February 12, 2011


me+ME: The Sacred Cow of Unity - a manipulative trope

More about ME, triggered by The Sacred Bovine on CFS Chronicles, and intelligible only if one knows at least a little about the use of the manipulative trope of "unity" on the sites of Marly Silverman, Cort Johnson, and Patricia Carter, three of "our leaders" of "our community" of patients with ME/CFS, who are very much in favour that patients with ME/CFS be "united", as in: all buy from their webshops, write in their lingos, only discuss things they want discussed, in the terms they or their moderators deem "appropriate" (= PC), in their personal interests as "leaders" of "our community", with personal webshops, and their undeclared personal loyalties and agendas.


1. Introduction
The Sacred Cow of Unity
3. The Sacred Bovine

1. Introduction

Let me then return to a theme I treated before, in me+ME: On ME-activism and On a new Kitei Editorial + 百花齊放,百家爭鳴, namely The Sacred Cow of Unity.

This also ties in with my proposals On ME-activism in the context of 百花齊放,百家爭鳴 (*) and specifically with (quoting myself):

In any case there are vastly more patients not happy with the organizations and charities purportedly working for them (which they sometimes indeed also may do, even if the real aim of the organization's staff is to see its staff paid), for which reason one relevant question is: How can patients organize themselves to get effective activism for ME-patients?

As indicated, my answer is along the lines:

Not by following existing organizations or leaders in the field of ME-activism, but by setting up one's own website, possibly cooperating with a few likeminded folks, and getting up good stuff about ME in general, and indeed also one's personal situation, so that one's site at least may serve one's own interests.

But to my subject:

2. The Sacred Cow of Unity

I had met The Sacred Cow of Unity on ME-forums, but this tended to be incidental to other subjects, and then often in the form of the sycophantic trope that "our community" - incidentally, another trope i.e. figure of speech - "needs" "unity", as if that, like death, "is the cure for all disease" (**), or, for those who may not like that comparison, as if a "community" in "unity" is the panacea for all that a "community" needs.

It is bullshit, for various reasons.

First, real communities, of real physical people, with known names, abodes, backgrounds and educations, who meet each other face to face, even if in large real communities most do not meet most, are seldomly "united" in any clear sense on many things, especially if they are made up of many kinds of persons of many kinds of backgrounds.

Second, an internet "community", if it is a community at all, and more specfically, "internet communities" such as can be found - as it were - enshrined in html on ME-forums and public Facebook sites, is very much a virtual community:

The members of such forums are for the most part anonymous, not only by being only known by an alias (+ avatar), and not only by being thus factually without effective personal responsibility or accountability apart from being banned from such an "internet community", but also by these members seldom disclosing much about themselves (that anyway is hard to check, if anonymous) and by "existing", as "community", effectively in terms of typed prose, often none too clear, not relevantly informed, and not well written, besides often not being to much of a rational point, on some website.

Third, the whole idea of "uniting" a great number of people, merely on the basis of their anonymously laying claim to having a rare disease, while meaning the best with all who have the disease, and knowing they in fact come from all walks of life, with all manner of backgrounds, orientations, educations, preferences, values and outlooks, is fairly to very ludicrous as it is effectively impracticable - beyond having them anonymously meet, by laborious typing, on what are effectively lists of lists ("threads") of bits of texts, written by anonymous persons who say, and for the most part seem to believe, they have a fairly rare physical disease.

In fact, as the internet is, and as people are, on average, in majority, unsorted, without selection, the most that is possible, in the way of "uniting", is to "unite" their texts on some forum, or some list of comments on some site, and then indeed "unite" not in the sense of "sharing outlooks, values and ends (on something they agree is important for persons with their disease)", but simply and factually in the sense of "occuring as texts - strings of characters and interpunction - on some site on the internet". Our "Community"?!.

Fourth, having had a communist parents, I k n o w the trope of "unity", The Sacred Cow of Unity: Communist parties and communist trade unions all over the world and for decades had the same mantra: Unity! Unity! Unity! - behind Our Great Leader Stalin, Genius among geniuses, and behind The Central Committee of the Communist Party. Forwards Comrades! But beware: Unity! Unity! Unity! Or else you'll be in trouble!

