Coups and wars, we love them so,
we'll oust defiers as we go.
Don't mind calling it a Spring.
(Cuz they hate being hot, you know.)
Other Party's a bunch of goofs.
Their campaigns are almost spoofs.
I learned to write that since I was
caught pushing war without 'nough proof.
Liar. I'm calling you a liar.
You're a writer and a liar.
"That country stinks, say the spy-ers,"
according to the writer-liars.
Tribal. We're all so tribal.
Prob'ly why we wrote the bible.
Blaming God for David's crimes,
since free will makes him a bit li'ble.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Shared culture is serious or bullshit
It's not hard to imagine this in a newspaper column: "This bright idea orbits the discussion now and then." That's just a metaphor. He's making his point, and others make their points, and depending on their assumptions of the world, they'll come to different conclusions. That sounds wonderful. But it's mostly bullshit. Inspiration comes from acceptance of a whole idea the same way a group finds its strength when everything is said.
A planet orbits, fine. It reflects light, fine. But it does more. Even a kitchen table does more. So the habit of using these same facts across all writers skews the discussion. Even if we consciously try to talk about the Sun, the Sun is not the Sun because we can't possibly list everything it does or means to everyone.
A planet orbits, fine. It reflects light, fine. But it does more. Even a kitchen table does more. So the habit of using these same facts across all writers skews the discussion. Even if we consciously try to talk about the Sun, the Sun is not the Sun because we can't possibly list everything it does or means to everyone.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Guidelines for Compsing Music
- Develop ideals to aim for, unless they cause so much stress that focus is lost.
- Write at least two ideas per session, and have sessions as many days in a row as possible.
- What you have to say is more original than what you find impressive. Aim for the closest approximation of your imagination before it begins to bore you.
- Compose out of the corner of your mind's eye, in the periphery.
- Be careful chasing something new for too long, when you will be tempted to save energy by replacing it with a pattern that cannot compare.
- Map sounds to different parts of the body, with the head representing the highest octave and the pelvis the lowest, and experiment with imagining ideas, emotions, and melodies originating in these places, or cloning themselves with small variations in each place. Develop ideas in a small area first to see them in their entirety, then enlarge it to the whole body to work out the details.
- Don't react to a feeling of uncertainty until your idea is fully elaborated. What seems dull at one moment can make sense in the end.
- Listen to silence as attentively as you would listen to melody.
- Extract rules from good music and try variations on them.
- Listen to music you don't like, and ignore/break all the rules it definitely obeys, first in your mind while it plays, and later while sitting down to compose.
- Play in a band with to learn about harmony, timing, loudness, how long or short to make notes.
- Keep returning to that instant where a melody seems to begin expressing itself without any help.
- When composing, abbreviate thoughts to free up all but the essential underlying emotion and style/personality, rather than the music explicitly. This takes some trust in the original idea.
- Make bold changes that go against your sensibilities, or else your music will be dull and lifeless.
- Represent sounds by a vocabulary (e.g. "masculine" or "dark" or "cheesy") and challenge yourself to develop the more ugly ones instead of neglecting them.
- Plan your work so you are constantly switching between opposing concepts in your mind while you do it, high and low, loud and soft, simple and complex, happy and sad etc. In other words, don't try to make every part of the song have an identical personality.
- The pleasure of seeing inspiration following through into form can compromise your judgement, so it takes a lot of willpower to keep polishing an idea.
- Learn from videos and books that teach you the mechanics of the instrument or program.
- Use shortcuts but remind yourself now and then that they aren't always necessary.
- Imagine and compose from ideas more complex than you think you can remember.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Governor Parry Isn't American
Hardly any context, so this doesn't count as cherry picking (emphasis mine):
"I am also the product of a place called Paint Creek... You see, as Americans we’re not defined by class, and we will never be told our place...we’re going to stand with those who stand with us, and we will
vigorously defend our interests." -- From his announcement speech
The contradictions are as follows:
"I am also the product of a place called Paint Creek... You see, as Americans we’re not defined by class, and we will never be told our place...we’re going to stand with those who stand with us, and we will
vigorously defend our interests." -- From his announcement speech
The contradictions are as follows:
| is a "product" | cannot be told his place |
| not defined by class | belongs to group who look out for their interests |
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Remember when people used this word?
This is a perfectly good word, and I'm not sure why it's been replaced by "added to that...."
Sunday, July 31, 2011
A little more on dreams
I'm usually told that Freud's theories are discredited, that Jung was more insightful. That's likely. But like his student, Wilhelm Reich, he had a knack for putting something bizarre into words. I think he deserves a closer look, especially when coming to terms with occult phenomena, which made "a deep impression."
Freud warned Jung about the occult, or maybe more exactly, superstition. He wrote about believing he could predict his own death, and then tried to figure out how he became this delusional. At the time, he said, he was convinced he had just written his life's work on the interpretation of dreams, and 62 (his projected death age) was simply the last two numbers of his new phone number! The logic of dreams spilled over into consciousness, became twisted around, and through "the formation of delusions as somatic compliance in that of hysterical symptoms, and linguistic compliance in the generation of puns," he became psychotic, seeing 62 everywhere.
But what a summary of the logic of dreams!
Freud warned Jung about the occult, or maybe more exactly, superstition. He wrote about believing he could predict his own death, and then tried to figure out how he became this delusional. At the time, he said, he was convinced he had just written his life's work on the interpretation of dreams, and 62 (his projected death age) was simply the last two numbers of his new phone number! The logic of dreams spilled over into consciousness, became twisted around, and through "the formation of delusions as somatic compliance in that of hysterical symptoms, and linguistic compliance in the generation of puns," he became psychotic, seeing 62 everywhere.
But what a summary of the logic of dreams!
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Dream Analysis
A few months ago, I had a curious dream that I kidnapped someone to take sledding. The symbols in the dream were the kidnapped person, the sled, the mountain, and the snow. The person was silent, the the sled was old-fashioned, the mountain was in a neighboring town, and the snow was blinding. There are several memories that also contain these attributes. When I read about Haiti, I come into contact with an old-fashioned Noam Chomsky talking about their kidnapped president. I always imagine him with those glasses he wears. Another memory is a friend who got drunk and ran in cornfields. He related to me a story of the prison he was in where someone would hit their head on a wall to keep busy! The body's natural reaction is to close one's eyes in stunned silence.
What I am trying to show is that the dream tells the story of personality and conscience in such a way as to make them relate to one another, and to preserve the memories for our daytime reasoning, without having to sort through them one at a time. The attributes of just a few symbols are enough to set off an "aha" moment triggering a memory's recall. Further, in my experience, one can see more distant connections between these symbols. The longer the chain of analogies, the more repressed the memory! Noam Chomsky mentions protectionism now and again, and corn is one of our government-subsidized crops. This is too obscure for me, so my dream pushes it back into my long-term memory. Without the dream, these memories would haunt me more. I think one can even say dreaming is the conscience itself.
What I am trying to show is that the dream tells the story of personality and conscience in such a way as to make them relate to one another, and to preserve the memories for our daytime reasoning, without having to sort through them one at a time. The attributes of just a few symbols are enough to set off an "aha" moment triggering a memory's recall. Further, in my experience, one can see more distant connections between these symbols. The longer the chain of analogies, the more repressed the memory! Noam Chomsky mentions protectionism now and again, and corn is one of our government-subsidized crops. This is too obscure for me, so my dream pushes it back into my long-term memory. Without the dream, these memories would haunt me more. I think one can even say dreaming is the conscience itself.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Progressive Hopes and Neoliberal Leaders
Obama let down a lot of people, and now he's reportedly reaching out to Republicans through Twitter. So since this is my blog, and the older "folks" I know are shying away from this mess, I'm going to get a little serious again.
I wrote these hopes because I believed in the person of Obama, that his promises were sincere, not just some Wilsonian democracy bullcrap. They were all the hopes and dreams that a good person should fight for, someone with more wits than me. Maybe I'll find a way to congratulate him when I study this further, but I doubt it.
I wrote these hopes because I believed in the person of Obama, that his promises were sincere, not just some Wilsonian democracy bullcrap. They were all the hopes and dreams that a good person should fight for, someone with more wits than me. Maybe I'll find a way to congratulate him when I study this further, but I doubt it.
We flipped around from MSNBC to ABC to WGN to FOX. FOX was definitely the least excited about the election, I presume since they're all Republicans. All the analysis of what's to come really, other than people saying we need to keep at it and stay involved to keep the country moving in the right direction, was pretty dull.
I think some stations went a little overboard with their virtual pens drawing on the map. That and all the people calling swing states "battleground states," using phrases like "ground game" or "hail mary." (sic) I think the sports metaphors belittle the signifigance (sic) of the event. It's not just two teams seeing who is better, its about the future of the country.
I hope the media starts covering international issues more thoroughly now that the election is over. People need to know about what's going on in the world, and it will be so sad if we just revert to covering what food Obama is eating or whether he gets a dog or not, or what Mr Unlicenced (sic) Plumber is up to. And I hope they give a voice to the anti-war movement, and that that voice belongs to someone who can make powerful emotional arguments. It might be beneficial to have a conservative leaning mainstream media, since the conservatives want to go after Obama hard on foreign policy, which will automatically require the antiwar opinion.
I hope he goes beyond Columbia and Brazil in South America, and reaches out to the fledgling democracies down there. I also hope he increases aid to Africa and Afghanistan. I don't see how more troops is going to neccesarily (sic) help, but I think the international community will speak out. I hope he will care about public opinion in the countries we deal with, and understand that neither Iran nor Al-Qaeda is as much of a threat as the homegrown right-wing nationalists who support radical militaristic foreign policy.
It really will be interesting to see what happens to the Republican Party. Will it become more pragmatic or more radical? Will the Republican to Democrat (sic) converts negatively or positively affect the Democratic Party? I have hope, but I think in a sense we got lucky finding someone as incredible as Obama, and we might not be so lucky next time, and I think many hardcore Republicans are counting on us not being so strong in the future. So I think we have to prove them wrong, we have to organize a movement that goes beyond the republic to a true democracy. Let's hope that happens.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
When We Say Security, We Really Mean Coup and Terror
I don't remember reading all that much about Honduras recently in the New York Times, even though at least one Congressman was happy to warn of what a "strongman" like Zelaya might do there (if we didn't support the coup). But the "unity government" that we helped install is accused of shooting on peaceful protestors.
Reading the foreign press turns up something interesting in regards to the war in Libya. The threat of "bloodbath" which Obama keeps referencing was first stated by the government of Oman, namely, "Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs" Yusuf bin Alawi . Now I can't read this squiggly text:
..but Google can:
Reading the foreign press turns up something interesting in regards to the war in Libya. The threat of "bloodbath" which Obama keeps referencing was first stated by the government of Oman, namely, "Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs" Yusuf bin Alawi . Now I can't read this squiggly text:
وأعلنت دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي تأييدها لفرض حظر جوي على ليبيا، لكنها شددت على ضرورة موافقة الجامعة العربية، وناشدت دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي الدول العربية الأخرى «تحمل مسؤولياتها لوقف حمام الدم»، معتبرة أن القذافي بات الآن «غير شرعي».
..but Google can:
If Obama is serious about peace, he should clue in Congress about this prophetic ruler, who can even read the mind of another ruler countries apart and dictate his legitimacy. Then the Congressmen can relay their understanding to the public and we can tell the world that we shouldn't be messed with when we think about bombing for freedom.
"[bin Alawi] announced that the GCC support for a ban air strike on Libya, but stressed the need for the consent of the Arab League, and appealed to the GCC countries and other Arab «carry out its responsibilities to stop the bloodbath», saying that Gaddafi is now «illegal»."
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
"Hive" Culture
Government nonsense:
- We bombed Libya into an "Odyssey Dawn" but we "don't spike the football."
- Our war is allegedly about protecting civilians (Obama). We protect them by bombing the state television workers.
- The dozens of "brave" (Obama) Navy Seals who attacked Osama's house trained for weeks on a replica, and chose not to arrest him, but to shoot him in the head.
- Osama is "irrelevant" to others so let's write, write, write about him. (NYT editorial)
- Interpersonal morality in relations to a war against the "cancer" (Obama) in the Middle East doesn't "scale up" (NYT Op-ed).
- Violent intimidation is "more than justice" even if the robes are stained with blood and not "urine" (WSJ's Peggy Noonan)
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Manifesto For A New Cultural Revolution
For sin is just this, what man cannot by its very nature do with his whole being; it is possible to silence the conflict in the soul, but it is not possible to uproot it.
— Martin Buber
You have taught Mogwai to watch television?! I warned you that with Mogwai comes much responsibility, but you would not listen.
— "Gremlins" (1986)
If order is good, how do we achieve it? What impairs the necessary insight into solving this moral dilemma is first and foremost within the mind. The incapacitated public's inability to approach an imposition of order of our own making, through a cultural revolution that services the spiritual needs left unconsidered or vilified by present actors.
Vilified cultures as a result only represent distracting foils for a public becoming increasingly aware of suffering caused by capitalist hegemony. They come and go. Not too many people are worried about "savage Indians" these days! "They" served their purpose to power, and have been replaced by Muslims, Socialists, homosexuals and others. As a less interesting side note, it is no coincidence that sexuality is brought into play as it can be used almost interchangeably with immorality and makes an efficient shorthand: Bill Clinton's foreign policy blunders and Julian Assange's "threat to security" are successfully left un-analyzed by the majority of the disciplined elites, absorbed in deconstructing the intimate details of their personal lives.
Since the hegemonic system appears to have no problem with unethical speculation, we must turn to those ethical welfare systems that are preserved and challenge their promised success of an orderly reality. Rallying around a flag or leader, and it follows, against another in some fashion, is frequently insinuated as the supreme good, or at least, and end to that. There are plenty of examples of this, perhaps the most recent being the "unity government" of Honduras, sponsored by us, which continues to terrorize dissidents in the name of order.
Much of this does not find form until dissidents can be seen as threatening the general welfare of the public. They are propagandistically painted as insidious, claiming "civil rights" apparently only as a veneer of nobility, covering up the self-interest power hunger (likely another egotistical projection!) That's not to say the system is completely authoritarian. To get people to agree to it, some ideological concessions were made to service businesses, so that they could be free from too much interference. Also, certain rights were put outside not only of the law, but of human reason itself ("endowed by their Creator"), and so power was structured to allow the occasional imbalance.
The large threat of flawed ideology is just as frequently approached within another cripplingly irresponsible conflation -- that of morality and power/money interests, and of course the old standard cultural/military hegemony being called "national security."
The Vietnamese were "immoral" because they wanted to become something we believed to be similar to Chinese Communists. The appeals to prejudice serve as a smokescreen for corrupted morality, and corrupted uses of tools at our disposal, including capitalism and religion, with our hegemonic power tacitly assumed as benign or even beneficial. This is evident from the perceived harmless nature of Coca-cola plants. The silliness is not so far below the surface, as it was recently claimed that obese children are a threat to military quotas being filled, and therefore, national security. Left unsaid for now obvious rationales are the government's tacit acceptance of fattening corn products through public subsidy, and the reliance on a culture of a passive, spectator population.
