The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 3, Thread 9.

1. Getting Culture
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 1:33 AM/EST
sixo

when i was 20 something, fresh on the job out of a computer science undergraduate program, i couldn't wait to find out all the treasures of the liberal arts. so i made it my business to go out and 'get some culture'.

did you do that? do you do that? does anybody care about culture? what culture is worth getting, and what value have you gotten from that which you got? do you share? how?

2. Getting Culture
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 12:52 PM/EST
shuar

Good for you, Sixo. Self-education is the only real education. You have to struggle to acquire "culture" unless you are one of the fortunate few to come from a family which is cultivated.

3. What culture?
Sat, Nov 14, 1998 - 1:58 PM/EST
Marlyn

We forget that we "get culture" all along as we grow up. We don't notice it, because it isn't something exotic or exciting or it doesn't stand out as different from what everyone else is doing -- but its there.

What indicators of "culture" did you use to go on a search? Dress? Music? Holidays? Traditions? Food?

Eating a peanutbutter sandwich is American culture -- something my Thai exchange student-sister never COULD do. Eating popcorn is something entirely American.

Thanksgiving is an American tradition and holiday -- definitely cultural. Fourth of July, in the park, with fireworks -- definitely a cultural event.

Music is a multi-layered thing. Is Mozart more "cultured" than Aerosmith or Mariah Carey? No -- but which type of music a person chooses to be an afficionado of may be linked to socio-economic elements in one's upbringing, as well as personal taste.

To me, being "cultured" is being true to oneself and enjoying one's life as it is.

5. actually..
Mon, Nov 16, 1998 - 7:58 PM/EST
sixo

i was thinking more specifically about cultural productions, those things which are designed to provide us with insights beyond what we might ordinarily observe.

certainly everyone has a culture, anthropologically speaking. but i'm more interested in 'culture with a capital c'. i'm thinking about cultural criticism and why certain cultural productions are better than others.

so when i talk about 'getting culture' i'm not implying that some people have no culture (although in a way i am), i am speaking about continuing education. i'm talking about the way certain convergences of wisdom occur in various modes of expression. some people learn x by looking at sculpture that others learn by reading poetry that still others learn in sewing circles. likewise people are apt to teach x through writing plays that others accomplish through being scout leaders. but i dont' think people learn or teach anything through the medium of peanut butter.

so my question remains.

7. ok let's try it this way
Tue, Nov 17, 1998 - 7:49 PM/EST
sixo

right now the american dialog about 'culture' has pretty much narrowed down to one criterion: good for children vs not good for children.

so. you want to talk about movies, music, sculpture, theatre, television, novels, poetry - whatever it is - people treat it the same as regards content.

i think more americans need to become culturally literate or else everything will be reduced to petty religious, ethnic and political squabbles. (and all talk about 'morals' will have no common language).

how's that?

8. Definitions & Criteria
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 11:28 AM/EST
Marlyn

Sixo --

You said: "I think americans need to become more culturally literate, or else everything will be reduced to petty religious, ethnic and political squabbles.(and all talk of morals will have no common language.)"

I must respectfully disagree with you. In the first place, due to the diverse nature of the country as it exists today, there IS no common language of morals -- never has been, for that matter -- because there is/has been no consensus among the various groups that make up this pluralistic society being sought on how to define morals in a manner acceptable to all. We're already in a state where petty ethnic interest groups, political parties and religious factions are jockying for the moral authority to cast judgements, with few of these groups giving a damn whether *their* definitions of morality violate the definitions of another. There is entirely too much of the "making everyone else wrong so I can be right" process going on as far as moral "common language" is concerned. We see it most stridently expressed in abortion clinic bombings and sniper attacks on clinics and medical personnel -- in the violence resulting from the Rodney King verdicts -- and in the mudslinging that goes on during election year. One doesn't reach consensus or "common ground" in what is essentially ALREADY a war zone.

Moreover, I fail to see how becoming more "culturally literate" will forestall this process, much less turn it around -- just as I fail to see any clear guidance as to *which* culture we should be come literate *about*. Do we only study Western Culture? Do we include/add African Culture? Asian Culture? Russian Culture? Anglo-Saxon Culture? And who chooses which one we study? How do WE choose the person authorized to choose, or does that person choose him/herself?

