From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 11 Sep 92 13:36:04 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ UpdReq > JN> so far really amount to nothing more than "It is so because I say it is > JN> so." LD>I saw. But you were having so much fun jumping up and down on it, I just >left the matter "in the master's hands.." Actually, I was hoping that he would come back with some reasons for his statements, given an indication that someone was willing to argue the contrary view. No such luck. LD>I didn't mean in the sense of joining in. I was thinking that you should >just show up at school each day with soda and popcorn... consider the >experience a season's pass in subjective reality... with front row seats. At that age I wasn't really capable of "sitting back". Just the opposite; my feminine aspects were dominant in those days and unfortunately, my feminine side LIKES being victimized, so the danger of being overwhelmed by my psychopathic acquaintance was quite real. LD>hahahahahahaaaa. That's great. What a bunch of idiots. Of course he >didn't make a threat, it would have put their senses on alert. He played >an inconspicuous figure, and got away with it. You get them thinking >about these litte things, and not thinking about what they're (not) >doing. I do the same thing from time to time, but not on that kind of >scale.... hehehahehehahaa. That's still funny. Well, his style wasn't exactly inconspicuous, but it sure worked well. It was more like the style you see in some people who've taken the entire Dale Carnegie course in salesmanship --- overwhelm the person's thought processes with talk, and once you've done so, never give them a chance to recover until you've got what you wanted. LD>(BTW: Could we make that idea mandatory for those people quote the entire >message, including the sign-off? I'm sick and tired of seeing the ORIGIN >line in the quotation. For that matter, I'm tired of reading every >message several times. There's lots of people who access the net with Commodore 64's, TI's, and other "computers" that don't even have a hard disk, let alone an offline reader. From experience, the editors that most BBS's have are almost impossible to use effectively. Probably they would be more judicious in their quoting if it were possible. * SLMR 2.1a * My reality check just bounced. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 11 Sep 92 11:33:06 Subject: Right & wrong 2/ UpdReq LD>Well, up until lately, you've always been throwing ideas, comments, and >suggestions way over my head. Lately, not only can I understand most of >your replies, but I've read the books. ..... Don't worry about it. No doubt I'll get confusing again in a week or two. Or maybe you're actually thinking better than you used to? That would be a more pleasant alternative to contemplate. LD>....You're just not a mystery figure anymore. Aw, gee! Shucks! Darn it! * SLMR 2.1a * "Legitimate government" is an oxymoron. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 12 Sep 92 12:10:08 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ UpdReq Hi Michael! Lots of people say I'm full of shit, but very few are willing to give detailed reasons why! Bravo for making the effort. I suggest you read the last ten paragraphs of this message and reply to them. They contain the only really important issue at hand. The rest is side-issues. (The message is long enough that my offline reader may divide it into two parts. Check for a second message with a "2/2" at the end of the subject header.) ML>First, when anyone is "arguing" philospohy, all conclusions >boil down to "It is because I say it is so." That's the >_nature_ of the problem. We're (at least I am) trying to >"know the unkowable." Sure, I have viewpoints on the >matter, but they're not written in stone. If folks recall, >I started this thread with a question about the >transcendental nature of Right and Wrong. I then followed >up with a _hypothesis_ on this transcendentalism. The problem with an "hypothesis" arguing for something transcendental is that is simply isn't _testable_ until you bring it down to the level of practical application, at which point it is no longer transcendental. Catch-22. My aggravation, which led to my sarcastic comments, was because you didn't -- and don't -- seem willing to bring it down and let it be tested. A relativist or situational approach, as I've been arguing, necessarily is tested constantly against the world, allowing whatever generalized rules we formulate to be adjusted, tuned, or thrown away as the evidence of experience dictates. Even when the rule itself is stated in an absolute form -- as is the case with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" -- experience in trying to _apply_ it to the world soon reshapes it into a conditional, situational form in our minds. It's not that I don't believe there are transcendental correspondences to things here in the "lower" worlds. It's that the transcendental form is _only_valid_on_its_own_plane_. The planes of existence have significant differences as well as similarities, else there would be no point in distinguishing them. When we bring an ideal down through the planes, we have to adapt it to the