Continued from pt 1.

On 06/23/2009 02:55 AM, freechad480 wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 06/17/2009 07:03 PM, freechad480 wrote:
>>
>> For each of us our closest relationships are with persons with whom we
>> agree on the essentials - the very closest for each of us is the
>> other, as stated earlier. Specifically in regard to our philosophical
>> ideas and processes, we seek first only those people who are at a
>> sufficient intellectual level to understand and promote them. We fully
>> realize that most people will only join in when they see that it works
>> for others. They are the type of people to whom the adage "I will
>> believe it when I see it" applies.
>>
> As far as Aaron was concerned, was the objective to determine whether
> he was a candidate for a close relationship; or was it that he was a
> candidate for incremental conversion? It seems like there is an all
> or nothing approach being taken. How can one grow if the expectation
> is that other humans must "jump to my level of awareness" or "get out
> of my life"? Requiring an instantaneous response is not practical.

The purpose of the email was as I stated far above. Your questions here
would likely never have been written had I responded initially rather
than Paul and done so as here.

[Your questions above are totally chasing a straw man. Neither of us are
doing any of those things, nor have we done them for many decades. --Paul]

>>> These comments tie in to four
>>> different writings discovered on your site. Consider the following:
>>>
>>> "The strong Identification methods described and promoted on this page
>>> are assumed to be operating in a Freeman Society where the vast
>>> majority of InterActing individuals are Freemen or dependents of
>>> Freemen and the purpose of this Identification is both to prevent such
>>> Violations by ensuring that they are fully Restituted and to bring the
>>> discriminatory pressure of Social Preferencing to bear on other types
>>> of behavior that is not conducive to optimally increasing the Lifetime
>>> Happiness of all Freemen together." [2]
>>>
>> The quotation above has effectively been taken "out of context". It is
>> the last part of a section right at the start of the page explaining
>> its purpose, whose prior text reads:
>>
>> "The creators of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project (Paul and Kitty
>> Antonik Wakfer) are well aware that some of the strong Identification
>> Required by the NSC and the additional Personal openness described and
>> promoted in this page might be unadvisable and perhaps even personally
>> dangerous to implement in the current social context of rampant
>> Violational activities particularly, and worst of all, including those
>> of all governments." (hyperlinks removed for text readability)
>>
>> That prior text shows that the total situation, particularly including
>> *full personal openness*, is what I am describing as being essential
>> for a Freeman Society. Nothing in the text suggests that strong negative
>> social preferencing should not be practiced, and cannot also be highly
>> effective, in the current society, even though some degree of
>> non-openness may well be important to protect oneself from the State
>> and others violence perpetrators who are effectively spawned by the
>> State, and for that reason will be fully acceptable (ie not negatively
>> socially preferenced) in the current society.
>>
> I agree that this quote was taken out of context my apologies. In
> this case I disagree with using strong social preferencing outside
> of the context of a "Freeman Society".

First let us be clear that you are referring to "strong *negative*
social preferencing" since "strong *positive* social preferencing" would
be public testimonials of fully identified individuals/organizations
by fully identified authors of those testimonials (which is done
purposefully and profusely on LinkedIn and greatly appreciated by its
members).
Secondly, since there is no "Freeman Society" as of this time - I and
Paul cannot reasonably consider ourselves that society, not even with
the interactions we have with a couple of individuals who are in
fairly close agreement with our ideas (relative to all other persons).
Therefore by your statement, the use of negative social preferencing is
never acceptable until such a society has been able (somehow?!?) to come
into existence. This method of nonviolent action for social change is
extremely important and has been practiced historically - again I
suggest that you do some study in this area.

> Strong social preferencing reduces the desire for openness.

Your conclusion that "strong [negative] social preferencing reduces the
desire for openness" may be true for some individuals on whom it is
directed. However it has been shown (as demonstrated in Sharp's
extensive research) that it has effected a desired change in behavior of
many in regards to their offensive actions. And that is the purpose of
strong negative social preferencing - to change the behavior, even if
it does not initially or at all change the person's thinking regarding
that offensive (to others) behavior.

