whether they made
            >the
            > > >best choice based on the desired outcome. If what those few rioters
            >wanted
            > > >was simply to create chaos, they were successful. What about the
            >original
            > > >group of demonstrators? They lost an opportunity to get their point
            > > >across. But this has more to do with human nature than it does freedom
            >to
            > > >be heard.
            > > >
            > > >So that's my two cents worth. Granted, I may have missed your point
            > > >completely so let me know.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
            > > >
            > > > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
            > > > >
            > > > > Hello All,
            > > > >
            > > > > while back every1 was excitedingly sharing their theories about
            > > > > the freedom of choice. I questioned all if we were free here, and
            > > > > I got many attacks from all angles. Today follwoing the news about
            > > > > the WTO and the protest against it, I ask again, do we have freedom
            > > > > of choice here?! How is it that people can NOT protest against some
            > > > > thing they believe is wrong and would not benefit people's interest?
            > > > > [please be kind in replying with simplicity, remember I am
            > > > > not as educated as the rest of you folks :)] Thank You!
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > ~yana
            > > > >
            > > > > P.S. to Rajiv: is not hard to read Sartre, you only need to know
            >French!
            > > > >
            > > > > > >From The Exist List...
            > > > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > > >From The Exist List...
            > > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
            > > ><< text3.html >>
            > >
            > > > >From The Exist List...
            > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
            > >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >From The Exist List...
            >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
            ><< text3.html >>
          • Gretchyn Lenger
            Yana, I suppose it depends on what your views are on spiritual evolution. Most people do operate in the world exactly like this, making choices for personal
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Yana,

              I suppose it depends on what your views are on spiritual evolution. Most
              people do operate in the world exactly like this, making choices for
              personal gain. Little by little, I optimistically believe more people
              begin to see themselves as part of a whole. Choices are then made with the
              greater good in mind. Ultimately, if you believe in unity consciousness,
              you realize there is no difference between people, the separation is an
              illusion. I am not free while any of my brothers are enslaved, right?
              Therefore, choices made on your own behalf are also made for the greater
              good as they are one and the same. Or, you can continually see the cynical
              side of things, feel that you are at war with everyone, see that
              everyone's statements are a personal attack and alienate everyone around
              you with an overbearing dillusion of martyrdom. Have a great day.


              On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:

              > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
              >
              > Gretchyn,
              > The Chess game dictates that each move you make, must be to your benefit to
              > win. So, if the available move is not to your oponent's benefit, then we
              > can conclude his/her freedom was stolen?!
              > If we live life like a chess game, we will end-up
              > with whole lot of wounded persons! :)
              > have a great day :)
              >
              > ~yana
              >
              > >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>
              >
              > >
              > >I didn't really mean to imply that freedom of choice is different than
              > >politics, but maybe that the considerations are different. In terms of
              > >making choices in a collective, consensus reality, each choice leads to
              > >"counterchoices" or responses from others. I guess I think of it like a
              > >chess game (NOT to imply without emotion or greater significance - I use
              > >this as analogy only). Meaning, for whatever move one makes, that changes
              > >and hones in the available choices for others.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Your example of the trees
              > >are perfect. When outrageous things like that happen, it sort of steps up
              > >the necessity that people on the other side of the issue make effective
              > >and responsive choices. I suppose I'm saying that it narrows your field of
              > >freedom. Instead of being able to picninc in that forest you maybe have to
              > >align yourself with the Sierra Club (this is just a hypothetical) and
              > >begin a letter writing campaign. Not that I'm naive enough to think these
              > >methods always work. That's part of the confusing blur of being human. I
              > >just mean based on one persons actions you are still free to choose but
              > >the consequences of that choice, the forseeable outcome, might now be
              > >different.
              > >
              > >
              > >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
              > >
              > > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
              > > >
              > > > Dearest Gretchy,
              > > > As usual you responded beutifully and I thank you for educating me
              > > > sometimes!, you are absolutly right
              > > > by saying the media did NOT (and mind you, never does) explain the true
              > > > nature of the protest and you are also right about some people being
              > > > involved in the riot without knowing the cause but doesn't that also
              > >gives
              > > > us a hint about the frustration people have now these days?!!!
              > > > Also, how could freedom of choice be different than political freedom?,
              > > > don't you think the choices I make as an individual will effect the
              > >whole?,
              > > > i.e. I as a very rich person will choose to buy some forest up in Oregan
              > >and
              > > > burn it becasue I like to, wouldn't that effect people's life up there
              > >and
              > > > when they object to it, wouldn't that become political?!, furthermore,
              > >what
              > > > do we realy mean by "choice",this has always been a confusion among
              > >people.
              > > > if you look at history, all revolutions started with an individual
              > > > questioning his/her freedom of choice. Thanx again and have a great
              > >day!
              > > >
              > > > ~yana
              > > >
              > > > p.s. I appologize for some (or alot) of misspeled words.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>
              > > > >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
              > > > >To: existlist@onelist.com
              > > > >Subject: Re: [existlist] Freedom of choice
              > > > >Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:35:30 -0800 (PST)
              > > > >
              > > > >Yana,
              > > > >
              > > > >I didn't get involved in the last round about freedom of choice because
              > >I
              > > > >frankly didn't follow it. But what the heck - I'll try this one. I'm
              > >not
              > > > >exactly sure what you're asking. Maybe the thing is that, yes, we do
              > >have
              > > > >the freedom to make whatever choices but the consequences we foresee
              > >may
              > > > >not be the ones that come to pass because in our reality we operate to
              > > > >some extent as a collective. Meaning, I don't believe in objective
              > > > >reality, I believe there is however a consensus reality. You can choose
              > >to
              > > > >behave however you like but then you face the sometimes unpredictable
              > > > >consequences that this choice sets into motion when others react to it,
              > > > >thereby generating a whole slew of choices for the next act. Does that
              > > > >make sense?
              > > > >
              > > > >Now if you are talking about political freedom, that's a bit different.
              > >I
              > > > >think when trying to reach a desired outcome, you have to choose the
              > > > >action that is most likely to achieve it. I believe the organizations
              > >who
              > > > >originally led the demonstration in Seattle were aware of this. There
              > >were
              > > > >many credible groups represented from unions to the Sierra Club.
              > >Anytime
              > > > >you lead a demonstration you run the risk of attracting people who will
              > > > >use it ask an excuse to cause upheaval, and I believe that's what
              > > > >happened. The risk was worth it because I believe the message was
              > > > >important. But unfortunately due to a smaller group of people - most of
              > > > >whom I'll bet had NO idea what they were rioting for, what the WTO is
              > > > >really about or what the valid counteragruments are - that message was
              > > > >lost. Now, instead of there being news reports abou the NATURE of the
              > > > >demonstraion you have a media frenzy over the method gone bad. The real
              > > > >information was eclipsed by the actions of a few and a great
              > >opportunity
              > > > >was lost to educate each other. I don't think it's about freedom at
              > >all.
              > > > >All these people had the freedom to act as they did and face the
              > > > >reasonably foreseeable consequences. The question is whether they made
              > >the
              > > > >best choice based on the desired outcome. If what those few rioters
              > >wanted
              > > > >was simply to create chaos, they were successful. What about the
              > >original
              > > > >group of demonstrators? They lost an opportunity to get their point
              > > > >across. But this has more to do with human nature than it does freedom
              > >to
              > > > >be heard.
              > > > >
              > > > >So that's my two cents worth. Granted, I may have missed your point
              > > > >completely so let me know.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Hello All,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > while back every1 was excitedingly sharing their theories about
              > > > > > the freedom of choice. I questioned all if we were free here, and
              > > > > > I got many attacks from all angles. Today follwoing the news about
              > > > > > the WTO and the protest against it, I ask again, do we have freedom
              > > > > > of choice here?! How is it that people can NOT protest against some
              > > > > > thing they believe is wrong and would not benefit people's interest?
              > > > > > [please be kind in replying with simplicity, remember I am
              > > > > > not as educated as the rest of you folks :)] Thank You!
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > ~yana
              > > > > >
              > > > > > P.S. to Rajiv: is not hard to read Sartre, you only need to know
              > >French!
              > > > > >
              > > > > > > >From The Exist List...
              > > > > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > > > >From The Exist List...
              > > > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
              > > > ><< text3.html >>
              > > >
              > > > > >From The Exist List...
              > > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > >From The Exist List...
              > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
              > ><< text3.html >>
              >
              > > >From The Exist List...
              > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.