particular rules and conditions of each. Your arguments have had the appearance of saying that there is a transcendental "ideal" morality that can be brought down into the world and applied directly to real-world events _without_ such an adaptation. Perhaps this is not what you were actually intending to say, but it is the impression I got. All my experience says that it can not be done, and even trying to apply a supposedly transcendental morality without modifying it for specific circumstances -- as many fundamentalist Christians do -- means SOMEBODY is going to get hurt, regardless of the beneficience of the morality in its transcendental form. ML>On to the "bald statments" thing. There are two things I want to clear up. >The first thing refers back to the nature of the problem. >Most any statement dealing with these types of issues will >apear "bald" on all levels. We're dealing with beliefs, >faiths, etc. The issue is whether all statements made are >logically consistent with each other. For the most part, I >think I was logically consistent. Brother, did you pick the wrong group to argue with! For most Thelemites -- and meta-thelemites like myself -- RESULTS are what count, NOT the logical consistency of the theory. (Though I admit it's nice to have both at the same time!) An inconsistent theory that works in practice is always preferable to a consistent theory that doesn't. We argue about practically everything, but the final test of any principle is _always_ "does it work?" The core book of Thelema - Liber AL vel Legis - contains injunctions that can be interpreted as an injunction specifically against getting caught up in logically consistent ideation at the expense of experience: "28. Now a curse be upon Because and his kin! "29. May Because be accursed for ever! "30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought. "31. If Power asks why, then is Power weakness. "32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise. "33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!" -- Liber AL, chapter 2 "42. ....Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" -- Liber AL, chapter 3 I admit that here on the echo we don't follow this last injunction too strictly. But that's because arguing can be fun, and fun invokes a different principle of the law -- "existence is pure joy". I think that physics and other disciplines have established that there are factors "infinite & unknown" on all levels of manifest existence. I personally believe that such factors extend to all levels, including those we normally call transcendental, but I haven't a shred of formal proof -- just a couple of decade's experience. ML>Another area that has caused problems is in semantics. It >is abvious that Josh, and a few others, have internalized a >concept of universal right and wrong _entirely_ different >from where I was coming from. In a sense, we were arguing >apples and oranges. It took me awhile before I realized >this. That'll larn ya! Next time, define your terms better. But don't be embarassed -- it happens all the time. ML>Finally, for me this thread has been (for the most part) an enlightening >experience. My views have evloved over the course of the >past few weeks. But the best part is that I've learned >some things. >....... >refutation. Nevertheless, there Josh was. Flame On - To >paraphrase a wonderful quote, In issues of causality, QM is >the last efuge of a scoundrel. When we're dealing with >dimensions outside the range of h-bar, causality is well >defined. 99.99999% of all human experience is outside the >domain of h-bar. I knew this. If you will go back and re-read my statement, I did restrict the QM argument to the subatomic level, even though I mentioned the now established principle that quantum events can have macro effects. In fact, I supplied a _different_ source of uncertainty for different levels: QM for the subatomic realm, "chaotic" events for the "mundane" realm, and (the major part of my argument in these messages) processes of abstraction for the neurological and mental realms. My point was the _each_ level of existence has its _own_ reasons why certainty is impossible. >>> Continued to next message * SLMR 2.1a * Tagline confiscated by the Drug Enforcement Admin. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 12 Sep 92 12:10:10 Subject: Right & wrong 2/ UpdReq >>> Continued from previous message ML>Josh, after you've solved, for the umpteenth time, Spin Glass problems, Quantum Matrices, Hamiltonian equations, or even a classical Wave function for the Bohr model, maybe I'll give some credence to your QM philosophies. And yet again, you're arguing with my examples and ignoring my major arguments. You haven't yet said anything to respond to any of my real points, despite the fact that I've spent several hours and a number of messages trying to make the argument as clear and detailed as I can. Until you do, don't give me any more crap about the supporting details. I'll state the argument again in the simplest form I can, stripped of various side-issues, examples, and ethical consequences that were previously provided: 1) All our experience involves an abstraction of selected and specific information from the very much larger amount of information available. 