>>> Attention should be called to the assertion that within the context
>>> of a Freeman Society, "the discriminatory pressure of Social
>>> Preferencing" [2] should be brought to bear on certain types of
>>> behavior. This discriminatory pressure should be used very carefully
>>> outside of the context of a Freeman Society.
>>>
>> Remember that the first purpose of the current text on SelfSIP.org is
>> to theoretically found and describe the operation of the Freeman
>> Society. It is only Kitty's writings which are the beginning first
>> small steps of using some of the Freemen Society methods within the
>> current society in order to get people to begin thinking more
>> correctly and make some headway towards the achievement of the Freeman
>> Society - ie the "getting from here to there" part of the project. I
>> myself have not yet begun that portion because I have not yet had
>> adequate vetting of the Freeman Society theory and structure.
>> Nevertheless even I am tired of waiting and am working to implement
>> the concept of value for value, which we initially did not think was
>> as essential for the Freeman Society optimal operation as we now do,
>> and which I think can be used fruitfully within the current society to
>> start people thinking and acting responsibly in the right direction.
>>
>> Moreover, please remember that apart from Kitty's examples of negative
>> social preferencing in the current society, *all* other writing about
>> social preferencing (both negative and positive) on SelfSIP applies to
>> the Freeman Society. You are mixing the two! The fact that social
>> preferencing has problems with its negative usage in the current
>> society bears no relationship to its usage in the Freeman Society
>> which is where it needs to be first considered in order to determine
>> whether and to what extent it is the crucial and practical effector
>> of the social order.
>>
>> Moreover, I must ask you, if some form of strong negative social
>> preferencing is not to be used, then just how do you propose that
>> people be influenced sufficiently to change their thinking towards
>> that needed for a Freeman Society? Calmly talking to and writing for
>> people is simply not sufficient for most people to cause such major
>> changes in thinking. Strong non-violent action of all possible forms
>> will be absolutely necessary in many situations in order to promote
>> such change. Once again, I strongly urge you to read the writings of
>> the non-violent theoretician Gene Sharp, specifically his book series:
>> _The politics of Nonviolent Action_ and also the review of all such
>> actions in the 20th century _A Force More Powerful_ by Peter Ackerman
>> and Jack Duvall.
>>
> "Meeting a person where they are" is a more effective than the
> technique of negative social preferencing with little negligible
> incrementalism.

"Meeting a person where they are" is a method of opening a discourse -
it cannot be contrasted with negative social preferencing because it
is not even comparable! I think you are mixing up various methods for
bringing about changes in the current society into what we describe as
the Freeman Society, based on the principles of Social Meta-Needs with
the frameworks of Social Preferencing and the Natural Social Contract.
There are *many* methods that can and ought to be used for this [long]
process of change. That was a major reason I wrote another article this
past April - Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of
Self-Responsibility and Social Order
<http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html>

I and Paul are seeking individuals who are of the level of
openmindedness that they can fairly readily grasp the meanings and value
of the new and radical method of human interaction that is Social
Meta-Needs, which includes Social Preferencing as the ultimate effector
of social order. Those who make the necessary paradigm shift in thinking
and therefore come to highly value this theory and its goal society -
including of course Social Preferencing and the NSC - will hopefully
include individuals who can and are anxious to demonstrate their
understanding and goals to others, many of whom are less initially
openminded. Our methods with the highly openminded are obviously quite
different in various respects than are the methods used by those who
direct their interactions toward people who are far less openminded
(most of whom we do not work with at all).

Meta
Snipped Paul's thanks for bringing an error in word usage to his
attention, now fixed.
/Meta

>> Meta
>> Kitty will respond separately to some of the below when she feels like
>> doing so. Chad, your comments appear to portray Kitty as some kind of
>> unfeeling, brazen vixen, when, in fact, nothing could be further from
>> the truth. She is the kindest, most concerned human being that I have
>> ever encountered. She is also the most open, honest and unwaveringly
>> principled person that I have ever encountered.
>>
> It concerns me that self-defense is being implemented here. What is
> being defended against? Did I launch an attack? Is it aggressive to
> mention the names of the actors in open communication to them about
> their actions? What is being employed here is honesty. At no point
> were the words "unfeeling, brazen vixen" used. Please do not
> manufacture words that were not and will not be written about Kitty.
> Her email to Aaron struck me as meticulously thought out and deeply
> sincere.

It is actually quite strange to me, after all your highly negative
criticism of my email to Aaron, that you say now that it "struck [you]
as meticulously thought out and deeply sincere". This is even with your
"second thought" that the post title should have been "Ineffective
Utilization..." rather than "Indiscriminate Utilization..." Your initial
message was so highly critical of my email that it actually would not
be odd that people would conclude that you thought the writer of that
email to be someone totally insensitive to the feelings of others. And
had I written simply the quoted paragraph that you included in your
message, it would be reasonable for you and others to wonder greatly
if this were not the case. The fact that your "review" was so worded,
could easily be construed as arising from a conclusion that I was/am
such an insensitive person.

[My text above was not meant to convey (nor did I even think that it was
true) that you actually thought Kitty had the negative characteristics
that I listed or intentionally meant to portray her that way. That
should have been clear from my words "your comments appear to portray".
My description of Kitty was merely to inform you and some others of her
real character. Many readers of this group already know that Kitty is
not as you appeared to portray her, from reading many of her writings
here and on the Kitty Reflects section of morelife.org, so I was not
concerned that they might be misled. --Paul]

> [Meta
> Note that I put your comment to my meta comments within my original
> meta tags and this meta comment about that situation within additional
> meta tags.
> /Meta --Paul]
>
>> /Meta
>>> The reason for this is demonstrated on another page that records
>>> email communication between Kitty and her Nephew.
>>> During the email communication "discriminatory
>>> pressure" [2] is applied outside of the context of a Freeman Society
>>> and the results are disappointing.

