[Peace-discuss] AWARE

[jgeo61 at comcast.net]

Can you describe the "bridge" that you are creating? Whom are you attempting to connect? 

Joy 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag> 
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 10:04:02 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE 

Certainly Carl is correct in noting that a pontifex is one who builds a bridge between man and God. 

pontifex, from pont-, stem of pons "bridge" + -fex, -ficis, root of facere "make." 

The connotation of pontifications being dogmatic follows from that position. The messages flowing 
over the genuine bridge toward man are truth, and perfect. Man, on the other hand, has many inventions. 


On 9/3/2009 3:06 AM, John W. wrote: 



Incidentally, in my own dictionary perusings and musings - to say nothing of my life experience - I'm not seeing anything about a person who pontificates as being a "bridge builder": 

pon·tif·i·cate 

	(pŏn-tĭf'ĭ-kĭt, -kāt') 
n. The office or term of office of a pontiff. 
intr.v. (-kāt') pon·tif·i·cat·ed , pon·tif·i·cat·ing , pon·tif·i·cates 


    1. To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way. 
    2. To administer the office of a pontiff. 

[Latin pontificātus , from pontifex , pontific- , pontifex ; see pontifex . V., from Medieval Latin pontificāre , pontificāt- , to act as an ecclesiastic , from Latin pontifex .] 
pon·tif'i·ca'tion n. , pon·tif'i·ca'tor n. 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. 
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 




But (from a Louse to a Mouse) Rabbie Burns came closer to my condition when he wrote, 

Wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie, 
O, what a panic's in thy breastie! 
Thou need na start awa sae hasty, 
Wi' bickering brattle! 

--WSCTB 


John W. wrote: 



O wad some gift the Giftie gie us 
To see oursels as ithers see us! 

--Robert Burns, I believe 



On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM, C. G. Estabrook < galliher at illinois.edu <mailto: galliher at illinois.edu >> wrote: 

"...intervention by leadership"? AWARE has leadership? When & 
where has it 
"intervened"? 

Do I understand correctly that you're objecting to debate on a 
discussion 
list...? Or saying just that "pontificators" have to shut up? 

(A pontificator -- I have to hurry to point it out before Wayne does 
-- is 
literally a bridge-builder, and that surely is something we need to do.) 

Yet you conclude, "May the conversation continue..." OK. --CGE 





jgeo61 at comcast.net <mailto: jgeo61 at comcast.net > wrote: 


I would be happy to. As I understand, the AWARE group was 
created to tackle the issues of Peace and Justice and be an 
outlet for folks living in the area 
to feel they had a voice and to take action. The goals of the 
AWARE group 
are in theory decided upon by the membership via, ie: surveys, 
board recommendations etc. When I see only 3 - 4 people on the 
peace-discuss list serve pontificating for weeks and months at a 
time and when the conversations become so heated that there 
needs to be an intervention by leadership, I 
understand clearly that the "discussion" has ceased to exist and 
in fact has 
slipped to a typical "I'm right, your dead wrong" situation. We 
as longtime 
peace activists, know first hand how distructive this is to the 
work that 
needs to be done. It is an unecessary distraction. 

I am tired of the situation where we are contuously losing 
members due to their frustration and unmet needs. 

In my mind, to have a meaningful discussion, not a debate, to 
explore the "root causes" of war requires intensive listening on 
both sides. Which is clearly, quite clearly, not in practice here. 

May the conversation continue. 

Joy George 


----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" 
< galliher at illinois.edu <mailto: galliher at illinois.edu >> 
To: jgeo61 at comcast.net <mailto: jgeo61 at comcast.net > Cc: 

peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
<mailto: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Sent: Wednesday, 

September 2, 2009 9:23:29 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE 

Would you be willing to be a bit more specific? 

What are "the goals and needs of the entire group" that are not 
reflected on 
peace-discuss? And what is "the entire group"? AWARE members? 
All those in 
favor of peace? 

If the list doesn't reflect such views, the solution would seem 
to be inclusion, not exclusion, viz. "those who want to have the 
ongoing debate discussions find their own regular venue..." 

The "work to be done" seems to me importantly to include 
understanding what we're doing and why. --CGE 



jgeo61 at comcast.net <mailto: jgeo61 at comcast.net > wrote: 


This is quite an accusation. You make it sound as if we are 
pouting, taking our toys home, since we didn't get our way 
on the playground. My concern is that this discussion group 
does not reflect the goals or needs of the entire group and 
in fact the current behavior has driven away 
existing/potential members. 

If we want to "make a difference" in the peace effort, we 
must stick together to be a unified force, otherwise we 
appear only to be squabbling chickens. I strongly believe 
that if those who want to have the ongoing debate 
discussions find their own regular venue and talk until the 
cows come home. There is work to be done and there is no 
time like the present to get back to it. 

Joy 


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss 

_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090903/b6352bf2/attachment.htm