Hey all,

Curbies are parting this weekend with passsage of a new bill in the
senate for millions of dollars to go to finding a cure for Autism.

Read about it at autism speaks-
http://www.autismspeaks.org/press/senate_passes_caa.php

let me know what you all think

Mark

Stan's Computer wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2006 Mircea Pauca wrote:
>>but then on the Romanian autism forum, several "desperate
>>wives" appeared and tried to lament heavily their AS husbands.
>
	 [  snip  ]
>
>>Anyone can point to a web site describing the cause of their
>>success, even amidst problems ?
>
>
> To clarify, it looks like you're looking for a website that
> shows success.  I would look to websites describing famous
> people who have been identified as being on The Spectrum, e.g.,
> Einstein, Temple Grandin.
	 [  snip  ]

IMHO, the very best forum/listserve for all of this is "ASPIRES".  It
can be subscribed through this website:

      http://www.aspires-relationships.com

I've gotten more value from this single forum than all the others put
together.  Once "on" you'll have access to the archives, which are a
college education in the subject.  The last two months or so have been
especially rich.

Posting subscribers all are adults.  Most are in some kind of
relationship, or once were, and are Aspergers, autistics and NTs.

- Bill  (74, AS)

On 30 Jul 2006 Mircea Pauca wrote:

> but then on the Romanian autism forum, several "desperate
> wives" appeared and tried to lament heavily their AS husbands.

The "desperate housewives" issue is showing up here, and will
probably continue.  The US has had a 50% divorce rate for at
least 20 years, and much of the rest of the world will probably
follow.  That being the case, AS and any other personality
condition will be cited.

This will be addressed by judges who very quickly get tired of
hearing about AS as a basis for divorce.  If AS is recognized,
then it will be both a reason for divorce and a consideration in
favor of the spouse with AS.

A more important issue is the effect of AS on child custody
after divorce.  So-far this has not been a problem.  This is
probably because most contested divorces include a "reason"
raised by one party or the other, but these don't translate into
actual danger to the child.  The judges are used to hearing it.

> Anyone can point to a web site describing the cause of their
> success, even amidst problems ?

To clarify, it looks like you're looking for a website that
shows success.  I would look to websites describing famous
people who have been identified as being on The Spectrum, e.g.,
Einstein, Temple Grandin.

> What you say of alliances with homosexuals is, I think,
> way inappropriate here. I think there are many more folks
> on the wider Autism spectrum here (2-3%) than gays
> (<0.5%) and they are highly controversial.

Yes.  That was just a description of "allies".  As to acceptance
of homosexuals, that's a different issue, which I'm sure will be
addressed by the gay community in Romania.  If, as you say, gay
rights are not widely accepted in Romania, then one wouldn't
want to use that as a model for autistic rights.

> By the way, are you the same Stan P. who "taught" me
> to land a plane ? ;-)

Yes, glad to see that page was useful.

- s

>     Just seen this opioid-antidote drug in ~1/10
>"normal" doses promoted almost as a panacea
>for many 'difficult' conditions:
>http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
>     Had anyone any experience with this drug,
>in normal or low doses ?
>
>     What they propose it does (blockade of receptors)
>seems a way to promote an useful delayed *rebound*
>of endorphins. Or is it close to homeopathy ?

Always best to check additional sources of information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naltrexone#Low-dose_naltrexone_.28LDN.29

The internet sometimes makes it difficult to discern "truth", or at least
"mainstream consensus"- an ordinarily "fringe" topic may appear reasonable
and well-researched (if you don't look around for additional data to either
confirm or refute).  Anecdotal evidence and testimonials may support all
sorts of pseudoscientific claims (homeopathy, free energy, etc.), without
offering any emperical data.  In some cases, there's a positive feedback
effect that results in a community of people who convince themselves and
each other of something particularly bizarre (Morgellons disease).

This is particularly problematic when something is known to exist, in at
least some form, but has not been adequately researched (such as autism)-
all sorts of proposed theories and treatments spring up (ABA, GFCF diets,
etc.) that aren't necessarily implausible, but at least aren't well-enough
understood to be considered reliable.  In such situations, we have to be
very wary of what information we trust.

(I'm not endorsing ABA, etc., it's just a convenient example)

----- Original Message -----
From: "WD Loughman" <wdloughman@...>
To: <AS-and-Proud-of-it@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [AS-and-Proud-of-it] Low dose naltrexone


> Mircea Pauca wrote:
> >     Greetings from Romania !
> >
> >     Just seen this opioid-antidote drug in ~1/10
> > "normal" doses promoted almost as a panacea
> > for many 'difficult' conditions:
> > http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
> >     Had anyone any experience with this drug,
> > in normal or low doses ?
> >
> >     What they propose it does (blockade of receptors)
> > seems a way to promote an useful delayed *rebound*
> > of endorphins. Or is it close to homeopathy ?
> >
> >     Thank you for thinking about this,
> >     Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania
>
> If it seems too good to be true, generally it is.

     Possible - I just don't know, that's why I asked.

> It's really really really good for nearly two dozen
> cancers, and as many more other conditions??

