August 05
There seems to be something in the airy at the moment that is drawing everyone (Victor Davis Hanson , Dr. Sanity , Gagdad Bob ) to thoughts of Cowboys. I think everyone sees the OK coral at the end of the street, and we all sense what measure of person it is that our Global Frontier Town needs as Sheriff, to make it come out right.
So to put my Too Sense in, I'll ante up one of my favorite westerns, "The Man who shot Liberty Valance".
I've recently heard it said that John Wayne & Jimmy Stewart's characters stand for the need to violate their codes in order to establish a new order. While on the surface I disagree with this, I will go so far as to say that they sensed that the literal rules of their code had reached their limit, the Horizontal guidelines were in conflict with the deeper Vertical Truths which their Codes embodied.
Victor Davis Hanson says "...Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, John Wayne played stoic Tom Doniphon who is willing to bushwhack the no-good Liberty Valance — if it means saving the bumbling lawyer Ransom Stoddard, whose law books are the proper civilized future of the imperiled town of Shinbone . Both Edwards and Doniphon accept the paradox that there is no future for the brutal defender of society once he has vanquished the savagery that threatened civilization."
To which I would add that there is no future for the brutal defender of society, if he doesn't realize that what may be a proper application of the Code when dealing with uncivilized savagery, would be a completely improper application of the code amongst less savage civilized disagreements. The fact that their concept of Justice is in fact not cast aside or broken, and in fact can be seen to survive in both Stoddard and Doniphon, is apparent by noting that neither before nor after the shooting of Liberty Valance, do either of them come to brutal acts of savagery over that most elemental of conflicts, their desire for the same women.
Jimmy Stewart's character, Ransom Stoddard, realized that his ideal of law and order could not be realized, would not ever be established amongst people, as long as prominent amongst those people there were allowed those who chose to abandon civil reason, and used force to get their way instead. That at some point Someone must put an end to the rabid Wolfman among them, in order to enable the society to establish a rule of justice and law.
The Code of John Wayne’s character, Tom Doniphan, normally demands an open face to face combat and non interference in another’s conflict. What he realizes, as Liberty draws his gun on Stewart who is feebly attempting to draw his own gun, is that by keeping to the Horizontally written rules of his code (whose point is after all to ensure proper behavior and fair play), and if he should not violate the Horizontal letter of his code by shooting Liberty Valance with a rifle from the shadows - without either of the other two even realizing that he's there, then the Good and Fair man would be killed, and the Monster would prevail - the Vertical living truth would be sacrificed to the mere frozen Horizontal etching of rules.
I think that that Wayne's & Stewart's friendship for each other and their own sense of self respect, colliding with Valance, that monstrous speed bump of humanity, drives them Vertically upwards to the realization that their codes were made to serve an ethical life, not the other way around ("The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" - Mark 2:27).
Both Stoddard and Doniphon crash into the fences of their ethical codes, they recognize the Horizontal limitations of them, and have the courage to reach up into the Vertical, to brave the conceptual fears inherent in bringing your soul into contact with the living Conceptual Truth - a contact which inevitably smashes the Horizontal etching's you've lived by up to that point, and each takes the steps necessary to uphold Life, Values and Justice. Stewart does this by (Thinking he's) killing Liberty Valance, and Wayne does so by Actually killing him - and their doing so seems to blast both the letter of the law, and the unwritten Code of the West - to smithereens.
After the killing of Liberty Valance, the re-emergence of their long held codes wreaks havoc on their psyche's. John Wayne can't quite come to terms with the fact that he shot a man down in an "unfair" fight, and that his friend & rival, Stewart, a less Manly Man, won the woman they both desired, and was getting the credit and fame for something he unwittingly didn't actually do.
Stewart, for his part, is eaten up with the self loathing for what he sees in hindsight as sinking to Liberty's level by taking the law into his own hands, and so intends to refuse the appointment to Governor by his new state, because he see's himself as unworthy.
At that point Wayne pulls him aside and tells him that his shot didn't hit the gunfighter, His did, and that if he want's to see that the Law and Justice they both want for their State is enacted, he must be the one who takes it on to establish it, and that the secret of the gunfight must remain a secret.
The tragedy of Tom Doniphan and Ransom Stoddard, is that they never come to realize that they didn't violate their codes, that in fact they both touched the living truths of their codes more fully than anyone else was willing to. Ransom Stoddard the more introspective of the two manages some realization of this, but Tom Doniphan never does. The rest of the people, represented by the newspaper man who says "... When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.", never do. For them, it is the Horizontal myth of the lawyer killing the outlaw, which enables the Vertical concept of Justice to be implemented across the land.
Applying the concept of Justice is something that may shift with the context, that particular refraction of the Vertical and Horizontal which we experience as the moment, the best Lawmakers have always realized that writing down the Rules of Justice is a dangerous thing to do, since people tend to fixate on the written word, not realizing that the word was written on the contextual paper of but one moment – similar though it may be to most moments experienced in life. The Horizontal etchings that make up our laws and codes, is but the attempt to freeze the Vertical into this plane as best as possible, but those moments which differ in sharp relief from the normal, require a Conceptual, Vertical, understanding of Justice, and actively applying it to THIS contextual moment in time requires an independent, mature mind, willing not only to judge, but to be both faithful to reality, and responsible within it, for his decisions.
The best lawmakers, such as the American Founding Fathers, have always kept their laws brief and as close to pure principle as possible (as opposed to the leftist fetish for enumerated rules out the wazoo), and will always require Judges seated above (... ugh...) lawyers (... yech!) to implement them properly.
In this respect, the Cowboy does embody America at his and our best - High ideals, few words, restrained action and if necessary violently commited to seeing Justice done.
[I wonder how consciously the names of the characters were chosen RANSOM (to redeem the innocent) Stoddard, Liberty VALANCE( a shade placed over a sunlit window), Tom BONIPHON (I probably take too much... uhm, liberty, with his name by equating it with the Greek myth of Bellerophon who rode winged Pegasus to spear the monster Chimaera... still it's my Blog and I'll do what I want to)]
Monday, August 07, 2006
Mel Gibson, the rooted thoughts and Doppelgangers
August 03
You gotta feel sorry for the position Mel Gibson found he'd let his underself put him in. Because of the nature of how our thoughts and concepts build - 2 integrations are made, then 2 more intra-integrate with each node of both of those, and soon bazillions of integrations are made - and if at the root or center of all of those, there is one which is false - well... you've got the mother of all Gordian Knots to unravel in order to repair your thoughts. Most of us when they find out that something is rotten at the center of some idea or another will just try to make a mental note, and move on - perhaps to be startled by associations or slips of the lip that spill out later in life.
I'm not exactly sure why, but it made me think about my Dad. An excellent person if there ever was one. As I grew up and began playing in a band, I began to circulate with a good chunk of the multi-culti mix of human flavors available, and of them I became good friends with a select few, but was often surrounded by an unselect many. Their associating with me, brought them into close contact with my parents, and on embarrassingly numerous occasions, I brought about what I now realize were some rather huge impositions upon them. My Dad never behaved towards any of us in any way that smacked of any influence from such non-essentials as race, color, creed, etc. And we definitely put them into plenty of non-stress-free situations where such slips would have been thoroughly understood.
