manners/rank
gruvystarchild
"I'm sorry, but natural? I get stuck right there. Human culture is
not
natural, it's artifice. Nice artifice, hopefully useful, but not
natural. "
Human culture is not natural? Since WHEN?
Me thinks someone needs to study history a bit before arguing this
ridiculous point. Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.
Hell, even animals have rank and hierarchy!!!
Oh my gosh....It's baffling that someone would actually argue that
human culture is not natural. What IS natural in your world?
Ren
not
natural, it's artifice. Nice artifice, hopefully useful, but not
natural. "
Human culture is not natural? Since WHEN?
Me thinks someone needs to study history a bit before arguing this
ridiculous point. Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.
Hell, even animals have rank and hierarchy!!!
Oh my gosh....It's baffling that someone would actually argue that
human culture is not natural. What IS natural in your world?
Ren
[email protected]
I said:
<< "I'm sorry, but natural? I get stuck right there. Human culture is
not
natural, it's artifice. Nice artifice, hopefully useful, but not
natural. "
starsuncloud@... writes:
Human culture is not natural? Since WHEN?
Me thinks someone needs to study history a bit before arguing this
ridiculous point. Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.
Hell, even animals have rank and hierarchy!!!
Oh my gosh....It's baffling that someone would actually argue that
human culture is not natural. What IS natural in your world?
Ren
learn? Didn't that create our culture? Or was culture "done to us"?
<<Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.>>
So, we did we do it for ourselves, or it was "natural"? Which one is it?
~Aimee
<< "I'm sorry, but natural? I get stuck right there. Human culture is
not
natural, it's artifice. Nice artifice, hopefully useful, but not
natural. "
starsuncloud@... writes:
Human culture is not natural? Since WHEN?
Me thinks someone needs to study history a bit before arguing this
ridiculous point. Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.
Hell, even animals have rank and hierarchy!!!
Oh my gosh....It's baffling that someone would actually argue that
human culture is not natural. What IS natural in your world?
Ren
>>Do human beings have consciousness, choice, and the ablility to adapt and
learn? Didn't that create our culture? Or was culture "done to us"?
<<Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.>>
So, we did we do it for ourselves, or it was "natural"? Which one is it?
~Aimee
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/20/03 3:20:31 PM, AimeeL73@... writes:
<< Do human beings have consciousness, choice, and the ablility to adapt and
learn? Didn't that create our culture? Or was culture "done to us"? >>
Done to us how?
On what unattached-to-earth-rock did people stand to create our culture? If
they were already people, they already HAD a culture.
<<<<Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.>>
<<So, we did we do it for ourselves, or it was "natural"? Which one is it?
It is natural for apes and monkeys.
It is natural for wolves and dogs.
It is natural for cats.
It is natural for bees and ants.
Please read more about what's natural before arguing it.
Sandra
<< Do human beings have consciousness, choice, and the ablility to adapt and
learn? Didn't that create our culture? Or was culture "done to us"? >>
Done to us how?
On what unattached-to-earth-rock did people stand to create our culture? If
they were already people, they already HAD a culture.
<<<<Humans have organized and structured themselves
quite naturally since the beginning of time.>>
<<So, we did we do it for ourselves, or it was "natural"? Which one is it?
>>It is natural for humans to live in ways in which hierarchy matters.
It is natural for apes and monkeys.
It is natural for wolves and dogs.
It is natural for cats.
It is natural for bees and ants.
Please read more about what's natural before arguing it.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/20/03 8:52:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
going to be general in our posts. Everytime it looks like the thread is going to
move forward again it gets yanked back into the abyss of school like
behaviors.
Teresa's question was legitimate. I was not aware that "maroon" was an actual
saying, perhaps because I find Bugs Bunny himself to be a sarcastic
character. Hated him as a child, hate him now. Therefore, I would have asked, I thought
it was a type-o, apparently so did Teresa. When a response came through I was
glad to learn something new.
