I agree with Howard and Pamela. The SUHB is not a static entity. Just reading
Martha's works you see evidence of evolution and refinement. In this rapidly
evolving world new illumination and revelation into the workings of energy and
systems will require the SUHB to transform and manifest in successive quantum
leaps or die obsolete and forgotten. Semantics, labels and definitions will
always be debated (that's half the fun) but Martha left us with an infant
science that we must nurture and support until it is ready to take hold of its
own destiny. Some could argue that SUHB has already peaked and left its mark on
nursing but I feel that what has been done so far is the equivalent of preschool
crayon scribblings we have proudly hung up on the fridge. Not to devalue what
has been done at all but to say that SUHB is a developing
science/theory/paradigm that must progress through appropriate developmental
stages throughout its "lifespan" which could well be infinite if it continues to
evolve and develop with future enlightenment.



I believe we are blessed to have such a wonderful record of our founder's
original thoughts and insights, we have disciples who have literally walked with
her, talked with her, were infected by her vision and have communicated their
experiences to the rest of us. Most world religions and sciences have copies of
copies and interpretations of interpretations rather than the original documents
form the founders themselves. Just as we as adults look back and laugh at the
mistakes and misadventures of our lives so can I envision a group of students in
the distant future studying the origins of their chosen science and laughing at
the assumptions and blind path we have and will take.



So should it evolve, should we restrict ourselves to the original terms and
concepts? LOL. Try to stop it from evolving! If some academic authority draws
a line in the sand and says this only is SUHB then the RSUHB (revised) or some
such critter will rise from the muck and move on. Even in my own practice I
find myself utilizing terms and concepts from more recent readings but I'm
always translating back to SUHB, (oh this is a possible new Resonancy, etc...).
I think this list stands as a gentle reminder of my roots in SUHB that led me to
read, consider, and consume other energy/system/wholeness related material.



Sorry, didn't mean to rant. Just a few thoughts from this Oklahoma Redneck.
Thanks Violet and Bear for the cattle prod in the ass to get this old beast
moving again.



Kelly D. Rutherford

MSN, ARNP-C, FNP

Lead Care Coordinator

Jack C. Montgomery VAMC

1011 Honor Heights Dr, CCHT-118

Muskogee, Ok 74401

Phone: 918.577.4193

Fax: 918.577.4196

Kelly.Rutherford@...





________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Butcher, Howard K
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:05 PM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver




Two that I have found problematic are the definitions of

Energy: especially the separation of living and non-living

and

Resonancy: Although there have been clarifications by John and others, the
definition still connotes linearity.

I believe the definitions of these and other postulates; principles can be
improved by adding greater clarity in a way that is true to Rogers original
intent. Yet, there has been much hesitation to even consider revising/improving
the definitions (as if they are carved in stone).

What did Nightingale say? . . . "No system can endure that does not march." or
something like that.

Howard

Howard Karl Butcher, RN; PhD, APRN, BC
Associate Professor
442NB
The University of Iowa College of Nursing
Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1121
319-335-7039
howard-butcher@... <mailto:howard-butcher%40uiowa.edu>

-----Original Message-----
From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
on behalf of Jacqueline Fawcett
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 11:56 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Pam, Thank you for your very prompt reply. I agree re: evolution of the SUHB.
The question now is: What aspects of Rogerian science need to evolve? Best
regards, Jacqui


________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
on behalf of Reed, Pamela
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 12:37 PM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Jacqui,
This is a wonderful question! As a Rogerian, I'd like to see her conceptual
system live forever. It was and is my sine qua non for being in nursing and for
pursuing a doctoral degree in nursing as opposed to another helping discipline
for example. But alas, as the philosopher said, all theories are born to die.
Though I think it better to say that conceptual systems continue evolving and
can't remain static - both in their content and in the ways they inspire their
practitioners... And Martha would be the first to agree, given her 'open
systems' view of knowledge, science, and human beings. Good reason to continue
the dialogue.

Pam

Pamela Reed

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Jacqueline Fawcett
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 9:09 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

I would be disappointed if the listserv went away but I certainly understand
Bear's point about his efforts. Perhaps each of us who would like the listserv
to remain could pose a question for dialogue. I'll start:

How open are Rogerians to changes in the content of the Science of Unitary Human
Beings? Is what Martha wrote "set in stone" or should revisions be made in
content as needed?

Jacqui

Jacqueline Fawcett

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of bear
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 10:32 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Hi all

I have been looking over the activity level for the listserver and
wondering whether it is still performing any useful function.

Most of the posts to it are from spammers trying to market some sort
of goods or services and it has been a very long time since there have
been any extended dialogues. My hunch is that as people have become
more email savvy and their interests have broadened, the benefits of
the listserver in facilitating communication are being replaced by off
list communications or that people are congregating on other listservers.

It would seem to be an appropriate forum for communications from the
officers or board but I can't really remember when last there was such
communication.

So, the question: Is it worthwhile to maintain the listserver when
there is so little use being made of it? Most of my work on the
listserver at this point is dedicated to identifying and deleting
spammers - which is not quite the way I want to spend my time and very
little time is spent reading interesting posts from colleagues.

So, I suggest that we engage in a dialogue about the utility of
maintaining the listserver and if that dialogue fails to generate
appropriate interest and responses, we agree to let the listserver go
on in a relatively unmoderated manner - unfortunately that would
likely eventually result in a lot of spam. The upside would be that
the older messages would remain intact - as opposed to formally
shutting down the listserver which would mean that the 1200 messages
would be lost.

Another option would be that someone else step up to be moderator.

bear

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

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

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

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





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