     These are some of the most complex and confusing
diseases... any small influence may help somehow.
     And even if it's only an enhanced placebo, it still
may have moderate palliative use.

     I was intrigued by the mechanism of action...
essentially ignoring the main effect but using the
'rebound'. It would be like using a benzodiazepine
as a stimulant (e.g. coffee, quite precisely the
opposite), after its main effect has passed...
     And the dose is still enough not to have the
'voodoo' mechanism of 10^(-30) homeopathy.

     Thank you for thinking about this,
     Mircea

I know that is the problem with a lot of organizations.  They hold up the person
who has the disorder as an object.  And they don't see them as an individual. 
Like parents when their child first gets a diagnosis.  It hasn't changed the
child, they are still the same child.

   Diane in Alberta

"Ari N." <Aneeman@...> wrote:
           It's regrettable, but there are several large organizations promoting
that
view of us right now.

-Ari

On 7/30/06, Diane Burczyk <diburczyk@...> wrote:
>
> I think you were right to be offended about the woman. None of us
> should be seen as as their disorder instead of a person. No wonder she got a
> divorce. That is one of the reasons my first marriage ended in divorce.
>
>
> Diane in Alberta
>
>
> Mircea Pauca <mircea.pauca@... <mircea.pauca%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello all -
>
> Stan wrote beautifully how well I do "self-advocacy"...
> but then on the Romanian autism forum, several "desperate
> wives" appeared and tried to lament heavily their AS husbands.
> One just "doesn't understand" why he left (when she used
> him mostly as a source of alimony without explicit divorce ;-).
>
> Even someone near the Spectrum said "No woman deserves
> an Asperger partner". I felt offended and tried to give the
> example of Denise DeGraf and Parrish Knight.
>
> Anyone can point to a web site describing the cause of their
> success, even amidst problems ? even if I think the explanation
> is common-sense, and "by difference": not demanding the
> impossible, as with previous lives among NT's...
>
> What you say of alliances with homosexuals is, I think,
> way inappropriate here. I think there are many more folks
> on the wider Autism spectrum here (2-3%) than gays
> (<0.5%) and they are highly controversial. They tried to do
> a Pride March and aroused much hostility.
>
> By the way, are you the same Stan P. who "taught" me
> to land a plane ? ;-) I did so in flight simulators after that article...
> www.scn.org/~bk269/landing.html
>
> Thank you for thinking about this,
> Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mircea Pauca wrote:
>     Greetings from Romania !
>
>     Just seen this opioid-antidote drug in ~1/10
> "normal" doses promoted almost as a panacea
> for many 'difficult' conditions:
> http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
>     Had anyone any experience with this drug,
> in normal or low doses ?
>
>     What they propose it does (blockade of receptors)
> seems a way to promote an useful delayed *rebound*
> of endorphins. Or is it close to homeopathy ?
>
>     Thank you for thinking about this,
>     Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania

If it seems too good to be true, generally it is.

It's really really really good for nearly two dozen cancers, and as many
more other conditions??

I don't think so.


WD "Bill" Loughman  -  Berkeley, California  USA

It's regrettable, but there are several large organizations promoting that
view of us right now.

-Ari


On 7/30/06, Diane Burczyk <diburczyk@...> wrote:
>
>    I think you were right to be offended about the woman. None of us
> should be seen as as their disorder instead of a person. No wonder she got a
> divorce. That is one of the reasons my first marriage ended in divorce.
>
>
> Diane in Alberta
>
>
> Mircea Pauca <mircea.pauca@... <mircea.pauca%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello all -
>
> Stan wrote beautifully how well I do "self-advocacy"...
> but then on the Romanian autism forum, several "desperate
> wives" appeared and tried to lament heavily their AS husbands.
> One just "doesn't understand" why he left (when she used
> him mostly as a source of alimony without explicit divorce ;-).
>
> Even someone near the Spectrum said "No woman deserves
> an Asperger partner". I felt offended and tried to give the
> example of Denise DeGraf and Parrish Knight.
>
> Anyone can point to a web site describing the cause of their
> success, even amidst problems ? even if I think the explanation
> is common-sense, and "by difference": not demanding the
> impossible, as with previous lives among NT's...
>
> What you say of alliances with homosexuals is, I think,
> way inappropriate here. I think there are many more folks
> on the wider Autism spectrum here (2-3%) than gays
> (<0.5%) and they are highly controversial. They tried to do
> a Pride March and aroused much hostility.
>
> By the way, are you the same Stan P. who "taught" me
> to land a plane ? ;-) I did so in flight simulators after that article...
> www.scn.org/~bk269/landing.html
>
> Thank you for thinking about this,
> Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings from Romania !

     Just seen this opioid-antidote drug in ~1/10
"normal" doses promoted almost as a panacea
for many 'difficult' conditions:
http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/
     Had anyone any experience with this drug,
in normal or low doses ?

     What they propose it does (blockade of receptors)
seems a way to promote an useful delayed *rebound*
of endorphins. Or is it close to homeopathy ?