"Cultural literacy" will not address "good for kids/bad for kids" either -- these are mutually exclusive concepts. Invalidation of those forms of cultural expression valid to kids only deepens the chasm of disenfranchisement and frustration they already feel -- and which they most often express by creation of music and art forms *we* find offensive: rap, "tagging", heavy-metal rock. The only thing accomplished will be the establishment and approval of an official "vicious circle" of mutual disdain and distrust that will only serve to tear things apart even more.

Culture, like so many other subjective elements of life, finds its value SOLELY in the resonance of validity for each individual. One person's culture is simply not going to be a panacea for all of society. Each culture has its "up" sides and its "down" sides -- and optimistically focussing myopically on the one and ignoring the other as "useless" equals a quick recipe for failure to achieve any kind of balance.

If there is to be "cultural literacy" as a recipe for healing, then the learning must not be one-sided -- no "you learn mind, to hell with yours." Opera-buffs will need to learn to appreciate rap with the same level of dedication as graffiti artists will need to learn to appreciate the harmonics of color used by Degas or Monet. Anything less, and it won't work.

Namaste!

Marlyn

10. Marlyn, I'm surprised at you!
Wed, Nov 18, 1998 - 3:28 PM/EST
SunBird

I didn't read anything into sixo's comments that stated or implied that he thinks one "culture" should be valued above another. Whereas you, after decrying the vast cultural divisions in this society, restated the common and erroneous idea that one cultural tradition must be chosen to be preeminent over all others if Americans are to have any culture at all.

I sometimes think that the United States of America can be thought of as a vast anthropological experiment -- the largely voluntary in-migration of millions of people from thousands of different cultural traditions over a period of just a few hundred years (just a blink of an eye, as recorded history goes). Once I got past the suspicion that this might be one of God's practical jokes, I realized that we have an unprecedented opportunity here.

We can create an amazing synthesis of cultures here, a completely new culture that incorporates the best of the insights and ideas that all human beings have, if we'll just get past the incredibly archaic notion that this piece of the planet has to be a cultural colony, or at least a direct descendent, of some other piece (and only one piece).

It doesn't have to be "Western" culture, or "Asian" or "Russian" or "African" or any other kind of culture. Where ARE you coming from? All "American" culture has to strive to be, and to present to its children, is the best of the traditions of ALL the people who consider themselves Americans.

Yes, there are gradations of "culture," which seem to depend mostly on the length and breadth of the tradition behind that particular art. And some people like traditional roots -- classical ballet, say -- while others prefer the latest branches.

But what I heard sixo saying was that he felt he didn't know enough about the roots, and the most prized blossoms, of our cultural traditions, and that he took it upon himself to learn. Which I think is admirable, because we're not going to understand who we are as Americans until we understand our many and varied roots.

11. Just a moment...
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 - 11:16 AM/EST
Marlyn

Sunbird --

I think you're misreading me. If not, then I'm simply not expressing myself well. Lemme try again.

First of all, I believe there is a *common* culture, and then there is an identifiable regional culture, and finally an individual culture.

I addressed *common* culture in my first post. Peanut Butter. Thanksgiving. Fourth of July. These are things that are not dependent upon ethnicity, economic status, political leanings, or any other factor to unite the people in a common sense of "being Americans". From where I sit, "American Culture" are those cultural common denominators which all who have grown up in this nation are going to share, to one extent or another, regardless of all other factors. There doesn't seem to be all that much subjectivity in this level , in my opinion -- because if we don't generally agree on the points, then they ain't "common denominators".

Regional culture is a little more subtle, but still identifiable. Over the course of my life, I've lived in two distinct areas of the US: the MidWest (Minnesota), and the West (California). I have many cyberfriends who were born and raised in "The South" (Alabama, Georgia). There are differences between the cultures present in these socio-geographic regions. There are linguistic distinctions -- pronunciation of words; and regionally-recognized words and phrases which either lose meaning completely or for which meaning and/or impact increases or decreases outside the region. There are lifestyle distinctions -- manners of dress, hygiene, travel and interaction which may or may not be found outside the region in question. There are attitude distinctions, which may or may not include priorities, historical perspectives, and perceptions of "one's place in the American Landscape". And there can be an ethnic element present -- often determined by which group/nationality of settlers landed in the area first historically. The West, for example, has a Hispanic flavor; the Great Lakes area a Scandinavian flavor. Certain ethnic cultural givens become associated to the region over time.

