I was referring, Durwin, to the cultural landscapes of TV and the wide spread manipulation that I see rampant in the media, of our feelings of loss. I was also referencing remarks that Marco made about similar responses to the press. This is the background from which my remarks emerged and I was also assuming about how much others would know or care to know about those previous conversations. So as you have taken that remark as an example( I assume ) of making explicit, what was implicit,and ranking me accordingly, what do you know now, Durwin, that you didnt know before you made this assessment?
And as you have labeled my comments as coming from " green" , and that is considered highly pejorative in most Wilberian circles, I wonder, how useful labels are, when used to rank others, in pre-given ways? Is there an alternative way?
As we have been considering over the last few months, green and the post modern, and how it hasn’t been integrated , I wonder if this an example of how, Durwin, you create rapport with " green" ?
A meta-comment. For me, personally, this feels like you are using the language of contempt. It feels like you are scapegoating. Of course, that may not be in your awareness, and I may be wrong, AND I am being explicit as possible.
I welcome all approaches, here, and I suggest that you should feel free, as I have done over many months, to coordinate the best efforts of others on this messy public forum. I appreciate the feedback and the support I have received. Good luck!
I have developed Clean Language Practice, as an alternative to what I felt was assessments and efforts to rank others. This is definitely a work in process. I prefer Clean Language as a way to by-pass a lot of misapplied labels based upon the use of very loosely applied categories.