From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #110 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Monday, April 19 2004 Volume 04 : Number 110 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [chakram-refugees] Re: Destiny ["Cheryl Ande" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually [KTL ] [chakram-refugees] Re: Destint Question ["Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re: Destiny > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:16:48 +1200 > From: cr > > Yeah, agreed, KT. Eli's god didn't give a rat's ass for Xena or her > welfare. All he wanted was to use her to get rid of the Greek gods, with > Evie as bait. Heck, who d'ya reckon planted the original idea with the > Fates that Eve would bring about the end of the Greek gods? Betcha one of > Michael's henchangels was skulking around in the background outa sight in God > Fearing Child. > > As between Michael and Ares, I'd sooner trust Ares any day. Besides, he > had way more charisma. ;) > > cr I don't know if Ares was more trustworthy than Michael but he was always much more up front about what he wanted. He wanted Xena and went about getting her in a very direct manner. Michael's motivations are always more murkey. Was he looking out for his god's interest or his own? Did Michael want Lucifer in Hell because he was a threat to his power in Heaven or was Michael afraid tha Xena as the queen of Hell she posed such a threat to Heaven that he willing sacrificed one his angels. Michael is much more ruthless than Ares in his dealings with Xena. Ares never seemed to threaten the people Xena loved in any real way. Michael was always manipulating or forcing Xena to do his bidding by threatening Eve. Michael in fact was more of a probelm for Xena than Ares ever was. Ares could never make Xena do anything she didn't want to but Michael came very close to making Xena his pawn. I have always wonder if in the God You Know if Eli was saving Michael or Xena when he took away her power to kill gods. Without that power Xena was freed from Michael so it was actually a blessing. ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:49:36 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually > Because Krishna was one of an extremely rare few who wanted only to help > Xena and wanted nothing in return. And he treats Xena with such kindness > and love and is worried about her, not about what she can do for him. > That's practically unheard of in the series. And I loved seeing Xena for > once get absolute and unconditional love. Krishna didn't say, "Yeah, I > love you, but you gotta change". Krishna just said, "I love you. Be what > you are. I love you." > Also though, I think this was more palatable because it was season four. As we talked about before, the Xena of season four was different than other seasons. And this act of love from Krishna also resolved her problem. By validating that she was what she was supposed to be, she received the freedom to become an ass-kicking warrior again and to quit worrying about whether what she was doing was right or not. Had this come in some other "regular" season, I don't know if it would be welcomed at all, never mind so loved by me. KT ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:12:11 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126) KT wrote: > >It's a spiritual endeaver, replying to posts. The > time must be right and > >that awareness of the process of replying, when and > how posts suddenly > >foment and rise to the top of the list to be > answered, is mysterious, > >purely instinctive and totally illogical. The stunned > mullet > > > Did anyone else imagine a dazed hairpiece? :~) > (drum rimshot) > > LOL! Kind of like Trump's? > > > >Speaking of moldy posts, I hear the posts on "Xena's > season four blues" > >saxaphoning out to me.... > > > >KT > > > >Ow. > > I'm humming "Harlem Nocturne" and imagining Xena > blowing the tune on the sax. > Hey, not a bad image. > I wonder if a blues or jazz episode was ever > considered? Oh jeez! I'd give a LOT to have seen Xena singing in a smoky nightclub. They should have squeezed that into "Clones" somehow... KT ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:32:20 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question > > >LOL! Since when did consistency mean anything. The Tartarus she and Gabs > > >visited when they stole the helmet didn't look like the earlier one, and we > > >didn't see them taking no boat. (We should assume?) > > > > Gabrielle was never in Tartarus. >> > > Was it "God Fearing Child" where X&G bump into Solan, Gabs fights with Hades > and disappears when she puts his helmet on? I thought they were in Tartarus. > No? Was it some different "underworld"? Ah, no you're right! I had to rewatch it to be sure, but yeah--that is Tartarus. They didn't take the boat so they flamboozled me. Since when do we just DROP into Tartarus without swimming in and taking the boat and since when do we just waltz out a hole in a rock to get out of Tartarus, ladies? Hmmmm? (I'm talking to X&G and Chris Manheim, by the way, not you Ife.) AND I didn't really remember that Hades actually lives in Tartarus--I thought he had a pied a terre off to the side somewhere. Of course, he actually does have a separate apartment--one wouldn't leave one's helmet of invisibility