It was only years later, the result of some innocuous comments, that I realized that my Dad in fact did have some ingrained prejudices. When I questioned him about them, he kind of shrugged a perplexed "ah, yes - silly, isn't it". They were there, but he didn't allow them any significance in influencing his actions. That they were there I suppose isn't really surprising, from someone born in 1928, then and now, as a kid you tend to internalize, to accept views from those around you, especially your parents, without a great deal of critical thought, and it isn't until you get older that you may, if ever, come to question those thoughts. Even if you should ever come to reject their premises - they have probably already been deeply woven into your life. They've been "Saved to Disk" so to speak, and only by practicing a fair degree of active error checking, do you weed them out of your conscious thoughts and actions.
Something I find impressive about my Dad, is that he never passed on those prejudices to me, and he never acted from them in any of the many opportunities I presented him with which were all Most suitable for a tense slip of the lip to let them fly. And I don't mean that he effused in the typical liberal-guilty-overcompensating-aren't-they-all-wonderful sort of way, which I find to be just as offensive as the blatantly prejudicial acts. He was always just honest, generous and helpful to us, and was also appropriately upbraiding to us as needed. But at some point in his life, he realized that those thoughts were flawed, and from that point out, he didn't let them influence his conscious choices.
In case there is an afterlife, and the blogosphere is accessible to it, you were a good Dad, Dad.
On the other hand however, Mel Gibson recently found his rooted thoughts putting him into a pickle. Now obviously I haven't a clue how he behaves towards people in real life, or what he actually thinks. But I do know that in our consciously lived moments, we often find ourselves choosing to say and do things that our under doubts and fears murmur at us not do, but we do them because we consciously believe them to be right and proper.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you're rip roaring hammered drunk, those dark murmurs are easily released from conscious control, their volume gets cranked up and they can get full control of our joysticks making a mess of the lives we have so consciously chosen to live.
Of course it doesn't excuse Mel, he consciously put himself into a situation that would hand over the controls to his sub self (personally I found his 1st apology "despicable thoughts" much better than the 2nd seemingly PR enhanced blathercuse), but I certainly see how a person can be good and proper and reject that type of thinking, and yet still have such thoughts lurking underneath.
My point is that what Mel should be roundly condemned for, is making the fully conscious choice to begin chugging the brews in the first place - while he may not consciously believe his dark murmurers, he must certainly be aware that they lurk under his radar, and he had to know that getting hammered would be letting the Doppelganger, his private Mr. Hyde, run loose with the controls to his life, putting himself and others in real mental and mortal danger.
Seems like it's always the little choices that end up making the biggest difference.
You gotta feel sorry for the position Mel Gibson found he'd let his underself put him in. Because of the nature of how our thoughts and concepts build - 2 integrations are made, then 2 more intra-integrate with each node of both of those, and soon bazillions of integrations are made - and if at the root or center of all of those, there is one which is false - well... you've got the mother of all Gordian Knots to unravel in order to repair your thoughts. Most of us when they find out that something is rotten at the center of some idea or another will just try to make a mental note, and move on - perhaps to be startled by associations or slips of the lip that spill out later in life.
I'm not exactly sure why, but it made me think about my Dad. An excellent person if there ever was one. As I grew up and began playing in a band, I began to circulate with a good chunk of the multi-culti mix of human flavors available, and of them I became good friends with a select few, but was often surrounded by an unselect many. Their associating with me, brought them into close contact with my parents, and on embarrassingly numerous occasions, I brought about what I now realize were some rather huge impositions upon them. My Dad never behaved towards any of us in any way that smacked of any influence from such non-essentials as race, color, creed, etc. And we definitely put them into plenty of non-stress-free situations where such slips would have been thoroughly understood.
It was only years later, the result of some innocuous comments, that I realized that my Dad in fact did have some ingrained prejudices. When I questioned him about them, he kind of shrugged a perplexed "ah, yes - silly, isn't it". They were there, but he didn't allow them any significance in influencing his actions. That they were there I suppose isn't really surprising, from someone born in 1928, then and now, as a kid you tend to internalize, to accept views from those around you, especially your parents, without a great deal of critical thought, and it isn't until you get older that you may, if ever, come to question those thoughts. Even if you should ever come to reject their premises - they have probably already been deeply woven into your life. They've been "Saved to Disk" so to speak, and only by practicing a fair degree of active error checking, do you weed them out of your conscious thoughts and actions.
Something I find impressive about my Dad, is that he never passed on those prejudices to me, and he never acted from them in any of the many opportunities I presented him with which were all Most suitable for a tense slip of the lip to let them fly. And I don't mean that he effused in the typical liberal-guilty-overcompensating-aren't-they-all-wonderful sort of way, which I find to be just as offensive as the blatantly prejudicial acts. He was always just honest, generous and helpful to us, and was also appropriately upbraiding to us as needed. But at some point in his life, he realized that those thoughts were flawed, and from that point out, he didn't let them influence his conscious choices.
In case there is an afterlife, and the blogosphere is accessible to it, you were a good Dad, Dad.
On the other hand however, Mel Gibson recently found his rooted thoughts putting him into a pickle. Now obviously I haven't a clue how he behaves towards people in real life, or what he actually thinks. But I do know that in our consciously lived moments, we often find ourselves choosing to say and do things that our under doubts and fears murmur at us not do, but we do them because we consciously believe them to be right and proper.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you're rip roaring hammered drunk, those dark murmurs are easily released from conscious control, their volume gets cranked up and they can get full control of our joysticks making a mess of the lives we have so consciously chosen to live.
Of course it doesn't excuse Mel, he consciously put himself into a situation that would hand over the controls to his sub self (personally I found his 1st apology "despicable thoughts" much better than the 2nd seemingly PR enhanced blathercuse), but I certainly see how a person can be good and proper and reject that type of thinking, and yet still have such thoughts lurking underneath.
My point is that what Mel should be roundly condemned for, is making the fully conscious choice to begin chugging the brews in the first place - while he may not consciously believe his dark murmurers, he must certainly be aware that they lurk under his radar, and he had to know that getting hammered would be letting the Doppelganger, his private Mr. Hyde, run loose with the controls to his life, putting himself and others in real mental and mortal danger.
Seems like it's always the little choices that end up making the biggest difference.
Determimystics and Free Will
August 03
Another compelling post from Gagdad Bob (who synchronisticaly swiped my idea to post about free will – this time even before I could get a single finger to the keyboard. Before I began typing, I had the sudden thought that I’d been beaten to the post – I clicked over to One Cosmos, and sure enough, there it was. Alas. Well then, here's a different angle on it) on the not so Free nature of Free Will.
When the subject of Free Will comes up, and you listen to the lengths that Determinists will go to avoid seeing that they are choosing to think up their theories, I can’t help but think that there must be something hidden in the back of a Determinists mind, that thoroughly fears the idea of Free Will.
It may be that fear, a fear of responsibility for your thoughts and actions, of maturity, that is at the root of why every thorough Leftist is in fact a Determinist at heart. Interestingly, the same seems to go for the radical Theocratic as well. This may explain why Determinists are so thoroughly opposed to letting people freely choose to live their own lives as they see fit – “Freedom?! Impossible! They must be regulated! They must be told what is a Good… (er, wait, ‘Good’ implies Right & Wrong & Choices… umm, ah!) … what is a relatively positive outcome best suited for their position in society!”.