For that is what it practically meant: What is supposed and asserted to benefit the members of groups - "communities", if you like - generally in practical effect is what benefits the leaders of the groups, indeed often, as in Stalin's Russia, though not necessarily, at the cost of the members of the group.

And in fact, the whole trope of "unity" is a trick, a piece of rhetorics, and propaganda, generally for and by some specific leaders, namely by tarring all who do not agree with these leaders in some way, as thereby having shown themselves to be opponents of "our community" (which generally means in practice: the leaders or would be leaders of that group), who for that reason, namely for opposing the "unity" of "our community", deserve to be... outcast.

Stalin used it for decades, and when used cleverly, in the name of "our community", it is a very effective instrument to oust, incriminate, tar, blacken and persecute any and all opponents: "Who is not for Us, is against Us".

In brief: Anybody who is calling for "unity" of "our community" of persons with ME, writing for the most part anonymously on the internet, as indeed almost anybody who is calling for "unity" of "our community" of persons at any time (***), is either willfully deluding (ill) people and playing a rhetorical trick or else has been deluded:

It is not practicable, it is not necessary, and it is counterproductive as regards furthering the interests of persons with ME, while it is only useful for persons who set themselves up as leaders, and want to get rid of opponents.

3. The Sacred Bovine

In fact, the present piece was triggered by a piece on Heidi Bauer's Blog, that I found by way of Dr Speedy's Blog (and here I am justifying the opening of this present piece - and see: Some good info about ME and some good ME-sites) that indeed is titled The Sacred Bovine.

I quote from it:

A friend of mine from the UK has often labeled well-liked people or organizations as sacred cows, those whom we are not allowed to criticize, even in an appropriate way without personal attacks. If one does attempt to speak out against a particular agenda or misappropriation of funding or energies, they suffer the consequences of being seen as a toxic, negative, non-team player bent on tearing people down who are working very hard on their behalf.
Good intentions and good hearts are not enough to win this fight. And unity is not about singing Kumbaya by mass video conferencing. Khaly Castle states in her latest blog that she must "respectfully decline to Unite". I've made a personal decision to no longer worry about being made out a villain if I disagree with any organization or independent effort. I know who I am and why I fight for me, my family and patients. I respectfully decline to Unite as well.

After which we get the invitation

Please read Khaly's full blog below if you have not done so. I stand behind every word 100%

So let me do so, at least by quoting some parts and commenting some. You'll find all of the text both on Heidi Bauer's Blog and Khali Castle's Blog - and I will try to be brief, and so skip most of it.

I quote in the order it is written, by indenting, and the piece I quote from is entitled "Rules of Engagement", dated Feb 9, 2011:

Rules Of Engagement

Unity of action without unity of purpose is a self-defeating situation. 
For the past several months, though, a sidenote to CFS politics has crept into my morning thoughts.  The term “unity” and what it really means has been a subject I’ve dwelled on, mulled over, stirred into my coffee in increasing doses.  It’s a word that, when applied to situational tactics, has to have considerable background and back-up.

As I explained above, I am very familiar with it from the communist party, as typical totalitarian manipulation, but it has also been used very similarly in e.g. Catholic and Protestant Churches and sects and in student and leftist politics: "Whoever is against Us, is against Our Community" - meaning in practice always: 'Whoever is against Leader X will get serious trouble with X's followers', and that not honestly, fairly and rationally, but as someone who already is a traitor of Our Community, Our Cause, Our Leaders.

But then again, skeptical readers should remember at this point that I am myself merely a psychologist and philosopher at the young age of 60, with only lots of relevant knowledge, so that it may be surmised that for some in "our community" I must be a deeply suspicuous - if I am indeed sane and moral at all.

Back to Khaly Castle's text:

What does that mean?  Well, let’s take corporate strategy, for instance.
Many of us had corporate lives before our lives got derailed.  Some of the best companies I’ve worked for have heavily applied unity, and some of the worst companies I’ve worked for have heavily misapplied unity.
Unity of action without unity of purpose makes the ship go around in circles.

Speaking for myself, I worked for some ten years before I started studying, so I suppose I have both corporate and academic experiences, and indeed in the corporate part I have led various things, while I also was a student-leader and published writer at university.

