From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #112 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 Wednesday, April 21 2004 Volume 04 : Number 112 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Channeling Xena spiritually [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Renee news [cande@sunlink.net] [chakram-refugees] Channeling Xena spiritually [Lilli Sprintz 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. > I'm with you there. That's one of the reasons Xena demonstrated courage to me -- facing the fears within. Early on in Dreamworker, we learn that she is her biggest enemy, but that she must learn to accept and ... channel ... the part of herself that she fears most, as it is the source of much of her strength. Letting Gabs travel with her, letting herself love Gabs, accepting love from Gabs and others, deciding to reclaim Solon, serving as a mentor to the Baby Amazons were among her most courageous acts to me. The physical battles seldom inspired fear in her because she knew that arena so well (except for the Horde, when they were still "unknown"). I think that's another reason Gabs became so significant. She helped us guage Xena's ability to accept herself and her worth as a subject of love and admiration. Yes, Xena had great confidence in herself, great pride and a fairly healthy way of dealing with most things. But she felt she had to re-earn -- and possibly fail in achieving -- the the love of even her mother. Letting Gabs in -- believing in Gabs' belief in her -- represented more danger to Xena than 10 armies. But it was one of the frst steps we saw toward conquering her greatest fears. And as we watched her relationship with Gabs grow, we could see Xena's defenses coming down around her heart. - -- 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: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:29:07 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) Oooo, this morning I heard that the U.S. is going to be doing some experiments soon to test some of Einstein's theories. These had to do with some bubble around the earth and some other "law" that escapes me. Neither seemed to involve what we've been talking about, but I thought the timing of the announcement was eerie. You suppose they've been spying on us? In a message dated 4/19/2004 5:20:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > << 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). >> Ah. Gotcha. > >>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. ;) >> Well, you certainly don't have to worry about *me* in that regard, as I wouldn't know if it was misleading or not. Sounded fine to me. > >> 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. >> Yes, "as far as we know." If we run into any Martians, they might be able to help confirm or dispute that. > < >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 > ;) >> Like I said, I don't worry about labels. One person's "fanatic" is another person's "hero." Unreformed Xena had a certain "purity" about her thirst for knowledge, apart from what she could do with it at the moment. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, she channelled that into acquiring power regardless of the price to others. I wasn't always certain about Reformed Xena's methods or "rightness," but I gave her the benefit of the doubt because her efforts appeared to be geared to helping others (generaly identified in XWP as "the good guys"). The main benefit to her was self-respect or maybe not watching a loved one be hurt. But she was probably viewed as a mercenary, a crank, a charlatan, or any number of negative things to her opponents. Heh, the Syrian army probably went home saying, "There's some fanatical woman who believes folks like her can singlehandedly defeat our best regiments." > >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 ;) >> I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive." I said "ancient" and "old" cultures, quite purposely so. I was talking about people with quite a bit of sense. Many resisted (and still resist) "modern" conveniences because they know it's never as "simple" as it seems. Tampering with "nature" seldom is. My point was that, in a more holistic view, people understand that you can't do something to one part without affecting other parts, that other parts can sometimes help you figure something out, that an appreciation of that can help find more creative and effective solutions. > << 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. >> I should note that I believe some of the "greatest" minds probably aren't in history books. Again, I acknowledge that I'm coming from my personal bias. - -- 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: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:57:54 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:29, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > Oooo, this morning I heard that the U.S. is going to be doing some > experiments soon to test some of Einstein's theories. These had to do with > some bubble around the earth and some other "law" that escapes me. The 'bubble' was their attempt to illustrate the way in which gravity 'bends' space according to the General Theory of Relativity. We were talking mostly about the Special Theory. > Neither > seemed to involve what we've been talking about, but I thought the timing > of the announcement was eerie. You suppose they've been spying on us? :) It did cross my mind that it was a curious coincidence. But coincidences happen all the time. > > >>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. ;) >> > > Well, you certainly don't have to worry about *me* in that regard, as I > wouldn't know if it was misleading