2) There is no way we can ascertain that the information not selected bears any consistent relation to that which is selected. 3) Our thoughts about our experience involve yet another process of abstraction or selection, our perception of our thoughts abstracts more, and so on through as many levels as you want to go. At each level, there is a _loss_of_information_ from the original experience, and the inclusion of additional _selected_ information from treating the previous level as an object being perceived. The mix changes, but the whole is still an abstraction. 4) Since our basis for thought is unreliably selective from the very beginning, and stays unreliable at all levels thereafter, our knowledge is never going to be free from imperfection. 5) THEREFORE, even if an "absolute" morality exists somewhere out there in the universe, our _knowledge_ of that morality is _always_ going to be imperfect and colored by the specific, individually varied abstractive tendencies of our senses and minds. This argument refutes your basic assertion that we ARE capable of knowing an absolute principle of right and wrong. Now its your turn to come up with a counter-argument. No more distracting things into side-issues. No more nit-picking about examples. No more wisecracks about competence. Put up or shut up. * SLMR 2.1a * Tagline confiscated by the Drug Enforcement Admin. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Crat 11 Sep 92 17:35:14 Subject: Right & Wrong UpdReq CR>Whoops. I seem to have made the error of approaching moral behavior >intellectually with someone who believes that it cannot (and should >not?) be intellectualized. Trying to follow your logic, the >determination of what is "moral" must go beyond what can be >intellectually "known" and determined. Does this then mean that I can >only "know", and therefore act on, what is truely moral through my >"will" as opposed to my intellect? Heh. Intellect is a wonderful servant and a horrible master. What I mean is that while we can use the intellect to _formulate_ rules of conduct, the formal rules should _always_ be subordinate to the evidence of experience, and should never, ever, be taken as being a reliably accurate reflection of the world. Intellectual constructs are of a relatively high order of abstraction. This means that in getting to that level, most of the information relating to our experience has been lost, and the preponderance of the information they contain reflects our internal emotional and thought processes more than it does the "real" world. Formal systems of logic are even more abstract, and exclude much of the remaining information on a priori grounds that have nothing to do with the world we live in as conscious beings. (Sorry -- that's a redundancy, isn't it?) Therefore formal logic is a damned poor way of arriving at a moral code. If you've read my most recent missive to Michael Lee, you'll know that I think complete and perfect knowledge of anything is impossible in practice. But direct experience is always the _least_ abstracted of our many levels of thought, and therefore always contains the most information. The best we can do -- and damned few people do it with any consistency -- is to try and make all our thoughts at higher levels of abstraction conform as much as possible to the evidence of direct experience. Since much of the process of abstraction takes place unconsciously, our conscious selves must be constantly questioning the results of that process and exercising their power of veto and correction by comparing the result of the process with the original experience. The more we do this, the more reliably the unconscious processes will learn to work. But we can never stop checking entirely. Please note that I consider purely subjective events -- such as magickal visions -- to be just as much a "direct experience" as any experience of the physical world. But we tend to be even more naive about such experience than we do about our experience of the physical world. Our consciousness is so _involved_ in such experiences that we miss much of their information content. We have to make a conscious effort to "pause" the experience for a moment and try to view it for a moment from "outside", looking at the whole and not just at the most immediate and striking part of its content. How the information is presented, the state of our bodies, senses, and minds at the moment of the experience, and the external context in which the vision takes place are just as much a part of the direct experience as is its content. Whew! I'm getting away from the point. IMO, the practical and immediate part of moral codes should be based on our best understanding of our entire situation; that includes both our nature as individuals, our goals, our material and social situation, and how much friction between ourselves and our environment we find acceptable. The code should change and develop as our understanding of any of these factors improves. The formal rules of the code are never going to be more than generalizations, with their implementation being a continuing balancing act between ourselves and the others we interact with. But as we gradually