I agree with Khaly, but skeptical readers should remember that apart from my already listed failings, indeed I was fairly successful at various practical things, in fact including farming (****), also for the first years of my illness, namely until I got moderately severe ME.

Let’s take the business model a few steps further. Step 1:  Working with independents
In my working life, I was good at what I did, as many of you were.
The worth of independent consultants is invaluable.  Without them, life in the office becomes insular, and  reality becomes convoluted as perspective is lost.

I cannot personally testify to the same effect, but I agree with the idea: To remain effective, an organization needs input and information from objective, impartial, competent people - which indeed generally will not be part of that organization, so as not to be biased or prejudiced by it.

Step 2:  Representative organizations
I also hired representatives: attorneys, insurance agents, government liasons, risk management firms….and when they failed to represent my needs adequately, I fired them.
In high-stakes situations, it doesn’t work to “deal with” second best, and certainly not with “miserably inadequate”.

I have hired and fired, but not the manner of folks Khaly did, and I agree with the final sentiment, with the qualifications that (i) often the best are hard to get and (ii) it may not be really clear who are the best and what is best.

And linking this back to the theme of ME organizations, charities and such:

In my experience, those organizations for persons with ME I know something of, and specifically in Holland, Great-Britain and the United States, neither do nor say the things I want them to do and say, although this varies to some extent with the charities etc. I am talking about:

Some chartered organizations that claim to act and exist for furthering the interests of patiens with ME/CFS seem to exist mostly or only to keep their own staff in pay; some seem to exist mostly to act "in the name of persons with ME" with ideas and ends and supports for persons or institutions that I think are quite simply false, harmful or bad; while there even are some that do or say or propose some sensible things.

By and large, they seem not very well run, and not very effective, but then it is true this need not be due to the staff's failings, but to the special surrounding difficulties ME/CFS since decades, that relate to Reeves and Wessely's combination of major pseudoscientific bullshit that is by non-experts regarded as science, and to the same men's having a lot of influence on their governments as regards governmental policies towards ME/CFS.

Step 3:  Pick your boss
In a career field, your reputation is everything.  If a boss is undermining your ability to perform, it’s time to get a new boss. 
If “Boss” isn’t working for you, then you shouldn’t be working for “Boss”.

Indeed, if you can. But in general it is wise to try to work only with and for persons of whom you have reason to believe that they are honest, keep agreements, and are competent: Without these all cooperation must eventually fail.

Back to Khaly's text:

How does this apply to CFS advocacy? I’ve seen some pretty strange stuff come down the pike under the guise of “unity” lately.  It makes me very uncomfortable.  To date, I’ve  not said much about it, other than an occasional comment when things get too utterly absurd.

Yes, I agree. Speaking for myself, I am extremely uncomfortable with Marly Silverman's prose - which is, in my no doubt treasonable, unqualified, disrespectful eyes, of a badness that is hard to believe and not often paralleled.

Here, given the mores in "our community" I must add again: Sorry, that I am qualified academically as a psychologist and philosopher; sorry, that I am highly gifted; sorry that I have been a leader in various contexts and organizations; sorry that I can write and think; sorry that I have read a great lot ... I know that in the eyes of the vast majority who didn't do this being thus qualified is very bad in "our community", especially, but then one afflicted like me - indeed anybody fairly intelligent and erudite, mens sano - has great problems with the prose of a miracle worker and former assistant bankmanager as Marly Silverman.

In fact, the lady, her prose, and her person, the smiiiiiiiiiiiling likeness of which gives me acute pains in the jaws, while nauseating my mind, are slotted for treatment in Nederlog - an event some may look forward to, also as lessons in practical logic.

More of this later in Nederlog, and here and now back to Khaly's text:

Untruths come in all sorts of packages.  Sometimes they are lies, and sometimes they are omission of all of the pertinent facts.  For instance, recently we were presented with the opportunity to donate blood to a new XMRV study.  One of the designers of this study was told by someone who absolutely knows, that the study was flawed.  The designer of the study failed to share that information, even though he was in possession of it as he was defending the study as a good thing.  But he did share it with a confidant, and somewhere down the line that private communication became public.  That’s not a case of ignorance.  That’s a case of willful manipulation of the facts.