Here again, Chad, you have forgotten - or ignored - the purpose of the
article in which the email to Aaron was included *as an example* that I
do not simply write ivory tower philosophically based recommendations.
From the first paragraph of the article (and stated far above):
"However, even currently when governments are everywhere, the tool of
social preferencing can be used against those who actually do the harm
in the name of governments, and if practiced by enough people would be
highly effective."
Whether or not I wrote the optimum email to Aaron to persuade him to
cease his Air Force position is something entirely different. It was
only my intention to inform him - after a considerable delay - of why we
had several times driven within 50 miles of his home and not made any
attempts to visit. I did not expect that what I wrote initially would
change his way of thinking - obviously that a career as an officer in
the Air Force was beneficial to him. I did think that I would receive a
message that defended his continuation in the AF in one of the standard
manners, probably protection of citizens against foreign government
threats.

>>> Consider the following excerpt
>>> from Aaron's response, "If not seeing or contacting me is some form of
>>> protest then you are welcome to do it. But to write such a hateful
>>> email out of the blue is completely uncalled for." [5] Aaron does not
>>> know what hit him because he is at a different level of awareness than
>>> Kitty and Paul. What hit Aaron? This message from Kitty Antonik
>>> Wakfer,
>>>
>>> "Aaron, you may have been wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped
>>> in to see you since your move to St. Louis since we drive through it
>>> at least 4 times yearly. It has not been an oversight or because we
>>> are lazy. I have purposely avoided opportunities to visit with you
>>> since Madison's christening in New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul
>>> and I been successful in timing our drive through St. Louis for Mary's
>>> arrival at the airport in July, we would have unavoidably been in your
>>> company for that time. However it was our intention not to visit her
>>> in your home." [4]
>>>
>> It makes no sense to term any of the above as the application of
>> "discriminatory pressure". Kitty's word are nothing but a purely
>> honest and open attempt to make all intentions very clear and to be
>> certain that nothing is misunderstood (as is so often the case in most
>> relationships). The rest of the message, which you do not quote, was a
>> patient and reasoned attempt to explain to Aaron the reasons for these
>> intentions. That Aaron considered the message to be "hateful" is
>> simply the irrational workings of his mind. Perhaps you think that
>> there was some close relationship between Kitty and Aaron which Kitty
>> was peremptorily severing without any warning. However, the truth is
>> that the relationship was merely the standard casual one of relatives
>> wherein very little of substance is ever discussed.
>>
> Why did Aaron consider the email hateful even though Kitty's
> intentions were pure? One may intend to do one thing and end up with
> an undesired result. Feedback is the key to improvement. If you do
> not get the results you want, then it is important to determine why
> and modify the inputs. Sometimes my wife starts an argument with me.
> Now I could sit there and say my wife always likes to start arguments,
> or I could ask what can I do to decrease the likelihood that my wife
> will start an argument with me?

Had I not responded to Aaron's reply to me - or not made any of the
subsequent exchange public - then your comments above would be
appropriate and even useful. But that is not the case and you did not
even make reference to my further correspondence. Part of my first
follow-up email:

<<Your conclusion that my email was "hateful" is absolutely mind
boggling. My email to you was very carefully constructed with all of my
reasoning following a sound logical train from its foundation (the full
body of which would require reading of the Social Meta Needs theory -
link provided - but which it appears that you did not do) to the
consequences of those ideas, my email to you - and similar action for
any other government enforcer or enforcement supporter I know. This was
not a spur of the moment, lightly pulled-together message equivalent to
participating in an anti-war protest rally. I have never been a part of
such a mob-like activity, which I consider of much less value than
reasoned attempts to influence. And most of all, there was no emotion of
hate by me at any time in writing any portion of my email to you or any
of the writing that I do. Hate is a wasteful emotion. Quite the opposite
in fact, I want no harm whatsoever to come to you - by what others may
do or by what you might do yourself.<<

Additionally, this section with the lone quote is another example of
where your "review" is not such at all (at least not comprehensive in
any manner), but rather criticism of selected portions of an article.
You included none of the rest of the email which is at least 5 times the
length of this starting paragraph and provides my reasons for this
avoidance of him (weak negative social preferencing). And to leave out,
at least reference to, the last few sentences before my signature is
definitely painting a very negative picture of me for anyone who read
your post without reading the entire article by me:

<<I want no harm to come to you.