A strategy was developed to fool the fools, to allow us to believe that civility was important, so long as we recognized the of worship of power as an overriding principle, a pragmatic "check" on freedom. This was the culture war, and it gave jobs to the very people who possessed the analytical skills necessary for deconstructing the system. It was successful. People are sold on utopia with the rough edges of the non-modernized world used to stand as a foil for immoral socialism (in reality, the result of wealth escaping with the powerful).
Therefore, the reality of the condition of liberty in the world cannot be seen clearly through any ideology without a challenge to the traditions and stereotypes of the past. I tried to do exactly that with examples of assassinations. But while Kennedy and Lincoln led armies, Martin Luther King led peaceful marches. The evidence is there that revolutions could be started even more successfully with a an idea rather than the a gun. But many people, for example, don't recall easily that King said the U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, nor that Kennedy believed in a spiritual power of poetry, nor that Lincoln believed in moral sacrifice to such a degree that he privately excused his own assassination only a few years before it came about.
Education must therefore be a huge part of the end goal of the ethical person, as it is evident people are not always smartest or best in quite a few important and telling ways. Because of this, it should be protected from corruption in its reform. Law and order, police and elections, should not be opposed to interest in other suppressed cultures or in helping one another.
Unfortunately, the powerful people who enshrined our laws were threatened by angered masses, and created principles to "impose reason" on the population by any means necessary (which were sound enough to keep the system going despite attempted moderation by liberal presidents). And until people are brave enough, the actual faults of the Founding Fathers, as well as their most noble heirs to the presidential throne, cannot compete with the caricatures.
So as long as there is no change to this, there will always be a new game that will be called something like "a new era" and it must be continually protected from the announced new enemy.
Today, writing about Communism has become passe, and it is the Arabs in the Middle East, the liberals, and the Tea Party who are the acceptable targets. However, Chinese and South American autocrats get a passing mention, with others no doubt to come later. They are "the Bad" and we are "the Good" and we try to go about our lives unperturbed, believing our acceptance of it makes us moral.
Frequently, appeals to "realistic" -- "natural," or even "democratic" ideas based on a "free" and "Great Society" -- are conflated with appeals to traditions, to stereotypes, and to other sources of knowledge that can be corrupted by their use in violence and fraud. The ambiguous nature of the solutions proposed are telling of the deep-seated moral conflict. John Edwards ran a campaign on class antagonism and lost, while the victorious Barack Obama ran on hatred of Bush and bland, patronizing nationalism.
The enemy is required to be both a continuation of the forces of chaos and, if our system is facing threats of reasonable claims of illegitimacy, a much bigger threat to transcendental morality than ever before. Fears of global wars, even in practice involving only parts of the world (i.e. the rich countries), are not only stoked, but are brought into reality through such seemingly noble acts of intervention as "restoring democracy" and "being welcomed as liberators."
It's clearly the last thing we need, and therefore, the first thing people should discontinue in their day to day life. Challenge traditions to bring life to people.
Tracing the game throughout history to test the legitimacy of our current system is frowned upon, because it is only considered valuable if it fits within the current game of vilification. I believe this could be a sufficient explanation for the logical devices currently used to critique, as well as their failure to produce sufficient progress to keep hope alive, untarnished by the irrational despair that surrounds us. This can be no more obvious than in the life of Sarah Palin, a mother who had to raise several kids, and decided to use that to her political advantage with the authoritarian "mother grizzly" ideology.
With all this in mind, I feel no shame in wishing a long life to the revolution!
— Martin Buber
You have taught Mogwai to watch television?! I warned you that with Mogwai comes much responsibility, but you would not listen.
— "Gremlins" (1986)
If order is good, how do we achieve it? What impairs the necessary insight into solving this moral dilemma is first and foremost within the mind. The incapacitated public's inability to approach an imposition of order of our own making, through a cultural revolution that services the spiritual needs left unconsidered or vilified by present actors.
Vilified cultures as a result only represent distracting foils for a public becoming increasingly aware of suffering caused by capitalist hegemony. They come and go. Not too many people are worried about "savage Indians" these days! "They" served their purpose to power, and have been replaced by Muslims, Socialists, homosexuals and others. As a less interesting side note, it is no coincidence that sexuality is brought into play as it can be used almost interchangeably with immorality and makes an efficient shorthand: Bill Clinton's foreign policy blunders and Julian Assange's "threat to security" are successfully left un-analyzed by the majority of the disciplined elites, absorbed in deconstructing the intimate details of their personal lives.
Since the hegemonic system appears to have no problem with unethical speculation, we must turn to those ethical welfare systems that are preserved and challenge their promised success of an orderly reality. Rallying around a flag or leader, and it follows, against another in some fashion, is frequently insinuated as the supreme good, or at least, and end to that. There are plenty of examples of this, perhaps the most recent being the "unity government" of Honduras, sponsored by us, which continues to terrorize dissidents in the name of order.
Much of this does not find form until dissidents can be seen as threatening the general welfare of the public. They are propagandistically painted as insidious, claiming "civil rights" apparently only as a veneer of nobility, covering up the self-interest power hunger (likely another egotistical projection!) That's not to say the system is completely authoritarian. To get people to agree to it, some ideological concessions were made to service businesses, so that they could be free from too much interference. Also, certain rights were put outside not only of the law, but of human reason itself ("endowed by their Creator"), and so power was structured to allow the occasional imbalance.
The large threat of flawed ideology is just as frequently approached within another cripplingly irresponsible conflation -- that of morality and power/money interests, and of course the old standard cultural/military hegemony being called "national security."
The Vietnamese were "immoral" because they wanted to become something we believed to be similar to Chinese Communists. The appeals to prejudice serve as a smokescreen for corrupted morality, and corrupted uses of tools at our disposal, including capitalism and religion, with our hegemonic power tacitly assumed as benign or even beneficial. This is evident from the perceived harmless nature of Coca-cola plants. The silliness is not so far below the surface, as it was recently claimed that obese children are a threat to military quotas being filled, and therefore, national security. Left unsaid for now obvious rationales are the government's tacit acceptance of fattening corn products through public subsidy, and the reliance on a culture of a passive, spectator population.
A strategy was developed to fool the fools, to allow us to believe that civility was important, so long as we recognized the of worship of power as an overriding principle, a pragmatic "check" on freedom. This was the culture war, and it gave jobs to the very people who possessed the analytical skills necessary for deconstructing the system. It was successful. People are sold on utopia with the rough edges of the non-modernized world used to stand as a foil for immoral socialism (in reality, the result of wealth escaping with the powerful).
Therefore, the reality of the condition of liberty in the world cannot be seen clearly through any ideology without a challenge to the traditions and stereotypes of the past. I tried to do exactly that with examples of assassinations. But while Kennedy and Lincoln led armies, Martin Luther King led peaceful marches. The evidence is there that revolutions could be started even more successfully with a an idea rather than the a gun. But many people, for example, don't recall easily that King said the U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, nor that Kennedy believed in a spiritual power of poetry, nor that Lincoln believed in moral sacrifice to such a degree that he privately excused his own assassination only a few years before it came about.
Education must therefore be a huge part of the end goal of the ethical person, as it is evident people are not always smartest or best in quite a few important and telling ways. Because of this, it should be protected from corruption in its reform. Law and order, police and elections, should not be opposed to interest in other suppressed cultures or in helping one another.
Unfortunately, the powerful people who enshrined our laws were threatened by angered masses, and created principles to "impose reason" on the population by any means necessary (which were sound enough to keep the system going despite attempted moderation by liberal presidents). And until people are brave enough, the actual faults of the Founding Fathers, as well as their most noble heirs to the presidential throne, cannot compete with the caricatures.
So as long as there is no change to this, there will always be a new game that will be called something like "a new era" and it must be continually protected from the announced new enemy.
Today, writing about Communism has become passe, and it is the Arabs in the Middle East, the liberals, and the Tea Party who are the acceptable targets. However, Chinese and South American autocrats get a passing mention, with others no doubt to come later. They are "the Bad" and we are "the Good" and we try to go about our lives unperturbed, believing our acceptance of it makes us moral.
Frequently, appeals to "realistic" -- "natural," or even "democratic" ideas based on a "free" and "Great Society" -- are conflated with appeals to traditions, to stereotypes, and to other sources of knowledge that can be corrupted by their use in violence and fraud. The ambiguous nature of the solutions proposed are telling of the deep-seated moral conflict. John Edwards ran a campaign on class antagonism and lost, while the victorious Barack Obama ran on hatred of Bush and bland, patronizing nationalism.
The enemy is required to be both a continuation of the forces of chaos and, if our system is facing threats of reasonable claims of illegitimacy, a much bigger threat to transcendental morality than ever before. Fears of global wars, even in practice involving only parts of the world (i.e. the rich countries), are not only stoked, but are brought into reality through such seemingly noble acts of intervention as "restoring democracy" and "being welcomed as liberators."
It's clearly the last thing we need, and therefore, the first thing people should discontinue in their day to day life. Challenge traditions to bring life to people.
Tracing the game throughout history to test the legitimacy of our current system is frowned upon, because it is only considered valuable if it fits within the current game of vilification. I believe this could be a sufficient explanation for the logical devices currently used to critique, as well as their failure to produce sufficient progress to keep hope alive, untarnished by the irrational despair that surrounds us. This can be no more obvious than in the life of Sarah Palin, a mother who had to raise several kids, and decided to use that to her political advantage with the authoritarian "mother grizzly" ideology.
With all this in mind, I feel no shame in wishing a long life to the revolution!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Newsweek's Alter Should Be Haunted By His Own Humiliating Failure to Conquer Delusions
"Members of the suppressed class are equated with those who are racially alien." -- Willhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (p. 93)
Being one of the first-- if not the first-- to write a historical analysis regarding the recent "heinous act" in Arizona, Jonathan Alter should be commended. But the shooting of several people, including a judge and United States Representative, cannot be so simply dismissed as a victim of the country's "refusal to confront the stigma of mental illness" which is evident in the assassin, Jared Laughner,who "felt aggrieved by what he considered to be [Representative] Gifford's failure to answer a question he asked..." unless we are to read the piece as an exercise in futility. Despite the "rogues' gallery" timeline on the bottom of the page which describes some American assassins as people who either "dabbled in the occult while searching for a church," read "radical literature but never joined a political group," lived a "vivid fantasy life" or who "resembled his global peers," (a reference to the pro-slavery assassin, John Wilkes Booth), "American assassins," Alter writes, are "peculiar stalkers defined less by ideology than vague political and personal grievances." They are different in that those of "other countries" are "nearly always associated with extremist movements, religious fundamentalism, or criminal organizations." Alter's distinction is averred with no supplied evidence.
In his borderline racist conception of the world there are innocent, confused Americans on the one hand, and foreign zealots on the other, who are presumed to be too stupid to realize they are on the wrong side of mainstream American culture. We don't value "killing political leaders as a better form of self-expression," Alter writes, but instead merely must find ways to prevent the occasional violence by promoting the "funding and laws" needed for silencing what is "most likely a cacophony of voices within and without" the "sexually frustrated loners and misfits united only by their common background in social isolation" to impede a "path to mayhem."
But defending the Constitution's "[b]rilliance" of "Second Amendment protections" is not enough to overcome the "dismissive 'cowboy' critique so popular abroad" of a country "born in armed revolution, an idea not lost on Laughner." What these people disregard in error, in critiquing us, he says is that "winning the [American] West has a more winning quality than revisionists allow" even while it was "carved..with a gun" and "assumed a mythic place in America's definition of itself." Once again, the apologetics is backed up by no evidence.
Before ending the piece by quoting the President (as fascists notably do, often), he quotes Paul Schrader, the screenwriter of Taxi Driver:
Being one of the first-- if not the first-- to write a historical analysis regarding the recent "heinous act" in Arizona, Jonathan Alter should be commended. But the shooting of several people, including a judge and United States Representative, cannot be so simply dismissed as a victim of the country's "refusal to confront the stigma of mental illness" which is evident in the assassin, Jared Laughner,who "felt aggrieved by what he considered to be [Representative] Gifford's failure to answer a question he asked..." unless we are to read the piece as an exercise in futility. Despite the "rogues' gallery" timeline on the bottom of the page which describes some American assassins as people who either "dabbled in the occult while searching for a church," read "radical literature but never joined a political group," lived a "vivid fantasy life" or who "resembled his global peers," (a reference to the pro-slavery assassin, John Wilkes Booth), "American assassins," Alter writes, are "peculiar stalkers defined less by ideology than vague political and personal grievances." They are different in that those of "other countries" are "nearly always associated with extremist movements, religious fundamentalism, or criminal organizations." Alter's distinction is averred with no supplied evidence.
In his borderline racist conception of the world there are innocent, confused Americans on the one hand, and foreign zealots on the other, who are presumed to be too stupid to realize they are on the wrong side of mainstream American culture. We don't value "killing political leaders as a better form of self-expression," Alter writes, but instead merely must find ways to prevent the occasional violence by promoting the "funding and laws" needed for silencing what is "most likely a cacophony of voices within and without" the "sexually frustrated loners and misfits united only by their common background in social isolation" to impede a "path to mayhem."
But defending the Constitution's "[b]rilliance" of "Second Amendment protections" is not enough to overcome the "dismissive 'cowboy' critique so popular abroad" of a country "born in armed revolution, an idea not lost on Laughner." What these people disregard in error, in critiquing us, he says is that "winning the [American] West has a more winning quality than revisionists allow" even while it was "carved..with a gun" and "assumed a mythic place in America's definition of itself." Once again, the apologetics is backed up by no evidence.
Before ending the piece by quoting the President (as fascists notably do, often), he quotes Paul Schrader, the screenwriter of Taxi Driver:
"If you're filled with feelings of anger and self-loathing, you want to blame someone else. And people in the public eye are the ones that touch you.. because they're you're surrogate parents."If Alter believes we must address a stereotypical "cartoon" and the "fear today... that copycat assassins of mentally unstable individuals...may imitate a new round of prolonged political violence" he should "focus his thoughts" on himself and his own "vivid fantasy life, turning on the topics of omnipotence and power, through which" one might "try to compensate for his present shortcomings and frustrations." He should put aside for now "what matters" according to President Obama who quite possibly is his own "surrogate parent" in this situation, along with a movie screenwriter.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Wrong Mistakes and Optimism
I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will. -- Antonio Gramsci
We made too many wrong mistakes. -- Yogi Berra
I think Obama as well as most other officials have fallen into a narcissistic despair (though him especially, due to the quite novel combination of stress factors he has faced and continues to face) and they have begun displacing their discomfort by attacking their base. Curiously enough, there is a general comparison between a government that distrusts its people and a boyfriend that has been dumped by his girlfriend. I feel that I say this with some authority because several of my friends have gone through breakups. Their exes will often distort reality in order to protect their egos and project their own immature shortcomings onto the other. Pardon my French, but I call "B.S." when veterans "For Peace" are arrested for "security" reasons. It is actually the irresponsibility on the part of the government and the corporate media that is endangering the country's security. Without unjust disparities in knowledge and power between people, there wouldn't be these kinds of shocks. I'm not proposing communism or a dictatorship of the proletariat, but I do believe in giving a fair chance for people to succeed, and the society is far from ideally structured for that to happen.
