From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #111 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 Tuesday, April 20 2004 Volume 04 : Number 111 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Destint Question [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Channeling Xena spiritually [Lilli Sprintz The series finale created controversy, because it attempted to end > "Xena's journey" but continue "Gabrielle's journey" and stuffed in "their > journey together". > I actually think that's a pretty good description of the challenge they faced and why it left some people feeling no journey had been properly fulfilled. Didn't bother me. - -- 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: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:44:17 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Destint Question On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:59, Cheryl Ande wrote: > 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. I *knew* there was a reason I love Callisto. She's just so cool.... :) I wouldn't put it past her to flash Gabs just for the heck of it, but I think she was probably doing it for Xena's benefit too - just that Xena (if she wasn't too out of it to notice, what with being half dead and all) was equally cool and wouldn't have given Callisto the satisfaction of noticing. cr ========================================================= 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: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:41:36 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:32, KTL wrote: > > > >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.) Hmmm, interesting point. Entrances and exits to Tartarus seem to have been somewhat variable throughout the series. On Hades' first appearance (in a Herc ep), the entrance was a cave, or rather a rock that split open, IIRC. Possibly Tartarus had many entrances of various sorts at various locations. > 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! Tartarus had several different appearances - or, presumably, many different areas. For example, the area that Xena was trapped in in Intimate Strangers was different again. cr ========================================================= 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: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:28:14 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually Whoo, I missed this md post first time round. Never mind, since KT's exhumed it, I think I'll answer it ;) > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, mirrordrum wrote: > > naw. xena could have called, and did call on, "powerful assistance" all > > over the place. first of all, there was gabrielle > holding her sides and laughing hysterically>. I ain't saying a word..... :) (cr practises not saying a word until he's about to explode) > > but seriously, she had m'lila. very > > powerful and a relationship whose power caused both suffering and great > > benefit. she had lao ma. very powerful. she managed to kind of blow that > > relationship thus creating an exceptional arc. she had a potentially > > powerful ally in alti. an evil ally, admittedly, but one who certainly > > taught her things. xena had ares, but that was conflictual thus creating > > an exceptional relationship. she had krishna whose help she used and i'm > > still flummoxed that all the xena-hos have tolerated, nay, liked that. > > I didn't. I really really didn't like that Xena had to ask for help from a god, and not even a Greek god at that. I could've tolerated her - just - asking for help from Ares, or Hades or Zeus, who had some standing, but not somebody else's. > > xena even had the god of eli for awhile there. i found > > that *really* odd and didn't much like it. Oh, me too, me too. I just so didn't like that. > > the nifty thing about all the allies xena could and did call on--or maybe > > teachers is a better word, tho it went beyond that imo is that, as in > > real life as distinct from the iliad, her allies, or potential allies, > > were the source of magnificent plots and sub-plots and arcs and angst and > > turmoil and whatnot. Oooh yes. Now that was good. But then the allies seemed to need Xena's help as much as she needed theirs. > > these are not the gods and goddesses of xena. even when she encounters > > the immortals, she is never really ruled or controlled. her relationship > > to those powers that be is decidedly not that of her purported time. this > > was essential, of course, and i think it simply mediated the ways she > > could call, or refuse to call, for assistance. > > > > for example, in , she actually calls on the power of ares. > > but, being xena and not, for example, achilles, she outsmarts ares. Well, she wasn't really asking him for help unsolicited (in the sense I meant a few paras up), she was definitely using him (and he deserved it on that occasion 'cos he set the whole thing up). cr ========================================================= 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: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:07:02 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) (much snipped - again) On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:46, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > 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. Umm, not quite what I meant. I was speaking in purely physical terms. For example, one can easily say "That's gravity at work". But Relativity - at least where it diverges from ordinary Newtonian mechanics - just doesn't manifest itself visibly in any phenomena we can sense for ourselves (without using scientific equipment, that is). > > >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. Umm, nope, I was thinking purely in terms of Did my 'explanation' give a misleading impression of what Relativity is about? Since I've been ranting on about other people misinterpreting it, it would be ironic if I were guilty of the same thing. ;) > 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. Well, physical 'laws' apply (so far as we know) throughout the universe. Certainly, that's what they aim to do. I don't think a sociological theory (like, which sounds are pleasant) would claim to apply outside the field of humans or maybe, at the most, mammals. So in that respect, its applicability is more specialised, less universal. That's the sense I was using 'limited' in. > > >>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. Okay, that weeds out snake-oil salesmen (but leaves in cranks and fanatics ;) > > 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." I think there's a bit of mysticism and romanticism creeping in there. I think you'd find that representatives of primitive cultures are just as ready to appreciate the advantages of electric light, refrigerators and Coca-Cola as any modern individual. Maybe more so, since they have no knowledge of the greenhouse effect or the deleterious effects of whatever-it-is they put in soft drinks ;) Generally, primitive societies tend to be very pragmatic about accepting 'modern' gadgets. If they're useful, they will use them. I don't think any sensible individual would actually prefer to use oil lamps (with their dim light and smoke which must be carcinogenic besides getting the place filthy) rather than clean, bright, convenient electric light. It may be very unromantic but just try doing without it for a few nights. (Actually, it's been tried. It was known as the Great Northeast Power Cut or somesuch. People didn't find it pleasant at all ;) > 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. Sometimes there's a genuine link, sometimes it's purely illusory and misleading. Depends on the circumstances, IMO. And when the similarity suddenly turns out to be purely coincidence, the disillusionment can be painful. > 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. Best exemplar of that would be Richard Feynman, physicist, artist and bongo drummer. ;) But not everyone is like that, everyone's different. cr ========================================================= 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: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:12:44 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:46, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > 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.) Duh? cr ========================================================= 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: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:24:58 -0500 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Channeling Xena spiritually KT andMD, having another chat about Xena, said some specific things about gods and goddesses and self-less loving of Xena. Actually, i'm simply using your discussion, folks, to pick up on a piece I posted two weeks ago, under the same subject. MD was talking about what happens when she or her mate are exhausted, and how they go to each other for help. And was responding to my assertion that Xena was really about hope...but I also quoted Elizabeth Barrett Browning (?) saying, something fearless to the effect that we stand fearless, many of us, and will not give up hope. it's not as exaggerated as that, but comes close. Yes, I have fear. and it's not..and i've heard this said in different ways, that courage is about acting on something despite the fear...about not having fear, that we head into dangerous, unchartered waters, or stand up for what we believe is right. Courage often is shaking in your boots. it's more, believing that it's worth doing. and the fear is there. there is more than one time i've spoken up to stand up for something, or simply (like a couple weeks ago) done something like singing a song in a public setting. i sat there shaking, and a professional singer came up to me later and said that he saw I was shaking and knew i was scared, and i responded that, yes, but the shaking helped me keep my voice steady! so, i don't want to discourage people from feeling fear, which is often a danger sign, or response to similar situations in the past that have been dangerous. it's knowing we have the right to take a chance with things that are hard, that matter. Lilli ========================================================= 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 #111 **************************************