Hear, hear,

The same kind of criticism as Bob Smith pointed out I strongly
second.

What Margaret Tarbet writes cannot possibly be overemphasized.

I repeat, what are we doing on this list? Just chatting as we were
having five o'clock tea.

I see no proposals to set something into action and submit them to
discussion.

My own posts about maternal care have been ignored when they did
propose a series of complex material actions to be considered, at the
very least; since whatever organization we may find fit to make our
lives better will inevitably carried out by humans, and we can't have
mentally deranged persons occupying crucial social positions in a
truly democratic society. As to how this should be implemented, it is
an open question, a matter of debate, a matter of seeking the
opinions of the few specialists we have left, after the general
corruption in psychology during the last 2 decades razed what had
been started in the sixties. We need to organize multidsiciplinary
groups, to set the bases of strategies with the aim to give rise to
social change.

JC Garelli

In a message dated  2 May 97 at 12:54, Margaret Tarbet says:

On  2 May 97 at 7:00, Juan Carlos Garelli wrote:

> [...] Thus, this tends to become a repository of wishful thinking without
> any influence on our ways to see life from Chomsky's perspective. [...]

I'm _very_ glad you said this, Juan Carlos.  I suspect that many of
the folk who have left this community did so because they expected
different content than has so far appeared.

With all respect to other members here, i've been disappointed to find
that most posts have been on ...mmm, let's say less-important aspects
of NC's thought.  He emphasises political organisation as the only
possible way to create change.  Without change, any discussion is at
most preamble and at worst a way to drain off productive energy. Yet
so far we're not talking much about the bread-and-butter issues.

NC holds up the candle to light our path, but it is we who have to
walk it.  And we can't take our first steps sooner than now.

If the health of a society is measured by how well and sparingly it
meets the non-pathological needs of all its members, i cannot think of
one major society today that qualifies as healthy.  Most seem to me to
be "cancerous":  the wellbeing of the whole body being sacrificed to
the (temporary) wellbeing of a few out-of-control "cells".  I'd love
to be shown wrong: it would give us a model to follow.  Anyone know of
one?

Anyone care to start the ball rolling toward a description of
change that we might actually be able to successfully promote?  I
would urge that we avoid proposals that would require people to
suddenly undergo significant personality changes in adulthood.
Whatever we do has to account for self-interest, greed, willful
ignorance, stupidity, and sloth.

=margaret
....................................................................
Margaret Tarbet / [log in to unmask] / Cambridge Massachusetts USA
....................................................................
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  But if I am only for
myself, what am I? ... And if not now, when?
 -- Rabbi Hillel, called The Babylonian (ca. 60 BCE)

Juan Carlos Garelli, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Early Development
Attachment Research Center
University of Buenos Aires