Guest guest Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 My husband's Uncle Louis and his Uncle Johnny are a couple of toothless old Italian guys whom I consider sages. If you ask them about God or religion or spirit with a big or small " s, " they don't know and they don't really care-- but sitting and talking with these guys can easily make you a better person. It's not what they say, exactly, although somehow in their talk of where to get the best tomatoes and who's got a new front porch, deep non-material human values are conveyed, and there is a strength and presence that not only shines through them, but it lights a fire inside of those who sit with them. You come away feeling stronger, calmer, more yourself-- and more able to do what needs to be done, with love. Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice. Their peace is the peace of having done what they knew was right, beyond ego, doing what a loving man would do for life itself even if that meant losing their lives. Their personal experience with fighting Nazis left them with no illusions that " it's all good. " Their strength has no need to crow; they have nothing to prove, and everything to give. Talking about the spirit is not the same as treating the spirit. How are we living, what are we conveying, and how does that come across to each other in the treatment room, or right here right now on this list serve? One practitioner may talk about spirit and do nothing but violence. One practitioner may say, I know nothing about spirit, but ennoble many people. We often use case studies to illustrate our methods. Perhaps we could live our methods here. Perhaps we are living our methods here. If not, why not? Thea Elijah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010  " Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice. "   A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind? Insulting pacifists as wimps without action certainly provokes criticism which would therefore make one no better than the questioned. Dianne ________________________________ Thea Elijah <parkinglot Thu, March 4, 2010 9:51:36 AM spirituality and warfare  My husband's Uncle Louis and his Uncle Johnny are a couple of toothless old Italian guys whom I consider sages. If you ask them about God or religion or spirit with a big or small " s, " they don't know and they don't really care-- but sitting and talking with these guys can easily make you a better person. It's not what they say, exactly, although somehow in their talk of where to get the best tomatoes and who's got a new front porch, deep non-material human values are conveyed, and there is a strength and presence that not only shines through them, but it lights a fire inside of those who sit with them. You come away feeling stronger, calmer, more yourself-- and more able to do what needs to be done, with love. Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice. Their peace is the peace of having done what they knew was right, beyond ego, doing what a loving man would do for life itself even if that meant losing their lives. Their personal experience with fighting Nazis left them with no illusions that " it's all good. " Their strength has no need to crow; they have nothing to prove, and everything to give. Talking about the spirit is not the same as treating the spirit. How are we living, what are we conveying, and how does that come across to each other in the treatment room, or right here right now on this list serve? One practitioner may talk about spirit and do nothing but violence. One practitioner may say, I know nothing about spirit, but ennoble many people. We often use case studies to illustrate our methods. Perhaps we could live our methods here. Perhaps we are living our methods here. If not, why not? Thea Elijah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind? Lonny: It defeated the Nazis-One of the single greatest, and most selfless, triumphs of good over evil in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Ah, please let me clarify-- I have no wish to promote warfare, nor any wish to insult pacifism per se. I have spent many years training in Sufi peacemaking skills, non-violent communication skills, and Arnold Mindell's concept of Deep Democracy (from Leader As Martial Artist). Peacemaking that is in no way suppressive of conflict is my model for healing, in fact, in or out of the treatment room. (I also practice Aikido) I am only criticizing pacifism models which are actually a form of conflict avoidance. There is, in healing, a need to take a strong stand sometimes, and to take the heat that is generated by taking a strong stand. The fight between our own body's zheng qi and an invading pathogen might be compared to this-- or perhaps fighting Nazis on the Normandy beaches, like Uncle Lou and Uncle Johnny. Please do not mistake my criticism of some pacifists, specified as comfort-loving and conflict-avoidant, as implying that all pacifists are wimps. Apologies for that unclarity. Sometimes the difference between peace and war comes down to this: am I creating conflict, avoiding conflict, or taking a zheng qi stand? I don't mean to be overly provocative here-- this is material for long discussion, and since much of my healing work is in the realm of social activism, I've thought about it a lot. I do not mean to preach to you-- you may know more about this than I do-- I am only wishing to make clear that I meant no insult. I am also in no way wishing to promote warfare. To the contrary-- and I am sorry that this was not clear. On the other hand, having fought did give these two men (and perhaps others) an opportunity for self- knowledge and karmic clarity to emerge. Perhaps it was the same for Arjuna. I can't say. While war is not, in my view, something to be sought out, I will not deny what it has clarified for these two men. I've met other men (usually WWII vets, not Vietnam vets, not the recent ones) for whom war brought forth a tremendous clarity about life's values. The difference between some of the the WWII vets I've met versus the Vietnam vets and the recent vets perhaps teaches us something about when war is righteous (zheng). This, too, is a longer discussion... At any rate, without glorifying war per se, I want to recognize these men for teaching me what a healthy warrior looks like, i.e peaceful. Thea Elijah On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Dianne wrote: > > > " Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to > fight > and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New > Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice. " > > A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind? Insulting > pacifists as wimps without action certainly provokes criticism which > would therefore make one no better than the questioned. > Dianne > > ________________________________ > Thea Elijah <parkinglot > > Thu, March 4, 2010 9:51:36 AM > spirituality and warfare > > > My husband's Uncle Louis and his Uncle Johnny are a couple of > toothless old Italian guys whom I consider sages. If you ask them > about God or religion or spirit with a big or small " s, " they don't > know and they don't really care-- but sitting and talking with these > guys can easily make you a better person. It's not what they say, > exactly, although somehow in their talk of where to get the best > tomatoes and who's got a new front porch, deep non-material human > values are conveyed, and there is a strength and presence that not > only shines through them, but it lights a fire inside of those who sit > with them. You come away feeling stronger, calmer, more yourself-- > and more able to do what needs to be done, with love. > > Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight > and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New > Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice. > Their peace