John Lennon, my Inspiration

June 8, 2006

Hi Anouk

I'm glad I am perfect in your eyes.

Jo

-

" Anouk Sickler " <zurumato

Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:32 AM

Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

> are you sure,

> there were lots of drugs involved at these Bed-In for peace,

> or are you just trying to put him down?

>

> I'm glad you are so perfect, and have stayed off drugs all of your life.

>

> , peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> >

> > Well they were titled BED-IN FOR PEACE , and I belive they were

> protests against the Vietnam war................then again, it was

> their honeymoon, and there were a lot of drugs involved, mostly in

> Hilton hotels suites, so not a lot of effort required! I could do that!

> >

> > The Valley Vegan..........................

>

To send an email to -

>

June 8, 2006

eh?

Jo

> it was more the bridge and tunnel people that treated him

> as a beatle, although I could be wrong, that is just my impression.

June 8, 2006

Well, let's get the meter out. I'm afraid John's registering 3.6 on a scale

of 15.75, so he definitely made a difference even if it's not as much as

you'd like.

Cheers

Michael

On

Behalf Of jo

08 June 2006 09:19

Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

He makes people feel better then? That's okay - but it doesn't mean he had

any effect on politics.

Jo

-

" Anouk Sickler " <zurumato

Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:26 AM

Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

hi colin,

i agree with the legend part.

he gets together people in california, seattle and new york singing in

groups about peace, today he is definately alive in peoples hearts and his

message still rings.

I went to one last december and I felt

like everyone next to me

was my brother and sister.

he is saddly missed specialy during these times of war, i remember he was

often, pictured in the newspapers of nyc, protesting workers revolutionary

parties with a loudspeaker on the streets with the people.

, " Colin Sky " <colinsky wrote:

>

> hi jo. he was basically a good guy. :-) and a legend because he

deserved to be. he was human too.

>

> everybody makes mistakes, often throughout their lives.

>

> but not everybody reaches out to the world with a universal message

of peace and hope.

>

> john lennon bravely spoke out against the iraqi war of yesteryear.

To send an email to -

June 8, 2006

Flower power.

On Behalf Of jo08 June 2006 09:17 Subject: Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

in plain English, please ?

Jo

-

Colin Sky

Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:01 AM

Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

hi ... please... if u can find a spare daisy... put one down for me...

peace

colin.

-

Anouk Sickler

Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:31 PM

Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

, "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Michael> > There's a huge difference between making "mistakes" and treatingwomen like objects to be used as you like (and let's face it, he did afair amount of that, playing on his fame to get women into bed, andshowing absolutely no respect to even the women he claimed to love).I'm not saying that he didn't do some good things, but as someone whois involved in feminist activism, I find the suggestion that someonewho treats women that way is a feminist to be rather offensive!> > BB> Peterhi peter, what women are you talking about?I am not familiar with these stories, was this pre-beatle breakup..if so... welll yes of course, Beatles probably slept with whomever theywanted. They were the Beatles!All I know of is the devotion that he showed his wife Yoko, The AlbumDouble Fanstasy was basically written to her. and the single, Woman, is about her. How manyhusbands do that?A feminist statement he made to me would be hey look world, youcalled this japanese lady a minority, I call her the woman I chose to marry. You say blondes are beautiful, I say she is beautiful. In fact, it is said that one of the reasons of the beatles breakup was that he wanted to continually involve her in the band. Ipersonally think YOko is supercool. I love her artwork and think that she has a beautiful voice. Hisalbum covers were almost always him kissing her. and if you read them, all of the lyrics, in his later albums areintensely personal. They bring you in to the intimatestruggles that their mariage faced (or frankly any marriage faces) especially with the pressures of showbusiness. He gave up his music carreer to become a father and raise his sonhimself. They could be seen walking hand in handin central park, him carrying the baby in a sling. I say he who's marriage is perfect, cast the first stone. the day that he died, I will remember forever, all the grownupsaround me were buzzing " a beatle has died" a beatle has died. It was horrible, we all cried and in thestreets suddendly everyone started talking to each other. His death brought everyone closer together in sadness. mymom brought me over to the police line and we held candles. It was a day of mourning for all of manhattan. If you go into central park there is a place called strawberry fields,near 72nd st. the dakota building where they lived, strawberry fields was designed by a million dollars that yoko gave to the park. there is a single word imagine, in a mosaic inthe floor in which people leave flowers.... . this place brings together all kinds of hippies from all over theworld... I will be there next week. > - > Michael Benis > > Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:38 PM> RE: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration> > > > Such disregard, eh? Wait til you've made a few mistakes yourself! :-)> > He wasn't the whole of any movement, but that's no reason to putdown what he was - someone who cared, some who tried to make adifference etc.> > I'll admit the "and more" was a bit of wind-up - but he was honestenough about his contradictions and in his thinking. No saint, butthen let's leave that for the true believers....> > Of course he wasn't vegan either....> > But he was John Lennon and I'm thankful to him for that> >

