Hi,
At wrote:
> WHY apartheid was such a hideous ideology, the majority of black and white
> people keep on impairing the seven essentialities in their new policies.
> As a result the peoples of South Africa are just as far away from emerging
> into nationhood as five years ago.
I also live in SA, and I would not agree that we are just as far away.
This observation might not be incorrect for the observer though- since SA
is a very diverse country and attitudes in one town can differ completely
to attitudes in another. At works in Pretoria, an extremely conservative
part of SA where many whites have got no closer to nationhood, and feel
that their nation has been hijacked, and that they were sold out to
traitors. I also work in Pretoria. I am however fortunate enough to live
in part of Joburg, (the east rand) which is still conservative, but not as
extreme, and there is an observable movement toward nationhood, small but
encouraging.
> Two consequences are that crime has
> risen to some of the highest levels of the world while education is
> heading for the bottom.
An interesting observation from sociologists who have studied the effect
of civil war on society is that a consequence of peace is an increase in
violence, people cannot adapt to a changed society. Although we did not
have a civil war as such, for many people the years of violence are
similar. It will be interesting to see if crime increases in N.Ireland
once peace is established there. I truly believe if we stick it out
violent crime will decrease substantially once we accept a new vision and
philosophy.
Secondly, it is not only education but as At pointed out in a previous
email -Health services and all government services are affected. The
reason for this was that civil structures were established for the white
folk i.e. to accommodate the needs of 6 million people. In the New SA we
are all equal (hooray) but now an infrastructure has to accommodate 40
million people, and is hopelessly inadequate. Thanks to apartheid. Most
white people do not understand this and think the country is going down
and leave.
>These two consequences are the main reasons why
> close to million of South Africans (mostly white) have immigrated to other
> parts of the world the past five years.
>
> >What I would like to see, or add to your thoughts here is that
> >we look at a way to develop application-type stories to this
> >discussion. It would help me a great deal to hear examples of
> >how to apply the seven essentialities in "real life" so I can
> >begin to redirect my thinking a bit at a time.
>
> Refined starch is now evidently as poisonous to me
> as refined cane sugar.
A short note for you: Carbohydrate is a term for substances that have a
composition according to the formula (C.Hx2.O)xn. It is not a very exact
term. They may be grouped into two categories: structural (fibre) and
carbon energy non-structural. The important classes of carbohydrate for
you are the monosaccarides (simple sugars eg glucose) Oligosaccarides (2-7
monomers linked together eg sucrose) and the polysaccarides (many monomers
linked together eg starch). Thus any non structural oligo- or
polysaccaride that has glucose as a unit is dangerous for you. Sucrose or
normal sugar is a combination of glucose and fructose, and thus needs to
be avoided. Starches however comprise a group of polyglucose materials of
varying size and shape. Simply put unlike other polysaccarides starch is
digestible in humans due to the presence of two enzymes and is completely
degraded to alpha D- glucose which is absorbed. Hence your reaction.
> (Since my illness I have eaten starch only in the
> form of rye bread or a small potato which had no ill effect on me.) The
> lack of wholeness and otherness aggravated my diabetic condition, itself
> an immergence.
Unrefined starch is also digested to glucose, however due to the lack of
processing this takes longer, and thus is only partly digested before
moving along the intestines, and is not as dangerous. Potato starch is,
however, easily digested. So not too many potatoes either.
> We call cake flour a highly "refined" form of wheat flour. But are we not
> bluffing ourselves with the word "refined"? The actual meaning of the
> "refined" is that wheat flour results into cake flour when subjected to a
> severe process of APARTHEID. All parts of the wheat kernel have been
> removed by sifting, except that part which was crushed by the rollers of
> the mill into a ultra finely divided powder. Apartheid is definitely
> poisonous to us -- even the apartheid in our foods.
At- I love the analogy, refined means pure, i.e. by refining the flour we
have pure starch, which is what both the Nats and the natzi's wanted.
however, I think there is nothing wrong with purity IF it is not at the
expense of the whole. As a christian you are required to be pure? Purity
itself is not the problem, what should be analysed id when is it
appropriate to require purity (i.e. that something good is not destroyed
eg in wine making an impure yeast would yield a sour wine) and when is
appropriate to require integration and complexity i.e. by requiring purity
something good is destroyed? (in thought? in bread?)
Maggi
Dr MJ Linington
HEAD:Department Agricultural Sciences
email:lngtn-mj@acaleph.vista.ac.za
Snail Mail: Dept. Agricutural Sciences
VUDEC, Vista University
P/Bag X641, Pretoria, 0001
Tel: 012 322 1303
Fax: 012 322 3243
--"Dr Maggi Linington" <lngtn-mj@acaleph.vista.ac.za>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>