just hanging around in Tartarus. Though maybe that's how Altiminius got it? Just swooped it up one day? So if you knew that was Tartarus (which looked JUST like the Tartarus in Mortal Beloved) they why did you think Xena was in Tartarus? Lower Tartarus? The sub-basement? You know, I liked the original Hades MUCH better than the wienie guy they got at the end. The original Hades was HOT! > > What do you think the fire's supposed to mean? > > > > > > I don't care. >> > > What?! What do you mean you don't care?! You go on and on about everything > I *didn't* ask, but won't use that imaginative department store of yours to > conjecture about what I *did* ask? Why, I oughtta .... A simple pop-psych explanation is that it mirrors Xena's soul. Eruptions of hate, guilt and despair all brewing and burping away in her internal landscape. And her hanging on her cross, dead centered in the mire of her ire. I would love it though to hear from Rob what he thought that place was. KT ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:59:49 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re: Destint Question > Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:47:43 +0100 > From: "Sojourner" > Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question > Well it is an interesting question. Having just watched the video commentary for OAAA I was reminded that Gabrielle was originally written to have a gift of prophecy, the idea was dropped but that line pops up in OAAA. So one could speculate that Gabrielle had some kind of latten spiritual or psychic powers. Perhaps that is why Dahok decide Gabrielle should have his child. I mean why wait around for Gabrielle to stumble down the road. Britannia must have been full of young innocent girls who didn't have the disadvantage of having big bad warriors as their best friend. So maybe Gabrielle was just a bit more attuned to the spiritual world and Dahok tuned into that. Now on the other hand there may be other reasons for Gabrielle being able to see certain dead people. Ephiny was a very good friend and it makes sense that if she needed help she would contact Gabrielle. Gabrielle however was not the first one to see the dead Xena after Destiny, that was of course Autolycus. She also didn't believe that Xena had possessed Auto until the fight at the fire pyre As for seeing Callisto in the courtyard in IOM I just think that this was Callisto way having fun at Gabrielle's expense. I do love that scene - Callisto catching snowflakes on her tongue with Gabrielle looking at her with such disbelief at her callousness. ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:04:50 -0400 From: Lee Daley Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually At 07:29 PM 4/17/2004 -0800, KTLwrote: >Because Krishna was one of an extremely rare few who wanted only to help >Xena and wanted nothing in return. And he treats Xena with such kindness >and love and is worried about her, not about what she can do for him. >That's practically unheard of in the series. And I loved seeing Xena for >once get absolute and unconditional love. Krishna didn't say, "Yeah, I >love you, but you gotta change". Krishna just said, "I love you. Be what >you are. I love you." Isn't that exactly one of the philosophical definitions of "godliness". Certainly the series and the Greeks themselves did not have any "all-loving God" concept of the Greek "Gods". LeeD, Warrior (Ret.) Jester ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:28:11 -0400 From: Lee Daley Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually At 09:49 PM 4/17/2004 -0800, KTL wrote >Had this come in some other "regular" season, I don't know if it would be >welcomed at all, never mind so loved by Although there was much controversy in "India arc" especially in how it related to Gabrielle, I think TPTB managed to accomplish the part of the " Xena's journey" they set out on. It did well by Xena, but it didn't do well by Gabrielle. I'm beginning to come up with a thought (this is usually not a good thing). The original conception of the series was "Xena's Journey", Gabrielle was an afterthought. "Gabrielle's journey" became "interesting", but wasn't "canon". So her "journey" was somewhat sporadic with different writers. By the end of the series, "their journey together" became the series. The series finale created controversy, because it attempted to end "Xena's journey" but continue "Gabrielle's journey" and stuffed in "their journey together". LeeD, Warrior (Ret.) Jester Philosopher? ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:46:01 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126) In a message dated 4/18/2004 12:20:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > give a LOT to have seen Xena singing in a smoky nightclub. > They should have squeezed that into "Clones" somehow... > Or "Lyre." Could've had a "My Momma's Tryin' to Marry Me Off" blues number. