What is Anarchistic Judaism?
This question was recently posed to me. The article on the link below is my level best tentative response, in so far as I am currently able to answer this very difficult question.
http://tinyurl.com/syelf
The Hebrew version of this essay entitled, not surprisingly,
?מהי יהדות אנרכיסטית is to be found on the following URL: http://tinyurl.com/ulcan
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Monday, September 18, 2006
Possible Way to Defeat Radical Islam
As background to this post, I'd like to turn the readers' attention to an absolutely stunning video entitled "Obsession". If you have not seen it; I recommend that you set aside one hour and seventeen minutes and see some of the most nitty-gritty footage of radical Islam ever assembled. The video is to be found on this URL:http://tinyurl.com/sxkov
I discussed the Obsession video with others.They watched part of it and want to see the rest when they have time.
One of them, kidding, said: "Guess we'll have to become Muslims."
A light went on when he said that.
YES!
That may just be the only way to beat them.
Just as they have infiltrated our countries; we must infiltrate their Islam by "converting" and destroy if from within.
With a flood of phony converts who undermine Islam from within we can destroy Islam. Their "religion" will never be the same if millions of Western people intent on uprooting Islam feign conversion.
I believe that the churches weakened themselves by forcing conversion.
There were many converts who talked the talk, but they never were Christians inside and their mass effect over generations weakened the power structure of the churches.
As we know, any Jewish "Conversos" who were forcibly converted in Spain and Portugal pretended to be Catholics, but they undermined the religion and secretly passed Jewish teachings on to their children and they to their children and so on. Today there are families in the Spanish-speaking world who were converted over 500 years ago to Catholicism by force who are returning to their Jewish roots.
Armed warfare with Islam is impossible. They are in every country and their armies are massive.
The only way to beat them is from within.
Understand that I mean this as a last resort. I am certainly not running off to my nearest mosque for a quicky conversion, but if Armeggedon comes; I think this may be the best way to deal with the situation.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
__________________
As background to this post, I'd like to turn the readers' attention to an absolutely stunning video entitled "Obsession". If you have not seen it; I recommend that you set aside one hour and seventeen minutes and see some of the most nitty-gritty footage of radical Islam ever assembled. The video is to be found on this URL:http://tinyurl.com/sxkov
I discussed the Obsession video with others.They watched part of it and want to see the rest when they have time.
One of them, kidding, said: "Guess we'll have to become Muslims."
A light went on when he said that.
YES!
That may just be the only way to beat them.
Just as they have infiltrated our countries; we must infiltrate their Islam by "converting" and destroy if from within.
With a flood of phony converts who undermine Islam from within we can destroy Islam. Their "religion" will never be the same if millions of Western people intent on uprooting Islam feign conversion.
I believe that the churches weakened themselves by forcing conversion.
There were many converts who talked the talk, but they never were Christians inside and their mass effect over generations weakened the power structure of the churches.
As we know, any Jewish "Conversos" who were forcibly converted in Spain and Portugal pretended to be Catholics, but they undermined the religion and secretly passed Jewish teachings on to their children and they to their children and so on. Today there are families in the Spanish-speaking world who were converted over 500 years ago to Catholicism by force who are returning to their Jewish roots.
Armed warfare with Islam is impossible. They are in every country and their armies are massive.
The only way to beat them is from within.
Understand that I mean this as a last resort. I am certainly not running off to my nearest mosque for a quicky conversion, but if Armeggedon comes; I think this may be the best way to deal with the situation.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
__________________
Ontological Anarchy, Quantum Physics and Judaism
As background to Ontological Anarchy please see:
http://tinyurl.com/mxyrl
Having considered the concepts of Ontological Anarchy and Quantum Physics, at least briefly; we can now tie them to Judaism.
It might seem that if we accept that Anarchy is ontological then we have to reject the set Laws in Torah. Or, if we accept that the universe is ruled by the Laws in Torah, then we cannot posit ontological Anarchy.
One or the other needs to go. Right? I think not.