     Thank you for thinking about this,
     Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania

I think you were right to be offended about the woman.  None of us should be
seen as as their disorder instead of a person.  No wonder she got a divorce. 
That is one of the reasons my first marriage ended in divorce.


   Diane in Alberta

Mircea Pauca <mircea.pauca@...> wrote:
           Hello all -

Stan wrote beautifully how well I do "self-advocacy"...
but then on the Romanian autism forum, several "desperate
wives" appeared and tried to lament heavily their AS husbands.
One just "doesn't understand" why he left (when she used
him mostly as a source of alimony without explicit divorce ;-).

Even someone near the Spectrum said "No woman deserves
an Asperger partner". I felt offended and tried to give the
example of Denise DeGraf and Parrish Knight.

Anyone can point to a web site describing the cause of their
success, even amidst problems ? even if I think the explanation
is common-sense, and "by difference": not demanding the
impossible, as with previous lives among NT's...

What you say of alliances with homosexuals is, I think,
way inappropriate here. I think there are many more folks
on the wider Autism spectrum here (2-3%) than gays
(<0.5%) and they are highly controversial. They tried to do
a Pride March and aroused much hostility.

By the way, are you the same Stan P. who "taught" me
to land a plane ? ;-) I did so in flight simulators after that article...
www.scn.org/~bk269/landing.html

Thank you for thinking about this,
Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania





---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello all -

     Stan wrote beautifully how well I do "self-advocacy"...
but then on the Romanian autism forum, several "desperate
wives" appeared and tried to lament heavily their AS husbands.
One just "doesn't understand" why he left (when she used
him mostly as a source of alimony without explicit divorce ;-).

Even someone near the Spectrum said "No woman deserves
an Asperger partner". I felt offended and tried to give the
example of Denise DeGraf and Parrish Knight.

Anyone can point to a web site describing the cause of their
success, even amidst problems ? even if I think the explanation
is common-sense, and "by difference": not demanding the
impossible, as with previous lives among NT's...

What you say of alliances with homosexuals is, I think,
way inappropriate here. I think there are many more folks
on the wider Autism spectrum here (2-3%) than gays
(<0.5%) and they are highly controversial. They tried to do
a Pride March and aroused much hostility.

By the way, are you the same Stan P. who "taught" me
to land a plane ? ;-) I did so in flight simulators after that article...
www.scn.org/~bk269/landing.html

     Thank you for thinking about this,
     Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania

On Jul 29, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Walking Bear wrote:

> Being constrained by language doesn't prevent you from thinking of new
> things, but it does to a degree define the way you get to them.
> Thinking in pictures and translating to language is a much more
> inventive way of thinking, and probably a big part of why we're being
> noticed now.

I always thought of "1984" as sort of part horror and part humor. The
horror is in the fact that culture will attempt to suppress dangerous
thinking (dangerous to a culture, that is), by various means, including
defining the manner in which language may be used (I can imagine
congress preempting the usage panel; at one point they legislated an
"official" value for pi). The humor is in the fact that you can't keep
everyone from thinking critically, and still have productive members of
society, or at least not with the current human genome. It's a silly
game.

There will be people who understand freedom whether there is a word for
it or not. And in fact, having a word like "freedom" is not
particularly useful, philosophically, as far as I'm concerned, because
it is one of those words which evokes feeling without any concrete
meaning, the kind of word politicians love to use, the kind of word
that has different meanings, depending upon whom you ask, and when.

That's why politicians love these words. If they say they believe in a
lot of things with no clear meaning, like "freedom", "justice",
"fairness", then they can reinterpret these things to justify their
actions. On the other hand, if a politician says something more
concrete, like "no new taxes", then if he changes his mind, he's a
"flip flopper", though I don't recall that the specific term was
applied to the elder Bush, the idea was the same, and it goes to show
that enemies of either political party (in the U.S.), or any politician
will find weakness in one who changes his mind, or can be made to
appear to have done so.

We don't want politicians who change their mind. Change the politician,
instead. It may only take a few years.

I never understood the whole "flip flop" thing. I'm not sure why
changing one's mind is a disqualification for political office. But
I'll be voting for the nihilist party this November. It's hard to
disagree with a party that believes in nothing. I'd have to believe in
something.

> What's the difference between an eccentric and a madman? His
> perceived value to his society. A madman is more trouble than he's
> worth, and an eccentric is worth more than he annoys/upsets.

Worth more to whom? Society changes. Caligula may have seemed mad
during his short tenure as Emperor of Rome. Had he been born in another
time and place, he might have led Enron to great heights.

To quote Jack Kerouac: "If you wanta tell me that the stars are not
words, then stop calling them stars!"

Also, I posted the wrong link in my last post. The one I meant to use
was:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1278861

I confused the stories because they were both about the word
"entrepreneur". But anyway, all of Mr. Nunbergs bits on Fresh Air are
about the uses and abuses of language, and I find that they are all
very funny, and serious at once.

We need some kind of punctuation, or maybe a particular font, to
indicate sarcasm on the internet, and in print. A standard needs to be
set. American schoolchildren are not being taught how to figure these
things out in books; on the internet, you can bet it's worse.