Then there are those cultural distinctions that mark the backgrounds, values, traditions and perspectives of the individual and his/her family. These are the ones often most clearly impacted by ethnic and/or religious backgrounds, age, economic stratification, political leanings, and so on -- but this individual cultural level is the most subtle, the one most difficult to put a finger on and say "That's Culture" or, more specific to your concerns, "That's *American* Culture".

You said above that "All "American" culture has to strive to be, and to present to its children, is the best of the traditions of ALL the people who consider themselves Americans." This is fine -- in theory, at least. I come from a state (CA) where multiculturalism has been the buzzword for years -- and I've seen the results from both sides. Please pardon my cynicism, based on my experiences.

Even tho[ugh] the premise of multiculturalism is a good one that I can support superficially: to educate the general populace about the good things that come from the various ethnic cultures in order to enrich and enhance the "common denominator" -- the result has generally been instead the elevation and sanctification of one culture at the expense of denigrating and devaluing another in the process. Political correctness is an example of what happens to multiculturalism run amok.

As a white European American, I have seen multiculturalism taught to me and my kids most often through use of "see all the good things in *our* culture that you white folks keep trying to destroy because you ain't got no culture of your own!!" with the education system ignoring entirely that white Europeans *also* has good points on the grounds that folds just see too damned much of it to be able to look at it objectively and see it for what it is. I'm not playing a "poor white me" song here -- merely showing that whatever the history of discrimination or oppression, "two wrongs don't make it right." Discrimination always hurts, and is NEVER justified. Not even in the name of pay-back.

What's more, the superficials of tradition are given lip-service, while the true "roots" are ignored. It takes time to understand roots and meaning -- and most do not want to take the time. I belong to a very non-European and ethnically-oriented religious organization with a very unique musical form of expression -- Japanese-American Buddhist Taiko. Despite the fact that I'm non-Japanese, I am the musical director of our temple taiko drummers; and over the years, we have participated in any number of "cultural" events in the name of "educating" folks.

We don't educate, SunBird. We just play to entertain.
To your other question, I can answer that I know where *I* come from and what 'cultures' have had a hand in making me who I am. What's more, I'm comfortable with who I am and at peace with how I got this way, regardless of whether I approve or disapprove of what has been done by any of these 'cultural' entities to one another outside my control.

I believe that a valid and workable synthesis of cultures into something which can be called disctinctly "American", which is what I hear you (and maybe sixo) looking for, cannot be forced, cannot be produced on demand, and cannot be artificially manufactured. It must arise spontaneously from the heart of a populace as it learns to accept its own diversity as a strength rather than a weakness -- which is something American society has NOT exactly got a secure handle on yet. I believe that for as long as its still necessary to think of oneself in terms of a hyphenated American to get another to understand who we are and where we stand, we have not accomplished synthesis. And I believe that for as long as we feel driven to look outside who we already are and where we come from for some amorphous concept known as "culture" that we can call our own, we are not working for synthesis either.

Multicultural education can and is an important step in the process of synthesis -- but a more important part of that process is learning not to judge what one already has by the exotic nature of something someone else has. Set the need for judgement aside altogether. We need to learn to appreciate what ALL have for the beauty each possesses and do so without reservation or need to show preference.

*That*, to me, is synthesis. Naturally, your mileage may vary greatly.

Namaste!

Marlyn

12. chewing slowly
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 - 1:38 PM/EST
sixo

unfortunately i have actual work to do today, but i am adequately tweaked to launch into a number of rants. as a quick overview here's where i'm going.

first of all, americans *do* conform to a wide number of identical values and a great deal of individual *expression* (whether or not it is critically informed) passes for 'culture' these days. i am firmly convinced that the overwhelming majority of americans have *no* concrete understanding of the premises of multiculturalism - and what passes for 'diversity' is nothing more than variety.