come to an understanding of our true wills, the necessity for encoded rules of conduct lessens. This is because the person doing his true will rarely finds himself in a situation requiring serious moral judgments. CR>For want of a better model, would a kabbalistic interpretation then be >that one's true will, and therefore morality, exists above Hod, and >possibly Geburah (as the source of Hod)? If so, where would you put >"will" on the tree and how could one approach knowing it? Hmm. There's lots of different "wills" in an individual, each residing in a different Sephira. For the uninitiated human, or the person who has not yet achieved a stable solar consciousness, the "personality" or "ego" -- what the Buddhists call the "motivational" nature -- is a function of Netzach. This ego _creates_ a rationalization of its own essentially non-rational desires through the power of Hod. For the solar human or adept, the personal will originates in Geburah, and _receives_ the values on which it acts from Chesed, which determines the overall pattern of our behavior as individualized spiritual beings. These are expressed in the lower worlds through Tiphereth. When these are realized fully, the Netzach ego and Hod rationalizations become perfect reflections of Geburah and Chesed respectively. (Note the crossover from one side of the Tree to the other after passing through Tiphereth.) This is augmented by a varying degree of awareness of the "divine" will, the power of which originates from Kether. Its current pattern -- its "ideal" form -- emanates from Chokmah, and its substance or optimum material expression is signified in Binah. The fully-realized "true will", IMO, represents the person who has fully integrated the individual will and pattern, sensing and cooperating with the divine will in such a way that both the individual and divine wills are expressed in the world simultaneously and with perfect coordination, neither distorting or blocking the other. The key to this in Thelemic doctrine is in the nature of Heru-Ra-Ha, the true son of Nuit and Hadit, whose name contains both a solar god (Ra) and a Kether god (Ha or Hadit), and whose two "halves" are also a solar-martial god (Ra-Hoor-Khuit, representing the individual spiritual will) and a Kether god (Hoor-pa-Kraat, representing the divine will). The fusion of these two into the singular being or Heru-Ra-Ha suggests a similar fusion as the nature of the True Will. The key to knowing one's true will (IMO) is first to make every effort to comprehend one's own nature in all its aspects, and to keep trying to discover new aspects to understand. And second to make every effort to understand the divine will insofar as it presents itself to you. Keep working at those, and any additional steps will become obvious at the appropriate times. * SLMR 2.1a * Antelope Freeway -- 5 Mi. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: Sean Mccullough 10 Sep 92 09:10:04 Subject: Re: crowley's age UpdReq -=> Sean Mccullough sent a message to Vitriol on 09-08-92 02:12 <=- -=> Re: Re: crowley's age <=- SM> Only Anarchism -- and by this I don't mean either the right-wing SM> "Libertarianism" of modern-day Amerikkka, but ABSOLUTE ANARCHISM under SM> which "there is no Law save 'Do What Thou Wilt'". Well, as you point out, there's Anarchy and Anarchy. I'm a fan of Kropotkin, and -unlike most of those to whom the very word Anarchy means pretty much what's going on in many places in the world right now- _do_ know the difference. The problem comes, IMO, when there's no governing body at all, not even a group of self-governors. Perhaps the reason that AC resisted total freedom is that he also knew that total freedom is only viable when everyone is free in themselves. Otherwise, you have what we have now: natural law applied in its various forms, with the result that the strong _do_ in fact trample on the low men -- unfortunately, _we_ are the low men in this scheme! And they do it by erecting and defending institutions that give them -in addition to whatever physical power they may have- "legal" power to do so. The very right that you are demanding is already at work -- against us! AL does not refer to some pie-in-the-sky future, it's here and now. So the remedy, as I see it, is not a revolution on the physical plane, but one on the spiritual plane: we need, not an overthrow of governments and institutions, but an overthrow of old-aeon, caveman-morality, mememe, spirituality. We need to get on with THE Great Work. Until a sufficient number of people are in fact engaged in their own Great Work, and thereby furthering The Great Work, until enough begin the climb out of the morass of Malkuth towards Kether, until enough have at least experienced the awareness of the possibility of the KCHGA, or better yet attained to it, until, I say, enough of us look beyond trampling on eachother and start trampling on the demons within ourselves, no real progress will be made on the physical plane. All this talk of governments, non-governments, and no-governments, is merely attacking the symptoms and leaving the disease untouched. And when you mask the symptom, the disease merely pops up again in another area... ... And Eternity in an hour. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Steve James Area: Thelema To: Liliani 11 Sep 92 02:10:00 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ UpdReq LC> To: L'Amour Dujour From: Liliani ___--------------------------------------------------------------------- LC>Ah, but sometimes it is easier to follow the silly rules than to deal LC>with the hassles when you don't. Do you see that as a valid reason to LC>not ignore them? I just can't resist muddying the waters a bit more!: "The only sin is restriction" IMHO, my ethics and morals MUST be reletivistic since my WILL takes prescedence over any sort of rules or other laws. As long as I make sure that I follow my Will and not my will, I feel that I will be in the right. Since the cops may not agree, I may have to be careful at times. Fortunatly, so far, my Will has not demanded any major risk from the cops, but I suppose it just might some day. My attitude is a recognition that any absolute system of ethics would require a perfect understanding of the Great Work, and definition down to the Nth degree as N approaches infinity. It's far more productive IMHO to go only a few degrees and thus come up with a few general principals (subject to change) that will act as guidelines only. For example "Thou shalt not kill" is IMPOSSABLE to follow! Your immune system kills all the time, and if you shut it off, you kill yourself. "Do not kill unless endangered" comes closer to reasonable, but is reletivistic since it leaves the determination of "endangered" up to interpretation. Perhaps one day we will come up with a sort of 'ethical calculus' that will allow a determination to an infinate degree, but by that time, I don't believe that we'll be mucking about in Malkuth anyway. Blessed Be & 93, Steve J. ___ X EZ 1.33 X E -ex 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: L'Amour Dujour Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 12 Sep 92 11:23:06 Subject: Traffic UpdReq ..Gods created the form of Vitriol ..To Karl Lembke they cry out "Traffic" KL> Well, I mean a process that takes the raw soul and polishes KL> it, preparatory to returning to the source. Vi> ??? Sounds like digging a hole and cleaning the dirt before putting Vi> it back in the ground. KL> Why, I don't know. I guess I'll find out when I get there. Vi> There's nowhere to go; it's all Here! Vitriol: Your comment makes sense, but think of it this way: You're digging up the dirt, cleaning it of pollution, and returning it to the Earth. A most worthwhile task, and necessary!! (both to the Soul, and to Mama Earth, in this day and age.) Read: Pollution - Elements put into the soil that disturb the balance and harmony of the complete. Be it soda cans and tinfoil, or Cultural Baggage and Peer Pressure. ... Security, enlist Vitriol in the Eternity Brigade. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: L'Amour Dujour Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 12 Sep 92 11:44:08 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ UpdReq ..Gods created the form of Michael Lee ..To Josh Norton they cry out "Right & wrong " ML> apear "bald" on all levels. We're dealing with beliefs, ML> faiths, etc. The issue is whether all statements made are ML> logically consistent with each other. For the most part, I ML> think I was logically consistent. Actually, you weren't. Josh made a set of statements, backed up by consistant reasoning. He showed us both the basis of the matter, and the logic of his conclusion. Your statements came through advocating some "Universal Morality" - some morality than is the same to all. You gave us no basis for your thoughts, and gave us no examples of it. The only thing we had was your statement. ML> insight which I didn't have. One of the "tricks" in this ML> sort of situation is to make "bald" statements. Not so ML> much because I believe them, but to have others show the ML> holes in them. The problem with this technique (as I've ML> come to learn) is that entirely to many people take it the ML> wrong way. Like I'm prostylitizing (sp?). None of us took it the wrong way - we just didn't see what you were trying to say. (see above) So we question your logic. ML> deteriorated over the past 5-8 posts. Although not blatant ML> flames, there has been an increase in "power" games. A ML> subtle attempt to belittle over obscure issues. It's the ML> "expert" syndrome. "Obviously you aren't quite as ML> smart/ggod/knowledgable as I am. Therfore your arguments ML> on all issues are inferior." I know this is an extreme, Like we've said so many times before: Show us. I didn't see such a syndrome. I did see a little bit of attitude thrown at the fact that you kept saying things without giving any basis for the thought, nor any logical conclusion to it. That's about it. ML> said (and I'm paraphrasing) that most actions can be ML> predicted in advance. I also said that I'd leave magic out of it for ML> the moment. Josh replied to this by bringing up Quantum ML> Mechanics and the book _In Search of Schroedinger's Cat_. ML> Seeming to refute my statement. Well, in writing that .. .. .. ML> the last refuge of a scoundrel. When we're dealing with .. .. .. ML> it that people who read these books are