June 8, 2006

Peter you really want to read a bit more about their marriage from all sides. They were both hurting.

And sometimes -- sometimes often -- you only start to understand mistakes are mistakes until you've made them several times.

On Behalf Of Peter Kebbell08 June 2006 09:19 Subject: Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

Hi Anouk

>you say that john lennon's treatment of women wasn't a mistake,>and that he was just selfish.

>so why can't selfish behaviour be a mistake, why does it have to be>one or the other.

A mistake is something you do one, and then learn from. Not something you do repeatedly.

>it is obvious to me that Lennons's fans, had already forgiveen him by

>the time of his death, 1980

I really don't see what it has to do with his fans - it was his wife that he was hurting, not his fans.

>The positive impact which he had on people outweighs any selfish>behaviour he had with women in the 60's .

That's a matter of opinion, which I disagree with.

>many would consider, bill clinton's, behaviour with Monica lewinsky>as selfish, however among people who like>him, they have forgiven him, because they like him. overall.

Once again, this is down to the people he hurt to forgive him, not his political supporters. As I recall his wife left him over it.

BB

Peter

June 8, 2006

What idolisation? Everyone speaking up for him seems to agree he was imperfect!

On Behalf Of jo07 June 2006 17:29 Subject: Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

I am totally surprised and confounded by the adoration given to him - it doesn't seem to be the same in the UK. Sure there are lots of people who liked him and his music, but this idolisation seems a little strange.

Jo

-

Colin Sky

Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:26 AM

Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

hi jo. he was basically a good guy. :-) and a legend because he deserved to be. he was human too.

everybody makes mistakes, often throughout their lives.

but not everybody reaches out to the world with a universal message of peace and hope.

john lennon bravely spoke out against the iraqi war of yesteryear.

he sang to the world "all we are saying... is give peace a chance..."

when he was brilliant he was brilliant. a true world leader... towards a peaceful world.

now there is less hope and no jl.

peace

colin

-

heartwerk

Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:59 PM

Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

It is not unusual to want peace - don't most people - we just don't get the chance to tell the world because we are not famous. On the Yoko point - she must have been right about him needing other women otherwise he would have refused. In interviews with her that I have seen she was very upset by his attitude. Also his first wife was very upset when he left her. I know these happenings are not unusual but because something is a common happening does not make it any better to hurt people. Aren't we on VeganChat against hurting other beings, including people?Jo , "Anouk Sickler" <zurumato wrote:>> , "jo" <jo.heartwork@> wrote:> >> > I think it is all romanticised somewhat. He was a hard character -> and very> > selfish. He left his first wife and son when he became famous, and> claimed> > to love Yoko very much, yet was constantly unfaithful to her - even> in the> > same house within hearing distance.> > > > I am not a fan.> > > > Jo> > > > > hi jo, > > are you sure that he was a hard character?> > I do not get that impression, but I was a little kid> when he was alive.> > Perhaps I am romanticism him. > > I do know that his peace message, the Imagine song lives > within my heart, and that he lives in the heart of many > people, through his inspiration, today. > > I think that one must put into perspective what happened.> > He married his high school sweatheart and then suddendly > came into fame and half of the worlds women wanted > to sleep with him. what would many men do?> > he literally had to choose between,> the beatles career and being a normal husband. > He has expressed regret in some interviews. > > I know that his little boy Julian> was living with him and Yoko on the weekends. > and I get the impression that lots of people were getting> divorces easily back then. > > as far as sleeping with other women..> there is a documentary called Imagine. it is a dvd, which i rented.> > In it he is speaking frankly about his realtionship with yoko. > and in the interview Yoko admits, that she got women for John. > > yes, she actually encouraged him to sleep with other women, > and even got a very good asian friend of hers to sleep with john, (the> asian friend is shown in the video with yoko)> John, says "she thinks I need to sleep with other women and I don't> understand why she wants me to"> > some women that i know in nyc, have open relationships and > get their husbands to sleep with some women or a friend that they choose. > It is not my thing, but for some, Open relationships work.> > It is not very different from the polyamorous people that we know,> Serene, and Peter's friend Alex from Italy. > > I do not judge, and think that perhaps because he was a celebrity> we are looking at him through a microscope lens. > > I am one of those people that think that sex sometimes is just sex,> but if it is with someone you love it is better. > > I do give him credit for marrying an Asian person, when he could > have had all the girls in the world. > > as I understand it, Interracial marriages, were not so accepted > in the 1960's. > > I also give him credit for marrying, the woman> he loved, despite the fact that this was not encouraged by many people. > > To me that love that he felt for her is > apparent in the gallery pictures of nudes that they took > together, the way that they used to walk hand in hand and> in his devotion to the baby he had with her.>