Remember that all of the letters in Hebrew are numerical values. Since numerical values all have an infinite number of substitution values; it is true that there is always an infinite number of alternative, equivalent readings of the Torah effective.
See: The Imperative of Moral Mathematics
http://tinyurl.com/6o3no
-and-
ALEPH – The Unending One
http://tinyurl.com/zghyg
In other words, we have to start to think of that which is written in Torah in a "quantum" manner, to describe the thinking in modern jargon. We are used to thinking of Torah "collapsed" into one possibility of reading/computation, but in reality it is in infinite states of reading/computation and availing itself of infinite interpretation always. It is we who solidify it into one state when we observe it in a state of mochin katnut (restricted consciousness in Aramaic), even as we do the very same to the physical world when we train our consciousness on it.
As background to the following discussion please see:
Anarchy and the Spiritual Quest
http://tinyurl.com/mr9pk
Our consciousness is, in large part, predicated upon our interactions with others in society. As we relate to one another, so we conceptualize and take cognizance of the phenomena presented to our consciousness, or more correctly, take cognizance of the fact that our consciousness is producing that which is presented to it. It is generally accepted that how we use language determines our consciousness, that consciousness is a function of linguistics. Looking deeper into the matter; it will become apparent that our language is nothing other than memeplexes - that is our conceptual inheritance, the ways in which we were taught from infancy to relate to other human beings, as those who came before us did. Among the media of exchange of this information are language; observable behavior among people: caring or indifference, deference to some, lack of respect for others, addressing some by their titles, addressing others by their proper names, not addressing some at all and so on; the way in which we relate to others' material substance.
If we wish to perceive תורה in its "quantum" majesty, if we wish to the following passage from Henry David Thoreau's WALDEN to apply to us, as תורה-living Jews: "He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded, and interpreted in his favor in a more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a higher order of beings" ; it is imperative that we build a society that allows us to relate to one another in far more cooperative, expansive, creative ways.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
dandor@013.net - עברית
As background to Ontological Anarchy please see:
http://tinyurl.com/mxyrl
Having considered the concepts of Ontological Anarchy and Quantum Physics, at least briefly; we can now tie them to Judaism.
It might seem that if we accept that Anarchy is ontological then we have to reject the set Laws in Torah. Or, if we accept that the universe is ruled by the Laws in Torah, then we cannot posit ontological Anarchy.
One or the other needs to go. Right? I think not.
Remember that all of the letters in Hebrew are numerical values. Since numerical values all have an infinite number of substitution values; it is true that there is always an infinite number of alternative, equivalent readings of the Torah effective.
See: The Imperative of Moral Mathematics
http://tinyurl.com/6o3no
-and-
ALEPH – The Unending One
http://tinyurl.com/zghyg
In other words, we have to start to think of that which is written in Torah in a "quantum" manner, to describe the thinking in modern jargon. We are used to thinking of Torah "collapsed" into one possibility of reading/computation, but in reality it is in infinite states of reading/computation and availing itself of infinite interpretation always. It is we who solidify it into one state when we observe it in a state of mochin katnut (restricted consciousness in Aramaic), even as we do the very same to the physical world when we train our consciousness on it.
As background to the following discussion please see:
Anarchy and the Spiritual Quest
http://tinyurl.com/mr9pk
Our consciousness is, in large part, predicated upon our interactions with others in society. As we relate to one another, so we conceptualize and take cognizance of the phenomena presented to our consciousness, or more correctly, take cognizance of the fact that our consciousness is producing that which is presented to it. It is generally accepted that how we use language determines our consciousness, that consciousness is a function of linguistics. Looking deeper into the matter; it will become apparent that our language is nothing other than memeplexes - that is our conceptual inheritance, the ways in which we were taught from infancy to relate to other human beings, as those who came before us did. Among the media of exchange of this information are language; observable behavior among people: caring or indifference, deference to some, lack of respect for others, addressing some by their titles, addressing others by their proper names, not addressing some at all and so on; the way in which we relate to others' material substance.