Something odd I think you’ll find to be prominent in the intellectual arsenal of nearly every determinist, is a detailed set of Lists. All the Andrew Carnegie’s and Tony Roberts’ types, although they nominally may claim that you “Must Choose!”, seem to reveal an underlying determinist viewpoint by setting up endless sets of checklists for their followers. That do their best to ensure that choice won’t be necessary, instead their particular flavor of List will just magically build enough momentum for you to carry you over the edge of choice – trying their best to force your mind to choose without the burden of making the actual choice yourself – they try to replace you in your life with their detailed sets of instructions; as if they know better than you do, what is needed to be done to correctly live your life.
Those who fear free will the most are the ones who try the most to overcome the idea of 'choice' with endless steps and lists. But as anyone who has fallen for the Determinists’ spiels’ (“Our Video will take you step by step to Fabulous Energetic Fitness!”, “12 Steps to Health!” “32 points of Compatibility!” or "Our glorious leader's 5-year plan to socialist utopia!!” or for those who literalize the Bible “do your Ten Commandments daily, and exit stage right into Heaven”. ) can tell you, it still comes down to that awful moment where you realize that it all hinges on your actually choosing to do what it is that you need to do, and no amount of steps will cause the choice to choose itself, in and of itself.
Borrowing a little inspiration from Gagdad’s Bobbing for Neoligism’s, I think that with their weirdly mystic belief in the magical ability of List-icism to substitute for Free Will, they might be better termed Determimystics.
I find it’s tempting to say that that missing spark of choice is the physical intersection of YOU and Reality – Bob might say the intersection of the Vertical with the Horizontal.
The fact is that all the sequential steps in the universe will only lead up to that point of choice, but they will never hurtle YOU past it without your making the choice to initiate the action do so. All the cause and effect steps, and intricate variables – multiplying all the thousands of lines of code I write to make a computer program react as I and the client require it to – multiplying it a million fold, a billion fold – will only make it do what I and the Client tell it to do based on what we conscious beings of Free Will, require it to do. Steps, switches, randomly seeded variables, even quantum flux capacitors – will only make an intricate computer – not consciousness. Cool, maybe, but quite dead and lifeless, useful only to those who choose to use it.
I get a kick watching Determimystics racking their brains for that secret code that will make a truly living Artificial Intelligence: “What is missing? What? What?!” they moan, entirely missing that it is precisely what it is that THEY ARE doing, that unexplainable, undeterminable choice to ask WHAT?! which is what they are missing – it’s Them that’s missing, It is WE who are the ghost in the machine.
I want to pull them aside and tell them to get a telescope and look out at the universe, look at the star stuff swirling about, crashing, glowing, collapsing, existence exists - but without your observing it through the telescope, nothing more than stuff. No asking, thinking, being or doing - just stuff. It takes a You to think, evaluate, ponder and Wonder, and a Free Will to choose to do it.
Even if we take the opinion that our souls, our consciousness, are but the result of chemical and biological processes – as when carbonizing the thread into a vacuum sealed bulb and cranking the voltage up to the point where there is suddenly Light!, even then, once the Light is there, it is something separate from the carbonized thread, voltage & vacuum sealed glass. Something new comes into being that is separate from the material which made it possible.
If we someday do manage to determine all the ingredients necessary for life, and Consciousness – once the ingredients are properly mixed and Consciousness flares into being – it will be just as separate from the ingredients as ever. Just as there are no perpetual motion machines, there are no sophisticated sequences of switches which can mechanistically determine Life, Consciousness & Free Will.
But of course, you are free to try to determine it as much as you want.
Another compelling post from Gagdad Bob (who synchronisticaly swiped my idea to post about free will – this time even before I could get a single finger to the keyboard. Before I began typing, I had the sudden thought that I’d been beaten to the post – I clicked over to One Cosmos, and sure enough, there it was. Alas. Well then, here's a different angle on it) on the not so Free nature of Free Will.
When the subject of Free Will comes up, and you listen to the lengths that Determinists will go to avoid seeing that they are choosing to think up their theories, I can’t help but think that there must be something hidden in the back of a Determinists mind, that thoroughly fears the idea of Free Will.
It may be that fear, a fear of responsibility for your thoughts and actions, of maturity, that is at the root of why every thorough Leftist is in fact a Determinist at heart. Interestingly, the same seems to go for the radical Theocratic as well. This may explain why Determinists are so thoroughly opposed to letting people freely choose to live their own lives as they see fit – “Freedom?! Impossible! They must be regulated! They must be told what is a Good… (er, wait, ‘Good’ implies Right & Wrong & Choices… umm, ah!) … what is a relatively positive outcome best suited for their position in society!”.
Something odd I think you’ll find to be prominent in the intellectual arsenal of nearly every determinist, is a detailed set of Lists. All the Andrew Carnegie’s and Tony Roberts’ types, although they nominally may claim that you “Must Choose!”, seem to reveal an underlying determinist viewpoint by setting up endless sets of checklists for their followers. That do their best to ensure that choice won’t be necessary, instead their particular flavor of List will just magically build enough momentum for you to carry you over the edge of choice – trying their best to force your mind to choose without the burden of making the actual choice yourself – they try to replace you in your life with their detailed sets of instructions; as if they know better than you do, what is needed to be done to correctly live your life.
Those who fear free will the most are the ones who try the most to overcome the idea of 'choice' with endless steps and lists. But as anyone who has fallen for the Determinists’ spiels’ (“Our Video will take you step by step to Fabulous Energetic Fitness!”, “12 Steps to Health!” “32 points of Compatibility!” or "Our glorious leader's 5-year plan to socialist utopia!!” or for those who literalize the Bible “do your Ten Commandments daily, and exit stage right into Heaven”. ) can tell you, it still comes down to that awful moment where you realize that it all hinges on your actually choosing to do what it is that you need to do, and no amount of steps will cause the choice to choose itself, in and of itself.
Borrowing a little inspiration from Gagdad’s Bobbing for Neoligism’s, I think that with their weirdly mystic belief in the magical ability of List-icism to substitute for Free Will, they might be better termed Determimystics.
I find it’s tempting to say that that missing spark of choice is the physical intersection of YOU and Reality – Bob might say the intersection of the Vertical with the Horizontal.
The fact is that all the sequential steps in the universe will only lead up to that point of choice, but they will never hurtle YOU past it without your making the choice to initiate the action do so. All the cause and effect steps, and intricate variables – multiplying all the thousands of lines of code I write to make a computer program react as I and the client require it to – multiplying it a million fold, a billion fold – will only make it do what I and the Client tell it to do based on what we conscious beings of Free Will, require it to do. Steps, switches, randomly seeded variables, even quantum flux capacitors – will only make an intricate computer – not consciousness. Cool, maybe, but quite dead and lifeless, useful only to those who choose to use it.
I get a kick watching Determimystics racking their brains for that secret code that will make a truly living Artificial Intelligence: “What is missing? What? What?!” they moan, entirely missing that it is precisely what it is that THEY ARE doing, that unexplainable, undeterminable choice to ask WHAT?! which is what they are missing – it’s Them that’s missing, It is WE who are the ghost in the machine.