June 8, 2006

Hi Michael

>What idolisation? Everyone speaking up for him seems to agree he was imperfect!

They also seem to attribute him with all wonder of powers he didn't have. Like single handedly stopping the Vietnam war.... that is idolisation...

To me, he was an average songwriter with a few nice ideas in some of his songs - but to be honest, when I'm involved in peace activism, I know about 15 songs which have been written by friends which are just as good as Imagine, and very powerful to sing while taking part in peace activism! Lennon merely had the advantage of already being incredibly famous when he started getting involved in these things - it doesn't make him any better than anyone else.

BB

Peter

June 8, 2006

You seem to be mistaking your own rhetoric for what other people have written -unless you're referring to my satirical "yes and more" comments....

On Behalf Of Peter Kebbell08 June 2006 11:42 Subject: Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

Hi Michael

>What idolisation? Everyone speaking up for him seems to agree he was imperfect!

They also seem to attribute him with all wonder of powers he didn't have. Like single handedly stopping the Vietnam war.... that is idolisation...

To me, he was an average songwriter with a few nice ideas in some of his songs - but to be honest, when I'm involved in peace activism, I know about 15 songs which have been written by friends which are just as good as Imagine, and very powerful to sing while taking part in peace activism! Lennon merely had the advantage of already being incredibly famous when he started getting involved in these things - it doesn't make him any better than anyone else.

BB

Peter

June 8, 2006

Hi Michael

>You seem to be mistaking your own rhetoric for what other people have written -unless you're

> referring to my satirical " yes and more " comments....

Oh, I see, it was satirical was it... glad you clarified that (and, yes, this is sarcasm)!

BTW - you seem to have got us confused - I haven't said anything about Lennon being wonderful - that was you....

BB

Peter

June 8, 2006

Thought I'd switch to a new colour!

On Behalf Of Peter07 June 2006 20:28 Subject: Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

Hi Michael

>>Yes, I would have answered differently had you been a woman. You would have commented

>> differently about Lennon had he been a woman.

>No I wouldn't!

>I beg to differ. You wouldn't have had access to the same cliched stories of what he did to build your

> judgement on.

I find it amusing that you believe you know how I would answer! I can quite categorically say that you are wrong. This has nothing to do with "cliched stories", but to do with people showing respect to one another. I don't see what's so hard about the concept of not doing things which you know will upset the people you love on a regular basis.

I'm afraid I think that's just your moral judgment, and I think the stories that you are basing it on are simplistic simple and biased, mainly come from a hostile pseudo -puritan media . there were a lot of problems in their relationship and they both hurt and manipulated each other.

>Well, firstly, there is a fundamental misapprehension that sexual feelings are related to gender.

>Maybe, but that's not what I was saying. There are components of sexuality with respect to

> objectification that are very inconvenient for gender neutrality. Just as there are assumptions about

> identity as object that have blocked any radical politics of identity and sexuality.