all of a sudden ML> experts in QM? I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but the ML> _only_ thing Josh was trying to do was out expert me. To ML> show me how smart and knowledgable he was, and how ignorant ML> and ill-prepared I was. Get off the darn throne. Get over it. Unless I remember incorrectly, Josh made a statement concerning our inability to observe without interfering with the original act. In this, he made reference to QM. How is this "out-expert"ing? Do you feel out-experted because someone made reply to your statements, and bothered to give examples and references? [Come, sit down on this nice couch..] Do you feel bothered when people site references to their work? Do you get scared when people have logical material to go against your thoughts? Do you have bad dreams after discussions? Did your parents ever do these things to you? As a child, did you...... [ Okay, here I'm joking. But I'm trying to make a point. ] We don't consider that "experting", we consider that good research. NOTE: I never said I don't so the same. In fact, most of my posts are based on my thoughts on matters, as opposed to solid research. But I don't get all upset when people call me on my 'facts'. ... Michael Lee: Heaven is out of space, please take a number. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Karl Lembke Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 12 Sep 92 09:12:02 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ UpdReq LD>Well, I set my off-line reader to not let me save a reply if it has more LD>than 50% quoted in it. So I'm adding these two lines to bring it over... LD>(BTW: Could we make that idea mandatory for those people quote the entire LD>message, including the sign-off? I'm sick and tired of seeing the ORIGIN LD>line in the quotation. For that matter, I'm tired of reading every LD>message several times. Once when it's posted, and five or six times when LD>it's quoted in FULL so that someone can make a two line comment. GRRRRR. ) Well, as I've noted elswhere, there is at least one node that appears to be owned by Procrustes. A lot of messages I get end abruptly after the 99th line. It should be a simple matter to implement a "must be >50%" filter, but it's easy to get around that, too. Well, as I've noted elswhere, there is at least one node that appears to be owned by Procrustes. A lot of messages I get end abruptly after the 99th line. It should be a simple matter to implement a "must be >50%" filter, but it's easy to get around that, too. ___ X SLMR 1.0 X A)bort R)etry S)ue Manufacturer 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Grendel Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 12 Sep 92 00:44:00 Subject: Traffic UpdReq > I'll send them along when done. At the moment, I'm debating whether to > spend the necessary amount of time reproducing the few 3-d diagrams in > _Anatomy_of_the_Body_of_God_, or to just forget it until I can locate > someone with a flatbed scanner. Most of the 2-D diagrams are done, and > need only be converted to GIF format. Ok. Sounds good. Thanks. Wassail, Grendel 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Pat Crumhorn Area: Thelema To: Liliani 13 Sep 92 14:57:58 Subject: Re: Love under Will Sent UpdReq 93. In a message of 31-Aug-92, Liliani wrote: >Well, while maintaining that I do love humanity in general, >I would also apply my definitions. What would be best for >the human race, as a race, and the Earth, as a whole, would >be the destruction of about 2/3 of us plus strong >inhibitions against overpopulation. > Hardly in conformity with the New Age seamless garment >take no life, eh? No, but quite in keeping with the expressed policy of the ruling elites of the white, western world. Reminds me of Bill Burroughs talking about white racists who thought the world would be better off without Blacks, gays, etc. "That's a whole lot of people you want to get rid of...some of whom might even RESIST!" More personally, I confronted a bunch of "Earth First!" jerks at a table at the Univ. of Texas campus a couple of years ago. These are the guys who think AIDS is a blessing and that no money should be spent on researching a cure because "it will depopulate Africa and Africa has too many people". I pointed out that Ethiopia has a population density less than that of North Dakota, and asked why they weren't advocating the wilful genocide of North Dakotans, since they are more "overpopulated" than Ethiopia. Now, not to be too personal here, Liliani, but I must give you exactly the same comment I gave the Earth First! guy. If you feel there are too many people on the planet, consider that charity begins at home. Suicide is not forbidden by the Book of the Law. Perhaps a thorough study of the work of Buckminster Fuller ("Critical Path" and "Grunch of Giants" are good starters) will expand your horizons past the erroneous "not enough to go around" closed-system propaganda, financed and spread by those who gain financially from artificial scarcity of goods. If not, consider that those "other" people who you think the planet would be better off without might very well feel the same way about you. 93 93/93 Pat 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718