Gatto

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yep, and that's why language evolves.  Not being bound to it for
thinking purposes frees me to invent things I have to name later -
sometimes much later.  I find that most people (NT's) think in very
linear terms and tend to follow their language and then stretch it
just a bit, come up with an evolutionary idea, name it, design it, ant
then build it.  I think in pictures, imagine from scratch a system
working the way it should, model it and watch it run, document it and
build it, and then often naming is the last thing.

Being constrained by language doesn't prevent you from thinking of new
things, but it does to a degree define the way you get to them.
Thinking in pictures and translating to language is a much more
inventive way of thinking, and probably a big part of why we're being
noticed now.

What's the difference between an eccentric and a madman?  His
perceived value to his society.  A madman is more trouble than he's
worth, and an eccentric is worth more than he annoys/upsets.

--- In AS-and-Proud-of-it@yahoogroups.com, Gatto Fritto
<gatto_fritto@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Walking Bear wrote:
>
> > Actually you're right on. One thing linguists look at is culture,
and
> > how each is affected by the other. You give names to things that
are
> > important, and lots of names to really important things. So yes,
> > thinking in language is subject to the limitations of that
language.
>
> True enough, but that idea can be taken too far, I think.
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4131081
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I am not sure what it would be called so that's why I said "body
memory" in quotes. What happened was when I was in my 20s, I was
talking with someone and she said "Remember when your mom would pick
you up when you were 3 and you would feel safe and secure?" and I
thought, "Nope, I don't remember..." and at the same time I had a
weird sensation in my body that I KNEW I had never been picked up and
held. But since my family does not talk about such things, there was
no way to know.

Then, about 15 years later, I don't remember how it came up but I said
to my mom, "You didn't pick me up when I was a baby did you?" I was
not trying to say it in a mean way but just out of curiousity. I had
been curious for 15 years!

Ususally what my mom does if asked such a question (which is why I
generally don't waste my time asking) is to say one or more of the
following: "What a dumb question. Of course I did. I have NO IDEA what
you are talking about. Can we change the subject please?" But what she
did was say in a very anguished way, "I'm sorry!" She didn't even deny
it. First time in her life, maybe, that she has not denied something!
Anyway, she proceeded to tell me that I was so tiny (just missed the
incubator) and she was a new mom, and my dad also told her to just
leave me in the crib (?!) and she figured I would just be safer
without being picked up. I weighed a little more than 5 pounds and my
mom is kind of a scaredy-cat so I can see her doing that. There might
be more to it but I will never know. I was lucky to get a response out
of her the one time I asked. I would really like to ask her if
I "froze up" or did anything that would make her prefer to put me down.

Anyway, what I felt in my body that day when I was 25 or so, actually
was true. So that's why I call it a "body memory." I also have very
early memories of being in my crib for hours while my parents were
arguing in the next room. They are not bad memories, since what I
remember is staring at the threads in my blanket or at the blinds, or
at shadows on the wall. So I would say I was finding something to
do. :) I still like to stare at threads... except I know I need new
glasses as I have been having to squint to see them for the past month
or so.

When I got my first pair of glasses 2 years ago, I had no idea that I
had not been noticing things like little threads. So when I put them
on, and was sitting on the couch, I began to just stare and stare at
the threads. My husband could not get me to stop. He was like "WHAT
are you doing?" and I said "LOOK! I can see the THREADS again!!!!" I
was so happy. They make such cool patterns.

Rhonda

-- In AS-and-Proud-of-it@yahoogroups.com, "oxeneyed" <oxeneyed@...>
wrote:
>
> > I have no "body memory" of ever being held>
>
> What is a "body memory" of being held?
>
> -Marcie
>

> I have no "body memory" of ever being held>

What is a "body memory" of being held?

-Marcie

I'm posting an essay here, which I found on Geoff Nunberg's web site. I
assume this constitutes fair use. My comment is at the end.

LABELS
If It Walks Like a Yahoo...
...Then you know it isn't a Volvo- driving, brie-eating, Chardonnay-
sipping snob


By Geoffrey Nunberg, Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at Stanford
University, is the author of "Going Nucular."


There has never been an age as wary as ours of the tricks words can
play, obscuring distinctions and smoothing over the corrugations of the
actual world. That wariness is implicit in the way we describe words as
labels.

People tend to reserve "label" for social classifications like
"fascist," "depressive" or "delinquent," always with the implication
that the word is either misleading and reductive (the labels we
describe as "mere") or, at best, a convenience (the ones we describe as
"handy"). One way or the other, though, calling a word a label leaves
us free to reject it. People say, "I don't believe in labels," but
nobody ever says that "duck" is a label for a kind of waterfowl or that
"I don't believe in names."

Yet as advertisers and marketers know, our mistrust of words doesn't
inoculate us against them. We may think of language as an arbitrary
system of classification, sewing its seams helter-skelter across the
kapok of experience. But we can't help reifying the categories language
carves out. The words we dismiss as labels can still exalt or disturb
us, which is why we're always having to rationalize away the
dissonance, like the shopper who justifies paying a 500% premium for a
tote bag with a Fendi logo on the grounds you get a better grade of
vinyl.