I suppose that depends on how you define sexuality. Once again, we're back to heteronormative stereotyping which states that people have to define themselves by the gender of the people they find attractive - either "straight", "gay", or "bi". There's a rapidly growing "Queer Mutiny" movement(s) that is precisely aimed at moving outside of these boxes, and defining people as individuals. Of course, if you define people by their sexual preferences, then you're automatically having to define them by gender, because one without the other becomes non-sensical... which is the whole point! And I don't quite see why you think there has been a "block" on radical politics of identity and sexuality - there's a group where I live which puts on regular events, gives talks, runs alternative festivals etc. with exactly the aim of promoting radical politics of identity and sexuality!

I'm afraid that's just your interpretation (the we're back to stereotyping). I wrote about objectification .

>And I do believe that the best way to tackle the issues of sexism is precisely to go beyond labelling - to challenge the heteronormative

> stereotype labels applied by society.

> don't disagree with that, but I think we also have to do more than that. I don't think "labelling" is a

> useful term either. It makes it all sound easy.

The ultimate concept is actually quite easy... getting people to think about how they currently "label" others is more difficult.

I believe it's actually much more difficult than you suggest. The very use of the word label suggests that you believe you can achieve an almost immediate understanding of and control over these "labels" once you start to "think about" them and does not acknowledge that our own thoughts and feelings, our identities, desires and the very mind we use to think about your "labels" or label them such, are themselves a product of "label" thinking, feeling and being. That's why we have to live the change to understand it more and why it is a long process and why we are likely to find we keep making mistakes. That's why we have a fundamentally different view of Lennon. I find living ones' difficulties interesting, and living them honestly admirable. You want perfection and you want it now (not that I wouldn't, but ...., well you get my drift).

This still seems to fall into the trap of heteronormative stereotyping. You can only have a relationship with something which you perceive

> to be significant. If gender ceases to be significant, how could you possibly have a relationship with it? I also find it interesting that you

> compare gender (a physical attribute) with jealousy and anger (emotional attributes), when they have absolutely nothing in common - it

> appears to suggest that emotions are related to gender, which is one of the major problems with gender stereotyping.

>I was thinking not of gender, but of sexual attraction/desire - which I acknowledge is a mixture of all

> sorts of things, but can and often does have an "impersonal" side to it that means it can often only be

> described as "sexist" or "objectifying". This does not have to be a simple het male/female thing

> either.

I agree that the society we live in does promote this view (just turn on the TV for a few seconds!) That doesn't mean that this is a natural state. In the Western world, we are brought up with images objectifying people as sexual objects (both ways, although more frequently of women), and inherent suggestions that it is "normal" to view "the opposite sex" as objects, rather than as individuals. The LGBT scene has simply replicated this but for "same sex" as well as "opposite". But this is a product of our society, not of our basic nature. Our society has objectified people, and in doing so has made sex an object of power and ownership, rather than an act of love. This is not in any way natural.

I never said it was. What I said is that there are aspects of sexual arousal which are impersonal.

>Then let's leave the books out of it and call a spade a spade.

Well, I think we can still read books - they can be very informative :-)

>Couldn't agree more! There! That was nice wasn't it? But there's no point pretending all the change is

> out there and with the status quo. We need to do quite a bit inside ourselves, too, don't we? Or am the

> only one who finds that I'm not always living/being as I'd like?

But there's little point in changing only ourselves - that is just the starting point, and, of course, as we go through life we will hopefully come across more and better ideas that we can incorporate into our own lifestyles (heck, we must have all done this in the past just by the fact we're on a vegan list!) But unless people give us suggestions and make us think, we will never be able to change ourselves, so it seems rather unfair not to do the same for other people.

I certainly don't disagree about sharing ideas and insights. After all, although this started off as a rather silly conversation, that's exactly what we're doing now with a great deal more seriousness. But as should be clear from my longer comment above, I believe we can't easily separate the notion of status quo and own our own living. Every generation that has had powerful periods where it believed it could change itself and the world and failed, from the French Revolution through to the 60s and 70s, has to ask itself why the change didn't happen. Trying to change the status quo for the future without changing ourselves as beings whose feelings, thoughts, modes of expression and dreams are in many ways the product of the past, is doomed to failure.