That's interesting, and I would like to see chapter and verse, though indeed I have thought for some time, and indeed written almost a year ago now - On the postmodern falsifications in Wessely & McClures BMJ-editorial - that this seems to happen. Note incidentally that this is a simultaneous breaking of scientific, medical and ordinary morality.

It’s come to me via three different sources that the current “Unity” climate considers independent advocates to be “trouble”, myself included.  That’s really unfortunate, as it’s the independents who can bring real useful information to the table.  It’s the independents who work quietly, one-on-one, with people in need.  It’s the independents who can tell you “this doesn’t work”, or “we need more that”, as it’s the independents who are living it day in and day out.  Just like in step one of the business model, the independents are a valuable source of information and action.  And to date, it’s ONLY the independents who have advocated consistently for the sickest of the sick.

Yes, I agree to that - and if I were asked to define "independents" in this context, I would say these are precisely those who do have their own websites with some following; who do (or did) engage in advocacy; and who can write and are somehow qualified, and think and speak for themselves, first and foremost (rather than grandiloquently for "our community").

More Khaly:

I want to talk about Marly Silverman’s latest blog, Time To Make A Difference Together.  This will no doubt trigger some outrage on the part of some who are affiliated, but I have to, with all due respect, disagree with quite a bit of this blog.  And, in keeping with her request that we balance each negative comment with a positive

In my life, I have read a lot of very bad, very pretentious, very bullshitting prose, but that of Marly Silverman, together with her teeth, made an indelible impression on me - as does the ridiculous, manipulative, populist, stupid, impolite, unreasonable demand (like the Catholic Church also likes to make) to "balance" one's criticism of bullshit by praise for it. ("Well, Mr Stalin, there are those Gulags but in balance there's Moscow's metro: tit for tat, don'tcha know, fairness and balance in all things ")

Point one:
In this blog, Marly chastised Mindy Kitei for a statement about Dr. Nancy Klimas, and asks her to retract it.

That shows Marly Silverman either has a hidden agenda or a very pretentious, very totalitarian, very tiny mind.

Point two:
In Marly’s blog, she states:

Wouldn’t you think that 3 and half decades of getting “crumbs” as Mindy stated would not have induced a much smarter approach from our “independent patient advocates” also to create change?

Why point the finger at the independent advocates?  Marly goes on to criticize the bickering, but that’s tying two different points together so that you have to defend one to defend the other.  I’m not going to do that.  Wouldn’t you think that 3 plus decades of getting crumbs would induce a much smarter approach from our advocacy organizations?  Why lay the blame at the feet of the independents at large?  Overall, the independents have accomplished much that couldn’t be accomplished by organizations,  and have suffered much injustice at the hands of organized advocacy efforts.  And the bickering is not isolated to the independents, either.  It’s just more noticeable, since the independent bickering is confined to cyberspace and is undisguised by political niceties.  At least with the independents you know exactly where you stand, as our criticisms aren’t all dolled up in PC verbiage and hidden agendas.

Quite so. And to point to what seem to me good candidates for independents see Some good info about ME and some good ME-sites. And there is myself, of course, an arch-independent - as you'll see illustrated now:

Point three:
Marly says,

It is also heartbreaking to see within our patient advocacy community, that mutual respect, courtesy and civility is once again lacking and the anonymity of the internet allows this kind of behavior go unpunished and seldom refuted.

Here’s where I agree, but only partially.  It is horrible to be sick and trying your heart out, and get slammed on a personal level for your efforts.  Vehement disagreement is fine, and picking apart the concept at hand is fine, and even necessary.  When it disintegrates into personal attack, it’s untenable.  It really is heartbreaking.

No, I disagree: I have been personally attacked, of course preferably under the bullshitting, lying and sanctimonuous and hypocritical guise of "respect"; disagreements with me are disagreements with a person; and I know of many persons I do not respect, for what seems to me very good moral or intellectual reasons. (If you want to respect folks like Goebbels, Stalin, the pope, or indeed Wessely, indulge yourself to your heart's content, as long as you don't want to enforce that on me as a moral or intellectual duty.)

Besides, why deny oneself the weapons others use, indeed while lying about that? Marly Silverman is simply trying to manipulate what she calls "our community" to do the sort of things she want to be done (support Marly Of The Awesome Dentures!), pretending fairness and honesty, besides writing a truly execrable style.