It's hard to think of any words that justify the "label" label more
than "liberal" and "conservative." No one would deny their usefulness
as approximate handles: "Liberals have been critical of the Patriot
Act." "Conservatives are going to bat for DeLay." But it often seems as
if they serve more to pigeonhole than to explain.

Certainly the categories are anything but eternal. It was only during
Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term that "liberal" and "conservative"
emerged out of a welter of competing terms to become the defining
opposition of American politics. To Roosevelt, liberals and
conservatives represented "two schools of political belief" about how
active a role government should take in fixing problems "beyond the
power of men and women to meet as individuals."

A lot of people still see that as the core distinction. But the
implications of both terms are different from what they were in
Roosevelt's day. In light of recent headlines, it's quaint to recall
that conservatism used to be associated with isolationism and states'
rights. And nowadays both words imply positions on a welter of cultural
issues that don't seem "political" in Roosevelt's sense of the term —
few people justify their views on abortion, evolution or gay marriage
by appealing to their philosophy of government.

More important still, we no longer think of liberals and conservatives
merely as adherents of different "schools of political belief," in the
way we might talk about devotees of supply-side and demand-side as
disciples of two economic schools. Now the categories go much deeper —
to lifestyle, values and even traits of character.

The shift in perceptions began with the onset of the culture wars in
the 1970s, when the right began to depict liberals as elitists out of
touch with "mainstream values." That was also when consumer preferences
started standing in for ideological characterizations. Liberals were
tarred in a kind of guilt by brand association, as Volvo-driving,
brie-eating, Chardonnay-sipping snobs — the "libs," as Rush Limbaugh
calls them.

Those stereotypes may not be accurate (as it happens, Republicans buy
more brie than Democrats), but they succeed in turning "liberal" into
shorthand for a self-indulgent yuppie attitude. Nowadays, the media
almost never use phrases like "working-class liberal" — working-class
Americans are disqualified from being liberals not because of their
political views but because they can't afford the lifestyle.

By now, people talk about liberals and conservatives almost as if they
were distinct genders. "You liberals!" a talk-show host will say, in
the tone of winking exasperation that recalls "You gals!" And no one
sees anything odd when a right-wing commentator publishes a book with
the you-just-don't-understand title of "How to Talk to a Liberal (If
You Must)."

Liberals have responded with their stereotypes of the right, as
ill-dressed ignorant yahoos from the boonies. (When the Republican
National Convention descended on New York last year, New York magazine
offered tips to women conventioneers on where to buy coordinated skirt
suits and high-end hair spray.) "Red state" and "blue state" have been
turned into the names of market segments: A few months ago, Hardee's
CEO defended the restaurants' 1,400-calorie Monster Thickburger as "not
a burger for tree-huggers."

For some, the difference goes even deeper than that. In his recent
bestseller "Don't Think of an Elephant," Berkeley linguist George
Lakoff argues that liberals and conservatives are divided by two
different models of the family, the "strict father" family and the
"nurturant parent" family. That basic distinction, he says, shapes the
differences in opinion on everything from tort reform to same-sex
marriage to school vouchers to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.

Lakoff is an astute observer, but in locating the roots of the
liberal-conservative distinction in people's basic conceptions of the
family, he too is turning the words into something much deeper than
"mere labels." As he tells the story, "liberal" and "conservative" go
clear to the bone.

Objectively speaking, that picture is hard to defend, not just
historically but in light of the way people think about ideological
differences in other nations. You can identify groups in British
politics that correspond to lower-case liberals and conservatives in
Roosevelt's sense of the terms, even if the British don't use the words
that way. But the differences don't spill over to cultural issues, and
the British are puzzled at the way Americans cash in ideological
affiliations in terms of consumer preferences.

And the neat dualisms of U.S. politics seem simply irrelevant to
nations with no history of a two-party system. For them — and for us,
when you come down to it — it makes more sense to identify people in
terms of the old spectrum of left and right, which nobody takes as
anything more than a seating plan.

But reifications have a way of being self-fulfilling. Nowadays, we
can't identify ourselves as liberals or conservatives without making a
social identification in the bargain — we imply something about what we
drive, whom we're willing to date and whether we believe in spanking
our children. Yet most of us are also aware of just how contingent and
historically determined all those connections are.

That's a chronic modern dilemma. No one can live in a state of
detachment from language. The trick, as the philosopher Richard Rorty
has said, is to strive for ironic self-awareness — to talk about labels
without prefacing the word with the self-deluding "mere."~

Back to Gatto...

I suppose I may be the one and only person who would point out that
"duck" is a label, though I won't point it out often. I do believe in
labels; I believe that they exist. Anyway, if I say I have a duck in my
backyard, for all you know, I may be talking about an amphibious
vehicle from WWII.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Walking Bear wrote:

> Actually you're right on. One thing linguists look at is culture, and
> how each is affected by the other. You give names to things that are
> important, and lots of names to really important things. So yes,
> thinking in language is subject to the limitations of that language.

