Why I am switching from ‘distribution lists’ to ‘invitation-pending-interest-lists and concealing email addresses.

In composing ‘distribution lists’ [I have never had any fixed distribution lists],  I start with a particular piece of content and go through my contacts list asking myself the question; ‘might so-and-so be interested in this piece?’ and being perhaps overly generous with the ‘yes’ nods, compose my ‘distribution list’.  I leave the email addresses there in the spirit of openness/trust.

The distribution list was never intended as a “discussion forum” list, although it has on occasion been employed as such, not by myself but by one or more recipients on the list.  This led to a situation where I was expected to be ‘the manager’ of discussions that used the distribution list as a discussion forum list and to impose my judgement on what ‘went too far’ or was ‘in error’ and to otherwise ‘set the record straight’.  Since my research [into peacemaking circles etc.] has made me into an advocate of ‘restorative justice’ whereby one does not impose moral judgement but simply promotes and assists in the restoring of balance and harmony where conflict arises, I was not inclined to put myself into the position of ‘moderator’ of a debating forum.  Having served as a circle keeper, I prefer to use to the ‘power of the circle’ as the mediating influence; i.e. to let each person holding the talking stick speak their piece ‘from their heart’ and not exploit their ‘access to the microphone’ to impose judgements.  Circles are more easily accomplished on a face-to-face basis.


This is why; as well as the background given below, that I decided to switch from distribution lists to invitation-pending-interest lists, where the emails sent out include only a link to writing on a particular subject that may be of interest, with a brief description of the subject matter [since the subject matter is only a ‘click’ away].  The invitation lists use Bcc’s that suppress email addresses.


My apologies if the distribution list traffic was in any way bothersome to you, and please advise if you would rather not be on any invitation lists.


Here is my ‘main story’ that you are invited, pending interest, to read;


every system is epigenetically actualized by need within the relational suprasystem. noun and verb semantics reconstruct ‘reality’ in terms of ‘systems’ out of the context of the ‘suprasystem’ (as if in a void). for those stoking the functioning of their own systems like the Blacksmith, epigenetic influence is like water to fish though it is the primary physical reality while the realm of the ‘system’ is a ‘semantic reality’ only.


The picture is meant to illustrate the physical reality that we are included in something greater than ourselves; … a relational suprasystem or ‘epigenetic influence’ that inductively actualizes, orchestrates and shapes ‘genetic expression’.   Western scientific thinking culture tends to create semantic realities out of ‘systems’ stoked by humans, making it appear as if humans are ‘improving on nature’.  This continually ‘talked up’ semantic reality has become a de facto ‘operative reality’ and confused with the physical reality of our actual experience.

The Blacksmith is ‘being obsoleted’ by epigenetic influences which are inductively actualizing genetic expression in the form of newly emerging ‘systems’.  The epigenetic ‘change field’ that the Blacksmith is included in is like water to fish.  His focus is to stoke the system he is working in so as to sustain its healthy functioning.


* * *

I am trying to articulate and share the whys and how’s of my being at odds with the culture I have grown up in.   (more…)