I want to pull them aside and tell them to get a telescope and look out at the universe, look at the star stuff swirling about, crashing, glowing, collapsing, existence exists - but without your observing it through the telescope, nothing more than stuff. No asking, thinking, being or doing - just stuff. It takes a You to think, evaluate, ponder and Wonder, and a Free Will to choose to do it.
Even if we take the opinion that our souls, our consciousness, are but the result of chemical and biological processes – as when carbonizing the thread into a vacuum sealed bulb and cranking the voltage up to the point where there is suddenly Light!, even then, once the Light is there, it is something separate from the carbonized thread, voltage & vacuum sealed glass. Something new comes into being that is separate from the material which made it possible.
If we someday do manage to determine all the ingredients necessary for life, and Consciousness – once the ingredients are properly mixed and Consciousness flares into being – it will be just as separate from the ingredients as ever. Just as there are no perpetual motion machines, there are no sophisticated sequences of switches which can mechanistically determine Life, Consciousness & Free Will.
But of course, you are free to try to determine it as much as you want.
Woven chords of the subconscious (Revised - one shouldn't Post at 2:00 am!)
July 30
Gagdad Bob over at One Cosmos , in a vividly far ranging post Saturday, July 29, 2006 "Couples counseling with Sigmund, Carl and Alfred", quotes a Master asking his disciple what he thought of another Master's writing, “Some of the things he says seem true,” the disciple ventured. The disciple continues: "Krishna Prem’s reply was devastating. ‘One can’t write anything on this subject without saying something that isn’t true. What you must see is whether the truth shines through the words or whether they are platitudes, words repeated by rote. Look behind the words. Feel!'”
To which after the word "Feel" I might add " for the Integrations!"
I suggested in an earlier comment that the unconscious might be represented as conduits which connect and integrate data, but don't themselves contain data. When you're grasping at a thought that you can't quite verbalize but can almost palpably feel in your grasp, you do in fact have your mental "hand" upon one or more of these connective conduits which are ready to carry you to their data; if you'll just stop trying to pull their ends to you and allow yourself be carried along to their destinations, they will take you to what you're seeking.
Those who paint conceptual integrations with their words, the true poets, are those that help us to "see" truths which are connected and integrated in ways we can't always fully grasp at once, but their poetry leads us down paths that manage to enable us to connect one once distant side of our soul, to another.
When you find a Poem that "speaks" to you, what is happening is that the Poet is deftly raising a series of images together with particular concepts, which plucks your mental integrations as if they were plucking a harmonic chord of integrated subconscious strings, and suddenly you're being flooded with multiple images, thoughts and feelings coursing through your mind as those conduits draw their connected data into your conscious gaze.
Like so much else, I'm starting to see Poems as multi-leveled structures, they may follow certain physical blueprints such as line structure and meter (as varied as Sonnets and Haiku), but that is really merely the dressing, the ritual structure of a poem - the poetic equivalent to Religious Ritual such as Robes & Mass for Catholics or Sermons and Choir for Protestants - which perform an important role in providing a setting for Religious feeling to be drawn into and formed within... But the holy ghost of the Poem is sounded by a combination of its lyracality, and then by the "mood" evoked through the interplay of associations flowing from the word usage, by its's conceptual meaning, and by the integrating of Ritual, lyracality, mood evoked, all together they pluck a harmony of conceptual chords that set your soul to thrumming.
Gagdad Bob might say that the narrative of the Poem is its Horizontal platform, and the integrations the Vertical relief of it. Poets convey truth not so much through the narrative, but by that soul stitching of the conduits of the unconscious being woven into new multi-dimensional patterns (perhaps Holographically would be more apt) that causes us to sense new connections and truths which the simple narrative story can't convey. Purely realistic, factual story telling may even be a hindrance to our grasping the vertical meaning of the poem.
Poetry may hold such a strong and enduring position within humanity, because nothing else so conceptually weaves sight, sound, feeling, imagery, concept, and musicality - as a Poem does. The truly successful Poet may be someone who weaves these conduits of the unconscious into patterns that stitch our souls together with new designs embellished upon them. Of those who read the poem, some may get to see the Mona Lisa, some may only be able to feel at it as if it were Braille, but all receive new impressions of sweetness and light, without which we would be much the poorer.
What may make a poem popular is it's effectiveness in selecting that combination of rhythm, mood and structure that conjures up a harmony of conceptual chords in a variety of different people even though the actual integrations made will play at least a little bit differently for all who hear it, as different integrationary threads are struck, plucked, in each.
Art, quality art that resonates with people, I think probably works in a similar way. In Paintings, the composition may be analogous to the Poems structure and meter, and the images, the emphasis, the colors, succeed in the same way by plucking these conceptual chords and sets a reactive mental, perhaps even spiritual, vibration humming within its viewers.
I imagine that there are cases, maybe even they are the norm, where several of these conduit strings are intertwined - I can imagine these strings interweaving to form esthetically pleasing weaves and integrations - patterns having almost a mentally visual structure such as with images woven into tapestry, or audibly, such as with harmonically resonating chords.
Depending on the nature of the Art and the Artist, these vibrations maybe Harmonic or Dissonant, positive or negative, and this is why Art can be so difficult for states to manage - a single piece of Art can instantly transmit volumes of thought (compressed into a few integrated subconscious chords) to it's viewers, and as time passes, the integrations plucked within its viewers find new thoughts suddenly bubbling up in their minds - for good or ill.
original comments:
Blogodidact
"If you keep this up, I am going to have to add you to my very exclusive little blogroll! " - wo, be still my blogging heart! Thanks!July 30 2:57 PM
Blogodidact
"... white light of truth is one, but that, as reality descends from level to level, it becomes refracted and "colored" through different senses and modalities" I think that there's a thread here, even a conduit, that I've been trying to grasp ... for... so long, now and then I'm able to let it slip just enough to pull me a bit further along - a bit of a Spiritual E-Ticket ride!July 30 2:54 PM
Gagdad Bob
Didn't quite come out right: the lower orders are like a multifaceted reflection of the omni-nameable holographic One.July 30 1:32 PM
Gagdad Bob
What you say about poetry reminds me of synesthesia, in which a sense impression from one mode is joined with one from another, like "divine light" or "hot jazz." From the esoteric standpoint, one would say that the the oure white light of truth is one, but that, as reality descends from level to level, it becomes refracted and "colored" through different senses and modalities. As we climb back up the upanishadic tree of life, we are reacquainted with the primordial unity, which is like a multifaceted reflection of the omni-nameable holographic One. If you keep this up, I am going to have to add you to my very exclusive little blogroll! July 30 1:30 PM(http://www.onecosmos.blogspot.com)
Gagdad Bob over at One Cosmos , in a vividly far ranging post Saturday, July 29, 2006 "Couples counseling with Sigmund, Carl and Alfred", quotes a Master asking his disciple what he thought of another Master's writing, “Some of the things he says seem true,” the disciple ventured. The disciple continues: "Krishna Prem’s reply was devastating. ‘One can’t write anything on this subject without saying something that isn’t true. What you must see is whether the truth shines through the words or whether they are platitudes, words repeated by rote. Look behind the words. Feel!'”