But OK - "that is just my personal point of view", and I lack the qualifications of Marly's Full Smile In A Pink Jumpsuit, besides lacking the distinction of having been a bank manager, like she has: Truly a background that fills me with the greatest confidence in Marly's morality.

More Khaly:

Point four:

For every naysayer complaining of an organization, point to something good these organizations have done.

That’s not working for me.  In a Utopian world, that would be a good thing, but in realworld CFS politics, that would be akin to being beaten up on a daily basis right after lunch.  “He tried to kill me repeatedly, but I got a baloney sandwich first”.

Quite so - and the reader should note that Marly Of The Awesome Dentures is ordering others what they should write: WTF does she think she is? Dictating to others while she can neither write properly nor think rationally?

And here is Khaly's last paragraph, also summing up:

This is why we can’t unite.  We are not coming from the same place, or headed in the same direction.  Unger has said she is not going to change the direction of the CDC CFS.  Phoenix Rising promotes disingenuous and under-investigated statements as “fact”, and fails to divulge fact when it doesn’t suit purposes.  The CAA has repeatedly refused to get involved with promoting funding for the WPI.  And I’m sorry to say, P.A.N.D.O.R.A. wants me to unite, while they are playing nice with all three.  All of these statements can be verified by anyone who follows the statements and actions of these organizations. This is my opinion.  I disagree.  There is no personal attack here, only a firm stance on my principals.  I must respectfully decline to Unite.

Yes, I agree, except for the spelling of "principles", and except that, unlike Khaly, I do not mind personally attacking people if they write nonsense, bullshit, propound totalitarian  idiocies, and write or act in a matter and manner harmful to patients with ME - "in my opinion of course", but then I am a lot more qualified to speak and write, it seems to me, than one who composes such truly atrocious prose that Marly Silverman writes.


(*) The Chinese - as per Wikipedia - for " Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend ", which was Mao's rallying cry for the Cultural Revolution. See Hundred Flowers Campaign (Wikipedia)

(**) "Death is the cure for all disease" - Sir Thomas Brown.

(***) Indeed, almost anybody who is calling for "unity" of "our community" of persons at any time, is either willfully deluding people and playing a rhetorical trick or else has been deluded.

It is a totalitarian idea and ideal in principle, and my reason to write "almost" is that in a few very extreme and rare situations - Battle of Britain, say - calling for "unity" is justified.

Apart from that, diversity, pluralism, liberality, freedom to do one's own things are generally by far the best to get anything done, in the way of civilization, at least.

(****) In fact, that is the diploma I am most pleased with, also because I would not have thought I would find the reasons to get such a diploma or develop the interests to want to get it: I am qualified - standards of 1977, in Norway, to be sure - to run a livestock farm, that is I am a qualified, diplomaed farmer.

Indeed one further reason to be pleased with it is that, while I have indeed worked for quite a few commercial firms in offices in various capacities, and outside offices too, I found farming, although it is heavy labour indeed, far more satisfying than "the commercial life". (It's down to earth; it has to do with animals; it is work that makes evident sense; it is varied work - running a Norwegian livestock farm, I mean - and it does require intelligence; while one also can comprehend nearly all one is involved with, and the reasons for how and why things are done as they, are on a farm. Few if any of these things held for the non-leading jobs I did for commercial firms.)

P.S. Corrections must wait till later.
         -- Feb 13, 2011:
         I made some corrections and some none too large additions and clarifications.
         And did so again later the same day, expanding the text also some.

More or less the same applies to Cort Johnson, Patricia Carter, CFS_since_1998 and Marly Silverman: They seem to me to be all incompetent and unqualified, both intellectually and morally, for the jobs they pretend to be doing for persons with ME, and seem to be in it, as "leaders", "creators", "owners" etc. for the boosts it gives them in their lives.

Also, for the record: I never met them; don't know whether they use aliases, except from one obvious one; and don't know whether they have the same disease as I have. What I do know, from their prose that I read, is that I can't take them serious as spokesmen or -women for other patients than themselves, nor as leaders of any community of any kind, nor as persons who can write about ME/CFS in ways I consider scientifically informed and stylistically correct.