'balkanization' is a farce. it's not true and it won't be. americans are simply not independent enough to balkanize all rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

there is a great deal of very difficult work involved in getting a grasp of substantial cultural differences primarily because of forces aligned to exploit them. yet the differences themselves are not particularly stark or irresolveable. the most significant difference between americans is language. not class, not race, not sexual preference, not creed, not personality, ethnicity or political affiliation. (and not distance)

oops. i said too many different things there, but i'm rushing.

i think quite extensively about the nature of american citizenship, and our individual relationship to it.

anyway. i'll re-assert as a premise of this discussion, that there are better and worse ways to communicate what is essential and salient knowledge about the complex place that is america. and in view of the mass communications revolution, a great deal of the structure and quality has gone missing from passing that knowledge down from generation to generation. we are met with a great number of challenges moving foreward, and the root of that is indeed a new literacy.

13. Marlyn, SunBird...
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 - 1:49 PM/EST
Mark

Everyone's making valid points here, but we're having a semantic problem with the word "culture," and what more natural setting for that than the U.S. of A. I'm thinking this is the one place on earth where the idea of individual culture might not be entirely oxymoronic, and I'm not dismissing it, but I wonder if our cultish veneration of individualism isn't an example of the difficulty of judging a picture from inside the frame -- as re culture.

I have a personal story which bears on this discussion in several ways, and I'll try to relate it in the spirit SunBird evokes when she suggests the grand possibility of the American experiment achieving some unprecedented synthesis among humankind. Here goes:

I was a new member of a rather smalltown/milltown Toastmasters Club, where people met to improve their public speaking skills. Besides realtors and salesfolks looking to make contacts and sharpen presentations, there were ambitious folks who ran for mayor, city council, district rep, etc. And there were folks with no other agenda than to enjoy socializing and personal growth. Around 35 people in all.

Our meetings began with two rituals that made me feel like an outsider, a prayer and a flag salute. I stood silently and noncommitally for both.

The title of my first speech was, "Why we should NOT say the Pledge of Allegiance." I pointed out that by state law we were compelling children to speak in solemn unison words that were neither true, nor understood by the kids.

Re "understood" I cited examples from questionnaires my gradeschool teaching Mom had given her 4th, 5th , & 6th graders. As many as 90% did not know what it meant: e.g. indivisible meant invisible; my favorite was the kid who heard "for which it stands" as Richard Stans, whom he thought was one helluva guy. One thing most kids did learn was to have an emotional response to the flag. I cited instances of kneejerk patriotism in calls to arms over Viet Nam, and our local dancing in the streets over Reagan's surprise bombing of Libya that killed some of its dictator's wives and kids. I think there may well be a survival factor in a nation having an emotional and visceral response to war, but it's nonetheless ignoble, atavistic, and easily and oft abused by a nation's leaders.

The falsehood in the Pledge lies partly in its allegation of liberty and justice for all. It was written 25 years before women could vote and a lifetime before the civil rights movement. The Pledge made our nation indivisible 30 years after the civil war.

The words "under God" were added to the Pledge by an act of congress shortly before Senator McCarthy hijacked the political process with his communist witchhunt. Since that time people have gained the legal right to abstain from the Pledge, where mandated, on grounds of religious freedom.

I told the group I would have no objection to making a similar pledge, with the exception that its grand ideals would be something we promised to continually strive toward.

The audience response was polite discomfort. No one ever gave me an argument, and our subsequent meetings opened as always. I doubt that they or I was any more comfortable with my nonparticipation. I dropped out of the group, although there was much I liked about it.

This story strikes me as a lost opportunity to refine the interaction among a small community of people. I suspect that in many ways we pass up other such opportunities.

I would say this of culture: a people should never become complacent about what kind of knowledge is passed on to its young. Considering some of the high profile foodfights we've had over school curricala, I guess we're not complacent, but how can we be fruitfully proactive?

14. sixo...
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 - 3:03 PM/EST
Mark

Are you proposing that a high nat'l priority should be to make all Americans highly literate in the technical application of mass communication? Sounds good to me, but you're going to require one of those unpopular transfers of wealth, aren't you?

I like much of what you're saying, and agree that multiculturalism as an idea is not well understood; cultural warriors have seized it for propaganda fodder, so we have no reasonable bounds for discussion.

I don't think of balkanization as a function of independence. You spoke of "forces aligned to exploit cultural differences" (of which I'd like to hear more) -- and it seems to me these forces rely on a provincial conformity, a lack of indepedent thinking, to succeed. I think the most balkanized places in the U.S. are in the growth industry of our corrections system, where prisoners join paranoid gangs to protect themselves from paranoid gangs.