>While what you say on Butler is true, her work widened the thinking of "feminist politics" quite dramatically, and was really the starting

>point which has ultimately led to the very recent trend (probably no more than the past 2 years) of absolutely no models whatsoever - of

>challenging the most basic stereotyping of gender and sexuality, and attempting to break out of the heteronormative models.

>Well, I certainly wouldn't say she's had no influence, but I think that's one hell of claim you're making

> for her there, and which certainly loses sight of much of what has been going on in Western artistic

>circles since the half century or so before the French Revolution.

Of course there are other influences - I don't know of any movement that can honestly state it has only had one influence in its development. Although I am confused about your comments about Western artistic circles, since the main art that I associate with France immediately prior to the French Revolution (and I'm by no means an art conosieur), is paintings of nude women being objectified!!!!

Ah! But they also made you aware of that! They made you uncomnfortable with it. They returned the gaze. it was one of a series of turning points.

But I would like to hear more of the artistic circles you mention, as this is an area I know little about.

I'd love to go on more about this, but I've spent far too much time on this dialogue than I should have done and I'm late with lots of things I need to get on with. Don't let me get away with it, though! I can come back on this later.

>Your's is a selective version (did you read some of the info Anouk posted on this?) and a black and

> white judgement of it. He fucked up big time in some of his crises. So have I. Most of us do.

Yep - I've seen interviews with Yoko, where she was clearly unhappy about it. It doesn't really matter *what* it was that she was unhappy about, it's the fact that he continued to do something that made the person he claimed to love unhappy, with very little concern for her feelings on the matter - that doesn't suggest that he viewed her as someone worthy of his respect. I feel that the way that Paul McCartney treated the people he loved to be a much better model than Lennon....

Paul is also a sincere man. But I can't see any need for comparisons. You seem to forget how unhappy Lennon was as well. It wasn't a one-sided bastard/victim situation. There are also interviews with Lennon and, in some ways more revealingly, May Pang etc.

Cheers

Mike

June 8, 2006

Well, if someone posts a satirical comment asking whether somebody else thought Lennon was single-handedly capable of stopping the Vietnam war (I couldn't believe that was a straight question), it doesn't seem to me illegitimate to simply reply "yes and more....."

By the way, you seem to have missed the point yourself: the "Lennon praisers" aren't saying that he was perfect, but the "Lennon denigrators" seem to be stating that unless he was perfect and had changed the course of the Vietnam war single-handed he shouldn't be worthy of their "adulation".

But then, maybe all this rhetoric is now starting to get a little out of control?

On Behalf Of Peter Kebbell08 June 2006 12:02 Subject: Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

Hi Michael

>You seem to be mistaking your own rhetoric for what other people have written -unless you're

> referring to my satirical "yes and more" comments....

Oh, I see, it was satirical was it... glad you clarified that (and, yes, this is sarcasm)!

BTW - you seem to have got us confused - I haven't said anything about Lennon being wonderful - that was you....

BB

Peter

June 8, 2006

Hi Nikki,

No offence taken. It was the " high moral ground " blanket condemnation I was

referring to as offensive, and the black and white moralisation as typically

patriarchal. Traditionally the two have gone together.

Hopefully my longer and more serious exchange with Peter makes some of the

" in the genes " comment clearer.

Cheers

Michael

On

Behalf Of earthstrm

07 June 2006 14:08

Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

Hi Michael

No offense, but it is hard to misinterpret point blank statements such as

yours. And there is no reason to attack Peter in this manner. If you do not

feel that way, then explain yourself. Because looking at your statements,

this is the way that it is coming across.

As for it being in the genes, I have never heard of this. But if it is true

I would love to read more about it. Please do send us some information on

where you have found this to be true. Perhaps we can all learn from it.

Nikki

, " Michael Benis "

<michaelbenis wrote:

>

> Well, that's obviously got your goat, which wasn't my intention.

But if you

> like anger and indignation, you stick with it! Does it not occur

that you

> are being both aggressive and offensive yourself in typical

patriarchal

> fashion?

>

> Men are sexist, I'm afraid. It's in the genes. The perspective we

build on

> that and what else we are is another matter.