To which after the word "Feel" I might add " for the Integrations!"
I suggested in an earlier comment that the unconscious might be represented as conduits which connect and integrate data, but don't themselves contain data. When you're grasping at a thought that you can't quite verbalize but can almost palpably feel in your grasp, you do in fact have your mental "hand" upon one or more of these connective conduits which are ready to carry you to their data; if you'll just stop trying to pull their ends to you and allow yourself be carried along to their destinations, they will take you to what you're seeking.
Those who paint conceptual integrations with their words, the true poets, are those that help us to "see" truths which are connected and integrated in ways we can't always fully grasp at once, but their poetry leads us down paths that manage to enable us to connect one once distant side of our soul, to another.
When you find a Poem that "speaks" to you, what is happening is that the Poet is deftly raising a series of images together with particular concepts, which plucks your mental integrations as if they were plucking a harmonic chord of integrated subconscious strings, and suddenly you're being flooded with multiple images, thoughts and feelings coursing through your mind as those conduits draw their connected data into your conscious gaze.
Like so much else, I'm starting to see Poems as multi-leveled structures, they may follow certain physical blueprints such as line structure and meter (as varied as Sonnets and Haiku), but that is really merely the dressing, the ritual structure of a poem - the poetic equivalent to Religious Ritual such as Robes & Mass for Catholics or Sermons and Choir for Protestants - which perform an important role in providing a setting for Religious feeling to be drawn into and formed within... But the holy ghost of the Poem is sounded by a combination of its lyracality, and then by the "mood" evoked through the interplay of associations flowing from the word usage, by its's conceptual meaning, and by the integrating of Ritual, lyracality, mood evoked, all together they pluck a harmony of conceptual chords that set your soul to thrumming.
Gagdad Bob might say that the narrative of the Poem is its Horizontal platform, and the integrations the Vertical relief of it. Poets convey truth not so much through the narrative, but by that soul stitching of the conduits of the unconscious being woven into new multi-dimensional patterns (perhaps Holographically would be more apt) that causes us to sense new connections and truths which the simple narrative story can't convey. Purely realistic, factual story telling may even be a hindrance to our grasping the vertical meaning of the poem.
Poetry may hold such a strong and enduring position within humanity, because nothing else so conceptually weaves sight, sound, feeling, imagery, concept, and musicality - as a Poem does. The truly successful Poet may be someone who weaves these conduits of the unconscious into patterns that stitch our souls together with new designs embellished upon them. Of those who read the poem, some may get to see the Mona Lisa, some may only be able to feel at it as if it were Braille, but all receive new impressions of sweetness and light, without which we would be much the poorer.
What may make a poem popular is it's effectiveness in selecting that combination of rhythm, mood and structure that conjures up a harmony of conceptual chords in a variety of different people even though the actual integrations made will play at least a little bit differently for all who hear it, as different integrationary threads are struck, plucked, in each.
Art, quality art that resonates with people, I think probably works in a similar way. In Paintings, the composition may be analogous to the Poems structure and meter, and the images, the emphasis, the colors, succeed in the same way by plucking these conceptual chords and sets a reactive mental, perhaps even spiritual, vibration humming within its viewers.
I imagine that there are cases, maybe even they are the norm, where several of these conduit strings are intertwined - I can imagine these strings interweaving to form esthetically pleasing weaves and integrations - patterns having almost a mentally visual structure such as with images woven into tapestry, or audibly, such as with harmonically resonating chords.
Depending on the nature of the Art and the Artist, these vibrations maybe Harmonic or Dissonant, positive or negative, and this is why Art can be so difficult for states to manage - a single piece of Art can instantly transmit volumes of thought (compressed into a few integrated subconscious chords) to it's viewers, and as time passes, the integrations plucked within its viewers find new thoughts suddenly bubbling up in their minds - for good or ill.
original comments:
Blogodidact
"If you keep this up, I am going to have to add you to my very exclusive little blogroll! " - wo, be still my blogging heart! Thanks!July 30 2:57 PM
Blogodidact
"... white light of truth is one, but that, as reality descends from level to level, it becomes refracted and "colored" through different senses and modalities" I think that there's a thread here, even a conduit, that I've been trying to grasp ... for... so long, now and then I'm able to let it slip just enough to pull me a bit further along - a bit of a Spiritual E-Ticket ride!July 30 2:54 PM
Gagdad Bob
Didn't quite come out right: the lower orders are like a multifaceted reflection of the omni-nameable holographic One.July 30 1:32 PM
Gagdad Bob
What you say about poetry reminds me of synesthesia, in which a sense impression from one mode is joined with one from another, like "divine light" or "hot jazz." From the esoteric standpoint, one would say that the the oure white light of truth is one, but that, as reality descends from level to level, it becomes refracted and "colored" through different senses and modalities. As we climb back up the upanishadic tree of life, we are reacquainted with the primordial unity, which is like a multifaceted reflection of the omni-nameable holographic One. If you keep this up, I am going to have to add you to my very exclusive little blogroll! July 30 1:30 PM(http://www.onecosmos.blogspot.com)
Mis-integrated Rule
July 29
Newt Gingrich on a panel with Thomas Foley for a book "Broken Branch", says that we are at a historical brink of change, similar in magnitude to what the nation faced at the outset of the Civil War, and that we are just as unaware of the enormity of upheaval being entered.
He mentions that the current system, faced with the massive international challenges of rogue states and their sponsors and allies, and our own cultural dysfunctions in education, terrorism, PCism, etc, is faced with a complexity far beyond Congress's ability to cope with, that it is out of the depth of it's founding structure.
Although I agree, I would say that far from adjusting the system with further fine tuning, which will NEVER be able to stay on top of the complexity, that what we should do is, as the original discoverers of Capitalism described - let the individual hand of each citizens interests be set free to make their own choices best suited for them and to reap the unvarnished consequences of those actions, be they good or bad. Other than securing the true individual rights fundamental for Americans, as enumerated in the original bill of rights amendments - Government should stay out of the way. Government has done more damage to our culture by trying to protect people from their own decisions, than any other calamity we have faced.
These protections are inevitably seen as not only unfair but as threatening to other parties on the periphery of the cultural focus. Government then proceeds to attempt to fine tune the aids and protections to satisfy the newly vocal group demanding fair reciprocal actions.
It is precisely the various efforts that have been made to fine tune the behavior of both itself and it's constituents, that is the very source of the splintering complexity we now face, and the splintering amongst constituents as they attempt to form alliances against "THEM" whom they see as influencing Big Brothers power against Them. That recognition of being acted against by an untouchable power, and the resulting reactive response to secure influence within that same power against for their favor - which will further alarm not only the original 1st party, but also quite unforeseen by all, onlooking 3rd, 4th and 5th parties will feel threatened, and seek favor from power - itself alarming another 3(cubed) parties more.
The result of this sequence of geometrically expanding push backs is not only the fracturing of society, but the swelling of Governmental power, the distancing of its members from its citizenry, and the further deepening of its own natural fault lines within it's organizational structure.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of Self Government is that of recognizing the need to allow people to rule themselves, and to let them be responsible for their own actions, without succumbing to the temptation to offer a "helping" hand. People naturally want to help those they see as in need. When done privately and through private organizations, this is potentially laudable. But people fail to see that doing so through the arm of Governmental Power is something fundamentally different. It creates eddies in power that will soon combine and swamp the entire structure of Republican Government, Society, and the common beliefs and morals that once held them together.