or not. Sounded fine to me. I'm just waiting for Lynn to tell me where I screwed up. Though it's always possible I got it so badly wrong he doesn't know where to start... ;) ;) > > > < > > 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 ;) >> > > Like I said, I don't worry about labels. One person's "fanatic" is another > person's "hero." > Unreformed Xena had a certain "purity" about her thirst > for knowledge, apart from what she could do with it at the moment. > Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, she channelled that into acquiring > power regardless of the price to others. I wasn't always certain about > Reformed Xena's methods or "rightness," but I gave her the benefit of the > doubt because her efforts appeared to be geared to helping others (generaly > identified in XWP as "the good guys"). The main benefit to her was > self-respect or maybe not watching a loved one be hurt. But she was > probably viewed as a mercenary, a crank, a charlatan, or any number of > negative things to her opponents. Heh, the Syrian army probably went home > saying, "There's some fanatical woman who believes folks like her can > singlehandedly defeat our best regiments." OTOH, I've never heard any suggestion that Hitler was not totally sincere about everything he did. (Same doubtless goes for Caesar, Napoleon, and most other famous historical megalomaniacs). So while sincerity is probably a necessary condition for greatness, it (on its own) is not sufficient. > > >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 ;) >> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive." I said "ancient" and "old" > cultures, quite purposely so. I was talking about people with quite a bit > of sense. Many resisted (and still resist) "modern" conveniences because > they know it's never as "simple" as it seems. Can you give an example? I think if they resist 'modern' conveniences, it's more likely because such conveniences don't suit their lifestyle. What would nomads do with a refrigerator? > Tampering with "nature" > seldom is. My point was that, in a more holistic view, people understand > that you can't do something to one part without affecting other parts, that > other parts can sometimes help you figure something out, that an > appreciation of that can help find more creative and effective solutions. Okay - 'primitive' by our technological standards. Most surviving remnants of 'ancient' cultures fall into that class. If they've evolved (technologically) I guess we wouldn't call them 'primitive'. I didn't intend it in a derogatory sense though. 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 18:34:35 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Destiny On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:43, Cheryl Ande wrote: > > 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. Speaking as a male, I can only applaud Ares' ambitions, even if his methods were not always above criticism > 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. I think that one was, for Michael, 'win-win'. Either way, he got rid of an ambitious rival for power. > 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. Well, Ares was always making threats - he just hardly ever went through with them. > 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. Yes, but Xena would've been freed from Michael anyway, 'cos he would've been fish food. ;) I was so disappointed by that. Xena's godly score thus far included Poseidon, Hephaestus, Discord, Deimos, Artemis, Athena, Indrajit, Callisto, Mephistopheles, Caligula and Lucifer.... pity she couldn't add Michael to the collection ;) 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 09:00:08 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: [chakram-refugees] Renee news Just read that Reene won't be doing Xenaphobia but she is doing the Josh Becker SciFi film Alien (Something) with Bruce Campbell. I thought Xenaphobia was the Josh Becker film but it got's nemae changed to Alien (Something?) because SciFi likes Aliens in the title of their movies. CherylA ========================================================= 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 20:48:08 -0500 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Channeling Xena spiritually n a message dated 4/18/2004 6:33:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, leedaley@optonline.net writes: >> The series finale created controversy, because it attempted to end >> "Xena's journey" but continue "Gabrielle's journey" and stuffed in "their >> journey together". > yes, and in my opinion, also ended her "suffering." there must be another option. so, how do they bring her back?.....any guesses? 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:59:54 -0500 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Helen Clark - New Zealand Oh! and did I forget to post, that the Prime Minister of New Zealand was on Travel Channel this past week, talking about all the wonderful places in new zealand, and showing them to the producer herself! of course, her country is stunning. she is one he*l of a woman. listening to an expose of her political history, and listening to her talk...powerful and direct. new zealand being a nuclear free zone...she said something like, in relationship to her wearing pants when the Queen of England visited...that the BBC (which made a fuss over it) needs to realize that they are living in the 21st century, not the 15th! any chance she would want to share presidency with this country (US?)... we need to elect someone like her. hey, can some of us up-abovers come visit you all sometime? YeeHa! 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 #112 **************************************