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:46:01 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/18/2004 12:34:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > Since when > do we just DROP into Tartarus without swimming in and taking the boat and > since when do we just waltz out a hole in a rock to get out of Tartarus, > ladies? Hmmmm? (I'm talking to X&G and Chris Manheim, by the way, not you > Ife.) >> Whew! I was hesitant to admit they were so anxious to put me in Tartarus on my last trip, that they sent an Air Force jet to pick me up. Robot-controlled, of course. (That last bit is for cr, not KT.) > So if you knew that was Tartarus (which looked JUST like the Tartarus in > Mortal Beloved) they why did you think Xena was in Tartarus? Lower > Tartarus? The sub-basement? >> I saw Xena in flames in Destiny, all right? Flames suggested Tartarus. Go figure. > A simple pop-psych explanation is that it mirrors Xena's soul. Eruptions > of hate, guilt and despair all brewing and burping away in her internal > landscape. And her hanging on her cross, dead centered in the mire of her > ire. >> Thank you. Was that so hard (for you, anyway)? As I mentioned, someone else talked about it as a continuation of Xena's dream/hallucination state. I actually like that explanation better than worrying about whether someone else had "assigned" her to Tartarus at that point. I'm quite content with that answer. > > I would love it though to hear from Rob what he thought that place was. > If he's smart, he'll say he likes the ambiguity of it possibly reflecting Xena's interior "landscape." Has a nicer ring to it than, "We needed to keep Xena 'dead' until Lucy recovered from her accident. I asked, 'How can we do this interestingly?' We came up with fire. Seemed appropriate for some reason, not to mention more dramatic than leaving her against the blue screen." Heh. - -- Ife - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:46:04 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually In a message dated 4/17/2004 8:33:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > As one of the most ardent Xenahos in the Xenaverse, I'll tell you why I > found her interaction with Krishna achingly beautiful and extremely > touching. > > Because Krishna was one of an extremely rare few who wanted only to help > Xena and wanted nothing in return. And he treats Xena with such kindness > and love and is worried about her, not about what she can do for him. > That's practically unheard of in the series. And I loved seeing Xena for > once get absolute and unconditional love. Krishna didn't say, "Yeah, I > love you, but you gotta change". Krishna just said, "I love you. Be what > you are. I love you." >> Beautifully said, KT. I also loved that Xena instinctively trusted that love. The way Lucy played it, Xena had an air of innocence about her -- like a child who's just been told she's smart and strong and has the back-up to go out and not take guff from bullies. She hops up and runs off with renewed confidence and vigor. I noticed the "purity" of her response, but hadn't connected it as you have to Krishna's "pure" love. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:46:07 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) In a message dated 4/17/2004 7:34:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > But I can't think of any everyday > phenomenon where one could say "That's [Einstein's] relativity at work". >> Understood. No doubt "philosophical" applications to the intra- or inter-human dynamics will always be debatable. > This is an old debate, of course - whether 'scientists' (in the broadest > sense) are morally responsible for the applications of their 'discoveries'. > > I think we better rule it OT before it spawns another wild digression :) >. Agreed. That's why I confined my comments about human opinion to "inputs" and "outcomes" -- data that went into the mathematical process and uses that came out of it -- no judgment about the moral aspect. > >LOL! That's okay. I wanted to understand the basic principle better, > >which I do now. > > I just hope like hell I didn't mislead too much with my 'explanation' :) >> > Perhaps you might think so, as you confirmed and enhanced my "philsophical" interpretation. I wanted to see if I could understand it in a way that was meaningful to me as a lay person. You definitely helped me do that. You also clearly showed the dangers of mixing the mathematical process with the inputs and outcomes. So, even if I use "relativity" in a philosophical sense (perhaps wrongly), I'll be more careful about distinguishing between the theory's purpose and all the different ways it might be used. > I wasn't being derogatory about such theories, but pointing out that they > (usually) deal with much more complex phenomena and circumstances, and > (usually) their applicability is correspondingly more limited, than those of > > physics. >> Hmmm, not sure I agree with the "limited" part, but that's another can of worms. > > > >>Hmmm. I think many engineers and scientists are perfectly happy with > >>the creative / artistic side of things, and even science fiction so long > >>as it is > >>recognised as fiction. But they tend to draw a line between 'fact' and > >>'fiction'. They hate 'pseudoscience' which deliberately tries to blur > >>the distinction - fiction masquerading as 'fact'. > > > >I said "great thinkers." Maybe it's my bias, but I'd say most don't seem > >that preoccupied with drawing lines, but in pushing boundaries, revealing > >lines where nobody saw them before, erasing ones that seemed hard and > >"true," moving beyond ones they've drawn to explore new ones ---making > >"fiction" fact or "fact" fiction. I believe it's the rest of