From a.s.e.

Ronald A. Blouch, Jr. ( wrote:

> Is there a purpose to this newsgroup separate from the stated purpose of
> the Greenzone e-mail list?  Are cross postings to both entities
> appropriate?

     Heidrun needs to write a charter and put it up for vote.

     If the users want to spill greenzone into this news group they
can set up a mail to news gateway or simply subscribe to the greenzone
mailing list.

> Finally.  If the group is to be unmoderated, are there any teeth to the
> requests of the charter?  No flames?  How will that be enforced?

     A group defines its desires.  If there is strong agreement with
the charter, then in general people will obey it.

     Two things for Heidrun.

     1.) The spirit can not be enhanced.

     2.) People do not want help and are not reaching for help except
as a second postulate riding on a failure to be sufficient unto

     Help is only ethical and in fact *WANTED* to the degree that it
helps people to not *NEED* help and to be come able and willing to
tune their own involvement in help again as they see fit.

     One does this by getting them to spot the times they tuned it to
its present state and why.

     Turning help and helpee into a life's philosophy is an ABYSMALLY
low toned thing to do.

     OK / Not OK

     A being starts out in existence emmanating OKness.  He's going
along in the time stream, making each unit of time as "Things are OK,
Things are OK, Things are OK...."

     Each moment of time is created as an OK followed by another OK,
followed by another OK, regardless of how things are.

     Then one day he makes the postulate "Whoa!  This is Not OK."

     It is not necessary to go into WHY he makes this postualte, just
about anything that could be said about why he makes this postulate,
would probably be a wrong indication at this time.

     From the postulate that "This is Not OK" he then extends a vision
of what would be OK.  From this vision, which becomes his desire,
desire based on his dissatisfaction with what is now, and his extant
knowledge that he has gleaned through the ages, he then computes what
to DO about the now to make it OK again.  
     He considers that if he can make things OK again, he will just
forget that it is forever NOT OK that things were ever Not OK in the
first place.   If he can just make things OK again, he will
let go the little glitch in time when things were not OK.
and let bygones be bygones.

     Anything to have things be OK again.

     Then he acts upon what he has computed to do.

     His acts do not have the intended consequence and in fact make
the present MORE Not OK.  The problem is now HE is to blame for why
things went from Not OK to more Not OK.

     He is no longer free to leave the present because he owes a debt
to it.

     So now he wants to make amends, which means repair the damage he
caused and bring the state of the present back to where they were
before he got involved.  He considers that things would be just fine
with him, they would be OK with him, if he could just get things back
to the original Not OK that he found them in!

     Who cares if there are a few Not OK's here and there, its far
better than the worse Not OK that resulted from him mucking around
with them.

     He then extends another vision of how things were as he
originally found them, and again he computes from his new desire and
his knoweldge what to do to return things back to their original NOT
OK before he got involved.


     1.) His present vision to repair the damage he did is a Q&A from
his original vision to fix the original Not OK he ran across.

     2.) His present vision is diametrically opposed to his original
vision.  The first vision wanted to fix a Not OK.  The second vision
wants to restore that original Not OK!

     Again he acts from his second vision, and again he fails.

     *NOW* he begins to want help.

     Help for what however he does not know.

     What he wants is to recover his original state of "Things are OK,
Things are OK, Things are OK..." regardless of how things are.