If we wish to perceive תורה in its "quantum" majesty, if we wish to the following passage from Henry David Thoreau's WALDEN to apply to us, as תורה-living Jews: "He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded, and interpreted in his favor in a more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a higher order of beings" ; it is imperative that we build a society that allows us to relate to one another in far more cooperative, expansive, creative ways.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
dandor@013.net - עברית
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Israel is a Democracy! Right?
Israel most certainly is a democracy and a beaut of one it is too. In the space of this essay we will define democracy properly and it will become painfully apparent just how democratic the State of Israel is.
In order to make clear what democracy is, I should like to share the following with the reader:
There was once a particularly well done and disturbing episode of The Twilight Zone on American television. In an imagined 'future' there were some five or six state-sanctioned physical and mental types for each both men and women. Everyone had to undergo the operations necessary to become one of these types. The choice of which type to become was free, but the types were set. Each of the types were considered physically perfect and deemed mentally and emotionally desirable in this futuristic society. There was one young woman who, though physically plain and quirkily imperfect, didn't want to become one of the state-sanctioned types. She accepted herself as she was and didn't think that becoming another doll-like mannequin would be an improvement. She was subjected to a great deal of social temptation to become one of the state-sanctioned types. She was told that it was to her benefit to undergo the operations and those benefits were described, tantalizingly, to her. Yet, she persisted in wishing to remain herself. She was afterward cajoled, then she was ridiculed. As she persisted in holding her ground, ridicule turned to pressure, to making her feel isolated and unwanted and ultimately to threats. Yet, she held out and did not undergo the operation. It was explained to her 'rationally' that she was being unreasonable, irrational and unnecessarily iconoclastic. She was cajoled. She was told that she was being a troublemaker. She was told that she was, incidentally, rather repulsive physically as well. She was told that after undergoing the operations and becoming perfect in every way she would be happy that she did. Every manner of social pressure was heaped upon the young woman for the "crime" of wishing to be and remain herself.Finally, she did break and in the chilling last scene of the episode she is seen standing in front of a mirror, admiring her new-found perfection, every vestige of her interesting individuality completely lost. It could be inferred from that last scene that all of the others who had become state-sanctioned types had also once been individualistic, had tried to defend their own being and integrity insofar as they were able to, but they broke under "democratic" pressure to be like everyone else.That episode was aired when I was about ten years old. It had a tremendous impact on me and even at that young age I was able to understand that it was an only slightly hyperbolic description of the American society that I was living in. I understood that this was the maximum amount of freedom that was allowed to me and to the people around me by the American regime - we were allowed to 'choose' to become one of a limited number of state-sanctioned types.
You may say: "But we citizens and denizens of democracies can be vociferously critical of our governments. We can say and write what we think publicly without being censured or fear for our freedom and welfare."
I answer: Indeed. Have you ever noticed that the dissenters in democratic societies level the same criticisms, employing the same cliché phraseology, adopt the same modes of comportment and so on. There are state-sanctioned expressions of dissent. They are not only harmless to the government; they serve it by giving people the illusion that they are voicing critique. In fact, the critiques they level are mere parroting of that which they hear in the media in exactly the way in which they hear them in the media. That is to say, those "critiques" have been OK'ed by the powers that prevail. If a real critic of society, expressing original thoughts and employing original phraseology voices his or her opinion she or may be sure that she or he will be anathematized at the very least, first and foremost by the brainwashed masses of democracy, then jailed and isolated from "decent" people by those bodies who receive their salaries from the Plutocrats who are running this ersatz "democracy" to preserve "law and order" at the worst.
Democracy, in truth, is the mass illusion of personal and societal freedom created by the "manufacturing of consent" and the "engineering of consent" as developed by such "engineers of public opinion" as Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays. Their equally nefarious, reptilian spawn, the "shapers of public opinion" continue their work to this day, having refined their techniques. It is they who are hired by the Plutocrats that run society to train the masses to think and behave as the Plutocrats wish them to. I should mention at this juncture that Edward Bernays was not only a nephew of Sigmund Freud, he was also an admirer of Ivan Pavlov, whose techniques he incorporated into his "engineering of consent".