Again, there is a substituting of the integrated meanings of "Self Government" by the Citizenry while keeping the label, with the actuality of "Governmental Rule" of the Citizenry.
Newt Gingrich on a panel with Thomas Foley for a book "Broken Branch", says that we are at a historical brink of change, similar in magnitude to what the nation faced at the outset of the Civil War, and that we are just as unaware of the enormity of upheaval being entered.
He mentions that the current system, faced with the massive international challenges of rogue states and their sponsors and allies, and our own cultural dysfunctions in education, terrorism, PCism, etc, is faced with a complexity far beyond Congress's ability to cope with, that it is out of the depth of it's founding structure.
Although I agree, I would say that far from adjusting the system with further fine tuning, which will NEVER be able to stay on top of the complexity, that what we should do is, as the original discoverers of Capitalism described - let the individual hand of each citizens interests be set free to make their own choices best suited for them and to reap the unvarnished consequences of those actions, be they good or bad. Other than securing the true individual rights fundamental for Americans, as enumerated in the original bill of rights amendments - Government should stay out of the way. Government has done more damage to our culture by trying to protect people from their own decisions, than any other calamity we have faced.
These protections are inevitably seen as not only unfair but as threatening to other parties on the periphery of the cultural focus. Government then proceeds to attempt to fine tune the aids and protections to satisfy the newly vocal group demanding fair reciprocal actions.
It is precisely the various efforts that have been made to fine tune the behavior of both itself and it's constituents, that is the very source of the splintering complexity we now face, and the splintering amongst constituents as they attempt to form alliances against "THEM" whom they see as influencing Big Brothers power against Them. That recognition of being acted against by an untouchable power, and the resulting reactive response to secure influence within that same power against for their favor - which will further alarm not only the original 1st party, but also quite unforeseen by all, onlooking 3rd, 4th and 5th parties will feel threatened, and seek favor from power - itself alarming another 3(cubed) parties more.
The result of this sequence of geometrically expanding push backs is not only the fracturing of society, but the swelling of Governmental power, the distancing of its members from its citizenry, and the further deepening of its own natural fault lines within it's organizational structure.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of Self Government is that of recognizing the need to allow people to rule themselves, and to let them be responsible for their own actions, without succumbing to the temptation to offer a "helping" hand. People naturally want to help those they see as in need. When done privately and through private organizations, this is potentially laudable. But people fail to see that doing so through the arm of Governmental Power is something fundamentally different. It creates eddies in power that will soon combine and swamp the entire structure of Republican Government, Society, and the common beliefs and morals that once held them together.
Again, there is a substituting of the integrated meanings of "Self Government" by the Citizenry while keeping the label, with the actuality of "Governmental Rule" of the Citizenry.
The Warmongers of "Peace"
July 28
Such a nice thought, "I'm for Peace! Give Peace a chance!". Such a 'nice' thought or so it's intended to sound. "Peace". But Peace is a result of civil behavior, not a cause of it, and ignorance of this will bring only more war.
While it is true that Peace is one of the sweetest benefits to be received from the highest levels of civilization, what is not always made note of - in fact rarely noted, especially by those claiming to be "People of Peace" - is that Peace is a result which is reaped only after having reached the highest levels of civilization. A society committed to civil, rule of law based, behavior.
The idea that you can expect or deserve Peace, without first establishing a stable civilization based upon responsible behavior and the rule of law, is ludicrous!
Peace has to begin with civil behavior amongst individuals. It begins with the recognition that their value as human beings, their rights to respectful interaction, and the expectation of equivalent behavior in return, will be affirmed and upheld.
Civil behavior in society is but those sensibilities promoted to the level of civil law. Lawful society rests on the expectations of its citizens respecting and abiding with the rule of law, and the citizens expecting that there will be a reasonable and just administration of those laws.
Civil behavior among states is the result of such lawful and civil behavior being promoted to the level of nations. It relies on the expectation that each State involved in a conflict, will behave reasonably and fairly, in accord with agreements openly made amongst themselves.
With that in mind, the idea that there can or will be peace, or negotiations for peace, between civil states and Terrorists, or Terrorists Groups, or Terrorist sponsoring "States", is just ludicrous. Those who propose such a proposition should forfeit any claim to credibility & political standing.
It's a case of people grabbing ahold of a well known... well, not known, but widely recognized... word, and while discarding all the integrations which made up the concept that the word labels, swipe that word, uproot it, and paste it as nothing more than a label into a context completely at odds with all of that concepts root integrations, and without which, the concept is utterly meaningless.
Meaningless, but oh so evocative of soothing feelings.
When words are used regardless of their meanings, but only for their sound and ability to sway a crowd - you should suspect that you are no longer dealing with a civilized person - having discarded all the root integrations and substance of the words they use, they CAN NOT be civilized. When such a beast approaches, you should cringe in fear, because by their words they are doing all they can to destroy civilization.
Peace is a result of Civil behavior, not a cause of it.
Rest assured as well, should they get the reigns of power within their grasp, that Civilizations highest reward - Peace - will be the first thing that they will destroy.
Such a nice thought, "I'm for Peace! Give Peace a chance!". Such a 'nice' thought or so it's intended to sound. "Peace". But Peace is a result of civil behavior, not a cause of it, and ignorance of this will bring only more war.
While it is true that Peace is one of the sweetest benefits to be received from the highest levels of civilization, what is not always made note of - in fact rarely noted, especially by those claiming to be "People of Peace" - is that Peace is a result which is reaped only after having reached the highest levels of civilization. A society committed to civil, rule of law based, behavior.
The idea that you can expect or deserve Peace, without first establishing a stable civilization based upon responsible behavior and the rule of law, is ludicrous!
Peace has to begin with civil behavior amongst individuals. It begins with the recognition that their value as human beings, their rights to respectful interaction, and the expectation of equivalent behavior in return, will be affirmed and upheld.
Civil behavior in society is but those sensibilities promoted to the level of civil law. Lawful society rests on the expectations of its citizens respecting and abiding with the rule of law, and the citizens expecting that there will be a reasonable and just administration of those laws.
Civil behavior among states is the result of such lawful and civil behavior being promoted to the level of nations. It relies on the expectation that each State involved in a conflict, will behave reasonably and fairly, in accord with agreements openly made amongst themselves.
With that in mind, the idea that there can or will be peace, or negotiations for peace, between civil states and Terrorists, or Terrorists Groups, or Terrorist sponsoring "States", is just ludicrous. Those who propose such a proposition should forfeit any claim to credibility & political standing.
It's a case of people grabbing ahold of a well known... well, not known, but widely recognized... word, and while discarding all the integrations which made up the concept that the word labels, swipe that word, uproot it, and paste it as nothing more than a label into a context completely at odds with all of that concepts root integrations, and without which, the concept is utterly meaningless.
Meaningless, but oh so evocative of soothing feelings.