And they do not speak for me, not about ME nor anything else, as indeed does no spokesperson or leader of any organization concerned with ME does.

Spokesmen who speak for me must needs be rational and reasonable, and those who cannot be rational nor reasonable, or do not want to be, or are markedly less intelligent or learned than I am, are neither spokesmen for me, nor fit to be so.

Finally, also on the note of disagreement I have with Khaly Castle: Persons like Cort Johnson, Patricia Carter, CFS_since_1998 and Marly Silverman do speak and pretend to speak for me, as a patient with ME, and as long as they pretend to be "leaders" -
"owners", "founders" of "forums" or "organizations" - who pretend to tell others how to act, write and think about ME/CFS, especially if I disagree with them, are opponents of me, as "they say the thing that is not", and generally are not at all of the strength of character and mind to lead me.

Besides, I feel free to write about anyone as I please - and I also get very sickened by the scores of folks I have meanwhile read on ME-forums, who seem not to know anything about either literature or science, and yet anonymously deny people far more intelligent and able than they are the right to write a good satirical English or to take part in a mostly rational debate, not made practically impossible by nonsense, misunderstanding or trolling.

It is so ... swinishly populistic, stupid, mean spirited, and fundamenally dishonest, unfair and full of sick envious personal spitefulness as well, si vous excusez mon Français, for as I have argued before: A good part of the degeneracies I have read on ME-forums seem to this psychologist inspired by "ressentiment", as Nietzsche called it, and allowed and indeed furthered by the owners of forums if it helps destroy someone who is in their way.

This may be human-all-too-human, but it is neither pretty nor pleasant, and makes forums for ME-patients dangerous and unpleasant places to post on precisely for those who are rational, competent, honest and willing and able to engage in advocacy: "I have seen the best minds of several generations" with ME, to vary Alan Watts, destroyed on forums by bullshitters, liars, idiots, nitwits and trolls, denied access, and pestered away, while they were not allowed by the owners or moderators of these forums to speak the truth in proper literary polemical  English, because precisely that was declared by them to be "inappropriate" language, that failed to show "respect", namely to bullshitters, liars, idiots, nitwits and trolls.

It's the way of the world to crucify or persecute the best and the brightest, but I'll be damned if I am going to thankfully smile to nitwits or frauds and say

"Thank you, thank you, thank you: let's all respect nonsense and nitwits, merely because they claim anonymously to have a disease I happen to have, and let's respectfully not criticize any anonymous bullshitter who posts on an ME-forum, except in such terms as priests and clergy may be pleased with (provided it is done with simultaneous respectful kowtowing), whatever ignorant or false bullshit one tries to correct. Do not displease anyone, especially not the pretentious, the phony, the false, the posturing or the ignorant, for especially they need respect: Give it to them, or get lost! And all the proof that our Community and its Leaders need that one is a true bona fide respectable patient with ME is that one becomes an anonymous member of an ME-forum, who respects the other anonymous members!"

It's crazy talk, of the order of Procrustean magnitude of getting rid of intelligent knowledgeable persons because their existence is unpleasant and disrespectful to the democratic majority of the stupid and ignorant.

But yes... it is a fine way of getting a "unity".

And maybe I should say that so far this year I have kept up with Recent Changes: Summaries of relevant changes on the site.

As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):

1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS (pdf)

3. Hillary Johnson

The Why

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf)
5. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

6. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
7. Paul Lutus

Is Psychology a Science?

8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)

Short descriptions:

1. Ten reasons why ME/CFS is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
   "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon
     insufficient evidence
7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
8. Malcolm Hooper puts things together status 2010.

    "Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!

No change, no pause, no hope! Yet I endure.
I ask the Earth, have not the mountains felt?
I ask yon Heaven, the all-beholding Sun,
Has it not seen? The Sea, in storm or calm,
Heaven's ever-changing Shadow, spread below,
Have its deaf waves not heard my agony?
Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!
     - (Shelley, "Prometheus Unbound") 

    "It was from this time that I developed my way of judging the Chinese by dividing them into two kinds: one humane and one not. "
     - (Jung Chang)


See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources

Maarten Maartensz (M.A. psy, B.A. phi)

        home - index - top - mail