Then this post, with it's vehemence, comes through as an attempt to regulate
a particular person's postings? I thought these posts were seen by everyone
and finger pointing was being resisted for the sake of keeping discussions
general? I thought list netiqette here was suppose to include not naming names and
not getting personal? I thought we weren't name-calling here, but directly
stating someone natters is ok? Some babble, some yak, so what? Or is natter in
particular not allowed? Was "please" added simply to pretend to be polite or
was it sarcastic as several posts have been?? Maybe it was both, pretend
politeness dripping in sarcasm. Maybe it was humor.
Perhaps everyone should only post once or twice a day. Silence can be golden.
I'm sure several here wish I were.
If anyone is unaware of just how much learning can be done when they stop
speaking and start listening, I would encourage them to read, read, read. Look
things up, go to google, do something. Don't ask questions until you have. Don't
give perspectives until you can qualify yourself with what research you have
done. But what if it's a book others haven't read? Oh wait I forgot some
people here know everything. But then again, there are individuals who refuse to
legitimize other perspectives, they want proof that posters have in fact
thought and read and researched. What happens though if several members research but
no one reads the same material, then whose worthy?
Oh man, who is that going to leave to post?
I wish the rules for posting applied to everyone, but wait, that would
require equality and we aren't. Or are we? But if in fact we are not, who
determines what we are? Who deems the worthiness or equality? Oh maybe it all falls
under who gets moderated. Those who should be heard, are quieted under the guise
of what's best for the list, when truthfully it's about not wanting certain
toes stepped on, while others are allowed to yak away (note they don't natter)
with absolutely no censorship whatsoever.
Things that you go, "Hmmmmm,".
Rhonda - who happens to have reflected enough to know she babbles and will
happily stop when those who yak practice what they preach to those who natter.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> <<>I am such a maroon.Well once again the bullying is rearing it's ugly head. I thought we were
>
> A maroon?
>
> or a moron? >>
>
> Teresa, it was humor.
>
> Please only post once or twice a day. You're starting to natter again.
> Wait until you have something to add that will help the list be richer for
> unschoolers, please.
>
> Sandra
>
going to be general in our posts. Everytime it looks like the thread is going to
move forward again it gets yanked back into the abyss of school like
behaviors.
Teresa's question was legitimate. I was not aware that "maroon" was an actual
saying, perhaps because I find Bugs Bunny himself to be a sarcastic
character. Hated him as a child, hate him now. Therefore, I would have asked, I thought
it was a type-o, apparently so did Teresa. When a response came through I was
glad to learn something new.
Then this post, with it's vehemence, comes through as an attempt to regulate
a particular person's postings? I thought these posts were seen by everyone
and finger pointing was being resisted for the sake of keeping discussions
general? I thought list netiqette here was suppose to include not naming names and
not getting personal? I thought we weren't name-calling here, but directly
stating someone natters is ok? Some babble, some yak, so what? Or is natter in
particular not allowed? Was "please" added simply to pretend to be polite or
was it sarcastic as several posts have been?? Maybe it was both, pretend
politeness dripping in sarcasm. Maybe it was humor.
Perhaps everyone should only post once or twice a day. Silence can be golden.
I'm sure several here wish I were.
If anyone is unaware of just how much learning can be done when they stop
speaking and start listening, I would encourage them to read, read, read. Look
things up, go to google, do something. Don't ask questions until you have. Don't
give perspectives until you can qualify yourself with what research you have
done. But what if it's a book others haven't read? Oh wait I forgot some
people here know everything. But then again, there are individuals who refuse to
legitimize other perspectives, they want proof that posters have in fact
thought and read and researched. What happens though if several members research but
no one reads the same material, then whose worthy?
Oh man, who is that going to leave to post?
I wish the rules for posting applied to everyone, but wait, that would
require equality and we aren't. Or are we? But if in fact we are not, who
determines what we are? Who deems the worthiness or equality? Oh maybe it all falls
under who gets moderated. Those who should be heard, are quieted under the guise
of what's best for the list, when truthfully it's about not wanting certain
toes stepped on, while others are allowed to yak away (note they don't natter)
with absolutely no censorship whatsoever.
Things that you go, "Hmmmmm,".
Rhonda - who happens to have reflected enough to know she babbles and will
happily stop when those who yak practice what they preach to those who natter.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
RJHill241@... writes:
<< Rhonda - who happens to have reflected enough to know she babbles and will
happily stop when those who yak practice what they preach to those who
natter.
