[CIMC-work] (f.y.i.) personal-political
Chris Kaihatsu
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
Sat Mar 13 10:25:20 PST 2004
Garth,
You're correct about my initial "personal-political" message -- I will not post theoretical- or rambling-type stuff to any IMC list in the future.
I see my role as liaison to be one in which I forward items from the global lists I am on which are of possible pertinence to IMC Chicago. Again, if I think a subject line from a global list is descriptive, as-is, then I pass it along, as-is. If I think the subject line needs to be put in context, or needs to be more descriptive, then I re-phrase the meaning of the message and put it at the beginning of the subject line, in between parentheses.
I characterized your calling of Nessie's stance on Zionism "spam" as ignorant.
Chris
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:11:35 -0600, Garth Liebhaber wrote:
> Some of us are trying to make media, Chris K. and see
> these process lists as a place of practicality, not to
> espouse un-rooted theory. to be frank, 'just talking
> theory' is for the general Chicago list that we left behind
> with the armchair folk.
>
> your statement below that you are "not insinuating any
> particular judgements" strikes me as disturbing. why are
> you on these lists, then? is that why do you send random
> unexplained forwards to the working list that are hard to
> understand out of context from the discussion they were
> rooted in? is this why you call me ignorant?
>
> garth
>
>
> Kaihatsu wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I was going off on a tangent from what Peter was talking
> about. I only sent that message to this list and to Peter
> personally. I signed only my name, not anyone else's. I
> don't mean to interfere with the remediation process, and
> I have taken a generally supportive but neutral position on
> the conflict.
>
> And, no, there is a distinction -- as I pointed out --
> between the personal and the political. I am not
> insinuating any particular judgements, just talking theory.
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:40:27 EST,
> ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
>> Chris, I appreciate your efforts here, but I have to ask --
> what the
>> fuck are you talking about? And how does your
> comment serve to help
>> along the mediation, instead of further muddying the
> water? And by
>> the way, did you submit this as a personal member of
> the listserve,
>> or as a representative of the Chicago collective, in which
> case I am
>> so going to have a hissy fit about this. I say all this, in
> part, to
>> illustrate the very point you .. er ... 'obliquify' in your
> post: I
>> am being personally pissy about a political issue of
> which I assert I
>> am right, and on which many others in the collective
> may agree (or
>> not). Personal: pissy and rude. Political: 'whahh...the
> dame raises
>> some good points". Your post basically trivializes the
> point that
>> Peter was making -- namely, that there is a strong
> platform for an
>> ongoing shared political vision between the two SF
> collectives, and
>> that the core problem was basically people's inability to
> get along
>> -- even given the larger political values that UNITE
> them -- on a
>> purely personal level. And, of course, that Peter/Indybay
> presumably
>> is committed to resolving personal issues to get back to
> the larger
>> support of a shared political vision.
>>
>> Colors indeed. And grey. Really? Does the legitimacy of
> an
>> individual's political platform fall to pieces because he
> happens to
>> be a personal asshole? Does, for example, the political
> platform of
>> Ralph Nader loose all credibility because Ralph is
> personally a bit
>> of an egotist? Does the political platform of Bertrand
> Aristide --
>> which puts the best interests of the disposessed ahead
> of the
>> grasping rapacity of the elites -- become delegitimized
> because,
>> well, dammit, on a personal level he's not a perfect
> person?
>>
>> I think it's great that you want to rally in on this SF
> debate, but
>> sometimes the best response to a solid observation is
> -- polite and
>> respectful and affirming SILENCE. Also, I really want to
> know if
>> these remarks were tendered on behalf of the CIMC
> collective. Dude.
>> Speak.
>>
>> christine
>>
>> In a message dated 03/12/2004 3:17:34 AM Central
> Standard Time,
>> ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com writes:
>>
>>
>> Subj:[CIMC-work] (f.y.i.) personal-political Fwd: [imc-
> us-process]
>> Stop the spam, nessie??
>> Date:03/12/2004 3:17:34 AM Central Standard Time
>> From:ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
>> To:imc-chicago-working at indymedia.org,
> pmaiden at pacbell.net
>> Sent from the Internet
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter, CIMC, all,
>>
>> My addition to the personal-political framework issue
> that Peter
>> raises, below, is that it is essentially dialectical,
> complex, or a
>> gray area. In general, the relationship between the
> personal and the
>> political is a complex dynamic, with clear definitions of
> "personal"
>> and "political" existing only at the extremes.
>>
>> One example of a distinctly personal issue, meaning
> that it has
>> little or negligible political meaning, would be what
> your favorite
>> color is. To generalize, the best class (or category) of
> subjects
>> with distinctly personal relevance would be pleasures.
> Of course
>> these can encroach toward the opposite, political, pole,
> depending on
>> how the practice of whatever pleasure impacts other
> people and
>> society as a whole.
>>
>> An example of a clearly political -- that is, objective
> (potentially
>> verifiable by anyone/many) -- issue would be land,
> especially in the
>> present day. If any two people have interests in use of a
> particular
>> parcel of land, potentially for any given period of time
> in common,
>> then a public-policy issue would necessarily arise.
> (We're all
>> limited to the surface of this planet....)
>>
>> In between these two poles is an infinite variety of
> examples, each
>> with varying parameters, and thus spanning varying
> distances within
>> the two poles.
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _________________________________________________________
> _
>> The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
>> A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist
> Web Site and the
>> Socialist Equality Party
>> wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Begin forwarded message -----
>> From: Peter Maiden <pmaiden at pacbell.net>
>> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:02:21 -0800 (PST)
>> To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs"
>> <imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>
>> Subject: [imc-us-process] Stop the spam, nessie??
>> Reply-To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based
> IMCs"
>> <imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>
>>
>> --- nessie at sfbg.com wrote:
>>
>>> (4.) Racist trolls and spammers are one issue. The
>>> SFBay-IMC/SF-IMC
>>> issue is another issue. Please don't confuse them.
>>> One effects two
>>> locals. The other effects all of us.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I realize we're going to have to slow down our
>> submissions to this list, as per the announcement
>> earlier this evening. However I am one of the
>> representatives from SF Bay IMC to the possible
>> arbitration, and I want to make a brief but I believe
>> important statement.
>>
>> Our split was not really about political differences
>> or how the site was run. It was over personal issues.
>> In the 70s we said "the personal is political." It
>> is, but the personal is also a realm where things have
>> to be understood on their own terms. I have the
>> feeling many IMCs have faced these same types of
>> issues with dismay. We hope we can be a case where
>> something is learned in order to help start a journey
>> down a new road.
>>
>> Peter
>> _______________________________________________
>> imc-us-process mailing list
>> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
> process
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
>> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-
> chicago-working
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
>> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-
> chicago-working
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> _
> The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
> A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web
> Site and the Socialist Equality Party
> wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-
> working
>
>
> ---- End Original Message ----
>
>
> Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
> http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>
__________________________________________________________
The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party
wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
More information about the Imc-chicago-working
mailing list