When words are used regardless of their meanings, but only for their sound and ability to sway a crowd - you should suspect that you are no longer dealing with a civilized person - having discarded all the root integrations and substance of the words they use, they CAN NOT be civilized. When such a beast approaches, you should cringe in fear, because by their words they are doing all they can to destroy civilization.
Peace is a result of Civil behavior, not a cause of it.
Rest assured as well, should they get the reigns of power within their grasp, that Civilizations highest reward - Peace - will be the first thing that they will destroy.
The Great and Powerful Wizard Tim warns of the Fierce and Deadly… bunny rabbit
July 26
The Rise of the "I'm Bitterer Than Thou" credo - The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 2 –
"When things are once in the mind, the words offer themselves readily." ("When things have taken possession of the mind, the words trip.")-Seneca, Controvers., iii. proem.
"Who do not fit words to the subject, but seek out for things quite from the purpose to fit the words."-Quintilian, viii. 3. - From Montaigne, “On Education”
To try and examine the outward signs of why our world has slid so far below the level of our last worthy benchmark, with the "Greatest Generation" of WWII, I'm going to try and run a skimmer through the surface of our cultural pond scum. This won't bring up the deeper underlying causes, but I think it will show us signs of their motive power which we readily see as the state of our world around us.
I've noted before how some of the lower level beliefs that develop into "liberal" ideology, feed the current anti-american and reactionary views, so prevalent in our Media Culture today. In fact the two, leftist talking points and Anti-American sentiment, go hand and hand together, with the first inevitably leading into the other. Yet I find, as you might too, that when I find myself trying to apply that same analysis to the comments of my friends & relatives who rattle off such talking points in casual conversation, sniggering at my dissagrement, annoying though their comments are - I can't see Them as anti-American - it just doesn't wash.
There is part of me that refuses to believe that there are intelligent people who can really accept this bile as thought, and believe it, and support it. It's confusing, and it is crushing. There must be some key to fitting this puzzle together, one which can somehow fit the two pictures together - one of those I Hate, and the other of those I Love - into one seamless picture, without destroying the later group in my heart and soul.
What I've been looking for is an identifiable, credible reason, which explains why those whom we know don't hold deeply anti-American beliefs, yet give their support and sniggers to those who Do hold anti-American stances.
Note that I'm really not talking about just Democrats or Greens, or what have you - there are plenty of Conservatives, Libertarians and non-aligned people who fire off or side with some of the most outrageous and unsupportable comments imaginable.
What I'm looking for is the source of the "sentiment", that gives safe harbor to a Leftist, or it might even be more appropriate to say a "Media Mentality", approach to the important issues of the day.
I'm also quite certain that this is most definitely NOT an issue of intelligence. One person who I know to fit this bill, I've known for 20 years, he's extremely intelligent. He's able to analyze and often solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to deeper issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - his positions don't go past what can be skimmed off from any common media source.
Well, I think that I've finally found the clue that I've been looking for in the "sniggers" that inevitably accompany these demonstrations of support for the popular MSM views. I see them as being a strong clue as to why these otherwise sensible people make these comments, support these views and cast the votes, which they do.
If we turn the calendar focus of our attention back to the turn of the 20th century, the cradle of the "greatest Generation", we can see the first popular stirrings of these views. Much happened in the first years of the 1900's: Abandoned by the philosophers who raised not a peep against several events assaults against the rights of the Individuals:• "Trust Busting" Teddy Roosevelt's first big assaults on private property, • they were the first generations to have their educations mandated, from outside their local communities, to be given outside the home - preferably in public schools, • the banks were corralled under the authority of the FED Reserve, • and they were of course shaken by the destruction of WWI.
The Philosophers greatest betrayal was to tell them that there weren't really any objective truths in the world - in fact there might not really even be a world at all - could be all in your head. The Good began to doubt the power, and worse, the worth of Virtue. In popular culture the Hero's began to be illustrated as strong silent types, burdened with a touch of grief and bitterness, such as Humphrey Bogart's characterization of Sam Spade, and others like him. This Hero was someone who still believed in, and fought for, the Good, but who no longer had confidence that it would be likely to prevail.
As soon as that character trait sank into the American psyche, assisted by the goings on of the Great Depression, there followed the overwhelming destruction of WWII. Well, the Good Guys won… huh, well… now what? Following on victories heels came the anti-hero, the disillusioned man of action bereft of direction and compass - typified by Marlon Brando & James Dean. Prior to their characterizations, the bad guy was still bad, and no one wanted to be like him, but after them, then people began to romance their plight, to sympathize with secular Christian zeal for the victimized, thinking that here were hero's unfairly separated from the pack and victimized by accidental circumstances.
But I think the worst case of cultural evil sunk into the American psyche, like a debilitating disease, through the onslaught of - (before typing the next word, I can't shake the image of the Wizard "Tim" in Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail' describing the fangs of the most horrible monster … which turns out to be a bunny rabbit...) - Humor (... ofcourse after The Knights scoff and attack the bunny, it then leaps and tears their throats out, killing them all).
It is said that Laughter makes the best medicine, what isn't mentioned is that it also makes the most effective and corrosive poison.
Read P.G. Wodehouse' stories of the ultra effective Butler named Jeeves, and you will see humor as it should be conveyed; some shades of that tone can even still be seen in Bill Cosby, where it is peoples foibles and shortcomings that are lanced with humor, so that with the laughter there comes no urge to emulate their failings. That began to change however with TV shows and Movies such as the campy TV versions of Batman & Get Smart, where the Good were made fun of because they were Good. But it reached its first truly destructive plateau, with the characters of M*A*S*H; particularly that of Hawkeye Pierce.
With Hawkeye, it is people's virtues, shown to be mere fronts to hide sins, which are lacerated by his cynical and sarcastic humor, albeit accompanied with touches of kindness and a "heart of gold". The purpose, the function, the result of art - looked for or not, is that people come away from it with a desire to emulate it's hero's '"virtues", the key actions & traits of the Hero of the story. Hawkeye's key actions and traits outside the operating room were those of Slovenliness, a tormenting sense of humor, "little white lies" to aid in womanizing, and in supplying a never ending supply of test tube Gin. His style was that of all things slacker, drawn to expose the fraudulent good among those in authority. All things High are false, all things low are common and "fun", and no things are worthwhile in the long run. That is true and naked evil, and few there are who see it.
Am I overdoing it? I don't think so. Look back to the movies of the 30's & 40's - the only characters with traits resembling this kind of humor were the out & out villains, or beaten up, partially reformed, world weary sidekicks - not the Hero. And even when the hero might be a beaten up world weary type forced by circumstance to become the Hero of the story, while he might slouch & mock when out of the fray, the moment he had to spring into action, he bolted up to his feet, his back ramrod straight, eyes steady & fierce inside a level head. Look at the Hero’s of today’s movies, the slouch never straightens, the humor always mocks, and no conviction is ever held.
The cutting edge of humor has been turned back towards the speaker (listener), cutting and putting down attacker and victim alike, through cynical, sarcastic, mocking. Gone is Sam Spades uprightness, replaced by Hawkeye's slovenliness, gone is Sam Spade's weary but moral tone, replaced by cheap derisive, mocking sarcasm - all capped off with a drunken haze of glamorizing humor and moral superiority which declares NOT I am holier than thou, but I am bitterer than thou, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou.