As Edward Bernays expounds chillingly in his book PROPAGANDA, published in 1929, once individuals with some leadership skills and organizational abilities have been inculcated with the values, tastes and attitudes that the ruling classes wish the masses to be inculcated with to the extent that they think those values, tastes and attitudes are their own and arise from their own free will and inclinations; they will influence others to think similarly. A free .pdf download of PROPAGANDA and my book review in English on: http://www.crimsonbird.com/history/propaganda.htm .
Democracy capitalizes on human gregariousness and need for belonging. We humans are biologically, psychologically and emotionally constituted to be part of a group. Most of us experience the need to be loved, to be respected, to have as much status as we are able to accrue to ourselves and to belong as imperatives.
Democracy threatens us with alienation and isolation if we do not adopt acceptable behavior, speech and attitudes.
Democracy is the tyranny of the ubiquitous, immense, inchoate masses that have been conditioned to perceive the true dissenter as an alien and a threat that must be eradicated and whose behavior and reactions have been "engineered" and "manufactured" by the "engineers of public opinion" in the employ of the Plutocrats to beat the individualist into submission.
Only the 'hold-outs' are the true and genuine and can ever be free. Those who cannot be tempted, cajoled, ridiculed, insulted or threatened into submission and giving up what they are are those who are free. They are the ones who smash the idols (even if they are being made in our own fathers' workshops) and who slaughter the sacred cows (of the mind – let there be no misunderstands of my intentions in writing this). Abbey Hoffman is quoted as having said: "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburgers." Playful nose-snubbing, rather than strident ranting, at the establishment is the hallmark of the true dissident. Their ability to be playful derives from the fact that they were not broken as children by the "free" public school system.
The truly free can never be a state-sanctioned type. The person of integrity bends to no social lie - no matter what the reward of doing so may be, no matter what the punishment of not doing so may be. It is for that reason that dissenters are, always have been and always will be the objects of public derision and private envy.
The best piece of advice that I can extend to Israelis is to turn off your radios and television sets. It is astonishing how these media of mass hypnosis, opinion forming and emotion arousing are ubiquitous in this country, even by Western standards. One can nary go into a waiting room without a TV being situated there "for entertainment" and to "give you something to do while waiting". Every cab driver and bus driver feels compelled to have the radio droning in the background continuously. In every supermarket the talking head blather on and on and... Big Brother is Big Brother even if it shimmies and shakes and sings and is presented to us in too, too bright colors and cutesy, catchy slogans and jingles. We do not need distraction from ourselves. We do not need to be told what to think, what is right and what is wrong, what is beautiful, what is desirable, what we must buy. We most certainly do not need to have our emotions artificially aroused by media that entice us onto a daily rollercoaster of alternate fear, sexual excitation, anger, feelings of superiority, feelings of inferiority, feelings of helplessness and what not.
Turn those damned machines off and read a book. Better yet, think for yourself. You will find that your mind is vastly more interesting that anything that can be staged and scripted for you in the media.
What is the alternative to "democracy"? True Anarchy, as described on the following URL: http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/AuthenticAnarchyHEB.htm
The Hebrew version of this article is to be found on:
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IsraelDemocracyRightHEB.htm
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Yisra'el
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Israel most certainly is a democracy and a beaut of one it is too. In the space of this essay we will define democracy properly and it will become painfully apparent just how democratic the State of Israel is.