is the peace of having done what they knew was right, > beyond ego, doing what a loving man would do for life itself even if > that meant losing their lives. Their personal experience with > fighting Nazis left them with no illusions that " it's all good. " > Their strength has no need to crow; they have nothing to prove, and > everything to give. > > Talking about the spirit is not the same as treating the spirit. How > are we living, what are we conveying, and how does that come across to > each other in the treatment room, or right here right now on this list > serve? One practitioner may talk about spirit and do nothing but > violence. One practitioner may say, I know nothing about spirit, but > ennoble many people. > > We often use case studies to illustrate our methods. Perhaps we could > live our methods here. Perhaps we are living our methods here. If > not, why not? > > Thea Elijah > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Interesting topic, but not really related to herbs. It might be a good idea to end this thread before it heats up. - Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:09 PM, bill_schoenbart wrote: > Interesting topic, but not really related to herbs. It might be a > good idea to end this thread before it heats up. > > - Bill > Before it heats up! Oh my gosh, did you say before!?!? (I'm laughing) I am going to respond to Lonny on this, because I think it is vitally germane to how we discuss herbs etc-- and how we make use of each other as professional resources for the sake of sharing knowledge and advancing the profession. On Mar 5, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Lonny wrote: > For instance although I would certainly define your writing style as > polemical, > > Lonny: I'm not sure this is a fair characterization. It's clear that > the position " Only those who fluently read Classical Chinese are in > a position to determine what real Chinese medicine is " is an > absolutist position. I've merely suggested that there are other > interpretations than those ascribed by one school of thought and > provided sound evidence that this is so. It strikes me as > unreasonable to characterize this position as " polemic " . > I am not calling your position polemical; I am calling your writing style polemical. > Still, as I said in another post I think there is a valid place for > such discourse. > Yes, in measure. If the goal of discourse is, as you say, " to focus what I know and what I don't, what I'm committed to and what I'm not, " then yes, it is very valuable. I do see that happening here. But that is not the only possible goal of discourse. Another possible goal of discourse is intellectual cross-fertilization, which is also valuable. It is particularly valuable in fostering greater community cohesion without homogenization. There is a lot to be gained, potentially, by conveying our ideas in such a way that others are more likely to be able to recognize their worth and integrate their value. In this way we learn from one another. How would we go about accessing each others' knowledge and ways of knowing, in the face of the huge gaps of experience and understanding between us? How would we begin to explore the potential worth of each others' ways of knowing, given that they are perhaps rather foreign? This would be a very different process than clarifying what we already know! If all we want is to clarify our own stance, we are not really concerned with being truly intelligible to our partner in discourse. We are concerned with making " clear statements " by the standards of someone who already understands what we mean (e.g. ourselves). If the " clinical results " we are looking for is to share our vision and to be understood by the other person, we must start by looking for ways to explain via common points of reference, and then patiently work forward together at the other person's pace, honoring the other person's doubts, concerns and questions, step by step along the way. > And, what are you going to do, concede the earth may not be round > because a few people insist repeatedly that it is not? > Absolutely not. I too believe that truth is not a matter of opinion, and reality is not a democratic process. But the process of discovering truth-- and coming to common understanding-- requires partnership in process. Lonny, what made our discussions (or " arguments " since we really went at it hammer and tongs) from 20 years ago so exciting and valuable is that, even when we radically disagreed, we always respected each others' intelligence, and always cared much more for the discovery of truth than for clarifying our own position. We believed in truth as something we would arrive at together, and never doubted for a moment that the other was intelligent, or capable of an insight that we ourselves might benefit from. If we did not agree, we assumed that there was good reason-- that each of us had gotten ahold of a different part of the elephant, and that truth would be best served by figuring out together where the " bridge " was between our points of view. Anyone may have some of the truth; it takes all of us to have all of the truth. Are we listening? If someone says the world is not round, and I want to live in community of truth with them, I must take care that in my engagement with them I do not so provoke them that they entrench even further into mobilizing all of their intelligence to defending their position. Just being obnoxious or insulting or strident is usually enough to make others not WANT to arrive at an agreement with us. It's one of the big problems with " being right. " How do we talk with people who believe that the world is not round so that we arrive at truth together? This is a critical question for anyone who genuinely wants to help foster insight and understanding (rather than just clarify their own position). Thea Elijah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 (see below) On Behalf Of Thea Elijah > Yes, in measure. If the goal of discourse is, as you say, " to focus what I know and what I don't, what I'm committed to and what I'm not, " then yes, it is very valuable. I do see that happening here. But that is not the only possible goal of discourse. Another possible goal of discourse is intellectual cross-fertilization, which is also valuable. It is particularly valuable in fostering greater community cohesion without homogenization. There is a lot to be gained, potentially, by conveying our ideas in such a way that others are more likely to be able to recognize their worth and integrate their value. In this way we learn from one another. Thea, I agree. This is not just about who is right or wrong but also about broadening our horizons. Consequently, I have been going out of my way to look for evidence of a more spiritual understanding of Chinese medicine texts. Unfortunately, this is one hard thing to find. I hope someone out there that has accumulated this data can start to present it. I'm going to put an inquiry into Charles Chace today for he has spent more time with Chinese alchemy and daoist texts than probably anyone on this list. -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 " Defeated? " Just another question. But look around. Please. Cliff Lonny wrote: > > A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind? > > Lonny: It defeated the Nazis-One of the single greatest, and most > selfless, triumphs of good over evil in history. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Yes. And with apologies for previous response. And a sidebar: How much I enjoy being able to periodically check these discussions! Much food for thought for a student. Thank you. Cliff bill_schoenbart wrote: > > Interesting topic, but not really related to herbs. It might be a good > idea to end this thread before it heats up. > > - Bill > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.