15. Marlyn: Gad, we're verbose -- because we're both rather passionate about this.
Thu, Nov 19, 1998 - 4:17 PM/EST
SunBird

Lighten up, woman!

First off, you did not invent the notion that there are cultural patterns that are national, regional, sub-regional, tribal, clan, family, etc., etc. Will you please stop posting treatises on fairly standard concepts -- presumably for the benefit of those you consider less educated and/or aware -- every time you share your thoughts?

No one ever said -- least of all me! -- that synthesizing the remarkably GLOBAL elements in the United States today would be smooth, or easy. All I said was that celebrating the best of all our traditional cultures is the way to go when we ask ourselves what constitutes American culture, insofar as an American would want to educate her- or himself about it.

Look, I'm a European-American from way back. (I have some Cherokee ancestry -- from the southeastern mountains, before the Trail of Tears -- but my "family culture" is pure WASP, and I'd feel as if I were stealing something if I bragged about it ...) My people came from England, Scotland, France (Huguenot refugees fleeing religious persecution), and Germany.

When I was in school, the exploits of my ancestors' contemporaries showed up in all my history lessons, where they were, well, history. How they lived and what they did was just part of what my classmates and I had to learn: America 101. Nothing special.

For a while it really bothered me that many of my friends did have something extra, something special, while I was just sort of plain vanilla. They knew and celebrated their African/Japanese/Italian/Native American/Chinese/Finnish/Hispanic/Irish/Korean heritages. My ethnic heritage, by comparison, was non-existent; it had been almost completely absorbed into what was, and to a great extent still is, considered the "American" national culture.

Then I had the slightly crazed thought that Americans could consider ourselves the raw material for a grand experiment -- elements brought here, by a master planner, if you will, to create an entirely new culture. I restored my wounded pride with the realization that the language, social structure, and government, not to mention the arts and cuisine, of my redoubtable English ancestors have formed the framework for "American" culture. On it, many other cultures, which probably would never have interacted (or at least not in this time span) had they remained on their native turf, are growing, sometimes blending, sometimes absorbing, reinforcing the structure in some places and transforming it in others.

And I think that's a wonderful idea, which adds to, rather than diminishes who I am. It isn't that I've felt any need to "judge what one already has by the exotic nature of something someone else has." I'll always remember the first time I heard jazz, but it hasn't diminished my appreciation for Handel.
? You say "I'm comfortable with who I am and at peace with how I got this way." Well, I am, too. But should I abstain from exploring the rest of what the world offers until I'm willing to commit to taking an "insider's approach" or "as long as it's still necessary to think of oneself in terms of a hyphenated American to get another to understand who we are and where we stand."

Did you understand the "meaning" of taiko when you decided to explore that tradition? Why can't I explore who the rest of these folks are and how they got the way they are? I don't understand the meaning of Russian icons, or Latin American novels, or sumi painting, or African dancing, or Inuit masks, or the movies of India, or Noh theater, or Persian miniatures. But what I've seen and heard of them tells me that these are stupendous creative accomplishments by human beings who aren't all that different from me.

I'll admit, I don't even understand a lot of my own ethnic "culture" very well, either. What in the name of -- nevermind -- am I supposed to get out of Garth Brooks? What IS Lucien Freud trying to tell us? (I sense that it's quite important.) But I'm willing to look and listen to everything that everyone else is trying to communicate about who they are and what it means to them to be a human being. Without hyphens.

Especially Americans. Sure, building an inclusive American culture is painful in some ways, not the least of which is that there are so many people who want to hang on to the old boundaries of what is "really" American, or "really" culture, and then nail it all down by firmly establishing which hyphenated American each culture belongs to.

Why are people like you, Marlyn, so into this "insider versus outsider" approach to the whole culture thing? Because you think that some cultures want to shut you out? Well, I think that's understandable. If my ancestors had been brought here as slaves, for example, and then subjected to treatment deliberately designed to destroy their cultural ties, I think I'd want a few generations to regroup, without further interference, please. If I had to take a menial job or my children were told they couldn't succeed in college because of our skin color or eye shape or first language, I think I'd be more than a little protective of my heritage. Especially if the "Americans" who were harassing me were completely ignorant of the history and accomplishments of my people.

