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

RE: [ishmael_discussion] Re: Mind changing tools and techniques

Expand Messages
  • Christine Kent
    These processes may be mind changing, but there is a ton of evidence that they are mind damaging too (at least LSD). And I m not sure of the wisdom of putting
    Message 1 of 145 , Feb 1, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      These processes may be mind changing, but there is a ton of evidence that
      they are mind damaging too (at least LSD). And I'm not sure of the wisdom
      of putting psylocibin in the water supply - and that's what it would take to
      get a massive change in the population. Could be fun though. ;-)

      I'm not sure that Harry the butcher would get much from meditation either.

      ck


      _____

      From: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip Kauffman
      Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2007 3:55 PM
      To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] Re: Mind changing tools and techniques



      One tool that I know Quinn has even described in The Holy is the
      use of psychedelics when the main character first sheds his skins, so
      to speak, by drinking a strange concoction. I asked Quinn about this
      once in Savannah, GA at a very intimate book signing and reading. He
      did kind of shy away from the direct question of psylocibin or LSD
      therapy and gave a more general answer in support of such substances
      being one of many tools to change our cultural perspectives. I
      agree, from research and experience, which quite frankly is the only
      to objectively analyze these things. Check out Terrence McKenna or
      even that old limey chauvinist Dr. Tim Leary.
      A technique would be meditation and even yoga.

      Peace,
      Philip M. Kauffman

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      --
      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.18/662 - Release Date: 31/01/2007
      3:16 PM



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.18/662 - Release Date: 31/01/2007
      3:16 PM



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ardeith Carter
      Lisa wrote: How would you classify Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace efforts to stop the slaughter of whales Mastery of or Mastery over ? And why? Ardeith
      Message 145 of 145 , Feb 6, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Lisa wrote: How would you classify Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace efforts to
        stop the slaughter of whales "Mastery of" or "Mastery over"? And why?

        Ardeith writes: I suspect the Japanese are operating from a "Mastery Over"
        mindset......that is.....they CAN slaughter whales, so they have a 'right'
        to slaughter whales. The saddest part of that is, I've read that the
        Japanese have many pounds of frozen whale meat sitting in the freezers
        because the majority of Japanese people don't like it, and won't eat it.
        Maybe they should ship it over to Norway, or whomever it is in the Atlantic
        area who also feel they have a 'right' to slaughter whales. At least the
        flesh wouldn't go to waste.......

        As for the Sea Shepherd folks......I'm not at all sure their actions fall
        into a "Mastery over" thing, unless it's "Mastery over" the Japanese
        whalers. Does trying to protect any species constitute "Mastery over" that
        species? Are the people who try to protect bears and people from each
        other exercising a "Mastery over" mindset?
        As I'm writing I have a growing suspicion that trying to protect another
        species indicates a mindset that says, "We know what is best for this
        species," which is a form of "Mastery over," isn't it?

        No one NEEDS whale flesh to survive any more......I doubt anyone ever did,
        except some tribes in the Artic who depended on the smaller whales for their
        food. But no one ever NEEDED the big sperm whales, blue whales, right
        whales for their very survival. People survived long before they created
        big ships that could go hunt these whales in the great sea. And when they
        did, they didn't even use the flesh, just the oil from the blubber, and some
        bone........I wonder if the whalers sliced off some steaks before they
        dumped the rest of the carcass back into the sea.........

        Makes me wonder what the Japanese are trying to prove.....that they can
        flout the regulations the rest of the world puts in place? Or are they just
        trying to keep their whalers employed?

        But the efforts of both the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace put the issues
        right in folks faces, don't they? As did the films of the slaughter of
        whales, or the films of the many pounds of "by catch" dumped back in the sea
        by shrimpers. Films of dolphins trying to escape trawlers nets, or turtles
        drowned by those nets, have touched many people and created a demand for
        more humane methods of catching the sea food so many people want on their
        tables. I found the whole thing so disgusting I refuse to support any of
        it, and won't buy sea food at all. If I want fish, I go get some pond
        raised catfish.
        Ardy
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.