And I enjoyed reading that one.
~Aimee
<< Rhonda - who happens to have reflected enough to know she babbles and will
happily stop when those who yak practice what they preach to those who
natter.
>>I personally like your stream of consciousness posts....
And I enjoyed reading that one.
~Aimee
gruvystarchild
"What I heard was some people denying that it is even a reality that
people do engage in ranking other people socially AND other people
saying it was wrong to do so, that they don't believe in ranking
people
- that all people are the same, etc."
And that's when I feel people are projecting their own desires and
ignoring reality.
It's interesting to me, that on a board where many people took a
personality test and discussed the results, that some of those same
people deny the "naturalness" of rank and hierarchies.
I have the book that is based on the Myers-Briggs test and in
reading about all of the different personality types, it is all too
obvious that some (more passive types) will defer to the more
aggressive (leadership oriented) personality types. Not just
because it makes more sense, but it is NATURAL for their personality.
There are personalities that crave structure, others that are free
flowing. One often balances and assists the other. Humans are pack
animals. We are social creatures that need each other and hence it
is natural and desirable for there to be some kind of order to our
society. There are going to be numerous opinions on how to
structure a society, but so far I haven't seen anarchy actually
working in real life.
One of those theories that sound good, but hasn't been proven to
work in reality because they don't take into account that thing
called human nature.
Now I'm spinning off topic though. The whole point was that rank
exists. Others tried to deny it and then claim that it has nothing
to do with instinct or nature. Doing a simple personality test is
one model that shows it is indeed natural and instinctual.
Ren
people do engage in ranking other people socially AND other people
saying it was wrong to do so, that they don't believe in ranking
people
- that all people are the same, etc."
And that's when I feel people are projecting their own desires and
ignoring reality.
It's interesting to me, that on a board where many people took a
personality test and discussed the results, that some of those same
people deny the "naturalness" of rank and hierarchies.
I have the book that is based on the Myers-Briggs test and in
reading about all of the different personality types, it is all too
obvious that some (more passive types) will defer to the more
aggressive (leadership oriented) personality types. Not just
because it makes more sense, but it is NATURAL for their personality.
There are personalities that crave structure, others that are free
flowing. One often balances and assists the other. Humans are pack
animals. We are social creatures that need each other and hence it
is natural and desirable for there to be some kind of order to our
society. There are going to be numerous opinions on how to
structure a society, but so far I haven't seen anarchy actually
working in real life.
One of those theories that sound good, but hasn't been proven to
work in reality because they don't take into account that thing
called human nature.
Now I'm spinning off topic though. The whole point was that rank
exists. Others tried to deny it and then claim that it has nothing
to do with instinct or nature. Doing a simple personality test is
one model that shows it is indeed natural and instinctual.
Ren
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/22/03 11:28:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starsuncloud@... writes:
rank?
and then claim that it has nothing
both? Hence, my cell phone exist, so is it natural? It is composed of materials
created by man utilizing natural matter. Therefore, because said compositions
are created from natural matter, does that then make my cell phone natural?
Depends on ones perspectives. And just because it may not be easily understood by
some, that the possibility exists that this argument could in fact be made
that my cell phone is natural, by maintaining it's existance thru natural means,
that lack of understanding does not disqualify that argument.
Doing a simple personality test is > one model that shows it is indeed
their personailty to in fact be that of one who rejects the idea of authority,
then according to this argument, it would in fact be "natural" for them,
therefore from their POV, it would be valid to reject such an idea.
Rhonda - who's getting a serious migraine
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
starsuncloud@... writes:
> The whole point was that rankUnfortunately I must have missed some posts, who ever denied the existance of
> exists. Others tried to deny it
rank?
and then claim that it has nothing
> to do with instinct or nature.So does all existance automatically qualify as natural or instinctive or
both? Hence, my cell phone exist, so is it natural? It is composed of materials
created by man utilizing natural matter. Therefore, because said compositions
are created from natural matter, does that then make my cell phone natural?