The most recent tax cuts package looked to me like a give-away to the Republicans, and who can be against child nutrition? Even the gun lovers supported the bill because they want a fresh crop of healthy recruits in the military (1 out of 4 children are "too fat to fight.") Obama is doing well in his policy of "change," but then again he's playing it very safe right now.
Setting aside the expected need for war, I don't think that they are worried in vain. I haven't been keeping as close an eye on politics as I would like because I am dealing with a fear of intellectual stagnation, though I suppose I should be on the lookout for emotional relapse as well. If my younger fellow nationals are going through the same thing, it doesn't surprise me that they would compensate for it with unhealthy lifestyles. However society shares a responsibility in helping them deal with the stress more constructively, preferably in less fattening and disease-causing ways. Considering that we are turning to alcohol and tobacco, I doubt serious change will happen soon without massive educational activism in some form or another, which might include changes in things as seemingly synonymous with the culture as the capitalism and consumerism.
There has been some encouraging news in these respects. The New York Times recently exposed a conflict of interest of a Congressman who supported the Honduran coup. (It has reinforced my confidence in Noam Chomsky's assertion that we tend to only support democracy when it is in our financial interest to do so and that it is generally a code-word for capitalism anyway.) Also, Newsweek is under new management and has begun printing thought-provoking articles for a change! However, I am slightly reserved in my hope because I think that the beliefs of these writers are so contorted and compartmentalized that they might be quite unaware when they appear to say something insightful. They might even do what Jon Stewart did once and walk back their criticisms of power (he retracted his allegation that dropping the atomic bomb was a crime).
I probably won't be content until the time comes when there is a massive protest in favor of civil liberties that is enough to provoke other kinds of responsible action a country in solidarity will take to protect its future and the dignity of its citizens. Now is certainly no time for our "indoor voices." Though the ruling class will certainly accuse radical libertarians of terrorism (as the earliest uses of the term come both from state officials referring to enemy nationals and internal dissidents), legitimate and responsible protest must continue if there is to be hope in undoing the harm that our nationalistic and imperialist hubris has resulted in. I don't believe that expecting Obama to fix things is a reasonable solution anymore, if it ever was in the first place.
However, as the proto-Anarchist philosopher Proudhon wrote, the state will be abolished after workers have organized themselves under their own law. The dismantling of the corporate stewardship of our economy should therefore be the primary goal of all those who seek to see the wishes of the struggling masses come to life. I feel his ideas are especially important to consider because they are being read by most of the hemisphere, though not us. The Latins have begun organizing themselves, and are achieving victories for their people that have far surpassed ours. Perhaps this will be fuel for continuing narcissistic traditions.
We made too many wrong mistakes. -- Yogi Berra
I think Obama as well as most other officials have fallen into a narcissistic despair (though him especially, due to the quite novel combination of stress factors he has faced and continues to face) and they have begun displacing their discomfort by attacking their base. Curiously enough, there is a general comparison between a government that distrusts its people and a boyfriend that has been dumped by his girlfriend. I feel that I say this with some authority because several of my friends have gone through breakups. Their exes will often distort reality in order to protect their egos and project their own immature shortcomings onto the other. Pardon my French, but I call "B.S." when veterans "For Peace" are arrested for "security" reasons. It is actually the irresponsibility on the part of the government and the corporate media that is endangering the country's security. Without unjust disparities in knowledge and power between people, there wouldn't be these kinds of shocks. I'm not proposing communism or a dictatorship of the proletariat, but I do believe in giving a fair chance for people to succeed, and the society is far from ideally structured for that to happen.
The most recent tax cuts package looked to me like a give-away to the Republicans, and who can be against child nutrition? Even the gun lovers supported the bill because they want a fresh crop of healthy recruits in the military (1 out of 4 children are "too fat to fight.") Obama is doing well in his policy of "change," but then again he's playing it very safe right now.
Setting aside the expected need for war, I don't think that they are worried in vain. I haven't been keeping as close an eye on politics as I would like because I am dealing with a fear of intellectual stagnation, though I suppose I should be on the lookout for emotional relapse as well. If my younger fellow nationals are going through the same thing, it doesn't surprise me that they would compensate for it with unhealthy lifestyles. However society shares a responsibility in helping them deal with the stress more constructively, preferably in less fattening and disease-causing ways. Considering that we are turning to alcohol and tobacco, I doubt serious change will happen soon without massive educational activism in some form or another, which might include changes in things as seemingly synonymous with the culture as the capitalism and consumerism.
There has been some encouraging news in these respects. The New York Times recently exposed a conflict of interest of a Congressman who supported the Honduran coup. (It has reinforced my confidence in Noam Chomsky's assertion that we tend to only support democracy when it is in our financial interest to do so and that it is generally a code-word for capitalism anyway.) Also, Newsweek is under new management and has begun printing thought-provoking articles for a change! However, I am slightly reserved in my hope because I think that the beliefs of these writers are so contorted and compartmentalized that they might be quite unaware when they appear to say something insightful. They might even do what Jon Stewart did once and walk back their criticisms of power (he retracted his allegation that dropping the atomic bomb was a crime).
I probably won't be content until the time comes when there is a massive protest in favor of civil liberties that is enough to provoke other kinds of responsible action a country in solidarity will take to protect its future and the dignity of its citizens. Now is certainly no time for our "indoor voices." Though the ruling class will certainly accuse radical libertarians of terrorism (as the earliest uses of the term come both from state officials referring to enemy nationals and internal dissidents), legitimate and responsible protest must continue if there is to be hope in undoing the harm that our nationalistic and imperialist hubris has resulted in. I don't believe that expecting Obama to fix things is a reasonable solution anymore, if it ever was in the first place.
However, as the proto-Anarchist philosopher Proudhon wrote, the state will be abolished after workers have organized themselves under their own law. The dismantling of the corporate stewardship of our economy should therefore be the primary goal of all those who seek to see the wishes of the struggling masses come to life. I feel his ideas are especially important to consider because they are being read by most of the hemisphere, though not us. The Latins have begun organizing themselves, and are achieving victories for their people that have far surpassed ours. Perhaps this will be fuel for continuing narcissistic traditions.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Moderation in Revolutionary America
[A]ssasinations of public officers is not an American crime. -- Abraham Lincoln
A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers. -- John F. Kennedy
They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now. -- Barack Obama
A government that only provides candidates already groomed for power by the elites cannot be called a democracy, and therefore should not be trusted. It is an aristocracy -- a country ruled by a small group of so-called nobles. Such is the system that elections enable to exist. The elites of the past (idealized in the authoritarian phrase "Founding Fathers") were scared of losing their property to the agitated masses in debt from the revolution, and are comparable their descendants today who seek to impose a borderline-fascist "belt-tightening" to secure their wealth. And while the Fathers sought only to further a confused policy of inequality, their principles were sound enough to win the independence of the colonies from England and allow for the extension of substantial civil rights to the lower classes in years to come.
In police states, revolutions are put down with police repression (or worse), and replaced with flag lapels, "red breeches" and "brownshirts" to impose discipline on the population. What is spooking the powers that be right now is the public's incredulity toward the desire for continued involvement in pointless and expensive wars and similar distaste for the insurance sector's refusal to allow health care to be free to all sectors of the public, regardless of class.
A government that only provides candidates already groomed for power by the elites cannot be called a democracy, and therefore should not be trusted. It is an aristocracy -- a country ruled by a small group of so-called nobles. Such is the system that elections enable to exist. The elites of the past (idealized in the authoritarian phrase "Founding Fathers") were scared of losing their property to the agitated masses in debt from the revolution, and are comparable their descendants today who seek to impose a borderline-fascist "belt-tightening" to secure their wealth. And while the Fathers sought only to further a confused policy of inequality, their principles were sound enough to win the independence of the colonies from England and allow for the extension of substantial civil rights to the lower classes in years to come.
In police states, revolutions are put down with police repression (or worse), and replaced with flag lapels, "red breeches" and "brownshirts" to impose discipline on the population. What is spooking the powers that be right now is the public's incredulity toward the desire for continued involvement in pointless and expensive wars and similar distaste for the insurance sector's refusal to allow health care to be free to all sectors of the public, regardless of class.
I think the Wikileaks group being blamed for simply believing in the public's right to know and being labeled terrorist-minded and treasonous might have spooked me a bit. The fact that they are being attacked through indirect and obviously false accusations of immorality (rape) proves to me that we don't have a serious claim to justify a ruling that favors a conspiracy in the other direction -- one that maintains draconian punishment for those in the press who release embarrassing, but not dangerous information. (Several politicians have claimed Mr. Assange needs to be killed by the government.)
Mass protests against such fraud, while often overwhelmingly unstable, actually have the potential to initiate a kind of pluralism that can be more constructive than political vanguardism, which invites radical counter-revolutionaries to antagonize, buy off or kill their enemies in assassinations or civil war. In my opinion, with elections our only recourse, we are only moving around the deck chairs of the Titanic.
People who can shut down the public's agitation on these issues effectively are free to transit through the revolving door between the business sector and the government and many choose to. They are rewarded with lucrative positions of influence, wealth beyond their wildest dreams and pats on the back for a job well done. One example of this practice is the memoir -- it serves as a way to enrich the author while further legitimizing his ideas with evidence of the market's favor as a talking point, often even printed on the cover. Another example, though more sloppy in its execution is Sarah Palin hamming it up on her own TV show whose job is reinforcing the authoritarian "mamma bear" persona, while she is connecting personally to the public with a pretty face and cutesy accent. On the other side are the Dick Cheneys whose private businesses are protected and prospered in return for their service to other elite interests. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels called this the "optics" of the country, not necessary for the wars, only for the public's acceptance of them (however, instead of Indians as scapegoats, he used Jews and Communists).
Such a system was described by the German sociologist Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as relying on an archetype of an "ethical adventurer" who might be approached with "ethical indifferen[ce]" or simply tolerated as "reprehensible but unfortunately unavoidable." Such are the effects on people who are required to adapt though "the strictest conformity to tradition" until it no longer needs justification, but is "tolerated as a fact."
Clearly the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of property have been almost entirely corrupted in their interpretation due to this deep-seated prejudice against traditional values, replaced with what Weber described "an economic society which [has] known trade with the use of money and which [has] offered it opportunities through commenda, farming of taxes, State loans, financing of wars, ducal courts and officeholders". I see little reason to hope for the government to fix it, as it is and always will be complicit in the corruption. The monetary incentives can only be overcome by a public that shows its government that the trust it is trying to win is not sincere or strong enough for a dignified existence. I say this in the spirit only of human liberty. To expect our rulers to protect us is naive vanguardism. My brother pointed out to me that nobody will invest in a political party without expecting some kind of return. So in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, I say that a government that longer responds to the will of the people must be abolished. That is a radical doctrine, but it is not foreign to Americans, nor should it be.
Many if not all of the current problems facing us today can be traced back to deep-seated aristocratic bigotry in the ruling sectors of this country. At the heart of it is a narcissism that reassured the Founding Fathers so deeply that they enshrined it in the constitution. The state was also for free enterprise in name only, as it was actively encouraging the plunder of Indian land once freed from the confines of British-enforced borders, and discriminated against Blacks by continuing the savage tradition of slavery (not to mention the current occupation of several countries, with plenty of military bases around the world). The Indians were our original Marxian "red spectre" that was vividly described by the elites at the time to whip up support for the revolution, along with the scapegoating of Dutch traders in the Tea Party protest. Later on, the Black culture as well as others were found suitable for this purpose, and would continue to be vilified in a similar fashion with alarming rhetoric typical of ethnocratic conspiracy mongering.
Some of our most beloved presidents like Lincoln and Kennedy have not only died as as a result of this prejudice in their assassins (though Lee Harvey Oswald might be considered a legitimate traitor), but had governed with the very bias that people were fighting to counter-act at the time.
Kennedy was an independently wealthy liberal but even he had his shortcomings. While he felt the war in Vietnam was unwise, he was easily persuaded by his cabinet to let it continue. While some of his words suggest ambivalence towards violent means of control in the world, he permitted the murder of the president of the Dominican Republic, a failed attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (coupled with a botched invasion) and the same gambling attitude towards the occupation of Vietnam that Obama advocates in Iraq, along with suspicion of "cables" that might be dangerous to the propaganda efforts.
Lincoln was not the noble cartoonish stove-pipe-hat-wearing goodfella that we think of him as today. He was a foul-mouthed racist who didn't want to see an independent South threaten the economy of the North. While the war did "free the slaves" in some fashion, their liberty (nor for that matter, Lincoln's values of "peace and friendship") did not come without the type of civil disobedience that I think is required today to finish the job. Black Americans moved only slightly higher up on the social ladder from slavery to Jim Crow, and still do not get a fair shake even with a "brother" as president (who antagonizes by labeling them irresponsible).Lincoln was also instrumental in setting a precedent for indefinite detention of dissidents.
The unlimited spending of corporations now permitted to influence elections, along with the complete disregard (even by Democrats) of civil liberties in the name of "security" speak to the deep illegitimate nature not only of the institution, but the traditions it was founded on. One vote every several years, not only in my opinion but in the writings of greater men before me, is not sufficient to express displeasure and even furthers the complicity of those who choose to participate.
People who can shut down the public's agitation on these issues effectively are free to transit through the revolving door between the business sector and the government and many choose to. They are rewarded with lucrative positions of influence, wealth beyond their wildest dreams and pats on the back for a job well done. One example of this practice is the memoir -- it serves as a way to enrich the author while further legitimizing his ideas with evidence of the market's favor as a talking point, often even printed on the cover. Another example, though more sloppy in its execution is Sarah Palin hamming it up on her own TV show whose job is reinforcing the authoritarian "mamma bear" persona, while she is connecting personally to the public with a pretty face and cutesy accent. On the other side are the Dick Cheneys whose private businesses are protected and prospered in return for their service to other elite interests. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels called this the "optics" of the country, not necessary for the wars, only for the public's acceptance of them (however, instead of Indians as scapegoats, he used Jews and Communists).
Such a system was described by the German sociologist Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as relying on an archetype of an "ethical adventurer" who might be approached with "ethical indifferen[ce]" or simply tolerated as "reprehensible but unfortunately unavoidable." Such are the effects on people who are required to adapt though "the strictest conformity to tradition" until it no longer needs justification, but is "tolerated as a fact."
Clearly the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of property have been almost entirely corrupted in their interpretation due to this deep-seated prejudice against traditional values, replaced with what Weber described "an economic society which [has] known trade with the use of money and which [has] offered it opportunities through commenda, farming of taxes, State loans, financing of wars, ducal courts and officeholders". I see little reason to hope for the government to fix it, as it is and always will be complicit in the corruption. The monetary incentives can only be overcome by a public that shows its government that the trust it is trying to win is not sincere or strong enough for a dignified existence. I say this in the spirit only of human liberty. To expect our rulers to protect us is naive vanguardism. My brother pointed out to me that nobody will invest in a political party without expecting some kind of return. So in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, I say that a government that longer responds to the will of the people must be abolished. That is a radical doctrine, but it is not foreign to Americans, nor should it be.
