Hey Webmasters! Get a free website with holiday themes - Get it NOW!
|
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Relevant text - Sat, 24 Feb 1996 13:29:59 -0500
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 13:29:59 -0500
From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Relevant text
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9602241251.A23638-c100000@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Oh, good grief. Isn't there a difference in being concerned about the costs
of the freedom of our speech, and advocating some impossible "no cost"
ethic? Part of what i've been trying to work through here is the
impossibility of "no pain" communication or innocent, only-freeing speech
- which seems a problem specifically in social situations, precisely we
are forced to overstep our "rightful" positions.
But i think this is not a line of thought of much interest here, or
one likely to be understood. My apologies for thinking aloud. But, Michael,
we're all stuck in our little ruts to one degree or another. I think you
have misread me seriously as i attempt to work my way up out of mine. The
unfortunate reality is that nearly any attempt at asserting the need for
values *can* be used to justify repression.
I suspect that all limits are "fabricated" (at least within the context of
a sick society), and that the "duty" to create and enforce them is shared
by all. And because we are at best struggling u out of our little ruts, we
will probably find ourselves forced to engage in repressing behavior - if
only to constrain constraint - for which we can claim no clear alibi.
If in an honest attempt to work through this problem, which seems real to
me, you find signs of sickness, you won't have told me anything about
myself that isn't painfully clear to me. You also won't have helped me
learn how to live now, in the midst of my own sickness and that of those
around me.
-shawn
On Sat, 24 Feb 1996, Michael Clements wrote:
>
> >How high is the cost - in terms of energy,
> >prestige, and credibility - of this particular message in this particular
> >forum? Is it higher, for example, because of the conflicts we've just been
> >through? Will it be deemed an appropriate response to previous messages?
> >And what sorts of responses does it encourage or discourage?
>
> No pain, no gain. Yes, there have to be limits. But whose duty (I
> don't mean responsibility) is it to enforce these fabricated limits?
> Can't we just ignore something? Who must protect me from what I am
> not supposed to know, or feel (according to someone else)?
>
> What is quoted above would have been a good excuse, rational and
> reason for censorship in the USSR during the Soviet period, and so
> on. This argument could well have been used to suppress and repress
> the new ideas of W. Reich. The sexual energy and feelings WR stirs
> up are the cause of great anxiety in many. The E Plague is one way
> to eliminate this excitement which leads to anxiety.
>
> I seem to read above: "We are in our tiny limited grooves and can
> tolerate no more excitement than we have in our lives. Please leave
> us be in our energy depeted ruts. It has taken us so long to set up
> our energy limited and feeling limited rules and get everyone to cooperate."
>
> "Don't make waves! Please, don't make me learn anything. We already
> know the absolute truth."
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com