Depends on ones perspectives. And just because it may not be easily understood by
some, that the possibility exists that this argument could in fact be made
that my cell phone is natural, by maintaining it's existance thru natural means,
that lack of understanding does not disqualify that argument.
Doing a simple personality test is > one model that shows it is indeed
> natural andOK going out on a limb again...So if one does a personality test and finds
> instinctual.
their personailty to in fact be that of one who rejects the idea of authority,
then according to this argument, it would in fact be "natural" for them,
therefore from their POV, it would be valid to reject such an idea.
Rhonda - who's getting a serious migraine
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/22/2003 3:51:49 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:
No one successfully brought a single example of a human group without a
hierarchy.
<<Depends on ones perspectives. And just because it may not be easily
understood by
some, that the possibility exists that this argument could in fact be made
that my cell phone is natural, by maintaining it's existance thru natural
means,
that lack of understanding does not disqualify that argument.>>
If people say your argument isn't a parallel that means they just don't
understand it?
Bad examples are as "qualified" as good arguments?
<<So if one does a personality test and finds
their personailty to in fact be that of one who rejects the idea of
authority,
then according to this argument, it would in fact be "natural" for them,
therefore from their POV, it would be valid to reject such an idea. >>
Rejecting the idea of authority is kinda like rejecting the idea that the
earth goes around the sun, or rejecting theideathatice is frozen water.
If a wolf took a personality test and it showed that he "rejects the idea
that wolves live in packs," or rejects the idea that there is alpha male behavior
(and natural behavior toward an alpha male) would that mean he was a superior
kind of wolf? Or just maybe a delusional kind of wolf?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RJHill241@... writes:
> So does all existance automatically qualify as natural or instinctive orI could name many groups, times and cultures without cell phones.
> both? Hence, my cell phone exist, so is it natural? It is composed of
> materials
> created by man utilizing natural matter.
No one successfully brought a single example of a human group without a
hierarchy.
<<Depends on ones perspectives. And just because it may not be easily
understood by
some, that the possibility exists that this argument could in fact be made
that my cell phone is natural, by maintaining it's existance thru natural
means,
that lack of understanding does not disqualify that argument.>>
If people say your argument isn't a parallel that means they just don't
understand it?
Bad examples are as "qualified" as good arguments?
<<So if one does a personality test and finds
their personailty to in fact be that of one who rejects the idea of
authority,
then according to this argument, it would in fact be "natural" for them,
therefore from their POV, it would be valid to reject such an idea. >>
Rejecting the idea of authority is kinda like rejecting the idea that the
earth goes around the sun, or rejecting theideathatice is frozen water.
If a wolf took a personality test and it showed that he "rejects the idea
that wolves live in packs," or rejects the idea that there is alpha male behavior
(and natural behavior toward an alpha male) would that mean he was a superior
kind of wolf? Or just maybe a delusional kind of wolf?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/22/03 5:54:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
KathrynJB@... writes:
responded and sent out my last post on this thread. When I read your post, it was a
major lightbulb moment. I began to ask myself: Why can't I let this go? Haven't
I said all I can say? Is what I'm saying even making a difference? Joyce asked
me if I thought I was causing anyone to change. I still can't answer that. I
just know that I am exhausted now.
So thank you for posting this. I have decided that I will not post to this
thread unless someone asks questions of me that I haven't answered already. I
did say I would clarify if I was at anytime misunderstood or unclear in any
manner, so if that is the case, you will see me clarify. Other than those
instances, I plan to follow my own silence can be golden advice and move on to other
topics.
Peace to all of you,
Rhonda - neither giving up nor giving in, just moving on... ;-)
P.S. Sorry Nichole I just read your last post and it turned out you were the
party that gave out the Anarchy/Libertarian links. I apologize for not
remembering that it was you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
KathrynJB@... writes:
> I may be the only one who feels this way (and please speak up if that's theOh Kathryn, I wish I had read all the posts since yesterday before I
>
> case), but I am finding this whole conversation about rank really divisve
> and
> damagaing to the list. No one seems to really be hearing anyone, and it just
>
> seems so silly.
>
> Can we possibly stop? I know I can just delete it, but it seeps into other
> threads, and it has gotten to a point where ...well....it seems to have no
> point.