Many if not all of the current problems facing us today can be traced back to deep-seated aristocratic bigotry in the ruling sectors of this country. At the heart of it is a narcissism that reassured the Founding Fathers so deeply that they enshrined it in the constitution. The state was also for free enterprise in name only, as it was actively encouraging the plunder of Indian land once freed from the confines of British-enforced borders, and discriminated against Blacks by continuing the savage tradition of slavery (not to mention the current occupation of several countries, with plenty of military bases around the world). The Indians were our original Marxian "red spectre" that was vividly described by the elites at the time to whip up support for the revolution, along with the scapegoating of Dutch traders in the Tea Party protest. Later on, the Black culture as well as others were found suitable for this purpose, and would continue to be vilified in a similar fashion with alarming rhetoric typical of ethnocratic conspiracy mongering.
Some of our most beloved presidents like Lincoln and Kennedy have not only died as as a result of this prejudice in their assassins (though Lee Harvey Oswald might be considered a legitimate traitor), but had governed with the very bias that people were fighting to counter-act at the time.
Kennedy was an independently wealthy liberal but even he had his shortcomings. While he felt the war in Vietnam was unwise, he was easily persuaded by his cabinet to let it continue. While some of his words suggest ambivalence towards violent means of control in the world, he permitted the murder of the president of the Dominican Republic, a failed attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (coupled with a botched invasion) and the same gambling attitude towards the occupation of Vietnam that Obama advocates in Iraq, along with suspicion of "cables" that might be dangerous to the propaganda efforts.
Lincoln was not the noble cartoonish stove-pipe-hat-wearing goodfella that we think of him as today. He was a foul-mouthed racist who didn't want to see an independent South threaten the economy of the North. While the war did "free the slaves" in some fashion, their liberty (nor for that matter, Lincoln's values of "peace and friendship") did not come without the type of civil disobedience that I think is required today to finish the job. Black Americans moved only slightly higher up on the social ladder from slavery to Jim Crow, and still do not get a fair shake even with a "brother" as president (who antagonizes by labeling them irresponsible).Lincoln was also instrumental in setting a precedent for indefinite detention of dissidents.
The unlimited spending of corporations now permitted to influence elections, along with the complete disregard (even by Democrats) of civil liberties in the name of "security" speak to the deep illegitimate nature not only of the institution, but the traditions it was founded on. One vote every several years, not only in my opinion but in the writings of greater men before me, is not sufficient to express displeasure and even furthers the complicity of those who choose to participate.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Short Poem
Hegemony
Keep it down, don't rant and rave.
What is it that your love saves?
"Normal" means to be the same.
Why not try to play the game?
Growing up, don't question God.
"He exists" they say, so nod.
Parents always know what's right,
even when their grip's too tight.
When the rabble's closing in
be a Hamiltonian.
Go to war like they command:
at all costs protect your brand.
Keep it down, don't rant and rave.
What is it that your love saves?
"Normal" means to be the same.
Why not try to play the game?
Growing up, don't question God.
"He exists" they say, so nod.
Parents always know what's right,
even when their grip's too tight.
When the rabble's closing in
be a Hamiltonian.
Go to war like they command:
at all costs protect your brand.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The Weakness Inside Political Ambiguity
And when they have run into a blind alley, when they have compromised themselves sufficiently to be compelled to carry out their threats, they do this in an ambiguous way, avoiding the means to the end like the plague and clutching at excuses for their failure.
— Karl Marx, as quoted in J. X. Cooper's Modernism and the Culture of Market Society
Yes, it's certainly a dark time in our history. The Republicans are openly appealing to radical nationalists to win their majorities, and seem to be waiting for any excuse to use the bully pulpit to antagonize the Democrats, further radicalizing the government to impose their corporate-friendly agenda. Their puppets in the Tea Party have recently vocalized their goal: the complete dismantling of the welfare state. This is in the face of the collapse of the world economy, American hegemony, the environment, and it seems, hope in the future. Meanwhile, the Democrats, and by this I mean all of us, not just the politicians, have dropped the ball. Our party is almost as weak as the economy, yet far more hopeless.
Left and Right, these reactions don't surprise me all that much, since there is hardly any principled opposition heard in the media that would serve as a partial remedy. Most of the Left's efforts appear self-serving, and at the very least reactionary. For example, President Obama will come out every now and then and take advantage of some negative aspect of Republican politics that is undeniably visible, such as Senator John McCain's complicity in Bush's agenda or the GOP's childish refusal to compromise. This is important, as politics does involve defining the character of your opponent. But if I had to name one flaw in Obama's strategy, it would be that he doesn't give the public a clear example of what a government focused on building the kind of solidarity we need actually looks like. I believe that public trust is only won through explaining a working model that people can access, and pragmatism happens to be the one ideology that fails that test.
I should point out that this probably does fall outside the traditional duties of our form of government. Because of this, Obama might very well turn out to be a lost-cause: a flash-in-the-pan opportunist whose best instincts have been driven out by special interests (e.g. the financial sector). This is invariably what to expect should the common man stay in the powerless state he is in now, unable to influence his supposed representative in the government, the president, in a substantial and meaningful way.
The root cause as I see it is the corrupting influence of power and it manifests itself in several ways: the ever-dwindling number of responsible pundits in the corporate game, an abundance of fraud, and the overall want to feel superior and safe. Such a system can only exist because it is self-perpetuating -- the spiritual void it creates is approached only with risky solutions that usually make things worse.
I suppose I may be accused of being overly cynical. That likely depends on what your goals are. It's certainly no mindset to be in should you want to advocate for a something other than complete political Nihilism. Mild reformism is a much better strategy, and that requires seeing shades of gray. It often does include things like repeating yourself to make a point memorable and being slightly pollyannish should you decide you want to hold the ear of a wide spectrum of pundits. Even language games play a part, though they the risk of obscuring the situation further and getting mired in petty squabbles that are only justified because people believe they supposedly represent some deep seated conflict in our culture. Obviously, my cynicism extends to such tactics as well. It's my own attempt at countering the kind of magical thinking that ends up distracting us from real issues. (Ivan Illich, an Austrian anarchist philosopher called these tactics "rain-dances" -- an attempt to "domesticate" what we cannot control through the belief in action-at-a-distance.)
To explain this from a different angle, an ideology of despair is only improved through more despair, and therefore generally weakens one's ability to accept harsh realities unless it is paired with a nearly impossible ability to tolerate displeasure. Outside of artists and maniacs, this is rare. Positivity on the other hand allows for a better view of what is going on because it provides strength and skills to see and analyze disgusting and disheartening things. In not trying to shape the world into a bleak image that projects but does not explain personal suffering, the task of understanding one's opponent's position so that he can be countered effectively becomes much more probable and attractive.
A good example of this difference of mentalities was when Rachel Maddow brought up the Tea Party's support in Indiana in her interview with Jon Stewart. It prompted Stewart to go into a intellectualizing of the problem, literally with the words "What does that [even] mean?" Following that, he babbled on citing half-baked examples that were intended to show the media's incompetence. Maddow tried to pin Stewart down on a point of view, anything that can be used to promote constructive criticism, but all that resulted was more confused anecdotes that lacked any kind of overarching similarity except their depressing nature.
The deeper truth (the overall hugeness of the problem) was briefly touched on and the two tried to grapple with it without taking it apart. This accomplishes nothing more than evidencing of their knee-jerk logic while they distract themselves with a game of "Hot Potato," which is usually where the opposition finds weakness. One commenter on Maddow's page summarized Stewart's mantra as this: "let's talk in inside voices and not [catch ourselves] saying anything disagreeable." He politely asked Maddow to not encourage this behavior.
I must admit that I share the blame that I see myself so easily putting on Obama, Maddow and Stewart. I can always define myself as the opposite of what I consider evil, but I'm not really contributing much if I don't try to understand the intricacies of the situation, a task they take on every day. A part of understanding this, I believe, also takes away some blame one might put on them. They face immense amounts of pressure because of problems with their institutions, which they have limited control over. Obama may sound quite harsh in blaming the Republicans for the economy, but unless he wants to be called a hypocrite, can hardly be expected to criticize Bush's heinous abuses of power. Maddow and Stewart (it seems) see themselves as cogs in a system of sane, rational people responding to the craziness of the world. At most though, they fill the role of a comforting presence to us and an irritation to power. That is the most you can expect from a leader in a crisis. It's something, but not everything.
Were they to step outside this system, they might snap, or they might transform into a beautiful enlightened butterflies from their cocoons of mildly informed propaganda. I don't really expect this second option to happen because of the institutional problems. As Stewart put it "As a satirist, I can always criticize, but I can't actually do anything. We have an advantage in terms of loose rules, in terms of language hyperbole and sarcasm, but what we don't have at the end of day is what the lowest ranking member of an organization that builds things has." Maddow termed this "responsibility." Stewart went on to explain quite rightly in my opinion that there was no "real honor" in the "deflation" of a "toxic" things, (a term which I consider Newspeak for the side effects of imperial capitalism). He explained that in his role, unfortunately, truth and authenticity are minimized to the role of something that smooths over the finished product, rather than a moral obligation of an intellectual.
Maddow is substantially different, or at least, she presents herself that way. She is unabashedly partisan, and this is a good thing. She does not engage in the kind of immature dissociation that you find in people facing a spiritual crisis (who happen to look a lot like Obama and Stewart). I think this is reflected in her cheerful and energetic demeanor, and in her attempt to approach issues in an intimate but balanced way, using humor when possible but not as a defense mechanism. I think the bigger picture that must be painted must come from this kind of positivity, not just despair. Still, she works for a corporation that will try to squeeze people out, as Olbermann almost had been.
While it is important to understand their weaknesses, I must admit that they do have their moments -- times when their abilities are exactly what is called for. Maddow has a serious approach to things, which I presume is meant to further the cause of journalism. Stewart's ability to intellectualize and provide comforting distractions are also important. It's good for the Left to recognize and encourage such traits, even if, in the end, they do not result in the type of "responsibility" (as Maddow terms it) that we need.
All I ask of Maddow and Stewart is to recognize that the task likely requires us to avoid the the attention-seeking behavior that Stewart ironically projects only onto FOX. We need a type of enlightened approach that is ultimately beyond the abilities of the talking heads and elite intellectuals on TV. Were they up to the task, it would probably not even survive the format anyway. As Noam Chomsky likes to point out, commercial breaks have a way of hampering any kind of meaningful discussion.
Still, I think it's important we should hope for some reality to break through, and for some success to come with fighting fire with fire, because what is good can never be put into a totalizing dispassionate system of analysis. We must do our best to organize, but if our despair and cynicism are too overwhelming to be hidden, we should at least express them the best we can. We are human after all, and it's no coincidence that the greatest minds in history have found comfort in this simple fact.
— Karl Marx, as quoted in J. X. Cooper's Modernism and the Culture of Market Society
Yes, it's certainly a dark time in our history. The Republicans are openly appealing to radical nationalists to win their majorities, and seem to be waiting for any excuse to use the bully pulpit to antagonize the Democrats, further radicalizing the government to impose their corporate-friendly agenda. Their puppets in the Tea Party have recently vocalized their goal: the complete dismantling of the welfare state. This is in the face of the collapse of the world economy, American hegemony, the environment, and it seems, hope in the future. Meanwhile, the Democrats, and by this I mean all of us, not just the politicians, have dropped the ball. Our party is almost as weak as the economy, yet far more hopeless.
Left and Right, these reactions don't surprise me all that much, since there is hardly any principled opposition heard in the media that would serve as a partial remedy. Most of the Left's efforts appear self-serving, and at the very least reactionary. For example, President Obama will come out every now and then and take advantage of some negative aspect of Republican politics that is undeniably visible, such as Senator John McCain's complicity in Bush's agenda or the GOP's childish refusal to compromise. This is important, as politics does involve defining the character of your opponent. But if I had to name one flaw in Obama's strategy, it would be that he doesn't give the public a clear example of what a government focused on building the kind of solidarity we need actually looks like. I believe that public trust is only won through explaining a working model that people can access, and pragmatism happens to be the one ideology that fails that test.
I should point out that this probably does fall outside the traditional duties of our form of government. Because of this, Obama might very well turn out to be a lost-cause: a flash-in-the-pan opportunist whose best instincts have been driven out by special interests (e.g. the financial sector). This is invariably what to expect should the common man stay in the powerless state he is in now, unable to influence his supposed representative in the government, the president, in a substantial and meaningful way.
The root cause as I see it is the corrupting influence of power and it manifests itself in several ways: the ever-dwindling number of responsible pundits in the corporate game, an abundance of fraud, and the overall want to feel superior and safe. Such a system can only exist because it is self-perpetuating -- the spiritual void it creates is approached only with risky solutions that usually make things worse.
I suppose I may be accused of being overly cynical. That likely depends on what your goals are. It's certainly no mindset to be in should you want to advocate for a something other than complete political Nihilism. Mild reformism is a much better strategy, and that requires seeing shades of gray. It often does include things like repeating yourself to make a point memorable and being slightly pollyannish should you decide you want to hold the ear of a wide spectrum of pundits. Even language games play a part, though they the risk of obscuring the situation further and getting mired in petty squabbles that are only justified because people believe they supposedly represent some deep seated conflict in our culture. Obviously, my cynicism extends to such tactics as well. It's my own attempt at countering the kind of magical thinking that ends up distracting us from real issues. (Ivan Illich, an Austrian anarchist philosopher called these tactics "rain-dances" -- an attempt to "domesticate" what we cannot control through the belief in action-at-a-distance.)
To explain this from a different angle, an ideology of despair is only improved through more despair, and therefore generally weakens one's ability to accept harsh realities unless it is paired with a nearly impossible ability to tolerate displeasure. Outside of artists and maniacs, this is rare. Positivity on the other hand allows for a better view of what is going on because it provides strength and skills to see and analyze disgusting and disheartening things. In not trying to shape the world into a bleak image that projects but does not explain personal suffering, the task of understanding one's opponent's position so that he can be countered effectively becomes much more probable and attractive.
A good example of this difference of mentalities was when Rachel Maddow brought up the Tea Party's support in Indiana in her interview with Jon Stewart. It prompted Stewart to go into a intellectualizing of the problem, literally with the words "What does that [even] mean?" Following that, he babbled on citing half-baked examples that were intended to show the media's incompetence. Maddow tried to pin Stewart down on a point of view, anything that can be used to promote constructive criticism, but all that resulted was more confused anecdotes that lacked any kind of overarching similarity except their depressing nature.
The deeper truth (the overall hugeness of the problem) was briefly touched on and the two tried to grapple with it without taking it apart. This accomplishes nothing more than evidencing of their knee-jerk logic while they distract themselves with a game of "Hot Potato," which is usually where the opposition finds weakness. One commenter on Maddow's page summarized Stewart's mantra as this: "let's talk in inside voices and not [catch ourselves] saying anything disagreeable." He politely asked Maddow to not encourage this behavior.
I must admit that I share the blame that I see myself so easily putting on Obama, Maddow and Stewart. I can always define myself as the opposite of what I consider evil, but I'm not really contributing much if I don't try to understand the intricacies of the situation, a task they take on every day. A part of understanding this, I believe, also takes away some blame one might put on them. They face immense amounts of pressure because of problems with their institutions, which they have limited control over. Obama may sound quite harsh in blaming the Republicans for the economy, but unless he wants to be called a hypocrite, can hardly be expected to criticize Bush's heinous abuses of power. Maddow and Stewart (it seems) see themselves as cogs in a system of sane, rational people responding to the craziness of the world. At most though, they fill the role of a comforting presence to us and an irritation to power. That is the most you can expect from a leader in a crisis. It's something, but not everything.