True enough, but that idea can be taken too far, I think.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4131081


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So if I have this sudden, "deep connection" Eureka experience (which
is not described in great detail, so I don't understand HOW one gets
to have it), then suddenly I will no longer: think in pictures, bump
into stuff, have partial face-blindness, have to translate from
hearing things to seeing pictures and back???????

I can understand deep feelings being damaged, especially as I was
left in my crib except for feedings (according to my mother, and also
I have no "body memory" of ever being held) but I don't see what it
has to do with *how* I think.

It is interesting that his grandson Jason seemed to have the "deep
feeling deficit" from the minute he was born. Why would he have that?
Luck of the draw?

I suppose if I could have the "deep connection" experience I would go
for it, and here is why. I am in a horrible situation financially
through no fault of my own. It is a *permanent* situation (because
the debt will have to be paid off that I was coerced into signing off
on) which I will deal with every day for the rest of my life (I did
the math) unless I win the lotto. So... as a result I seem to be
having more of the "negative" autistic traits: meltdowns, head
banging, and so forth (Oh, I forgot to mention those in my intro!). I
wonder if I had a "deep connection" experience if I would be better
able to handle it. It would not solve the financial ruin but it would
  maybe make me more able to face each day, whether or not I remaind
autistic. Some people remain optimistic in the face of bad situations
but so far I am not one of them.

I kind of like the way I am, other than the meltdowns. For one thing,
I'll never have to do hallucinogenic drugs to see cool visual images!
And I am creative and intelligent and I LOVED being able to read at a
3rd grade level when I was 4. Such cool times I had with my books.
Why would I want to change that part of it? I LIKE being into my
projects and interests.

But the loneliness, fear, terror (maybe from lying in my crib all by
myself knowing on some level that I was abandoned... and to a baby,
abandonment=death, or *could*= death), and all those negative things.
I could do without those. I don't even know that other autistic
people experience all those, or that NT people DON'T experience them.
If NTs do not experience ANGST then we must assume that all of the
philosophers, psychiatrists, religious leaders, etc. who wrote and
write about it, are all autistic! (Someone can probably correct my
logic, here!)

Rhonda

I wanted to make one thing clear in my last post. I wrote:

<<Actually I got online just now bc I was trying to tell my
> husband something and he did not respond (and he is NT, btw :) so I
> just got frustrated and decided to write to some autistic people
> instead. LOL. >>

I did NOT mean I was making fun of autistic people but of NT people
who think we can't communicate. I get most of my communication, like
maybe 90% these days, with autistic people online. I get more
thoughtful responses to things I post online than I do with
communication (either verbal or written) with the NTs in my life. I
just wanted to say that since I am new here and maybe it was not clear
what I meant.

Rhonda

On 11 Jul 2006 Mircea Pauca wrote:

> ...told Mrs. Ambassador of Autreat,
> Autscape and Jim Sinclair, she thanked me for pointing to
> "Don't Mourn for Us"...
>
> Parents had read some of my translations, were shocked
> by horror stories of Amanda Baggs ("this can't happen here")
> and liked most the middle position of Phil Schwartz,
> supporting ABA and DTT but with kinder, realistic objectives.

Much of what you describe is from the "self-advocacy" movement
here in the US.  It looks like you did a credible job of
pointing out that we are essentially a cultural minority and not
looking for attempted "cures".

If Jim Sinclair, Phil Schwartz and Amanda Baggs are accepted as
models in Romania, then you have gone a long way toward
acceptance of self-advocacy.  (Also don't forget to include
yourself as an example!)

Either that, or at the next Autreat, we should set aside a
Romanian-speaking wing.  Sola Shelly will join you.  She
probably doesn't speak Romanian, but is almost certainly used to
hearing it spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv.

At Autreat 2006, Phil Schwartz expressed the similarities
between the gay rights movement (homosexual rights) and autism
self-advocacy.  His lecture concerned the "Gay-Straight
Alliance" (US), in which gay people get together with their
straight friends who support the gay people as political allies.
  Phil talked about finding "allies" among NTs.

I don't believe the two are the same.  True, being gay is a
personality type, which is of course what autism is.  The
difference is that autistics don't make up 3%-10% of the
population.  Fortunately, we don't have as much discrimination
to confront, as compared to what gay people must confront.

- stan

--- In AS-and-Proud-of-it@yahoogroups.com, "oxeneyed" <oxeneyed@...>
wrote:
>
<snip>Many people with AS are better at writing than
> speaking in real time, because that way there is less to over-
stimulate
> the person.  Maybe you could encourage him to write his feeling?
----

Hi I am Rhonda and have just joined. I saw this thread and wanted to
respond. Although I am mostly a "speaking" person with AS, I have
times, usually in relationships, but not always (as I use voice
recognition software in my completely private office and sometimes
can't talk to it!) when if I am *emotionally* upset, I can't talk. I
*can* write. Actually I got online just now bc I was trying to tell my
husband something and he did not respond (and he is NT, btw :) so I
just got frustrated and decided to write to some autistic people
instead. LOL. Of course I was telling him yet another thing about
autism... Anyway, what I meant to say was that if he can write it
down, that might be a help. I only accidentally "discovered" the
concept when I was about 28 years old... had a bf I really wanted to
talk to but nothing would come out of my mouth so I suddenly grabbed a
pencil and paper and it was easy to write. So he wrote back... we went
back and forth for awhile when I realized and wrote to him that *he*
didn't have to write, but I did. I thought it was kind of neat that he
just went ahead and wrote too, and didn't talk. I don't know if that
would also be of use to you two.