>
> Kathryn
>
responded and sent out my last post on this thread. When I read your post, it was a
major lightbulb moment. I began to ask myself: Why can't I let this go? Haven't
I said all I can say? Is what I'm saying even making a difference? Joyce asked
me if I thought I was causing anyone to change. I still can't answer that. I
just know that I am exhausted now.
So thank you for posting this. I have decided that I will not post to this
thread unless someone asks questions of me that I haven't answered already. I
did say I would clarify if I was at anytime misunderstood or unclear in any
manner, so if that is the case, you will see me clarify. Other than those
instances, I plan to follow my own silence can be golden advice and move on to other
topics.
Peace to all of you,
Rhonda - neither giving up nor giving in, just moving on... ;-)
P.S. Sorry Nichole I just read your last post and it turned out you were the
party that gave out the Anarchy/Libertarian links. I apologize for not
remembering that it was you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
The National Homeschool Association tried to be one, as I understand it
<G>.
They faded away - and I think that is likely because there was no
actual leadership and they tried to operate 100 percent based on
unanimous consensus and so had nobody who ranked enough to even say
that it was time to make a decision or that a decision had been made or
anything like that to help them move along.
I may be wrong - this is what I've gleaned from what I heard about this
over the years.
-pam
<G>.
They faded away - and I think that is likely because there was no
actual leadership and they tried to operate 100 percent based on
unanimous consensus and so had nobody who ranked enough to even say
that it was time to make a decision or that a decision had been made or
anything like that to help them move along.
I may be wrong - this is what I've gleaned from what I heard about this
over the years.
-pam
On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 03:11 PM, SandraDodd@... wrote:
> No one successfully brought a single example of a human group without a
> hierarchy.
Tim and Maureen
----- Original Message -----
From: gruvystarchild
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:27 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] manners/rank
"What I heard was some people denying that it is even a reality that
people do engage in ranking other people socially AND other people
saying it was wrong to do so, that they don't believe in ranking
people
- that all people are the same, etc."
And that's when I feel people are projecting their own desires and
ignoring reality.
It's interesting to me, that on a board where many people took a
personality test and discussed the results, that some of those same
people deny the "naturalness" of rank and hierarchies.
I have the book that is based on the Myers-Briggs test and in
reading about all of the different personality types, it is all too
obvious that some (more passive types) will defer to the more
aggressive (leadership oriented) personality types. Not just
because it makes more sense, but it is NATURAL for their personality.
There are personalities that crave structure, others that are free
flowing. One often balances and assists the other. Humans are pack
animals. We are social creatures that need each other and hence it
is natural and desirable for there to be some kind of order to our
society. There are going to be numerous opinions on how to
structure a society, but so far I haven't seen anarchy actually
working in real life.
One of those theories that sound good, but hasn't been proven to
work in reality because they don't take into account that thing
called human nature.
Now I'm spinning off topic though. The whole point was that rank
exists. Others tried to deny it and then claim that it has nothing
to do with instinct or nature. Doing a simple personality test is
one model that shows it is indeed natural and instinctual.
Ren
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tim and Maureen
What about the ancient Chinese text (Tao Te Ching (sp?) by Lao Tsu)that would argue that the best most natural leaders are unaggressive and quiet, staying in the background?
My Taoist) thots
Tim T
Ren wrote:
It's interesting to me, that on a board where many people took a
personality test and discussed the results, that some of those same
people deny the "naturalness" of rank and hierarchies.
I have the book that is based on the Myers-Briggs test and in
reading about all of the different personality types, it is all too
obvious that some (more passive types) will defer to the more
aggressive (leadership oriented) personality types. Not just
because it makes more sense, but it is NATURAL for their personality.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My Taoist) thots
Tim T
Ren wrote:
It's interesting to me, that on a board where many people took a
personality test and discussed the results, that some of those same
people deny the "naturalness" of rank and hierarchies.
I have the book that is based on the Myers-Briggs test and in
reading about all of the different personality types, it is all too
obvious that some (more passive types) will defer to the more
aggressive (leadership oriented) personality types. Not just
because it makes more sense, but it is NATURAL for their personality.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]