Were they to step outside this system, they might snap, or they might transform into a beautiful enlightened butterflies from their cocoons of mildly informed propaganda. I don't really expect this second option to happen because of the institutional problems. As Stewart put it "As a satirist, I can always criticize, but I can't actually do anything. We have an advantage in terms of loose rules, in terms of language hyperbole and sarcasm, but what we don't have at the end of day is what the lowest ranking member of an organization that builds things has." Maddow termed this "responsibility." Stewart went on to explain quite rightly in my opinion that there was no "real honor" in the "deflation" of a "toxic" things, (a term which I consider Newspeak for the side effects of imperial capitalism). He explained that in his role, unfortunately, truth and authenticity are minimized to the role of something that smooths over the finished product, rather than a moral obligation of an intellectual.
Maddow is substantially different, or at least, she presents herself that way. She is unabashedly partisan, and this is a good thing. She does not engage in the kind of immature dissociation that you find in people facing a spiritual crisis (who happen to look a lot like Obama and Stewart). I think this is reflected in her cheerful and energetic demeanor, and in her attempt to approach issues in an intimate but balanced way, using humor when possible but not as a defense mechanism. I think the bigger picture that must be painted must come from this kind of positivity, not just despair. Still, she works for a corporation that will try to squeeze people out, as Olbermann almost had been.
While it is important to understand their weaknesses, I must admit that they do have their moments -- times when their abilities are exactly what is called for. Maddow has a serious approach to things, which I presume is meant to further the cause of journalism. Stewart's ability to intellectualize and provide comforting distractions are also important. It's good for the Left to recognize and encourage such traits, even if, in the end, they do not result in the type of "responsibility" (as Maddow terms it) that we need.
All I ask of Maddow and Stewart is to recognize that the task likely requires us to avoid the the attention-seeking behavior that Stewart ironically projects only onto FOX. We need a type of enlightened approach that is ultimately beyond the abilities of the talking heads and elite intellectuals on TV. Were they up to the task, it would probably not even survive the format anyway. As Noam Chomsky likes to point out, commercial breaks have a way of hampering any kind of meaningful discussion.
Still, I think it's important we should hope for some reality to break through, and for some success to come with fighting fire with fire, because what is good can never be put into a totalizing dispassionate system of analysis. We must do our best to organize, but if our despair and cynicism are too overwhelming to be hidden, we should at least express them the best we can. We are human after all, and it's no coincidence that the greatest minds in history have found comfort in this simple fact.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ironic Threats: A Look At The Left
(Note: I plan to come back to this and add the sources, but I think you can find most of these quotes very quickly with a Google search.)
It may just be the hunter/gatherer in me trying to spot the stripes on the tiger before it eats me, but I'm confident there is something of a pattern to the way the Western press (and perhaps others as well) deal with ideological threats. I have only a few direct examples, but technology today allows another interesting way to approach this, which I'll get to later on in this post.
The first example is an opinion piece written by one Flora Lewis on the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. She reported how he conceptualized society as having the "civil" and the "political" realms, and considered it ironic that a Communist, or perhaps a jailed Communist, should be the one to "bring the notion into modern political usage." She then went on to excoriate his descriptions of American society by paraphrasing the 10th Amendment:
This is only half true. The 10th Amendment states that the powers are to be given either to the state governments or the people.
I'm going to stop here to say that I hope to get through all my examples before I attempt to deconstruct the disagreement, for the sake of coherence. However, I'd like to come back to this article later because I feel the same way about Lewis as she feels about Gramsci, and I think I understand her about the same as she does him. When I understand it more, I'll post about it.
The next example also involves the New York Times, and another prominent leftist: Emma Goldman. As described in the book Emma Goldman: Life in Exile, she denounced Bolshevism as "rotten" and
Though the word never appears, it's probably safe to say that we are to understand that it is the irony of her statement that adds the "vividness... of the horrors of the dictated proletariat." This treatment was enough for her to warn her friend "not to believe what she read in the newspapers." It is not mentioned in the book whether the Times was polite enough to note that she had the chance to witness the horrors because of the U.S. government's policy of deporting radicals.
Gramsci's alleged failure to see the true workings of American society and Goldman's descriptions as mere additions to "vividness" of a picture that was already known suggest an unspoken rule that reporting leftist's opinions as ironic and incomplete is preferable to calling it truth.
I have one more example of this. Relatively recently, The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg, a man A Tiny Revolution's Jonathan Schwarz calls "America's preeminent propagandist," interviewed Fidel Castro. He told Goldberg that even his model was not enough to deal with the situation at hand, that Iran was not to be expected to back down, and that he was not given much more than anti-Semitic opinions as a description of the Jewish religion as a child. It seemed that one of the most notorious "Latin" Communists had just denounced Communism and taken the side of the Jews (that's a weirdly worded sentence, it is not as severe as it first seems). This prompted "surprise" from the Jerusalem Post, and widespread gloating in the rest of the press, causing Castro to comment further that Goldberg missed the irony of his remarks. It was not that capitalism will save us, he said, but that capitalism is so destructive, it will take more than the Cuban model to save humanity.
If these examples don't at least hint at a stark divide in ideology and a petty game of one-upsmanship, then I really don't have anything to say. But I see that here. What I think we are witnessing, dare I say ironically, is cultural hegemony in practice. Seeing a threat as ironic allows one to see humor, and therefore to not be afraid. Laughing at others, and even oneself, can be seen as an expression of superiority.
I'd like to finally get to the other way to look at this rule -- using the Google News Archive timeline-search function. Adding "ironic" to "communist" and "terrorist" highlights certain times of ideological upheaval in the West. You can see the Red Scares and Reagan's presidency lining up with "communist" and his declaration of the "war" against terrorism, the First Gulf War and the World Trade Center attacks prompting the understanding of that particular threat as ironic as well. On top of that, it seems that the term actually highlights these dates much more than the ideological labels by themselves. The task at hand, along with understanding these differences of opinion, might be to anticipate who the next bogeymen will be. It will be easy -- just look for someone being called ironic.
It may just be the hunter/gatherer in me trying to spot the stripes on the tiger before it eats me, but I'm confident there is something of a pattern to the way the Western press (and perhaps others as well) deal with ideological threats. I have only a few direct examples, but technology today allows another interesting way to approach this, which I'll get to later on in this post.
The first example is an opinion piece written by one Flora Lewis on the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. She reported how he conceptualized society as having the "civil" and the "political" realms, and considered it ironic that a Communist, or perhaps a jailed Communist, should be the one to "bring the notion into modern political usage." She then went on to excoriate his descriptions of American society by paraphrasing the 10th Amendment:
The American experience offers little help in analyzing the dilemma because Americans started with a different concept of the state. Gramsci got the U.S. approach all wrong. He said it hadn't ''emerged from the economic-corporate phase which Europe passed through in the Middle Ages - in other words [ it ] has not yet created a conception of the world or a group of great intellectuals to lead the people within the ambit of civil society.''
He failed to see that in the American concept, society reserves for itself all that is not expressly delegated to the state, not the other way around. Government is to be defined by its limits; it has only the powers conceded to it.
This is only half true. The 10th Amendment states that the powers are to be given either to the state governments or the people.
I'm going to stop here to say that I hope to get through all my examples before I attempt to deconstruct the disagreement, for the sake of coherence. However, I'd like to come back to this article later because I feel the same way about Lewis as she feels about Gramsci, and I think I understand her about the same as she does him. When I understand it more, I'll post about it.
The next example also involves the New York Times, and another prominent leftist: Emma Goldman. As described in the book Emma Goldman: Life in Exile, she denounced Bolshevism as "rotten" and
the American press reveled in reports about her disillusionment; [...] the New York Times, for example, regularly printed squibs about her alleged change of heart, while gloating editorially that "it does add a bitter vividness to our conception of the horrors of the dictated proletariat to think that even she finds them intolerable."
Though the word never appears, it's probably safe to say that we are to understand that it is the irony of her statement that adds the "vividness... of the horrors of the dictated proletariat." This treatment was enough for her to warn her friend "not to believe what she read in the newspapers." It is not mentioned in the book whether the Times was polite enough to note that she had the chance to witness the horrors because of the U.S. government's policy of deporting radicals.
Gramsci's alleged failure to see the true workings of American society and Goldman's descriptions as mere additions to "vividness" of a picture that was already known suggest an unspoken rule that reporting leftist's opinions as ironic and incomplete is preferable to calling it truth.
I have one more example of this. Relatively recently, The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg, a man A Tiny Revolution's Jonathan Schwarz calls "America's preeminent propagandist," interviewed Fidel Castro. He told Goldberg that even his model was not enough to deal with the situation at hand, that Iran was not to be expected to back down, and that he was not given much more than anti-Semitic opinions as a description of the Jewish religion as a child. It seemed that one of the most notorious "Latin" Communists had just denounced Communism and taken the side of the Jews (that's a weirdly worded sentence, it is not as severe as it first seems). This prompted "surprise" from the Jerusalem Post, and widespread gloating in the rest of the press, causing Castro to comment further that Goldberg missed the irony of his remarks. It was not that capitalism will save us, he said, but that capitalism is so destructive, it will take more than the Cuban model to save humanity.
If these examples don't at least hint at a stark divide in ideology and a petty game of one-upsmanship, then I really don't have anything to say. But I see that here. What I think we are witnessing, dare I say ironically, is cultural hegemony in practice. Seeing a threat as ironic allows one to see humor, and therefore to not be afraid. Laughing at others, and even oneself, can be seen as an expression of superiority.
I'd like to finally get to the other way to look at this rule -- using the Google News Archive timeline-search function. Adding "ironic" to "communist" and "terrorist" highlights certain times of ideological upheaval in the West. You can see the Red Scares and Reagan's presidency lining up with "communist" and his declaration of the "war" against terrorism, the First Gulf War and the World Trade Center attacks prompting the understanding of that particular threat as ironic as well. On top of that, it seems that the term actually highlights these dates much more than the ideological labels by themselves. The task at hand, along with understanding these differences of opinion, might be to anticipate who the next bogeymen will be. It will be easy -- just look for someone being called ironic.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Wyrd vs Nihilism
artalien; I have read no Chomsky. He does not appeal to me.
ChicagTao; well i'm only using him to illustrate a point
artalien; I may be wrong but this is all about religion (again)
ChicagTao; "The first principle guideline, if you like, is that we ought to, I will try and I think that we should, bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States government whenever it's possible. So, that if there is any dispute about how to interpret something, we will assume they're right."
ChicagTao; http://www.chomsky.info/talks/200202--02.htm
ChicagTao; "weakness" was not back then what we would in the vulgar sense call weak
artalien; back when?
ChicagTao; when the tao te ching was written, sorry i'm getting ahead of myself
artalien; well, I don't care about ancient religious systems, so I should shut up.
ChicagTao; the tao is more of a philosophy than a religion
ChicagTao; it doesn't command fasts like buddhism does
ChicagTao; and that often passes for a philosophy
ChicagTao; here's a prof from alabama giving the goods vcas.wlu.edu/VRAS/2005/Pynn.pdf
ChicagTao; all it is is empathy, what rashi called the whole torah
artalien; what other tools do you have in your box, apart from reason?
ChicagTao; intuition
ChicagTao; reflex
ChicagTao; you know, muscle memory
ChicagTao; useless without reason
artalien; indeed
ChicagTao; but reason is quite evil without empathy
ChicagTao; "cold, cold eyes, upon me they stare..."
artalien; what do you mean by evil, very bad
ChicagTao; "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.—Samuel Johnson"
ChicagTao; ^ i mean this
ChicagTao; henry kissinger was smart... had no integrity
artalien; but weakness is beautiful, you said
ChicagTao; in my opinion, set peace talks back
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; it's certainly not dangerous or dreadful
ChicagTao; so i find it beautiful
artalien; weak and useless
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; like a piece of art
ChicagTao; a doodle
ChicagTao; more like it
ChicagTao; the first sounds a child says don't mean much, but the parents may cry
artalien; I dread being weak, since it makes me a danger to myself and my family
ChicagTao; how so?
artalien; we have opposing conceptions of weakness
ChicagTao; yes
artalien; If I am weak others take advantage. My family needs me to be strong.
ChicagTao; sun tzu - let your opponent move first, he will show his weakness
artalien; weakness is more terrible term to me that evil
artalien; *a
artalien; weakness is a more terrible term to me than evil
ChicagTao; do you like socrates?
artalien; Yes, what little I have of Plato.
ChicagTao; i would consider his method a type of utilization of weakness
artalien; how so?
ChicagTao; he would not simply first say what is wrong
ChicagTao; he would bend and give and let the other person lead
ChicagTao; until the truth was shown
artalien; no, he always seems to be leading
artalien; he is the puppeteer
artalien; pulling the strings
ChicagTao; yes that is why his weakness is not weak
ChicagTao; it is only thought weak by his pupil
artalien; shit, dude!
ChicagTao; to the untrained eye, he questions because he is stupid
artalien; that is probably why they killed him, he was stupid.
ChicagTao; "If you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them."
artalien; a follower is weak?
--;| GhostFrog has joined #philosophical
ChicagTao; yes
artalien; I cannot really make much sense of this conversation. That is as much my problem as it is yours, we are tied together in it.
artalien; what do you want to say to me, anything?
artalien; I want to say to you that reason is the base, weakness is not beautiful or to be desired.
ChicagTao; i would say i failed as a taoist
ChicagTao; i'm pushing you and that is causing you to resist
artalien; nope
artalien; ask me anything you like
ChicagTao; but even reason embraces caution, not jumping to conclusions... this is often seen as weak
artalien; defend weakness as beautiful, if you will
* GhostFrog nods
ChicagTao; The first sounds a child says don't mean much, but the parents may cry. "Because he has given up helping, he is people's greatest help."
ChicagTao; your muscles are weak before you work out, but with practice they become strong
ChicagTao; the cells you had before are added to the cells you have after
GhostFrog; Creationists see Science's tendency to hedge their statements and conclusions with probabilities and buts as a weakness. It isn't, it's Science's strength.
artalien; that makes no sense to me CT, that of course does not mean it is senseless. Only that I cannot hear you.
ChicagTao; thank you ghostfrog
ChicagTao; point proven
GhostFrog; (have you seen a Creationist computer?)
artalien; so if I define caution as weakness it is then beautiful
artalien; wtf!
GhostFrog; why do you want to link caution with beauty or weakness????
artalien; I don't
GhostFrog; tfft
artalien; CT does
GhostFrog; did he?
artalien; oh yes
GhostFrog; I'm just butting in at the middle, so I didn't see that
ChicagTao; can a fruit have beauty? surely the most beautiful ones are the ones without the spikes
artalien; hehe
artalien; sorry
ChicagTao; it is not meant to be a unifying theory, it is only a mode of thought
GhostFrog; wait. so a gay punk with a mohican isn't as beautiful as one with a skin head?
ChicagTao; de gustibus non est disputandum
artalien googles what may be German, or Latin, or French
GhostFrog; on the whole, many eastern philosophical traditions see the reliance on reason of western traditions at the expense of other means of thought as a weakness, arty
GhostFrog; thought
ChicagTao; is it beautiful when an older brother lets his younger brother wrestle him to the ground and pretend he is powerful?