We've got to keep working consciously at expanding our notion of culture -- in the sense of the best accomplishments of every people -- especially in the schools. Of course it may be difficult to omit some of the traditional cultural landmarks in order to make space for others. But it's gotta be done, and I daresay most students will live happily without, say, "Silas Marner" in order to furnish their minds with stories from the rest of the planet.

European culture is not going to go away as a component of American life when other traditions are taught and celebrated as well. Do you think that those who would like to expose the next generations of Americans to African wood sculpture will ignore Michelangelo or Brancusi? That they'll reject "The Rite of Spring" and mandate hip-hop only? Not if they are TRULY cultured, because they will recognize and respect the human spirit and the creative impulse behind all of them.

Personally, the only group I've ever really wanted to be an insider in, and the only one I definitely don't want to be an outsider to, is humanity. Because that is who I am.

Uh, yeah, and namaste to you too.

16. SunBird
Fri, Nov 20, 1998 - 11:25 AM/EST
Marlyn

For someone who SAYS they don't like treatises, you write one of your own quite well. We disagree about the topic, disagree on approaches to the topic, definitions of "culture" and what we see as goals -- and that's OK.

But we don't have to be disagreeable to each other while disagreeing, right? Right?!?!

I'm truly sorry that verbosity in others bothers you, but I'm not going to change who I am or the way I express myself to fit *your* comfort level. Verbose is who and what I am -- in real life as well as in the written word. It is not a sign that I view you or others as ignorant or stupid -- that is something *YOU* painted on my words. *Why* you did that is known only to you. Please know that you are about as far off-base as its possible to get.

When it comes to misinterpretation of either my *own* intent or meaning, I AM going to take the time to spell things out as completely as I can. I've participate in discussion forums like this one for years, and I've found being thorough to be the best policy in the long run. You should know that even tho a message is directed at you, you are entirely within your rights to just scroll on past what I've written if I get too long-winded for you. Nobody is forcing you to do anything here, least of all me.

Finally, if you want to disagree with *WHAT* I say, then by all means do so -- that is what we're here for, after all. However, I would ask that you kindly do so without presuming to *tell* me what I'm thinking and feeling or saying in the process of disagreement. If you wanna know what I'm thinking or feeling, then *A*S*K* *M*E*. I generally have good reasons for what I say, and I'm willing to explain them. At length, if need be -- sorry. :-)

By the way, thank you for taking the time to spell out your views and how you arrived at them in complete terms. I'd like to pick apart a couple of points you made and see where they take us, but I'm going to step back from this thread entirely until the animosity level from YOU is considerably lower. Lemme know if you ever feel like dialoguing again, OK?

Namaste!

Marlyn

17. My apologies to Marlyn
Fri, Nov 20, 1998 - 2:57 PM/EST
SunBird

I could have sworn I said "WE'RE verbose"! OK, diplomacy is not one of my strong points but I don't get offended and huff and puff on-line either.

But, anyway, I am so sorry. Let's both stick to where we're coming from personally, OK? Yeah, I went on at some length, but what I was trying to illustrate was my personal experience and evolution in this "kulcha" business -- not Freshman Anthropology.

It is interesting to me that you chose to rave on about my crankiness rather than just telling me to can it and responding to my IDEAS. I thought pretty hard -- not easy for a day when I'm on deadline -- to illustrate my points with the experiences that you shared as well as my own.

Now please calm down and tell me what you think.

Peace?

18. White Flag
Fri, Nov 20, 1998 - 5:05 PM/EST
Marlyn

SunBird --

I've found under normal circumstances that meaningful dialogue and a clear exchange of views on the issue can't truly be re-established again until the matter of being told, rather than asked, what I was thinking gets taken care of and put behind first. Keeping with what I knew works from long and hard experience in forums similar to this one, I chose not to tackle any of your points about culture until we could get beyond our mutual raised hackles.

My apologies to you if I misread your passionate treatise as a diatribe when it wasn't meant as one, and apologies as well to you and everyone else if I ever slip up again and sound either condescending or pedantic in my efforts to avoid misunderstanding. It will have been unintentional.

And your apology to me is accepted with much thanks.

Peace.

Things have just come up, and my time here just evaporated. I'll tackle some of your points at a later time, OK?

Namaste!

Marlyn