I would like to know that you will in the future (after you have well
familiarized yourself with the concepts) make choices to maximize your
lifetime happiness using the widest viewing longest range thinking.
Looking back over the few emails you and I have had, I came across a
line from you (8/5/02) which is encouraging in this respect, "However
it's the sign of a mature individual who can see the big picture
and not be pressured into doing something foolish."

**Kitty<<

Lastly, your comparison of your continued interactions with your wife
and a desire on your part to "decrease the likelihood that [your] wife
will start an argument with [you]" with an exchange of emails between
me and a military participating nephew with whom I had not had
communications and had avoided visiting is extremely weak. The
relationship between you and your wife bears no similarity to that of
me and that nephew.

>>> The reviewer read the email message and found himself in agreement
>> Meta
>> I consider it to be an avoidance of personal responsibility technique,
>> and perhaps even arrogant, to refer to yourself in the third person as
>> "the reviewer" and I do not sanction such behavior. In future, please
>> use "I" when you are describing your own actions. --Paul]
>> /Meta
>>
> Interpret it how you will. I (Chad Nelson) am the reviewer. I am
> just being honest. Some people interpret the use of the word `I' the
> same way.

As stated before, I think your comments were not at all that which would
be described as an article review. It was no more than, and in some
respects actually less, than the quality of the comments at the mises.
blog following a daily article. And I have never seen any of the
commenters there sign their comment "Reviewer, John Doe" or "Jane Doe,
Reviewer".

[I have difficulty understanding the meaning of your sentence "Some
people interpret the use of the word `I' the same way." But if you
mean that some people interpret the use of "I" as "avoidance of
personal responsibility" or "arrogance", I cannot imagine how the
first is logically possible (in fact it should logically be the
opposite) and if people think that using "I" is arrogant then they
must have very low self-esteem or not even know what true self-esteem
entails. Once again, I have no interest in such people.
BTW, I have a very poor vocabulary when it comes to words describing
irrational actions, so it took me awhile, but I now realize that the
correct word to describe your assumption of the title "Reviewer" is
"pretentious". --Paul]

>>> with Kitty Antonik Wakfer's views on participation in offensive wars.
>>>
>> In addition, please do not use full names. Everyone here knows who
>> Kitty is and also who Paul is within the context of the usage. Using a
>> full name smacks of unfriendliness, at the least, and is inconsistent
>> with your previous use of first names as identifiers.
>>
> Now I am confused. The sentence in question is one of agreement. How
> can it be interpreted as unfriendly? Again I am clearly doing
> something wrong since I intended no offense whatsoever.

A demonstration of friendliness, as Paul put it, would be the use of the
author's full name the first time at most in a comment, with the first
name only after that. A high level of formality, or possibly brusqueness
(depending on the venue), would be the use of only the last name of
the author after the initial full name's usage in the
comment/critique/review. I find it strange that you are confused by this
considering that you are a frequent reader of the Mises.org Daily
Articles and/or blog (which links to the former).

>>> However, the review disagrees with the apparent lack of escalation.
>>>
>> The escalation of what?
>>
> Answer: Escalation of ideological engagement
>
> If a person does not agree with or understand the concept of velocity,
> then how can they begin to understand the concept of acceleration?
> Concepts build on one another. Simply telling someone that you
> understand and embrace the concept of acceleration is one thing.
> Stating, "If you do not understand or embrace the concept of
> acceleration, then I will not associate with you" is another matter
> entirely. Does the person even understand velocity? The final
> question is: "Will refusal to associate with a person that does not
> understand acceleration cause that person to understand acceleration?"

[This has all been addressed above. Do you really think that I, a
multi-course designer and teacher, and Kitty a former registered nurse
and a mechanical engineer (mechanical design team leader for 16 years
with Motorola on spaceborne electronic hardware including GPS-related)
do not already know well what you are describing above? If that is true
then why are you wasting your time here? Also, if that were true then
we would most certainly have nothing of value to teach anyone. --Paul]

>>> This message effectively presents your nephew with an ultimatum.
>>> Choose me and my ideas or continue in the military. Yikes!
>>>
>> Nonsense! The message that you have not quoted presents thoughts about
>> why being in the military is effectively aiding and abetting mass
>> murder (but purposefully does not use such strongly language) and
>> states that I and Kitty will not associate with anyone doing so.
>>
> Aaron feels that he is being presented with an ultimatum.

That was Aaron's problematic situation with his non-thinking/non-examining
stance regarding his military participation after all I wrote. But once
again please remember that I left the door wide open for him in the
hopes that he would eventually reexamine his beliefs.

Here again I recommend that you familiarize yourself with methods of
social noncooperation, which include ostracism of persons (strong
negative social preferencing), as well as the numerous other nonviolent
methods for social change of which Gene Sharp has written extensively.