GhostFrog; "your taste is not in question", arty
* artalien "Latin maxim. It means “there is no disputing about tastes.”"
ChicagTao; yet here i am
ChicagTao; i am going off of the principle that pity brings out beauty
ChicagTao; that is simply an aesthetic choice of mine, but it would be a cruel world would it not exist
artalien; pity can bring about anger in the one pitied
GhostFrog; the more interesting point on this is how eastern thinking presages western discoveries about quantum mechanics, arty.
GhostFrog; western thinking to a very large degree remains stuck in the classical, newtonian, paraigm.
GhostFrog; paradigm.
ChicagTao; GhostFrog - quantum mechanics is one of the only ways we are exposed to eastern sounding ideas like paradoxical truths (schrodinger's cat)
GhostFrog; to *really* get qm, you need a bit of eastern thinking!
artalien; qm is a closed door to me. I have no desire to open it (yet). This rules me out of this.
ChicagTao; yes yes... pity can make people mad
* artalien afk
ChicagTao; but those people aren't beautiful to me
ChicagTao; "Love and art do not embrace what is beautiful but what is made beautiful by this embrace" - Karl Kraus
ChicagTao; am I being too pedantic?
Mnemomeme; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLNlSKugHw
GhostFrog; perhaps he is expressing his taste rather than a profound philosophical point, ChicagTao
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; well loving what i think is probably my downfall, it puts the logic behind the ideas into a stricly aesthetic paradigm
ChicagTao; it makes me want to stop talking about taoism
ChicagTao; *pout* i am weak
ChicagTao; :D
GhostFrog; Is that news, Mnemomeme ? It has always baffled me why *anyone* would put their lives up on such a site.
GhostFrog; but then, we old frogslearnt these privacy lessons back in the early days pre browsers etc
ChicagTao; i use facebook for philosophy, that's about it
ChicagTao; no personal data
ChicagTao; does the cia want to know about my theories on antonio gramsci? probably not.
GhostFrog; yes. so they can tag you as a potential terrorist when they discover you're living on top of an oil field.
artalien; They don't have to search or "invade" my privacy, with a door step interview, I give them what they need. Information is a great way to have power over the subject, of such information.
ChicagTao; i can feel the fight or flight response right now
ChicagTao; the fight is this: hey cia! bring it on! facebook is milliions of users strong!
ChicagTao; flight is this: omg, guvvment gonna take mahh bayyyybeee!
artalien; How can I serve you if I don't know what you need ------- justification
ChicagTao; hide yo wife
GhostFrog; and what of the space outside of that, ChicagTao ? the space of satire, parody, cynical humour?
GhostFrog; arty, no bee knows enough, but the swarm does.
artalien; you want "security", then I must gather information on possible threats ---- justification
ChicagTao; ahh, that is simply faking a threat to make defense mechanisms feel real
ChicagTao; see: colbert report "threat down!"
artalien; in a word, control.
ChicagTao; yes, humor requires mastery over people's expectations
ChicagTao; the laughter is the rejection of the fight response
ChicagTao; true laughter stops fear in its tracks
ChicagTao; for you
ChicagTao; if the joker has tied you up, his laugh might not feel too good
ChicagTao; the joker would love to laugh at batman because that is his greatest fear
ChicagTao; too bad wesley willis beat him to it
artalien; reason allows me to overcome my, "fight or flight" response. Humour is anything which makes me laugh. I can laugh in the face of danger. It won't make the tiger go away.
ChicagTao; never said laughter is superman
ChicagTao; might help you with your heart, but the tiger's just gonna eat that too
artalien; it can make me feel less afraid perhaps, but when in fear, it is hard to be, or register, humour.
ChicagTao; why would you say that is?
ChicagTao; is your brain saving all the dopamine for the first bite?
artalien; when I have been afraid, it is like a loop, it can be a paralysing feeling.
ChicagTao; and humor requires a certain flexibility
Ap4ch3; you live in scotland, i can understand that :P ... i'm jokin :)
ChicagTao; who wants to see things as they aren't when a tiger is staring them in the face?
ChicagTao; unless it is you standing over the tiger, victorious
|-- GhostFrog has left undernet (Ping timeout)
Mnemomeme; everything doesn't need to be about dominance
Mnemomeme; you could rise above that animal, if you wanted
--;| GhostFrog #philosophical
ChicagTao; couldn't have said it better myself, master M
Mnemomeme; mornin ghostfrawg
|-- glitch_ has left undernet (Ping timeout)
ChicagTao; ;)
Mnemomeme; Tao, you are using the metaphor to identify an irony that isn't present
ChicagTao; yes, i'm being a douche
Mnemomeme; I knew before I said it that you would react that way
ChicagTao; happy to have your trust
artalien; I confess to slight distaste for you ideas CT.
Mnemomeme; so infact, I am responseible (sic) for your actions, because you are easy to manipulate and I intentionally caused you to behave that way
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; i am like a clock you have wound up
Mnemomeme; quite
ChicagTao; scary
Mnemomeme; if I wanted it to stay that way, I wouldn't play these games with you
ChicagTao; goes quite against my humanist ideals
artalien; they are anti religion, I looked them up. Waste of time.
Mnemomeme; the more aware of it I can make you, the more likely you'll develop self-control
ChicagTao; the more i submit, the more power you gain
Mnemomeme; submission and dominance aren't the nature of everything
Mnemomeme; that's the animal talking
ChicagTao; what, do you want me to call you an asshole?
Mnemomeme; well, I am an asshole. There is no shame in the truth.
ChicagTao; ah
ChicagTao; at least you admit it
ChicagTao; there are plenty still in the dark even to themselves
ChicagTao; sad and funny at the same time
ChicagTao; slightly unsettling when powerful
Mnemomeme; What an asshole is, is not judged by individuals, it's a societal standard, and society gears all standards away from self control.
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; noam chomsky is an asshole
ChicagTao; my favorite
ChicagTao; i like his shit
Mnemomeme; Do you actually study Taoism?
ChicagTao; in soviet russia, taoism studies me
Mnemomeme; So, no.
ChicagTao; what is studying taoism
ChicagTao; i read it
ChicagTao; i practiced it before i knew what it was or believed in god
Mnemomeme; You look at it, but do you really read it?
ChicagTao; as best i can
ChicagTao; i'm a sinner you know, a no good sinner
Mnemomeme; Have you heard of the right and left hand paths?
GhostFrog; mornin Mnemomeme
ChicagTao; push me to be consistent and i will break down in tears
Mnemomeme; o/
ChicagTao; no
ChicagTao; don't worry, i trust your judgment
ChicagTao; and there is always the little X button
Mnemomeme; The right hand path is that of the sheep, the follower, he who believes that ultimate truth comes from outside the self. The right hand path looks inward to find the truth.
Mnemomeme; oops
Mnemomeme; left is the second one
Mnemomeme; left hand path
Mnemomeme; left looks inward
ChicagTao; isaac and esau?
Mnemomeme; off the top of my head I can't remember that fable
GhostFrog; Isn't that more one of bumbling idiocy vs avarice and greed?
ChicagTao; isaac is very meditatative, raises two sons... jacob and esau
ChicagTao; tries to give the birthright to one but jacob steals it
GhostFrog; yup
ChicagTao; this is off the top of my head too its 4 am i could have the names wrong
Mnemomeme; the bible is a right-handed guidebook of how to be a proper sheeple
ChicagTao; yes
GhostFrog; esau was robbed.
GhostFrog; but then, he was a bumbling fool.
ChicagTao; it is taoism with a penis
Mnemomeme; A Brahamin (sic) is a Taoist monk, right?
ChicagTao; hmmm
Mnemomeme; Abrahamin is a Taoist mon, right?
ChicagTao; what does google say
ChicagTao; abraham was schizo
Mnemomeme; Abrahamin
ChicagTao; he reminds me of the story of the wandering greek cynic looking for an honest man
ChicagTao; ah
ChicagTao; brahamin is hindu
Mnemomeme; he followed the path of the dragon
Mnemomeme; it went west
Mnemomeme; so he went west
ChicagTao; yeah he was supposed to be the michael jordan of the torah in school
ChicagTao; never could identify with a guy that miserable
Mnemomeme; which is quite ironic, considering he was a Taoist
Mnemomeme; almost everything about the guy is ironic
ChicagTao; well remember this is in my highly idealistic school days where i was yelled at by shellshocked israeli nationals
Mnemomeme; Are you from Israel?
ChicagTao; SHLOMO STOP DRAWING AND LISTEN!
ChicagTao; no chicago
ChicagTao; we imported
Mnemomeme; Then why were you studying under Israelis?
ChicagTao; to learn the accent, to love the great holy state of israel, praise netanyahu!
ChicagTao; he is our glorious leader in these trying times
ChicagTao; i was atheist and the torah meant as much to me as the back of a cereal box
Mnemomeme; jews are why christianity doesn't claim the world was created in 1883
ChicagTao; the only story i really liked was saul/samuel because it was clear these guys were in over their head
Mnemomeme; I'm not very good with names
ChicagTao; and y'know, they had lots of power
Mnemomeme; I've read the bible half a dozen times, but being as bad with names as I am, referencing names like that leaves me standing around wondering what you're talking about
ChicagTao; saul is the father of ish-boseth, who david overthrew to gain power
Mnemomeme; which david, there's like five of them
ChicagTao; hmm idk, to be honest right now i've only got the creation myth lighting up in my head
ChicagTao; it will be really interesting to take a higher biblical criticism approach and see who likes the taoist parts of the torah
Mnemomeme; odd approach
Mnemomeme; I don't see a constructive purpose behind it
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; i don't either
ChicagTao; i like to be surprised
ChicagTao; my creative drive does because it can
ChicagTao; nihilist in most respects still
ChicagTao; i don't know if i explained that part to you before.... seeing the the anti-totalitarianism around me caused me to question my self in a very bakunin kind of way
ChicagTao; but enough post modern gibberish
ChicagTao; what's it matter what the bible writers thought anyway
arcus; anti-totilitarianism?
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; anti-school, anti-god, anti-parents...
Mnemomeme; when you make references to names, you really might as well be speaking swahili
Mnemomeme; I'm that profoundly incapable of understanding the point
ChicagTao; put it this way
arcus; ChicagTao: you mean: people who have a problem with authority :]
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; bakunin was an anarchist
Mnemomeme; doubtful
ChicagTao; the russian kind
ChicagTao; anywayy
Mnemomeme; then he wasn't an anarchist, he was a subversive
ChicagTao; their thoughts were so unconscionable to me, i assumed they ignored their conscience
arcus; hi, Mnemomeme
Mnemomeme; hi arcus :)
ChicagTao; if i'm not mistaken he was exiled to siberia
Mnemomeme; that's like being put into the KGB's witness protection program
Mnemomeme; they tell everyone you're in siberia, when you're realy in Palm Beach
ChicagTao; ah well, he grew up rich, of course he's going to be a big phoney
ChicagTao; just with a fire in his belly
ChicagTao; chomsky loves the guy, he seems to be chomsky's go to asshole
ChicagTao; surely you know chomsky master m?
Mnemomeme; you're doing it again
Mnemomeme; nope
Mnemomeme; I don't know names at all
GhostFrog; mornin arkoo
Mnemomeme; I live in a world where names are meaningless
arcus; hi, GhostFrog
ChicagTao; oh right
ChicagTao; animist wyrdism?
* Mnemomeme chuckles
ChicagTao; :)
GhostFrog; the question under the clutter is the role of reason in philosophy - or rather the relative weight given it in the west compared with the east
Mnemomeme; "Name that pidgeonhole"
ChicagTao; yes, master m... hook line and
arcus; thinker?
ChicagTao; ghostfrog - well put dood
GhostFrog; thank heavens for boxom blondes with lisps, huh, arkoo.
ChicagTao; there's a baseball diamond by my house called "Thillen's Stadium"
ChicagTao; and my dad asks his friend how to pronounce it
ChicagTao; "Is it THHHHHillens or TTTTTTTTTThillens?"
ChicagTao; his friend replies: "It's TTTTThillens.... I tink"
Mnemomeme; I wonder why names are so damned important to you
ChicagTao; because once i can name everything, they will go away
ChicagTao; and become one
ChicagTao; like the notes of a scale harmonizing
Mnemomeme; the genesis story attempts, failingly, to point out that god created stuff, and let man go about the frivolous work of naming it all
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; god named it with his eyes
Mnemomeme; no
ChicagTao; yes
Mnemomeme; no
ChicagTao; "and he SAW that it was GOOD"
ChicagTao; now maybe its all bullshit, but thats how the text goes
Mnemomeme; that wasn't written in a language where "saw" meant "looked at with his eyes"
arcus; it also doesn't imply he named anything
arcus; realising that something is good doesn't require naming
ChicagTao; he called it good
arcus; when?
Mnemomeme; he didn't call it anything
arcus; exactly.
arcus; my cat relising the new catfood is good doesn't require my cat to name anything.
ChicagTao; he didn't have to name it, it was a part of his spirit
arcus; 'he tasted that it was good'
ChicagTao; his level of consciousness is not the same as ours... we require naming things to sort through them
arcus; it would be strange to say my cat 'named it with her tongue' :]
Mnemomeme; we don't require it
Mnemomeme; it's convenient for a specific mode of operation, it isn't necessary
arcus; sometimes we require it. I don't think you can think about 'thursday week' without some kind of symbolic language.
ChicagTao; it isn't necessary to walk upright either
arcus; maybe it doesn't have to be a language per se
Mnemomeme; 'thursday week' doesn't mean anything even WITH a name
Mnemomeme; and therein lies the problem
arcus; are you not familiar with that expression?
Mnemomeme; rhetoric doesn't have to contain meaning, and names are the least meaningful aspect of rhetoric
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; names, like i said before, are the mailman. they did not make the newspaper.
Mnemomeme; they aren't even that
Mnemomeme; they're extraneous memorization of facts that overlays, and often obscures, the message
ChicagTao; true
artalien; Ghosty, how do you come to your reading of this conversation as the role of reason in philosophy, or the relative weight given to it, by different philosophical cultures. I thought the conversation was firstly about, what concepts mean: weakness. hm,
ChicagTao; so maybe my whole quest to name everything is just shifting stuff around in my head giving me the illusion of becoming more knoledgable
Mnemomeme; fill it up
Mnemomeme; leave no stone unnamed
Mnemomeme; name every pebble of sand in the ocean if you like
ChicagTao; naming is natural at the end of creation
ChicagTao; don't do it before or you'll spoil it
* Mnemomeme raises an eyebrow
ChicagTao; a name can add meaning just as it can take away
ChicagTao; it can never encapsulate the whole
Mnemomeme; no it can't
ChicagTao; but it can suggest it
Mnemomeme; offer an example of a name adding meaning
ChicagTao; i am named after my great grandfather
Mnemomeme; so?
ChicagTao; i find meaning in the tradition
arcus; great granddady ChicagTao
ChicagTao; yep
Mnemomeme; if your great grandfather's name was cupcake, it would be the same meaning. The name isn't what gives the meaning
ChicagTao; ah okay
ChicagTao; say no more
ChicagTao; ""We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want."