If he does NOT want to write, I guess perhaps you two will learn of
some other ways to communicate. Glad to hear you are interested in
learning more.

btw I am self-diagnosed AS: prefer to mostly be alone, have
acquaintances but not really "friends," am way into my projects, do a
lot of stims, hyperlexia (? learned to read and talk at a very early
age but don't have many comprehension problems), think in
pictures/movies and audio (which makes me miss a lot of what people
say), if someone talks to me sometimes I don't "hear" it until later,
partial face-blindness, eye contact is scary, "lights, sound, and
action" drives me NUTS! I have two job skills and they don't translate
to anything else, even within the industries I have the skills in, so
if my job ever goes overseas I am up a creek.... oh yeah, dyspraxia,
except I can play an instrument... just can't walk to the instrument
without tripping over something... I whack into things all the time. I
have a really cool bandaid on my leg right now. :)

I will post more later. I am supposed to be working. But just wanted
to say hi and of course jump in with my .02 since I joined several
days ago and have not checked in yet.

Rhonda

Actually you're right on.  One thing linguists look at is culture, and
how each is affected by the other.  You give names to things that are
important, and lots of names to really important things.  So yes,
thinking in language is subject to the limitations of that language.


--- In AS-and-Proud-of-it@yahoogroups.com, Gatto Fritto
<gatto_fritto@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Walking Bear wrote:
>
> > I've seen some of that "underconnected" study, and even an FMRI to
> > back it up - the bridge between the left and right hemispheres was
> > only weakly functioning. So I'm inclined to think that autism is
an
> > older way of thinking, before the two halves of the brain split
their
> > functions. Thinking in pictures enables you to develop language,
but
> > thinking in language does not enable you to create language
because
> > you have to have language to think in the first place, so thinking
in
> > language cannot evolve until language is already developed. It
seems
> > clear to me that it was people like us who made people like them
> > possible.
>
> So, if one's thinking is limited to language, then one's thinking is
> limited by language. If that applies to the majority of humans, then
> that's just doubleplus ungood for them.
>
> Gatto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I hung around a local S&M community for brief period of time.  I was
looking to explore different sensory experiences.  Like you, I found
the dominance and submission aspect completely dominated (no pun
intended) the environment.  Like they say, it's "play", it's a social
game.  What the big deal about it is, I do not understand.  On top of
that, they expected to me to know what I wanted right away, and just
jump into the act. I don't act. I cann't even put on characters like
some autistics can (though I've gotten good at keeping
certain "eccentricities" to myself).  I like to bend rules to see where
they lead, but that because I don't understand societies rules to begin
with.  It's like they keep the same rules, but changed how they're
configured to do things you can't normally "get away with".

-Marcie


--- In AS-and-Proud-of-it@yahoogroups.com, AndyTiedye <nourse@...>
wrote:
> Thatıs another thing.  Why do NTs make S&M so damn complicated?
> They get so hung up on the dominance and submission thing.
> For me, itıs about making pleasure out of pain,
> and breaking the cycle of dominance and submission.

On 7/25/06 2:47 PM, "Gatto Fritto" <gatto_fritto@...> wrote:
>
> Š few people are motivated to
> significantly change their manner of thinking, after perhaps the first
> twenty years. In fact, what I propose is that public education in the
> U.S., and in countries that have public education, should include
> periodic regimens of so called "psychedelic" drugs. I'm not implying
> that the sensibilities effected by these drugs are necessarily
> "superior". Only that the occasional oscillation between sensibilities
> serves to remind people that there are different ways of seeing the
> same thing. And with enough practice, people can see things in
> different ways at the same timeŠ
>
It should, at least, be part of the education of psychiatrists and all the
other
professionals who work with us.  The more widespread the psychedelic
experience
Becomes in our society, the better for us (even if we never consume a single
tab
of anything).   I have found that those who have experience with
psychedelics
are generally much easier for me to relate to, and are less likely to be
put off by my aspie mannerisms.

I get along particularly well with ravers.
Thereıs no such thing as smiling too much.
(Though they frequently ask me for a hit of whatever they think I am on).
Add music and dancing to the equation, and weıve got a universal excuse to
stim all we want  (and a perfect excuse NOT to engage in small talk, etc).
>
>

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 7/25/06 2:47 PM, "Gatto Fritto" <gatto_fritto@...> wrote:

>  You see these movies, read books, in which, in the future, computers or
> robots control the earth. If that were ever to happen, there would be a
> reason why: that, deep down, unknowingly even, that is what humans
> desire.
>
Actually, it would only take one human who desired that, if he was the one
programming the robots.  Thatıs why that kind of science fiction is so
scary.
>
> Ride the Music
>
> AndyTiedye




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 7/25/06 2:47 PM, "Gatto Fritto" <gatto_fritto@...> wrote:

> Like the CEO who goes to the dominatrix (or is that matrix?)
> for a good flogging.
>
Thatıs another thing.  Why do NTs make S&M so damn complicated?
They get so hung up on the dominance and submission thing.
For me, itıs about making pleasure out of pain,
and breaking the cycle of dominance and submission.