>>> This form
>>> Social Preferencing is on its' face not palatable for most humans.
>>>
>> Even though given that just as strong positive forms of social
>> preferencing are fully accepted by most humans, it is totally
>> illogical not to also accept strong negative social preferencing, we
>> have never said that any form of negative social preferencing is
>> currently "palatable for most humans". That it is not is also one of
>> the major problems with the thinking of most humans which needs to be
>> changed. We have also pointed out that everyone is, in fact,
>> negatively socially preferencing whether or not they realize it.
>> Kitty's nephew negatively socially preferenced Kitty by wanting
>> nothing more to do with her. I have been so negatively socially
>> preferenced dozens of times in my life. Strangely enough most of that
>> negative social preferencing by others came about when I forthrightly
>> described to them my method of continuously evaluating everyone with
>> respect to our relationship and acting on that evaluation with respect
>> to the degree and type of association - ie when I described the
>> actions of socially preferencing to them. Their reaction was so
>> negative and distasteful of the whole idea that they usually did
>> something punishing to me as well as exercising social preferencing
>> against me (totally inconsistent with their distaste for it). In fact,
>> I have come to use it as a kind of filter to quickly eliminate those
>> people who are not capable of facing the truths of their own lives and
>> of acting consistently.
>>
> There is nothing wrong with negative social preferencing it is a tool.
> The usage of that tool is matter in question.

Yes, it is a tool and it is used in varying strengths - from weak to
strong, equivalent to silence to public announcement - depending on
the circumstances.

[Chad your statement above seems to be inconsistent with your previous
statement "In this case I disagree with using strong social preferencing
outside of the context of a "Freeman Society". Is it perhaps that you,
after the fact, disagree with its use in those cases when it did not
happen to meet your own criteria of success? Well then in that case,
you don't use it. We will both continue to do so and to promote its
use. --Paul]

> Why not try to convert
> others as opposed to filtering them? The filter you are applying is
> very narrow/fine. What if a person can almost be accommodated by the
> filter? Should they be treated like someone who will never fit
> through the filter?

As I wrote above, I and Paul are seeking individuals who are of the
level of openmindedness that they can fairly readily grasp the meanings
of and value of the new and radical method of human interaction that is
Social Meta-Needs, which includes Social Preferencing as the ultimate
effector of social order. It is our ardent hope that those in this first
group will do the "converting" of those who are far less openminded to
begin with. We alone can do just so much and choose to focus on those
most promising for developing full understanding and agreement. I have
no desire to spend my limited hours writing to appeal to the general
"progressive" or "conservative" or even "libertarian" groups regarding current
events. I do occasionally write articles that I hope will strike a chord
with some individuals in these groups and if it does, eventually if
not sooner, that is good. However I never fully write someone off for
further communication.
If I am contacted by someone who rebuffed my ideas in the past and I
subsequently negatively socially preferenced, I will respond and have
done so. I am ready to discuss the subject(s) of disagreement, but not
play chatty games. And I will not spend what I determine is excessive
time in an attempt to "convert" hir. S/he is always invited (often even
urged) to read what I and/or Paul have spent many hours carefully
writing. If s/he is not willing to do so and then discuss the substance,
then that tells me that s/he has a rather low evaluation of me (and Paul).

I agree with Paul that our time is best spent on developing the core
ideas that hold promise of instilling some of the concepts of the
Freeman Society into the current highly problematic one, as stepping
stones - right now those being Value for Value and Social Preferencing.

>>> One must establish a foundation and build some scaffolding before
>>> declaring jump to my level. How can Aaron reach you? You have not
>>> provided any assistance along the way. It took you years to reach
>>> your level of awareness. How can Aaron be expected to instantaneously
>>> adopt a worldview that is diametrically opposed to his current one?
>>> Has he actually had time to consider these ideas? Withdrawal of
>>> support should be one of the LAST steps in the escalation process.

Chad, if all I had written to Aaron was the first 2 paragraphs of that
email, then your criticism would have some relevance. However I wrote
much more and you are choosing to ignore it. Besides, Aaron had the
ability to respond by questioning any of my reasons, but he never did.
He is not a stupid young man, but he as a military officer he is far
more a follower of orders than a thinker of whether those orders are
in his own long range wide viewed best interest. He also is a strong
follower of an organized religion, which practice also does not
encourage critical thinking and questioning of formal established
authority.
It was disappointing that Aaron's response contained nothing that
resembled the quote of his from 2002 that I repeated in my email.
However that email to him was the first time I am sure that any deep
foundational ideas were directly related to him by me, though some brief
general comments regarding our MoreLife philosophy definitely would have
been included in conversation with him and others at the celebration of
his first daughter's christening in Sept 2002. It is possible that new
plans for a social philosophical offshoot for MoreLife may have been
mentioned to him or others at the same time - Paul's first article,
"Beyond Thoreau" was published online on 9/23/2002. (Being able to
review old exchanges is one reason why written discourse is much more
valuable than verbal conversation.) Aaron knew - at least from the time
of our visit to him in NJ in Sept 2002 - that I and Paul spent the vast
amount of our time on MoreLife.org. Although he never initiated any
emails to me after that visit, he had all that we wrote online available
to him, as does anyone. His mother, my sister Mary, knew quite well what
I and Paul were doing since I included reference to activities in my
responses to her emails. However, while her husband Graham was more
responsive to those topics by at least replying to them, Mary did not
make any acknowledgment of our writing efforts outside of those strictly
on health. (Her practice of not replying inline, but always starting off
like with a fresh piece of paper, made it easy to avoid the topics.) I
ceased trying to interest her in anything I and Paul were doing - even
health-wise - in the spring of 2005 since she demonstrated no interest
in those items that were of most importance to us. I continued to
blandly respond on her many running events and her children's doings
until she refused to discuss *in private email*, rather than over the
phone as she wanted, the subject of my emails with Aaron that began
with the one on Sept 25 2005.