>

> I shan't interpret your own reading or your age or judge it as you

have seen

> fit to do with mine.

>

> _____

>

June 8, 2006

Hi Michael

>I'm afraid I think that's just your moral judgment, and I think the stories

> that you are basing it on are simplistic simple and biased, mainly come

> from a hostile pseudo -puritan media . there were a lot of problems in t

heir

> relationship and they both hurt and manipulated each other.

Actually, I know very little " stories " . All I have seen are a couple of interviews with Yoko. But, I guess that she wouldn't know whether or not she was upset, would she?

So, presumably if they both disliked their relationship so much, they must have had reasons for staying together other than love? Or are you saying they were masochists?

>I'm afraid that's just your interpretation (the we're back to stereotyping). I

> wrote about objectification .

Objectification can only occur where stereotyping is inherent.

>I believe it's actually much more difficult than you suggest. The very use

> of the word label suggests that you believe you can achieve an almost

> immediate understanding of and control over these " labels " once you

> start to " think about " them and does not acknowledge that our own

>thoughts and feelings, our identities, desires and the very mind we use to

> think about your " labels " or label them such, are themselves a product of

> " label " thinking, feeling and being.

I merely talk from practical experience (hey, there's a novel concept)! I would highly recommend trying a group labelling exercise - start off by getting everyone to " label " themselves (literally with sticky labels), with all those labels they think others put on them. Then get them to give their labels to other people in the group, and ask them to think about how it feels to wear their new labels. It actually *is* that simple, and it *does* start people thinking about the way they perceive themselves and others. Y'see, most people actually don't try to over-complicate things with mental masturbation (apologies for the phrase, but it seems the only appropriate one).

> That's why we have to live the change to understand it more and why it is

> a long process and why we are likely to find we keep making mistakes.

> That's why we have a fundamentally different view of Lennon. I find living

> ones' difficulties interesting, and living them honestly admirable. You

> want perfection and you want it now (not that I wouldn't, but ...., well you

> get my drift).

You know, for someone who keeps telling me that I shouldn't judge Lennon, you spend an awful lot of time telling me what I think. Perhaps you should try concentrating on what you think, and actually expressing that, rather than trying to twist what I've said to make me seem unreasonable. You seem to be using the same sort of NLP techniques used in party political broadcasts, rather than focussing on the points of discussion, and to be honest, I find that sort of power-play to be rather dull.

>I never said it was. What I said is that there are aspects of sexual arousal> which are impersonal.

In our society, based on what we are subject to as children. Your approach appears to be that this is unchangable, " because it is " , whereas I see it as something that is changable because it is based on societal programming.

>I certainly don't disagree about sharing ideas and insights. After all,

> although this started off as a rather silly conversation, that's exactly

> what we're doing now with a great deal more seriousness. But as should

> be clear from my longer comment above, I believe we can't easily

>separate the notion of status quo and own our own living. Every

> generation that has had powerful periods where it believed it could

> change itself and the world and failed, from the French Revolution

> through to the 60s and 70s, has to ask itself why the change didn't

> happen.

Now come on - you can't seriously mean to tell me that you believe that the French Revolution and the 60s and 70s didn't change anything! Would you also argue the same for Christianity, Islam, Thatcherism, the Suffragette movement, Diggers and Levellers, The Peasants Revolt, Marxism, America's " founding fathers " , Stalinism, Martin Luther King, The Invisible College, the anti-slavery movements, Greenham Common, the Bean Field protests? And those are just the ones off the top of my head... of course some groups fail - that's the nature of life, but I certainly don't live in a society anything like the one of just 20 years ago, let alone 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago...

>Trying to change the status quo for the future without changing ourselves

> as beings whose feelings, thoughts, modes of expression and dreams are

> in many ways the product of the past, is doomed to failure.

I don't disagree - but you seem to be misunderstanding my point. If *all* we change is ourselves, then we change nothing. You seem to be taking my argument that all London Busses are red and disagreeing with me by telling me that not everything red is a London Bus!

>to the French Revolution (and I'm by no means an art conosieur), is

> paintings of nude women being objectified!!!!

>Ah! But they also made you aware of that! They made you uncomnfortable

>with it. They returned the gaze. it was one of a series of turning points.