Ride the Music

AndyTiedye



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For the record, that last post was a bit sarcastic. I don't believe
that the bulk of humanity are incapable of relaxing, in their reliance
on language. After all, it's hard to believe that every zen master
meets the criteria for AS, or that they did before they became masters.
It's more likely, I think, that few people are motivated to
significantly change their manner of thinking, after perhaps the first
twenty years. In fact, what I propose is that public education in the
U.S., and in countries that have public education, should include
periodic regimens of so called "psychedelic" drugs. I'm not implying
that the sensibilities effected by these drugs are necessarily
"superior". Only that the occasional oscillation between sensibilities
serves to remind people that there are different ways of seeing the
same thing. And with enough practice, people can see things in
different ways at the same time, at which point Cubist art makes a bit
more sense. Alas, education is mostly about what sort of things can be
taught to increase the GDP, in the shortest term possible. We need
generations of productive members of society and, moreover, consumptive
members of society. What passes for humor should be tightly controlled.

You see these movies, read books, in which, in the future, computers or
robots control the earth. If that were ever to happen, there would be a
reason why: that, deep down, unknowingly even, that is what humans
desire. Like the CEO who goes to the dominatrix (or is that matrix?)
for a good flogging. Culture really is "The Matrix", because people
take their perceptions of reality for reality; perception is dictated
by culture; few have any desire that it be otherwise.

Our common language binds us together; we'd be adrift without it. So
the idea goes. I suggest an experiment. Spend a week with your partner,
your best friend, your sister or brother, or whomever you choose.
During that week, don't speak to each other, and see whether you grow
more apart, or closer. Then, after the week is up, you can talk about
it, you can change your point of view.

Maybe some on this list have tried it. Kudos for you!

Give my regards to the cats.

Gatto

On Jul 24, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Walking Bear wrote:

> I've seen some of that "underconnected" study, and even an FMRI to
> back it up - the bridge between the left and right hemispheres was
> only weakly functioning. So I'm inclined to think that autism is an
> older way of thinking, before the two halves of the brain split their
> functions. Thinking in pictures enables you to develop language, but
> thinking in language does not enable you to create language because
> you have to have language to think in the first place, so thinking in
> language cannot evolve until language is already developed. It seems
> clear to me that it was people like us who made people like them
> possible.

So, if one's thinking is limited to language, then one's thinking is
limited by language. If that applies to the majority of humans, then
that's just doubleplus ungood for them.

Gatto

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've seen some of that "underconnected" study, and even an FMRI to
back it up - the bridge between the left and right hemispheres was
only weakly functioning.  So I'm inclined to think that autism is an
older way of thinking, before the two halves of the brain split their
functions.  Thinking in pictures enables you to develop language, but
thinking in language does not enable you to create language because
you have to have language to think in the first place, so thinking in
language cannot evolve until language is already developed.  It seems
clear to me that it was people like us who made people like them
possible.

So I think that everyone was some degree of autistic 100,000 years
ago.  My own experience having a photographic memory seems to support
this, in that I can identify where the words and numbers are on the
page/sign/whatever, but I can't READ them!

Walking Bear

--- In AS-and-Proud-of-it@yahoogroups.com, "oxeneyed" <oxeneyed@...>
wrote:
>
> > http://web1.greatbasin.net/~sprang/index.php
> >
>
> This seems to me to be rather convoluted.  There's been more
evidence
> for "underconnectivity" recently.
> http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jul2006/nichd-12.htm
>
> Of course, this isn't an advocacy article, like you're looking for
> (you'd have to translate it into Aspergese ;-).  But
underconnectivity
> explains to me why my intellect is separate from my emotions.  That
> also explains why I don't tend to show my emotions.  My speech is in
> the "intellectual" part of the brain, not the emotions.  I can
> translate my emotions into words given enough time.  I can also show
my
> emotions forcefully without words.  It seems to me to be a case of
> Occam's razor in favor this.  Of course, I could always be wrong.
>
> -Marcie
>

Mircea
   I tried to look up some of the books listed in the article but i could not
find a single one... are they only sold in europe?

Mircea Pauca <mircea.pauca@...> wrote:
           Hello all,

They just broadcasted "Tito's Story" today on
"Zone Reality" TV - a British documentary from 2000.

Parents here seem pretty enthusiastic about Soma
and her 'achievements' with Tito. Is there anything
more worth saying to balance that ? I've found the site:
http://www.autistics.org/library/tito-can.html
but it implies knowledge unknown here by parents,
and an attitude hard for them to digest. Anything
clearer ? What is happening now with Tito and Soma ?

I've read she now patented "Rapid Prompting" but
even for me (who am WAY more 'normal' than Tito)
what was in the film would be too fast and overwhelming...

Thank you for thinking about this,
Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]