>> Chad, I think you are way out of place here in your comments since you
>> have no knowledge of the depth or shallowness of the relationship
>> between Kitty and her nephew. Neither Kitty nor I have any close ties
>> to any remaining family. I, in particular, have always felt estranged
>> from all of my relatives except my mother, who unfortunately died far
>> too young and was too strongly influenced by my father with whom I did
>> not agree much, and my biological daughter for awhile until I realized
>> that she had been effectively deceiving me about her respect for me
>> for about 20 years.
>>
> I am not out of line in that anyone who according to Aaron, "writes
> a[n] <interpretational word deleted> email out of the blue" is not
> close to that person. Also, anyone who actively avoids another person
> for 3 years [September 2002 ("Madison's christening") to September
> 2005 (timestamp on email)] is not close to that person. Evidence for
> active avoidance is provided by Kitty, "Aaron, you may have been
> wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped in to see you since your
> move to St. Louis since we drive through it at least 4 times yearly.
> It has not been an oversight or because we are lazy. I have purposely
> avoided opportunities to visit with you since Madison's christening in
> New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul and I been successful in timing
> our drive through St. Louis for Mary's arrival at the airport in July,
> we would have unavoidably been in your company for that time. However
> it was our intention not to visit her in your home."
>
> I am well within my place to make a judgment based on clear evidence.
> Your response further confirms my inference. If I am wrong, then
> prove it. Do not just say I am out of place.

Your written criticisms of my email to Aaron did not include any of the
immediately above. The fact that you are *now* including these facts is
*after* the fact of all your highly negative statements about an email I
sent to a mildly known military participating nephew who was transferred
from NJ and lived close to a regularly traveled route I and Paul took
twice yearly though never visited and wanted to inform as to why we had
not.

Your previous statements did not at all indicate a level of
understanding of the relative shallowness of this relationship - you had
made no "inference" to this relationship level in your original message
("review") - again showing just how lacking in essential information
and thus how little like a review it actually was.

[Just to be clear, Aaron was only transferred to the St Louis area in
early 2004 (from Kitty's recollection), so there were only 3 times prior
to the emails when visits might have occurred (we have never again been
to New Jersey after our visit there in Sept 2002). --Paul]

>> I leave the rest for necessary comments by Kitty in another response.
>>
>>> Admittedly, Kitty Antonik Wakfer came to the conclusion that the
>>> initial email was inappropriate and devised "A Better Method for
>>> Effecting Change". [6] The first paragraph includes the sentence,
>>> "I've done some thinking about how my approach to my nephew Aaron, a
>>> pilot in the Air Force, might have been better worded and thereby
>>> possibly have elicited a more favorable response from him." [6]
>>>
>>> Before this sentence, however, is a more interesting statement; "At
>>> this time and prompted a few weeks ago by a comment from an individual
>>> whose opinions I (Kitty Antonik Wakfer) listen to…" [6] This is an
>>> excellent point. It is worth asking this question about the
>>> relationship between you and your nephew as well.

Considering all that your wrote in your reply to Paul above, Chad, then
why did you make an initial point directed at me "It is worth asking
this question about the relationship between you and your nephew as
well."? I would have initially responded that you should have asked that
question of yourself - "What was Kitty's relationship with her nephew,
beyond what she wrote in this article and the ones she has written that
I have read?" But since it is clear that you already knew the answer
from what you had read in my two articles that you have been criticizing
plus the dialogue of emails with Aaron, your initial "review" is shown
again to be enormously weak - or you are being duplicitous.

>>> Are you someone
>>> that your nephew listens to and respects? If not, then it is
>>> important to start there. If the person does not know or respect you
>>> in the first place, then what motivation would he have to change based
>>> on what you say? Furthermore, what does he have to lose if he does
>>> not know the Kitty very well in the first place?