In order to make clear what democracy is, I should like to share the following with the reader:
There was once a particularly well done and disturbing episode of The Twilight Zone on American television. In an imagined 'future' there were some five or six state-sanctioned physical and mental types for each both men and women. Everyone had to undergo the operations necessary to become one of these types. The choice of which type to become was free, but the types were set. Each of the types were considered physically perfect and deemed mentally and emotionally desirable in this futuristic society. There was one young woman who, though physically plain and quirkily imperfect, didn't want to become one of the state-sanctioned types. She accepted herself as she was and didn't think that becoming another doll-like mannequin would be an improvement. She was subjected to a great deal of social temptation to become one of the state-sanctioned types. She was told that it was to her benefit to undergo the operations and those benefits were described, tantalizingly, to her. Yet, she persisted in wishing to remain herself. She was afterward cajoled, then she was ridiculed. As she persisted in holding her ground, ridicule turned to pressure, to making her feel isolated and unwanted and ultimately to threats. Yet, she held out and did not undergo the operation. It was explained to her 'rationally' that she was being unreasonable, irrational and unnecessarily iconoclastic. She was cajoled. She was told that she was being a troublemaker. She was told that she was, incidentally, rather repulsive physically as well. She was told that after undergoing the operations and becoming perfect in every way she would be happy that she did. Every manner of social pressure was heaped upon the young woman for the "crime" of wishing to be and remain herself.Finally, she did break and in the chilling last scene of the episode she is seen standing in front of a mirror, admiring her new-found perfection, every vestige of her interesting individuality completely lost. It could be inferred from that last scene that all of the others who had become state-sanctioned types had also once been individualistic, had tried to defend their own being and integrity insofar as they were able to, but they broke under "democratic" pressure to be like everyone else.That episode was aired when I was about ten years old. It had a tremendous impact on me and even at that young age I was able to understand that it was an only slightly hyperbolic description of the American society that I was living in. I understood that this was the maximum amount of freedom that was allowed to me and to the people around me by the American regime - we were allowed to 'choose' to become one of a limited number of state-sanctioned types.
You may say: "But we citizens and denizens of democracies can be vociferously critical of our governments. We can say and write what we think publicly without being censured or fear for our freedom and welfare."
I answer: Indeed. Have you ever noticed that the dissenters in democratic societies level the same criticisms, employing the same cliché phraseology, adopt the same modes of comportment and so on. There are state-sanctioned expressions of dissent. They are not only harmless to the government; they serve it by giving people the illusion that they are voicing critique. In fact, the critiques they level are mere parroting of that which they hear in the media in exactly the way in which they hear them in the media. That is to say, those "critiques" have been OK'ed by the powers that prevail. If a real critic of society, expressing original thoughts and employing original phraseology voices his or her opinion she or may be sure that she or he will be anathematized at the very least, first and foremost by the brainwashed masses of democracy, then jailed and isolated from "decent" people by those bodies who receive their salaries from the Plutocrats who are running this ersatz "democracy" to preserve "law and order" at the worst.
Democracy, in truth, is the mass illusion of personal and societal freedom created by the "manufacturing of consent" and the "engineering of consent" as developed by such "engineers of public opinion" as Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays. Their equally nefarious, reptilian spawn, the "shapers of public opinion" continue their work to this day, having refined their techniques. It is they who are hired by the Plutocrats that run society to train the masses to think and behave as the Plutocrats wish them to. I should mention at this juncture that Edward Bernays was not only a nephew of Sigmund Freud, he was also an admirer of Ivan Pavlov, whose techniques he incorporated into his "engineering of consent".
As Edward Bernays expounds chillingly in his book PROPAGANDA, published in 1929, once individuals with some leadership skills and organizational abilities have been inculcated with the values, tastes and attitudes that the ruling classes wish the masses to be inculcated with to the extent that they think those values, tastes and attitudes are their own and arise from their own free will and inclinations; they will influence others to think similarly. A free .pdf download of PROPAGANDA and my book review in English on: http://www.crimsonbird.com/history/propaganda.htm .
Democracy capitalizes on human gregariousness and need for belonging. We humans are biologically, psychologically and emotionally constituted to be part of a group. Most of us experience the need to be loved, to be respected, to have as much status as we are able to accrue to ourselves and to belong as imperatives.
Democracy threatens us with alienation and isolation if we do not adopt acceptable behavior, speech and attitudes.
Democracy is the tyranny of the ubiquitous, immense, inchoate masses that have been conditioned to perceive the true dissenter as an alien and a threat that must be eradicated and whose behavior and reactions have been "engineered" and "manufactured" by the "engineers of public opinion" in the employ of the Plutocrats to beat the individualist into submission.