us who argue > >about where to draw lines around where the great minds have already been. > > > >-- Ife > > No disrespect, Ife, but it seems to me that that approach must leave one > open > to every snake-oil salesman on the planet. How do you ever decide if > someone's trying to con you? >> You mean my approach to determining who/what's "great"? If so, I guess I look at the "purity" of the endeavor -- whether it seems more for personal gain or to promote a particular (limited) school of thought. I think of creative people (including "scientists") who have a passion to explore, regardless of fame, money, ridicule, "tradition," etc. I do tend to trust those more who have some moral sense about their role in the world, who care about how what they do is connected to the world around them. I accept that they can't always know or control what happens with their ideas. They may see a long-term "good" in a short-term "bad" use. I don't worry about being conned, since I have the choice to do what I want with an idea. If it feels "wrong" to me, I treat it accordingly, despite what others (including "experts") say. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I will have learned something I didn't know before. > Most times, there is no great difficulty deciding between a charlatan or > crackpot, and a genuine pioneer/researcher with a potentially valid theory. > > But if one insists on giving *everyone* the benefit of the doubt - well, > hey, > have I got a hot deal for you ;) >> Again, I don't consider myself smart enough to always make that distinction. I match what's said against what's done. I research potential benefits vs. potential harm. I do listen to the opinions of those I respect, who may have more experience with a particular situation. But I try to make up my own mind, based on the "evidence" that's meaningful to me. Sure, you could offer me any hot deal you want. I'm going to try hard not to prejudge the deal based on my ignorance or the clothes you're wearing. Nor by your advanced degrees from a "prestigious" university. You don't want to get me started on my distrust of "great" specialists whose remedies fix one part of a human being, with no appreciation whatsoever for the effects on the other aspects. > Btw, I disagree about the 'great thinkers' - most of them (I think) were > 'pushing boundaries' only in certain areas - the ones they were interested > in. I'm not aware that they (on average, and what a wild generalisation > this is!) were any more tolerant of unconventional thought in other > directions, or of pseudoscience or snake oil, than anyone else. > > cr > I didn't necessarily mean they pushed boundaries in everything. I meant that many were interested in or accomplished in other areas -- e.g., the sciences, music, painting, philsophy, athletics, spiritual beliefs, the environment. Ancient folks didn't have a problem with that. Many "old" cultures still emphasize a unity between the mind, body, spirit, emotions, and physical world. They don't need computers or pharmaceutical companies to tell them which foods or herbs or breathing techniques can help keep them healthy. Many can calculate distances and navigate without "high tech" wizardry. They might regard most modern "advancements" with a jaundiced eye (as I wish more would), though we blithely accept the invisible rays from various gadgets as perfectly dependable signs of "progress." As I say, my bias makes me focus on those who have an "uncommon" ability to see interconnectedness, to find the "essence" of what makes disparate, complex, chaotic, etc. forces or areas relate to one another. To come up with "simply" beautiful, meangful ways for understanding things. As a child, I was torn between being a scientist and a journalist. I read about everybody from ancient folks to those like Einstein. I can't remember now specific names or details. I mainly remember being impressed by how seamlessly they moved between "disciplines." Some might have been relaxing in a field and suddenly became fascinated by why one bird had one type of wing vs. another bird. Or the mathematical "story" in Mozart's music (which someone later did with popular musician James Brown). Another one "saw God" in something that others took as proving there is no "higher" consciousness or "being." Or how the act of painting suddenly inspired some new thought. Sure, they often focused all their lives on one particular question in one area, but they often saw that same question reflected in or connected to other areas they didn't necessarily explore. It said to me that they could find inspiration anywhere, even if what they were working with seemed very limited. Many were described as "childlike" or "naive" because they gave so much the "benefit of the doubt." Some were used for bad purposes because of that. Their thoughts on other subjects might've gotten discounted as "crazy ramblings." But I recognized that, without that openness or risk, they might never have seen what made them "great." Given that I've had far more negative experiences from "narrow minded" thinking, I decided to err on the side of those more interested in being "open" minded. Keep that in mind when selling me the snake oil, and you might just have a customer. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #110 **************************************