Had there been other discussions of philosophically substantive subjects
between me and Aaron, I would definitely have included them as they
would be pertinent to the email's message. The fact that I did not,
would indicate to a careful reader that there (likely at least) were
none. But then since you are very new to any of the writings on
SelfSIP.org (you still do not correctly note the authors of the items
on the Focus section, though they are stated) and likely none on
MoreLife.org, you are not familiar with how and what I write. (Most of
my writing is actually at
http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/index.html )
And again, since you responded to Paul with all the answers to these
questions yourself that you were in your "review", from my estimation,
being purely theatrical. It is only after Paul's objections to your
statements that you have acknowledged knowing from reading what I wrote
that I provided this information.

>>> Unfortunately, the "Incremental Approach" misses the mark much like
>>> the first email. The problem begins in paragraph one:
>>>
>>> "I've been doing a lot of thinking about you lately and am deeply
>>> concerned.

This one sentence was a single paragraph - and for the purpose of
letting it stand first by itself. The fact that in copying it into your
comments you ran it right into the next thoughts does not demonstrate
care in reproducing accurately what I wrote.

>>> At the time you graduated from the Air Force Academy
>>> (1998), I considered the military only 1 of 3 valid functions of
>>> government, an entity I thought was necessary to a free and orderly
>>> society. Since then, all after meeting Paul and having many detailed
>>> discussions with him - concurrent with the reading of various
>>> anti-statist writers of the past and present - I came to the
>>> conclusion that governments are the cause of most of the problems of
>>> society. The progress that occurs and the happiness that individuals
>>> achieve are mainly in spite of government rules and regulations rather
>>> than as a result of them. The fact that most people do not recognize
>>> this is because they have not seriously considered how a society could
>>> be free and orderly without coercive law-creating entities -
>>> governments." [6]
>>>
>>> This paragraph alone is already too much. Many people will reject
>>> this approach. The recipient of such an unsolicited email is most
>>> likely not going to receive this well. Their mind is not ready.

This was a revised email that would have been sent *to Aaron* - not a
form letter suggested for other limited governmentalists to use for
everyone they knew in the military. My former husband, Ed, at that time
of Aaron's AF Academy graduation had been in police work (one of the 2
other 3 once considered by me to be valid functions of government) for
over 20 years - not something of which was necessary for Aaron to be
reminded. It might have been a good inclusion, and I likely would have
done so if actually sending the message, to include the reminder of one
of the gifts I'd given Aaron at the time - Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who
Needs It?". Had I done so, it would be clear to *you* that this
paragraph is definitely not "too much". BTW I never received any
acknowledgment from Aaron regarding it (it was gift wrapped, though I
said something like "I do hope that you get a lot out of this" when I
gave it to him), although I do not recall if I ever asked him about
whether he read it. Please recall that this was in summer of 1998, over
a year before I had my first contact with Paul and I was not nearly as
sure of myself and my philosophical grounds as I became afterward.

Aaron is not a person who I would expect is limited in his readings -
no military officer is supposed to be. And so Aaron is aware that a
significant portion of the US population considers that the government's
role is strictly what is defined in the US Constitution, though from
his response to me in his reply emails he is (I am assuming that he has
not changed) not accustomed to reviewing and considering the wisdom of
orders he is given and policies he is expected to carry out.
(For your info since you have not read very much if anything about me -
my father was a 20+ year US Navy officer and this conclusion is based on
his practices and statements he often made regarding aspects of a
quality commander. From my knowledge of my father - I am the oldest of
my parents' 5 children - I doubt very much if he would have participated
in either active support activities for Iraq or Afghanistan. I know that
after publicity was widened regarding Viet Nam actions he was not
enthusiastic with the military presence there after the late 70s and was
relieved that he had retired in 1963 (after being "passed over" for
promotion) since he would not then have to decide whether to refuse
any assignment that involved him in the fiasco.)

>>> Ask
>>> yourself the following question, what would happen if the coordinator
>>> for the Italian Olympics Swimming team kidnapped you in the middle of
>>> the night and you were told that you would be competing in the 100
>>> meter diving competition tomorrow OR that you could go back home and
>>> continue living your normal life. Which of these options are you most
>>> prepared to accomplish? The excerpt above drops your nephew in the
>>> deep-end.

Chad, I think your analogy is very poor - in fact most analogies used
by most people are just that. To equate Aaron - an academy educated
military officer in one of the US armed forces - with someone kidnapped
by the "coordinator for the Italian Olympics Swimming team" makes no
sense to me.... Aaron was not kidnapped by anyone, he was merely being
addressed in an email by his mother's eldest sibling with concern
regarding his continued military participation for the reasons stated.
And you didn't even discuss the reasons that were presented in the
revised email, which I readily acknowledged would have been a better way
to inform him of my (and Paul's) failure to visit. Please remember in
that one I started out: "I've been doing a lot of thinking about you
lately and am deeply concerned."

