Well, what was on my mind as I wrote the ‘Opinion-Editorial’ on ‘Global Warming’ was not ‘global warming’ per se, but the different psychologies that are ‘operative’ in the discussion.  I see three in operation which were first ‘categorized’ for me by ‘Missy and Larry Hein’ of Metairie Louisiana (Larry has since rejoined the cosmic flow, as he might have put it).

Larry Hein S.J. Ret. and his 'Angel-dog' Missy

Larry Hein S.J. Ret. is a retired Jesuit priest who claimed (tongue-in-cheek) that his ‘angel dog’ Missy (his pure intuitive aspect) was teaching him and that he was merely her mouthpiece and a slow learner who was meanwhile trying to assimilate Missy’s teachings.  Larry was tuned to the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and pointed me to some of his ‘forbidden’  letters which suggested to me that his ‘curious’ manner of sharing his ideas on religion was probably prudent; (more…)

Because of the emotions tied up on the issue of global warming, there is a danger that when one ‘opens one mouth’ or ‘writes a few words’, they are likely to be summarily dismissed by those  who feel that the world can be divided into two groups, -those who support the man-made global warming hypothesis, and, -those who do not support the man-made global warming hypothesis.

So, there is difficulty in sharing inquiry into the topic of climate variance, man’s activities and the relationship between the two, since such inquiry tends to be seen as a  ‘re-opening’ of  inquiry that has already been ‘settled’, the result being that everyone is identified as being ‘a member of one or the other of two groups’ so that ‘further inquiry into the topic’ is CLOSED, apart from developing more detailed understanding WITHIN one or the other camp.

There is, of course, another ‘line of inquiry’ and that is; ‘what is the source of this division of opinion on this topic of climate variance, human activity, and the relationship between the two.’ (more…)

Writing this ‘author’s subtext’ didn’t come as easily to me, as it usually does and I have had to ask myself ‘why’?

I never write ‘from planned structure’ but instead I ‘explode a central idea’ that is essential ‘relational’.  The ‘exploding’ is guided from the outside-in by certain thoughts that are in my mind at the time which are ‘bigger than’ the ‘idea’ itself; such as ‘why am I writing this particular article’, and a miscellany of thoughts that pertain to the act of writing it, and how it might be interpreted (or not) by the reader etc. etc.

After I have written the article, then I review what all of those ‘outside of the article’ influences were as I was writing.   This is kind of like describing the movements of one’s fingers as one fashions a snowball in one’s bare hands.  The shape and quality of the ‘content’, the ‘snowball’ is the thing that ‘persists’ but all of those wigglings and bendings of the fingers have disappeared.  What were the shaping forces  like along the rocky coast where giant arches persist just offshore, their centres having been ‘chewed out’ of them by the violence of the waves?  As one regards ‘content’ (the ‘dynamical figure’) and lets the mind move back and away from it into the invisible-because-purely-transient shape-sourcing ‘dynamical ground’, one can only capture a few of the most ‘obvious’ ‘shapers’;  e.g, there was the big storm of ’37 or the missing finger or etc.

Out of my early memories I remember my mother (daughter of Italian peasants who emigrated to Canada before she was born) expressing disgust and outrage over the brutal way in which Mussolini and Carla Petacci were ‘taken out’ and while there was no doubt of how firmly she opposed fascism and supported her brothers who had all  served in the Canadian military, she could not support such vile vengefulness of those (perhaps all of us) who were in no way ‘innocent’ themselves. (more…)

Though it is unlikely to show in the body of writing in these APN pages, I have been drawn to Barack Obama’s innate ‘potentials’.  However, my impression from before he ran for president was that he was applying himself in the wrong place.   As an ‘American’ in a world leadership position, YES, … but as an ‘American leader’ positioning the world, NO.

‘Wag-the-dog leadership’:  If the tail is to the dog as the leader’s baton is to the body public, the job of the natural leader is to capture, articulate,  nurture and sustain the resonances/rhythms emerging freely in the body public (the natural leader’s dynamic is the RESULT of the collective dynamic), whereas ‘wag-the-dog’ leadership is to make the body public captive of the leader’s own top-down imposed rhythms , the result of which is a kind of goose-stepping mono-rhythm  (in wag-the-dog leadership, the leader is the CAUSE  of the collective dynamic). (more…)