Interesting perspective. I'm not entirely convinced that it would have made that much difference.

>But I would like to hear more of the artistic circles you mention, as this is

> an area I know little about.

>I'd love to go on more about this, but I've spent far too much time on this

>dialogue than I should have done and I'm late with lots of things I need to

>get on with. Don't let me get away with it, though! I can come back on this

>later.

Then I'll leave this in here to remind you.

>Paul is also a sincere man. But I can't see any need for comparisons.

The comparison was merely to make a point about the idolisation of Lennon - making a suggestion that there are other role models...

> You

> seem to forget how unhappy Lennon was as well. It wasn't a one-sided

> bastard/victim situation. There are also interviews with Lennon and, in

>some ways more revealingly, May Pang etc.

I've not seen any of Lennon's interviews in this regard, but it does seem strange to me for a couple to stay together if they cause each other so much grief!

BB

Peter

June 8, 2006

Couple of quick replies below - in red for a change

On Behalf Of Peter Kebbell08 June 2006 13:06 Subject: Re: Re: John Lennon, my Inspiration

Hi Michael

>I'm afraid I think that's just your moral judgment, and I think the stories

> that you are basing it on are simplistic simple and biased, mainly come

> from a hostile pseudo -puritan media . there were a lot of problems in t heir

> relationship and they both hurt and manipulated each other.

Actually, I know very little "stories". All I have seen are a couple of interviews with Yoko. But, I guess that she wouldn't know whether or not she was upset, would she?

So, presumably if they both disliked their relationship so much, they must have had reasons for staying together other than love? Or are you saying they were masochists?

Cheap and nasty rhetoric Peter. The dialogue was getting better than that.

>I'm afraid that's just your interpretation (the we're back to stereotyping). I

> wrote about objectification .

Objectification can only occur where stereotyping is inherent.

I'm afraid I think that is extremely naive. If the problems were that simple, people would have sorted them out years ago.....

>I believe it's actually much more difficult than you suggest. The very use

> of the word label suggests that you believe you can achieve an almost

> immediate understanding of and control over these "labels" once you

> start to "think about" them and does not acknowledge that our own

>thoughts and feelings, our identities, desires and the very mind we use to

> think about your "labels" or label them such, are themselves a product of

> "label" thinking, feeling and being.

I merely talk from practical experience (hey, there's a novel concept)! I would highly recommend trying a group labelling exercise - start off by getting everyone to "label" themselves (literally with sticky labels), with all those labels they think others put on them. Then get them to give their labels to other people in the group, and ask them to think about how it feels to wear their new labels. It actually *is* that simple, and it *does* start people thinking about the way they perceive themselves and others. Y'see, most people actually don't try to over-complicate things with mental masturbation (apologies for the phrase, but it seems the only appropriate one).

Do not want to pursue this dialogue on respectful or listening terms? A pity. You're actually throwing out labels now.

> That's why we have to live the change to understand it more and why it is

> a long process and why we are likely to find we keep making mistakes.

> That's why we have a fundamentally different view of Lennon. I find living

> ones' difficulties interesting, and living them honestly admirable. You

> want perfection and you want it now (not that I wouldn't, but ...., well you

> get my drift).

You know, for someone who keeps telling me that I shouldn't judge Lennon, you spend an awful lot of time telling me what I think. Perhaps you should try concentrating on what you think, and actually expressing that, rather than trying to twist what I've said to make me seem unreasonable. You seem to be using the same sort of NLP techniques used in party political broadcasts, rather than focussing on the points of discussion, and to be honest, I find that sort of power-play to be rather dull.

I was trying to sumarise and not criticising you for making a judgement but discussing what it was based on. I thought we were exchanging points of view. I find it interesting that you accuse me of power-play. Maybe the reverse is the case: maybe you are more interested in winning an argument than in sharing and expanding ideas.

>I never said it was. What I said is that there are aspects of sexual arousal> which are impersonal.

In our society, based on what we are subject to as children. Your approach appears to be that this is unchangable, "because it is", whereas I see it as something that is changable because it is based on societal programming.

I see it as both. Look back at earlier posts and you will see I wrote about us "mediating" this within ourselves - that is change, too.