>>> Adopting an incremental approach is wise, but this approach is not
>>> incremental enough.

Maybe for *you* - as sender or receiver - it would not be incremental
enough and you would prefer to send or receive something with no
relevance to the intended purpose of the communication. But that is
you. You are simply making the assessment that my revised email is not
incremental enough *for you*. You have no knowledge that it would not
have been incremental enough for Aaron had it been the very first
message he received from me on the subject.

I am a forthright person and always have been since my 20s ... no, even
before that at 16 when I told my parents that I did not agree with them
on religion or even the existence of a god. I have not followed the
practice, like so many, of "little white lies" in order to placate
others. If I did not think someone looked good in something, I said so -
though I did not say that they looked awful, just that the item "isn't
becoming". Something they said? If I didn't want to discuss it at the
time (for whatever the reason might be), I'd just say "I don't agree".
So I would not play a written game of "small talk" - chatter that has
nothing to do with the important purpose of my contact message.

Chad, I think you have done a great deal of pontificating in your
posting on this subject of my emails, both the original one sent to
Aaron and the revised one I created 18 months later as a better one in
my later estimation. You did not like the wording I used in either email
and have used various methods as an attempt to portray it as a
demonstration of how negative social preferencing (even if not
public/strong) is ineffective in general. You were not been forthright
in creating a true review of the article I wrote on negative social
preferencing as a means for influence, specifically in regard to
military participants during a time of US invasion/occupation of foreign
territory, for which the first email was merely an example to
demonstrate that I actually practiced negative social preferencing in
this situation. Additionally that email was made only partially strong
(public) because Aaron's last name was never revealed. (He is my
sister's son and therefore does not have the last name of Antonik.)

I think you are quite inexperienced in doing reviews of
articles/essays/technical papers/books, and therefore recommend that you
read a good many before you make any further posts to this group in
which you claim to be doing a review. In the meantime, when you post, I
recommend that you ask questions rather than make conclusions based on
your limited reading of Paul's works, about how you think the system
or methods will or will not be effective as frameworks for the Freeman
Society, the name we currently use to describe a society of interacting
individuals each for the purpose of maximizing hir lifetime happiness
all at the same time.

I do hope, Chad, that you will take the remarks I have made as the
constructive criticism that they are intended to be.

**Kitty

See more from Paul below.

>> The authorship that you have given directly below is incorrect. All
>> writing at SelfSIP.org that is not specifically stated as written by
>> someone else is authored by me alone (everything that I write has
>> undergone suggestions, critique and editing by Kitty and vice-versa.)
>> See the "Authorship" section on the project entry page http://selfsip.org
>> where this is clearly stated. I am the theorist. Kitty writes mainly
>> examples which are never to be taken as replacing or being contrary to
>> the theory (on which we both agree). If you think that any is contrary
>> then please state exactly which text is contrary and give reason why
>> you think so.
>>
>>> [2] Self-Sovereignty Solutions Social Preferencing, Author: Paul and
>>> Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html
>>>
>>> [4] Social Preferencing – Evaluation and Choice of Association; A
>>> Method for Influence, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html
>>>
>>> [5] Exchange Regarding Social Preferencing and Participation in
>>> Offensive Military Action, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
>>> http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html
>>>
>>> [6] Incremental Approach – A Better Method for Effecting Change,
>>> Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/smallsteps.html
>>>
>>> Reviewer, Chad Nelson
>>>
>> Chad, you have no "position" or "authority" as reviewer. Please do not
>> try to aggrandize your personal comments into anything more than they
>> are.
>>
> Reviewer
> 1. a person who reviews
> 2. a person who reviews books, plays, etc.
>
> Review
> –verb (used with object)
> 12. to go over (lessons, studies, work, etc.) in review
> 13. to view, look at, or look over again.
> 14. to inspect, esp. formally or officially: to review the troops.
> 15. to survey mentally; take a survey of: to review the situation
> 16. to discuss (a book, play, etc.) in a critical review; write a critical
report upon.
> 17. to look back upon; view retrospectively.
> 18. to present a survey of in speech or writing.
> 19. Law. To reexamine judicially: a decision to review the case

[All of 15, 16, 18 and 19 require a thorough, even and unbiased
approach, which you have not taken.--Paul]

> Placing a title on oneself conveys no position or authority.

[Yes it does. In fact it has no other purpose than that. --Paul]

> It merely states a fact.

[Descriptive adjectives are not equivalent to titles. --Paul]

> If what I am doing does not fall under the
> category of review, then I do not understand the definition of review.

[That is quite correct. You do not. --Paul]

> I shall persist in all sincerity to continue to refer to myself as a
> Reviewer of your work.

[You obviously also have no understanding of the use and meaning of
titles. --Paul]