Mnemomeme; sure, something like that
Mnemomeme; even so, it can be a pot, a bowl, a cup, a barrel, a house, a boat, or any other vessel
Mnemomeme; a name is, by itself, utterly meaningless
Mnemomeme; infact, it's an operand
Mnemomeme; it's the letters in algebra
ChicagTao; if you look at my archives of electronica music i composed, i named it A1, A2, A3.... z1, z2, z3
Mnemomeme; a stand-in that only has value in context
ChicagTao; usually i would pick a random letter for whatever mood i was feeling and then stay on that for a few weeks
ChicagTao; how is that for algebra
Mnemomeme; what does "+" mean?
Mnemomeme; Amy + Charles; 4+7; Nihilism + Depression
artalien; I see words as the sounds that accompany my pointing to x.
ChicagTao; we're coming closer... + means forget these two things and remember what they are together
Mnemomeme; + is significant of a relationship, yeah, it says "together"
ChicagTao; well atoms connect through electrons
Mnemomeme; "four together four identifies eight" --- this is unwieldy
ChicagTao; why shouldn't numbers have the same privilege
ChicagTao; with repetition, the name grows into itself
Mnemomeme; that's advertising technique, not meaning
ChicagTao; meaning is subjective, as is seeing a reebok commercial
Mnemomeme; HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric!
ChicagTao; hmm... i think to improve my rhetoric, i need head on!
ChicagTao; can you head on too?
ChicagTao; let's all head on
Mnemomeme; What is communication?
=-= Mode #philosophical +l 37 by X
ChicagTao; you got me
ChicagTao; ;)
Mnemomeme; How is communication different from propaganda?
ChicagTao; communication could all be an illusion
ChicagTao; hmm... these words are so intertwined in my mind i can't differentiate them easily
Mnemomeme; the hive hates it when I do this skit
Mnemomeme; expect disruption
Mnemomeme; I'll give you a helping hint. Communication is a subset of the greater set that is propaganda
ChicagTao; a wyrdist i would think would have quite a hard time taking a normal definition of communication
Mnemomeme; Communication has extra rules that propaganda doesn't have
ChicagTao; qed
ChicagTao; communication is coercive according to the french socialist proudhon
Mnemomeme; names again
ChicagTao; names are handy, don't diss names
ChicagTao; every word is a name
Mnemomeme; every, is, a?
ChicagTao; you're being pedantic about this wyrdism stuff to no good end
ChicagTao; as i am about my taoism
Mnemomeme; I haven't even touched the wyrd today, you're chasing ghosts like a cat on hallucinogens
ChicagTao; the name has a tail for a name and many mouths - associations... put out the right food and you're begging for a bite.
Mnemomeme; The difference between propaganda and communication is simply that communication requires feedback in order to be successful. Propaganda does not carry specific meaning ro a specific audience, communication does.
ChicagTao; perhaps your name has less mouths, but that requires you to ease up, or me to stiffen
Wilf; the swans fly high over the land of Vesta
Wilf; it is that was yet is not that which may be
GhostFrog; then why is the swan on my box of vesta's sitting down?
Wilf; bs is like the glimmer of the sun on the waters of time
Wilf; GhostFrog it is resting
GhostFrog; ahhhh
GhostFrog; it's been resting for a very very long time
ChicagTao; bs is the bait for the hungry truth seeker, the noose to the cynic, the great trap of a con artist
Wilf; that is because you are not one with its wings
GhostFrog; I seeeeeeeeeeeee
Wilf; ChicagTao I met monks in China. they are as full of that which in the west is termed crap as the well of life is with lost souls
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; they are called rabbis in america
Wilf; no they are called those of dead brains that post forth shit
ChicagTao; same dif
ChicagTao; you say tomata
ChicagTao; i say tomata
ChicagTao; like master M says, the name isn't the most meaningful thing anyway
ChicagTao; we are discussing an archetype
Wilf; no I say you are to ignore land because you have yet to post anything interesting.
Wilf; so much for that. two fillings makes me cranky and impatient
ChicagTao; yeah
ChicagTao; am i my brother's keeper?
arcus; are you saying you've killed someone?
arcus; what have you done with Mnemomeme?!
* arcus rushes around in a mad panic, looking under desks and chairs
ChicagTao; no i'm stalling so i can find a kierkegaard quote
* Mnemomeme drops down from the safety of the rafters
ChicagTao; "I begin with the principle that all men are bores. Surely no one will prove himself so great a bore as to contradict me in this. "
arcus; *phew*
arcus; I thought ChicagTao had killed you and buried you in a shallow river-side grave, Mnemomeme
ChicagTao; no, i don't drink that much
Mnemomeme; nah, he's too dense to defeat me
ChicagTao; probably right master m
Mnemomeme; ;)
ChicagTao; i'm more of a isaac than an esau
ChicagTao; blind and tricked
* Mnemomeme scribbles a note "sentences are getting shorter and choppier, losing coherence"
ChicagTao; off to room 101 with me
ChicagTao; then i shall rebell
ChicagTao; speak of it and you know less
ChicagTao; i'll be dumb as a doornail at this rate
ChicagTao; daiiiisyyyy...... daiiiisyyyyyy....
ChicagTao; well i'm only using him to illustrate a point
artalien; I may be wrong but this is all about religion (again)
ChicagTao; "The first principle guideline, if you like, is that we ought to, I will try and I think that we should, bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States government whenever it's possible. So, that if there is any dispute about how to interpret something, we will assume they're right."
ChicagTao; http://www.chomsky.info/talks/200202--02.htm
ChicagTao; "weakness" was not back then what we would in the vulgar sense call weak
artalien; back when?
ChicagTao; when the tao te ching was written, sorry i'm getting ahead of myself
artalien; well, I don't care about ancient religious systems, so I should shut up.
ChicagTao; the tao is more of a philosophy than a religion
ChicagTao; it doesn't command fasts like buddhism does
ChicagTao; and that often passes for a philosophy
ChicagTao; here's a prof from alabama giving the goods vcas.wlu.edu/VRAS/2005/Pynn.pdf
ChicagTao; all it is is empathy, what rashi called the whole torah
artalien; what other tools do you have in your box, apart from reason?
ChicagTao; intuition
ChicagTao; reflex
ChicagTao; you know, muscle memory
ChicagTao; useless without reason
artalien; indeed
ChicagTao; but reason is quite evil without empathy
ChicagTao; "cold, cold eyes, upon me they stare..."
artalien; what do you mean by evil, very bad
ChicagTao; "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.—Samuel Johnson"
ChicagTao; ^ i mean this
ChicagTao; henry kissinger was smart... had no integrity
artalien; but weakness is beautiful, you said
ChicagTao; in my opinion, set peace talks back
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; it's certainly not dangerous or dreadful
ChicagTao; so i find it beautiful
artalien; weak and useless
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; like a piece of art
ChicagTao; a doodle
ChicagTao; more like it
ChicagTao; the first sounds a child says don't mean much, but the parents may cry
artalien; I dread being weak, since it makes me a danger to myself and my family
ChicagTao; how so?
artalien; we have opposing conceptions of weakness
ChicagTao; yes
artalien; If I am weak others take advantage. My family needs me to be strong.
ChicagTao; sun tzu - let your opponent move first, he will show his weakness
artalien; weakness is more terrible term to me that evil
artalien; *a
artalien; weakness is a more terrible term to me than evil
ChicagTao; do you like socrates?
artalien; Yes, what little I have of Plato.
ChicagTao; i would consider his method a type of utilization of weakness
artalien; how so?
ChicagTao; he would not simply first say what is wrong
ChicagTao; he would bend and give and let the other person lead
ChicagTao; until the truth was shown
artalien; no, he always seems to be leading
artalien; he is the puppeteer
artalien; pulling the strings
ChicagTao; yes that is why his weakness is not weak
ChicagTao; it is only thought weak by his pupil
artalien; shit, dude!
ChicagTao; to the untrained eye, he questions because he is stupid
artalien; that is probably why they killed him, he was stupid.
ChicagTao; "If you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them."
artalien; a follower is weak?
--;| GhostFrog has joined #philosophical
ChicagTao; yes
artalien; I cannot really make much sense of this conversation. That is as much my problem as it is yours, we are tied together in it.
artalien; what do you want to say to me, anything?
artalien; I want to say to you that reason is the base, weakness is not beautiful or to be desired.
ChicagTao; i would say i failed as a taoist
ChicagTao; i'm pushing you and that is causing you to resist
artalien; nope
artalien; ask me anything you like
ChicagTao; but even reason embraces caution, not jumping to conclusions... this is often seen as weak
artalien; defend weakness as beautiful, if you will
* GhostFrog nods
ChicagTao; The first sounds a child says don't mean much, but the parents may cry. "Because he has given up helping, he is people's greatest help."
ChicagTao; your muscles are weak before you work out, but with practice they become strong
ChicagTao; the cells you had before are added to the cells you have after
GhostFrog; Creationists see Science's tendency to hedge their statements and conclusions with probabilities and buts as a weakness. It isn't, it's Science's strength.
artalien; that makes no sense to me CT, that of course does not mean it is senseless. Only that I cannot hear you.
ChicagTao; thank you ghostfrog
ChicagTao; point proven
GhostFrog; (have you seen a Creationist computer?)
artalien; so if I define caution as weakness it is then beautiful
artalien; wtf!
GhostFrog; why do you want to link caution with beauty or weakness????
artalien; I don't
GhostFrog; tfft
artalien; CT does
GhostFrog; did he?
artalien; oh yes
GhostFrog; I'm just butting in at the middle, so I didn't see that
ChicagTao; can a fruit have beauty? surely the most beautiful ones are the ones without the spikes
artalien; hehe
artalien; sorry
ChicagTao; it is not meant to be a unifying theory, it is only a mode of thought
GhostFrog; wait. so a gay punk with a mohican isn't as beautiful as one with a skin head?
ChicagTao; de gustibus non est disputandum
artalien googles what may be German, or Latin, or French
GhostFrog; on the whole, many eastern philosophical traditions see the reliance on reason of western traditions at the expense of other means of thought as a weakness, arty
GhostFrog; thought
ChicagTao; is it beautiful when an older brother lets his younger brother wrestle him to the ground and pretend he is powerful?
GhostFrog; "your taste is not in question", arty
* artalien "Latin maxim. It means “there is no disputing about tastes.”"
ChicagTao; yet here i am
ChicagTao; i am going off of the principle that pity brings out beauty
ChicagTao; that is simply an aesthetic choice of mine, but it would be a cruel world would it not exist
artalien; pity can bring about anger in the one pitied
GhostFrog; the more interesting point on this is how eastern thinking presages western discoveries about quantum mechanics, arty.
GhostFrog; western thinking to a very large degree remains stuck in the classical, newtonian, paraigm.
GhostFrog; paradigm.
ChicagTao; GhostFrog - quantum mechanics is one of the only ways we are exposed to eastern sounding ideas like paradoxical truths (schrodinger's cat)
GhostFrog; to *really* get qm, you need a bit of eastern thinking!
artalien; qm is a closed door to me. I have no desire to open it (yet). This rules me out of this.
ChicagTao; yes yes... pity can make people mad
* artalien afk
ChicagTao; but those people aren't beautiful to me
ChicagTao; "Love and art do not embrace what is beautiful but what is made beautiful by this embrace" - Karl Kraus
ChicagTao; am I being too pedantic?
Mnemomeme; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLNlSKugHw
GhostFrog; perhaps he is expressing his taste rather than a profound philosophical point, ChicagTao
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; well loving what i think is probably my downfall, it puts the logic behind the ideas into a stricly aesthetic paradigm
ChicagTao; it makes me want to stop talking about taoism
ChicagTao; *pout* i am weak
ChicagTao; :D
GhostFrog; Is that news, Mnemomeme ? It has always baffled me why *anyone* would put their lives up on such a site.
GhostFrog; but then, we old frogslearnt these privacy lessons back in the early days pre browsers etc
ChicagTao; i use facebook for philosophy, that's about it
ChicagTao; no personal data
ChicagTao; does the cia want to know about my theories on antonio gramsci? probably not.
GhostFrog; yes. so they can tag you as a potential terrorist when they discover you're living on top of an oil field.
artalien; They don't have to search or "invade" my privacy, with a door step interview, I give them what they need. Information is a great way to have power over the subject, of such information.
ChicagTao; i can feel the fight or flight response right now
ChicagTao; the fight is this: hey cia! bring it on! facebook is milliions of users strong!
ChicagTao; flight is this: omg, guvvment gonna take mahh bayyyybeee!
artalien; How can I serve you if I don't know what you need ------- justification
ChicagTao; hide yo wife
GhostFrog; and what of the space outside of that, ChicagTao ? the space of satire, parody, cynical humour?
GhostFrog; arty, no bee knows enough, but the swarm does.
artalien; you want "security", then I must gather information on possible threats ---- justification
ChicagTao; ahh, that is simply faking a threat to make defense mechanisms feel real
ChicagTao; see: colbert report "threat down!"
artalien; in a word, control.
ChicagTao; yes, humor requires mastery over people's expectations
ChicagTao; the laughter is the rejection of the fight response
ChicagTao; true laughter stops fear in its tracks
ChicagTao; for you
ChicagTao; if the joker has tied you up, his laugh might not feel too good
ChicagTao; the joker would love to laugh at batman because that is his greatest fear
ChicagTao; too bad wesley willis beat him to it
artalien; reason allows me to overcome my, "fight or flight" response. Humour is anything which makes me laugh. I can laugh in the face of danger. It won't make the tiger go away.
ChicagTao; never said laughter is superman
ChicagTao; might help you with your heart, but the tiger's just gonna eat that too
artalien; it can make me feel less afraid perhaps, but when in fear, it is hard to be, or register, humour.
ChicagTao; why would you say that is?
ChicagTao; is your brain saving all the dopamine for the first bite?
artalien; when I have been afraid, it is like a loop, it can be a paralysing feeling.
ChicagTao; and humor requires a certain flexibility
Ap4ch3; you live in scotland, i can understand that :P ... i'm jokin :)
ChicagTao; who wants to see things as they aren't when a tiger is staring them in the face?
ChicagTao; unless it is you standing over the tiger, victorious
|-- GhostFrog has left undernet (Ping timeout)
Mnemomeme; everything doesn't need to be about dominance
Mnemomeme; you could rise above that animal, if you wanted
--;| GhostFrog #philosophical
ChicagTao; couldn't have said it better myself, master M
Mnemomeme; mornin ghostfrawg
|-- glitch_ has left undernet (Ping timeout)
ChicagTao; ;)
Mnemomeme; Tao, you are using the metaphor to identify an irony that isn't present
ChicagTao; yes, i'm being a douche
Mnemomeme; I knew before I said it that you would react that way
ChicagTao; happy to have your trust
artalien; I confess to slight distaste for you ideas CT.
Mnemomeme; so infact, I am responseible (sic) for your actions, because you are easy to manipulate and I intentionally caused you to behave that way
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; i am like a clock you have wound up
Mnemomeme; quite
ChicagTao; scary
Mnemomeme; if I wanted it to stay that way, I wouldn't play these games with you
ChicagTao; goes quite against my humanist ideals
artalien; they are anti religion, I looked them up. Waste of time.