Only the 'hold-outs' are the true and genuine and can ever be free. Those who cannot be tempted, cajoled, ridiculed, insulted or threatened into submission and giving up what they are are those who are free. They are the ones who smash the idols (even if they are being made in our own fathers' workshops) and who slaughter the sacred cows (of the mind – let there be no misunderstands of my intentions in writing this). Abbey Hoffman is quoted as having said: "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburgers." Playful nose-snubbing, rather than strident ranting, at the establishment is the hallmark of the true dissident. Their ability to be playful derives from the fact that they were not broken as children by the "free" public school system.
The truly free can never be a state-sanctioned type. The person of integrity bends to no social lie - no matter what the reward of doing so may be, no matter what the punishment of not doing so may be. It is for that reason that dissenters are, always have been and always will be the objects of public derision and private envy.
The best piece of advice that I can extend to Israelis is to turn off your radios and television sets. It is astonishing how these media of mass hypnosis, opinion forming and emotion arousing are ubiquitous in this country, even by Western standards. One can nary go into a waiting room without a TV being situated there "for entertainment" and to "give you something to do while waiting". Every cab driver and bus driver feels compelled to have the radio droning in the background continuously. In every supermarket the talking head blather on and on and... Big Brother is Big Brother even if it shimmies and shakes and sings and is presented to us in too, too bright colors and cutesy, catchy slogans and jingles. We do not need distraction from ourselves. We do not need to be told what to think, what is right and what is wrong, what is beautiful, what is desirable, what we must buy. We most certainly do not need to have our emotions artificially aroused by media that entice us onto a daily rollercoaster of alternate fear, sexual excitation, anger, feelings of superiority, feelings of inferiority, feelings of helplessness and what not.
Turn those damned machines off and read a book. Better yet, think for yourself. You will find that your mind is vastly more interesting that anything that can be staged and scripted for you in the media.
What is the alternative to "democracy"? True Anarchy, as described on the following URL: http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/AuthenticAnarchyHEB.htm
The Hebrew version of this article is to be found on:
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IsraelDemocracyRightHEB.htm
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Yisra'el
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Friday, September 15, 2006
Ontological Anarchy
Peter Lamborn Wilson (aka Hakim Bey) is a genius, in my humble and correct opinion. Like most people who get to the frontiers of consciousness, he sometimes drifts off into deep space and gets ridiculous. That goes with the (lack of) territory. I don't agree with a lot of the things that he writes and I certainly don't follow him around on his various trips into inner and outer space. He's a member of NAMbLA. I do not know if he practices paedophilia or non-violent paederasty. I have no problem with the latter. To my mind, the age of consent should be when both puberty and a reasonable awareness of what the ramifications of a pubescent person engaging in sexual and emotional intercourse with another pubescent person commences. This is obviously very individual and no law can possibly regulate it.
At any rate, Wilson/Bey wrote an essay entitled: "Quantum Mechanics & Chaos TheoryAnarchist Meditations on N. Herbert'sQuantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics"
that impressed me, which is to be found on this URL:
http://www.hermetic.com/bey/quantum.html
While I do not agree with his timeline of human development, I think there has been a lot of overlap and at any given time all forms were present to one extent or another; I must certainly do agree with his thesis that our societal relationships impact on how and what we are able to perceive and vice versa.
I agree with Wilsom entirely that Anarchy is Ontological. The political and social aspects of Anarchy are expressions of Ontological Anarchy on the human level.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Peter Lamborn Wilson (aka Hakim Bey) is a genius, in my humble and correct opinion. Like most people who get to the frontiers of consciousness, he sometimes drifts off into deep space and gets ridiculous. That goes with the (lack of) territory. I don't agree with a lot of the things that he writes and I certainly don't follow him around on his various trips into inner and outer space. He's a member of NAMbLA. I do not know if he practices paedophilia or non-violent paederasty. I have no problem with the latter. To my mind, the age of consent should be when both puberty and a reasonable awareness of what the ramifications of a pubescent person engaging in sexual and emotional intercourse with another pubescent person commences. This is obviously very individual and no law can possibly regulate it.