Mnemomeme; the more aware of it I can make you, the more likely you'll develop self-control
ChicagTao; the more i submit, the more power you gain
Mnemomeme; submission and dominance aren't the nature of everything
Mnemomeme; that's the animal talking
ChicagTao; what, do you want me to call you an asshole?
Mnemomeme; well, I am an asshole. There is no shame in the truth.
ChicagTao; ah
ChicagTao; at least you admit it
ChicagTao; there are plenty still in the dark even to themselves
ChicagTao; sad and funny at the same time
ChicagTao; slightly unsettling when powerful
Mnemomeme; What an asshole is, is not judged by individuals, it's a societal standard, and society gears all standards away from self control.
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; noam chomsky is an asshole
ChicagTao; my favorite
ChicagTao; i like his shit
Mnemomeme; Do you actually study Taoism?
ChicagTao; in soviet russia, taoism studies me
Mnemomeme; So, no.
ChicagTao; what is studying taoism
ChicagTao; i read it
ChicagTao; i practiced it before i knew what it was or believed in god
Mnemomeme; You look at it, but do you really read it?
ChicagTao; as best i can
ChicagTao; i'm a sinner you know, a no good sinner
Mnemomeme; Have you heard of the right and left hand paths?
GhostFrog; mornin Mnemomeme
ChicagTao; push me to be consistent and i will break down in tears
Mnemomeme; o/
ChicagTao; no
ChicagTao; don't worry, i trust your judgment
ChicagTao; and there is always the little X button
Mnemomeme; The right hand path is that of the sheep, the follower, he who believes that ultimate truth comes from outside the self. The right hand path looks inward to find the truth.
Mnemomeme; oops
Mnemomeme; left is the second one
Mnemomeme; left hand path
Mnemomeme; left looks inward
ChicagTao; isaac and esau?
Mnemomeme; off the top of my head I can't remember that fable
GhostFrog; Isn't that more one of bumbling idiocy vs avarice and greed?
ChicagTao; isaac is very meditatative, raises two sons... jacob and esau
ChicagTao; tries to give the birthright to one but jacob steals it
GhostFrog; yup
ChicagTao; this is off the top of my head too its 4 am i could have the names wrong
Mnemomeme; the bible is a right-handed guidebook of how to be a proper sheeple
ChicagTao; yes
GhostFrog; esau was robbed.
GhostFrog; but then, he was a bumbling fool.
ChicagTao; it is taoism with a penis
Mnemomeme; A Brahamin (sic) is a Taoist monk, right?
ChicagTao; hmmm
Mnemomeme; Abrahamin is a Taoist mon, right?
ChicagTao; what does google say
ChicagTao; abraham was schizo
Mnemomeme; Abrahamin
ChicagTao; he reminds me of the story of the wandering greek cynic looking for an honest man
ChicagTao; ah
ChicagTao; brahamin is hindu
Mnemomeme; he followed the path of the dragon
Mnemomeme; it went west
Mnemomeme; so he went west
ChicagTao; yeah he was supposed to be the michael jordan of the torah in school
ChicagTao; never could identify with a guy that miserable
Mnemomeme; which is quite ironic, considering he was a Taoist
Mnemomeme; almost everything about the guy is ironic
ChicagTao; well remember this is in my highly idealistic school days where i was yelled at by shellshocked israeli nationals
Mnemomeme; Are you from Israel?
ChicagTao; SHLOMO STOP DRAWING AND LISTEN!
ChicagTao; no chicago
ChicagTao; we imported
Mnemomeme; Then why were you studying under Israelis?
ChicagTao; to learn the accent, to love the great holy state of israel, praise netanyahu!
ChicagTao; he is our glorious leader in these trying times
ChicagTao; i was atheist and the torah meant as much to me as the back of a cereal box
Mnemomeme; jews are why christianity doesn't claim the world was created in 1883
ChicagTao; the only story i really liked was saul/samuel because it was clear these guys were in over their head
Mnemomeme; I'm not very good with names
ChicagTao; and y'know, they had lots of power
Mnemomeme; I've read the bible half a dozen times, but being as bad with names as I am, referencing names like that leaves me standing around wondering what you're talking about
ChicagTao; saul is the father of ish-boseth, who david overthrew to gain power
Mnemomeme; which david, there's like five of them
ChicagTao; hmm idk, to be honest right now i've only got the creation myth lighting up in my head
ChicagTao; it will be really interesting to take a higher biblical criticism approach and see who likes the taoist parts of the torah
Mnemomeme; odd approach
Mnemomeme; I don't see a constructive purpose behind it
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; i don't either
ChicagTao; i like to be surprised
ChicagTao; my creative drive does because it can
ChicagTao; nihilist in most respects still
ChicagTao; i don't know if i explained that part to you before.... seeing the the anti-totalitarianism around me caused me to question my self in a very bakunin kind of way
ChicagTao; but enough post modern gibberish
ChicagTao; what's it matter what the bible writers thought anyway
arcus; anti-totilitarianism?
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; anti-school, anti-god, anti-parents...
Mnemomeme; when you make references to names, you really might as well be speaking swahili
Mnemomeme; I'm that profoundly incapable of understanding the point
ChicagTao; put it this way
arcus; ChicagTao: you mean: people who have a problem with authority :]
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; bakunin was an anarchist
Mnemomeme; doubtful
ChicagTao; the russian kind
ChicagTao; anywayy
Mnemomeme; then he wasn't an anarchist, he was a subversive
ChicagTao; their thoughts were so unconscionable to me, i assumed they ignored their conscience
arcus; hi, Mnemomeme
Mnemomeme; hi arcus :)
ChicagTao; if i'm not mistaken he was exiled to siberia
Mnemomeme; that's like being put into the KGB's witness protection program
Mnemomeme; they tell everyone you're in siberia, when you're realy in Palm Beach
ChicagTao; ah well, he grew up rich, of course he's going to be a big phoney
ChicagTao; just with a fire in his belly
ChicagTao; chomsky loves the guy, he seems to be chomsky's go to asshole
ChicagTao; surely you know chomsky master m?
Mnemomeme; you're doing it again
Mnemomeme; nope
Mnemomeme; I don't know names at all
GhostFrog; mornin arkoo
Mnemomeme; I live in a world where names are meaningless
arcus; hi, GhostFrog
ChicagTao; oh right
ChicagTao; animist wyrdism?
* Mnemomeme chuckles
ChicagTao; :)
GhostFrog; the question under the clutter is the role of reason in philosophy - or rather the relative weight given it in the west compared with the east
Mnemomeme; "Name that pidgeonhole"
ChicagTao; yes, master m... hook line and
arcus; thinker?
ChicagTao; ghostfrog - well put dood
GhostFrog; thank heavens for boxom blondes with lisps, huh, arkoo.
ChicagTao; there's a baseball diamond by my house called "Thillen's Stadium"
ChicagTao; and my dad asks his friend how to pronounce it
ChicagTao; "Is it THHHHHillens or TTTTTTTTTThillens?"
ChicagTao; his friend replies: "It's TTTTThillens.... I tink"
Mnemomeme; I wonder why names are so damned important to you
ChicagTao; because once i can name everything, they will go away
ChicagTao; and become one
ChicagTao; like the notes of a scale harmonizing
Mnemomeme; the genesis story attempts, failingly, to point out that god created stuff, and let man go about the frivolous work of naming it all
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; god named it with his eyes
Mnemomeme; no
ChicagTao; yes
Mnemomeme; no
ChicagTao; "and he SAW that it was GOOD"
ChicagTao; now maybe its all bullshit, but thats how the text goes
Mnemomeme; that wasn't written in a language where "saw" meant "looked at with his eyes"
arcus; it also doesn't imply he named anything
arcus; realising that something is good doesn't require naming
ChicagTao; he called it good
arcus; when?
Mnemomeme; he didn't call it anything
arcus; exactly.
arcus; my cat relising the new catfood is good doesn't require my cat to name anything.
ChicagTao; he didn't have to name it, it was a part of his spirit
arcus; 'he tasted that it was good'
ChicagTao; his level of consciousness is not the same as ours... we require naming things to sort through them
arcus; it would be strange to say my cat 'named it with her tongue' :]
Mnemomeme; we don't require it
Mnemomeme; it's convenient for a specific mode of operation, it isn't necessary
arcus; sometimes we require it. I don't think you can think about 'thursday week' without some kind of symbolic language.
ChicagTao; it isn't necessary to walk upright either
arcus; maybe it doesn't have to be a language per se
Mnemomeme; 'thursday week' doesn't mean anything even WITH a name
Mnemomeme; and therein lies the problem
arcus; are you not familiar with that expression?
Mnemomeme; rhetoric doesn't have to contain meaning, and names are the least meaningful aspect of rhetoric
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; names, like i said before, are the mailman. they did not make the newspaper.
Mnemomeme; they aren't even that
Mnemomeme; they're extraneous memorization of facts that overlays, and often obscures, the message
ChicagTao; true
artalien; Ghosty, how do you come to your reading of this conversation as the role of reason in philosophy, or the relative weight given to it, by different philosophical cultures. I thought the conversation was firstly about, what concepts mean: weakness. hm,
ChicagTao; so maybe my whole quest to name everything is just shifting stuff around in my head giving me the illusion of becoming more knoledgable
Mnemomeme; fill it up
Mnemomeme; leave no stone unnamed
Mnemomeme; name every pebble of sand in the ocean if you like
ChicagTao; naming is natural at the end of creation
ChicagTao; don't do it before or you'll spoil it
* Mnemomeme raises an eyebrow
ChicagTao; a name can add meaning just as it can take away
ChicagTao; it can never encapsulate the whole
Mnemomeme; no it can't
ChicagTao; but it can suggest it
Mnemomeme; offer an example of a name adding meaning
ChicagTao; i am named after my great grandfather
Mnemomeme; so?
ChicagTao; i find meaning in the tradition
arcus; great granddady ChicagTao
ChicagTao; yep
Mnemomeme; if your great grandfather's name was cupcake, it would be the same meaning. The name isn't what gives the meaning
ChicagTao; ah okay
ChicagTao; say no more
ChicagTao; ""We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want."
Mnemomeme; sure, something like that
Mnemomeme; even so, it can be a pot, a bowl, a cup, a barrel, a house, a boat, or any other vessel
Mnemomeme; a name is, by itself, utterly meaningless
Mnemomeme; infact, it's an operand
Mnemomeme; it's the letters in algebra
ChicagTao; if you look at my archives of electronica music i composed, i named it A1, A2, A3.... z1, z2, z3
Mnemomeme; a stand-in that only has value in context
ChicagTao; usually i would pick a random letter for whatever mood i was feeling and then stay on that for a few weeks
ChicagTao; how is that for algebra
Mnemomeme; what does "+" mean?
Mnemomeme; Amy + Charles; 4+7; Nihilism + Depression
artalien; I see words as the sounds that accompany my pointing to x.
ChicagTao; we're coming closer... + means forget these two things and remember what they are together
Mnemomeme; + is significant of a relationship, yeah, it says "together"
ChicagTao; well atoms connect through electrons
Mnemomeme; "four together four identifies eight" --- this is unwieldy
ChicagTao; why shouldn't numbers have the same privilege
ChicagTao; with repetition, the name grows into itself
Mnemomeme; that's advertising technique, not meaning
ChicagTao; meaning is subjective, as is seeing a reebok commercial
Mnemomeme; HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric! HeadOn! Apply directly to the rhetoric!
ChicagTao; hmm... i think to improve my rhetoric, i need head on!
ChicagTao; can you head on too?
ChicagTao; let's all head on
Mnemomeme; What is communication?
=-= Mode #philosophical +l 37 by X
ChicagTao; you got me
ChicagTao; ;)
Mnemomeme; How is communication different from propaganda?
ChicagTao; communication could all be an illusion
ChicagTao; hmm... these words are so intertwined in my mind i can't differentiate them easily
Mnemomeme; the hive hates it when I do this skit
Mnemomeme; expect disruption
Mnemomeme; I'll give you a helping hint. Communication is a subset of the greater set that is propaganda
ChicagTao; a wyrdist i would think would have quite a hard time taking a normal definition of communication
Mnemomeme; Communication has extra rules that propaganda doesn't have
ChicagTao; qed
ChicagTao; communication is coercive according to the french socialist proudhon
Mnemomeme; names again
ChicagTao; names are handy, don't diss names
ChicagTao; every word is a name
Mnemomeme; every, is, a?
ChicagTao; you're being pedantic about this wyrdism stuff to no good end
ChicagTao; as i am about my taoism
Mnemomeme; I haven't even touched the wyrd today, you're chasing ghosts like a cat on hallucinogens
ChicagTao; the name has a tail for a name and many mouths - associations... put out the right food and you're begging for a bite.
Mnemomeme; The difference between propaganda and communication is simply that communication requires feedback in order to be successful. Propaganda does not carry specific meaning ro a specific audience, communication does.
ChicagTao; perhaps your name has less mouths, but that requires you to ease up, or me to stiffen
Wilf; the swans fly high over the land of Vesta
Wilf; it is that was yet is not that which may be
GhostFrog; then why is the swan on my box of vesta's sitting down?
Wilf; bs is like the glimmer of the sun on the waters of time
Wilf; GhostFrog it is resting
GhostFrog; ahhhh
GhostFrog; it's been resting for a very very long time
ChicagTao; bs is the bait for the hungry truth seeker, the noose to the cynic, the great trap of a con artist
Wilf; that is because you are not one with its wings
GhostFrog; I seeeeeeeeeeeee
Wilf; ChicagTao I met monks in China. they are as full of that which in the west is termed crap as the well of life is with lost souls
ChicagTao; yes
ChicagTao; they are called rabbis in america
Wilf; no they are called those of dead brains that post forth shit
ChicagTao; same dif
ChicagTao; you say tomata
ChicagTao; i say tomata
ChicagTao; like master M says, the name isn't the most meaningful thing anyway
ChicagTao; we are discussing an archetype
Wilf; no I say you are to ignore land because you have yet to post anything interesting.
Wilf; so much for that. two fillings makes me cranky and impatient
ChicagTao; yeah
ChicagTao; am i my brother's keeper?
arcus; are you saying you've killed someone?
arcus; what have you done with Mnemomeme?!
* arcus rushes around in a mad panic, looking under desks and chairs
ChicagTao; no i'm stalling so i can find a kierkegaard quote
* Mnemomeme drops down from the safety of the rafters
ChicagTao; "I begin with the principle that all men are bores. Surely no one will prove himself so great a bore as to contradict me in this. "
arcus; *phew*
arcus; I thought ChicagTao had killed you and buried you in a shallow river-side grave, Mnemomeme
ChicagTao; no, i don't drink that much
Mnemomeme; nah, he's too dense to defeat me
ChicagTao; probably right master m
Mnemomeme; ;)
ChicagTao; i'm more of a isaac than an esau
ChicagTao; blind and tricked
* Mnemomeme scribbles a note "sentences are getting shorter and choppier, losing coherence"
ChicagTao; off to room 101 with me
ChicagTao; then i shall rebell
ChicagTao; speak of it and you know less
ChicagTao; i'll be dumb as a doornail at this rate
ChicagTao; daiiiisyyyy...... daiiiisyyyyyy....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