At any rate, Wilson/Bey wrote an essay entitled: "Quantum Mechanics & Chaos TheoryAnarchist Meditations on N. Herbert'sQuantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics"
that impressed me, which is to be found on this URL:
http://www.hermetic.com/bey/quantum.html
While I do not agree with his timeline of human development, I think there has been a lot of overlap and at any given time all forms were present to one extent or another; I must certainly do agree with his thesis that our societal relationships impact on how and what we are able to perceive and vice versa.
I agree with Wilsom entirely that Anarchy is Ontological. The political and social aspects of Anarchy are expressions of Ontological Anarchy on the human level.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Monday, September 11, 2006
Anecdote: The Day I Became a "Real" Israeli in the Shuq (Market)
I wrote the following to a woman who grew up in England. She contends that she is dismayed at the prejudice she sees in England "of late". I explained to her that prejudice has always been rife in England and that if she did not see it it is probably because she grew up in a demographically heterogeneous area.
Her riposte was that once when her family were on vacation her brothers spent the day playing with a little Pakistani boy.
I answered:
In order to make my point clear; I'll offer an anecdote.
Here in Israel we have open market days once a week called the shuq. Typically, food is a good deal cheaper in the shuq than in stores. The produce is also farm-fresh. One of the reasons that some of the foodstuffs are cheaper is because they come in bulk and are weighed out to the customer, rather than being pre-packaged. The fact that the foods are in bulk, and in large, open containers, sacks or boxes makes it easy for people to just reach in and taste the wares: dried fruits, cookies, sweets, etc. For many years I found the idea of taking from food that countless people reached into and ate from (sometimes more than one taste) extremely off-putting. Gradually, I got over the queasiness as I realized that no one around me seemed to be suffering any ill effects from the practice. One day when I was in the market I reached into a bag and took one of the types of cookie I intended to buy and ate it. Delighted with my new level of integration into Israeli society; when I got I said to my son: "Today I became a real Israeli. I ate from one of the open boxes of cookies in the shuk (market)!" He looked at me levelly and said: "You're still not a real Israeli, Mom. You'll be a real Israeli when you do it and never give it a thought." And so I say to you: You will be a really unprejudiced person when you do not preface the children that your brothers played with as "Pakistani" or whatever other than English preface you put to them, just as you do not say: "My brothers played with English children".
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
I wrote the following to a woman who grew up in England. She contends that she is dismayed at the prejudice she sees in England "of late". I explained to her that prejudice has always been rife in England and that if she did not see it it is probably because she grew up in a demographically heterogeneous area.
Her riposte was that once when her family were on vacation her brothers spent the day playing with a little Pakistani boy.
I answered:
In order to make my point clear; I'll offer an anecdote.
Here in Israel we have open market days once a week called the shuq. Typically, food is a good deal cheaper in the shuq than in stores. The produce is also farm-fresh. One of the reasons that some of the foodstuffs are cheaper is because they come in bulk and are weighed out to the customer, rather than being pre-packaged. The fact that the foods are in bulk, and in large, open containers, sacks or boxes makes it easy for people to just reach in and taste the wares: dried fruits, cookies, sweets, etc. For many years I found the idea of taking from food that countless people reached into and ate from (sometimes more than one taste) extremely off-putting. Gradually, I got over the queasiness as I realized that no one around me seemed to be suffering any ill effects from the practice. One day when I was in the market I reached into a bag and took one of the types of cookie I intended to buy and ate it. Delighted with my new level of integration into Israeli society; when I got I said to my son: "Today I became a real Israeli. I ate from one of the open boxes of cookies in the shuk (market)!" He looked at me levelly and said: "You're still not a real Israeli, Mom. You'll be a real Israeli when you do it and never give it a thought." And so I say to you: You will be a really unprejudiced person when you do not preface the children that your brothers played with as "Pakistani" or whatever other than English preface you put to them, just as you do not say: "My brothers played with English children".
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)