Emulating that characterization has brought into us an avoidance towards taking action at all, any desire to stand up for what is believed to be right (“nothing really is, don't you know, they'll show their true stripes soon enough”), and humor magnifies it's ability to spread that weakness by infectious humor and the widespread emulation of its style.
Millions of teenagers in the 70's, like me, drank that up, and emulated some shade of it in our behavior. This new corrosiveness was not spread throughout the culture by any force of Evil, but by an association with what was taken to be the good. The Hawkeye we consciously saw was a doctor, working feverishly, heroically, to save soldiers lives. What our minds saw via the subconscious conceptual integrations being made, the point of the show which was transmitted to the world, was that the true bad guys were discipline and standards, and that the greatest fools were those who let themselves be taken in by morality, and that the inevitable victims of the powerful would be those who attempted to defend the Right.
I know my friends to not be bad people, and certainly not evil, however, Evil does not spread through the power of evil alone, but through the errors and toleration of the Good. Evil is by nature a parasitic virus, it must have some vehicle to ride upon in order to smuggle itself into those who don't suspect its presence - that's the only way it can spread.
Knock on the door and proclaim yourself to be evil ("hello, landshark"), and the door will be slammed in your face, possibly followed by a shotgun blast. But claim to be a fellow member of the good, and with some star appeal, affect a twinkling winking humor with hidden implications of evil, and your message will be received, achieved, transmitted and emulated.
Look how "humor" has spread since M*A*S*H. The precocious-tending-towards-obnoxious kids of comedy shows starting with "Leave it to Beaver" have since progressed to those wisecracking snots of "Full House" (usually accompanied by a particularly "hip" [read childish] elderly character), and on to Beavis & Butthead, Bart Simpson, Stewie of The Family Guy - my god, pure sickness and filth with a smiling face "welcome! Come in! My goodness that was funny, rerun that show so I can try to imitate you!" comes the response of it's multi-million person audience.
The problem with Humor, is that outwardly, on the surface, laughter feels Good, a laugh is a laugh is a laugh - it feels pleasant! "What's the problem? " as my 13 yr old continually asks me as I turn his shows off, "You laughed too!". To a certain extent that is true, humor, if it makes the proper integrations with just the right amount of surprise and conceptual homonyms, you get a belly laughing experience. But what you may not notice, unless looking for it, is that of the degrading affect that laugh can have if directed not in support of your values, of civil behavior, of politeness - the stature, the value and seriousness which you allot to particular concepts & persons in your mind, are reduced by laughter being directed at them. There is also a further association being made, between this once sacrosanct serious item of mental furniture and something that is, well, laughable. It establishes a precedent for no longer automatically taking something seriously. That is a very strong offensive beachhead being made in your mind, for the forces opposed to any strongly integrated relationship between reality, and your assessment of its value.
Without that bulwark in the culture to fall back on, the leftists would be mowed down with righteous wrath, but with that "I'm only Joking!" and "you don't seriously believe…" established as a foundation to be built upon, they have the upper hand. It is now the morally upright who find themselves going it alone on muddy ground, with little or no support capable of being lent it from the popular culture, swamped as they are with the echoes still being amplified about through Hawkeye's children.
Homer may have summed this type of attack up best 3000 years ago with Odysseus's Trojan Horse - the ultimate image of virtue and worth to the Trojans was the strong and upright horse - and as they wheeled in that glorious idol wrought by their enemies, followed in by cheerful throngs of revelers, the evil hid in it's belly, and with the coming of night emerged among them, and slaughtered them, and threw down their protecting walls to destruction. Americans were once known as being the most remarkably sunny, optimistic, good natured people on the face of the planet. Now we are more known for celebrities affecting cynical conspiracy theories, bad manners, and the stupidest students on the face of the planet.
Positions of public cynicism are now the common stance of celebrities of all types. Spawned from the culture that lifted up entertainment such as M*A*S*H, with it's corrosive humor trained on anything resembling upright behavior & idealizing slovenly, hedonistic behavior as "Authentic" and sincere and more humanitarian than others, more Caring than any other.
After the widespread events of disillusionment in the last few decades (Hoover, JFK, Vietnam, always Vietnam, Nixon , Abscam, Jimmy "I have sinned" Swaggart and on and on) People are desirous, even eager, to come off rather as too smart to fall for believing in integrity and honesty from people with any hint of wealth and power or moral standing, than to be fooled yet again.
Taken together, the How’s identified in the previous post (The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 1), and this cynical humor as the standard backdrop to everyone's behavior, what else can we expect from our friends who find that the popularity of a position will have more currency and importance to their social standing and so adopt them as theirs (“after all, it’s not like they’re REALLY important to anything”); they are going to strike the pose of a Hawkeye Pierce, a sneering grin directed at anyone who claims to stand for virtue (“obviously a hypocrite”).
Again, with our Media Cultures’ glamorizing cynical humor over moral clarity, it leaves the casual citizen more likely to adopt as their new credo NOT “I am holier than thou”, but “I am bitterer than thou”, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou (“won’t get fooled again!”). Take a look at any popular TV character, such as that of Chandler from "Friends" - does that not sum him up rather well?
People who have no real interest in economics and politics, nevertheless don't want to appear to be clueless, so they adopt the language that they've heard used by those who are culturally acclaimed as knowing, and who have some tinge of glamour or status associated with them, which they can by association, siphon off of. Couple this with the stance educated into them through their professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and so not only do they not understand it the concepts they are scoffing at, they don't think that there really exists any relevant link, value or importance in it to their lives.
So we've got not only the urge to not be duped, but the desire to look like someone who won't be duped, and to tap into the cultural glow by adopting that (anti) Hero glamour.
Just as we might respond to a flat earther with an "Oh Come On!" were they to say that the earth was flat and there's no such thing as gravity, even though we aren't able to explain the reasoning behind it Newton’s theories, they "Feel" that they have an exceptionally valid and established set of reasons behind the assertions made by the Authorities they respect. They don't have an interest in investigating the point, they don't think it is necessary at all, and they're satisfied with the story they are passing on and upholding.
From this combination of sequences, we get people primed to continue the liberal line, but also to parrot and give a pass to the ones truly in the "know" to work their acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
But I’m not bitter about it.
Yeah right.
The Rise of the "I'm Bitterer Than Thou" credo - The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 2 –
"When things are once in the mind, the words offer themselves readily." ("When things have taken possession of the mind, the words trip.")-Seneca, Controvers., iii. proem.
"Who do not fit words to the subject, but seek out for things quite from the purpose to fit the words."-Quintilian, viii. 3. - From Montaigne, “On Education”
To try and examine the outward signs of why our world has slid so far below the level of our last worthy benchmark, with the "Greatest Generation" of WWII, I'm going to try and run a skimmer through the surface of our cultural pond scum. This won't bring up the deeper underlying causes, but I think it will show us signs of their motive power which we readily see as the state of our world around us.
I've noted before how some of the lower level beliefs that develop into "liberal" ideology, feed the current anti-american and reactionary views, so prevalent in our Media Culture today. In fact the two, leftist talking points and Anti-American sentiment, go hand and hand together, with the first inevitably leading into the other. Yet I find, as you might too, that when I find myself trying to apply that same analysis to the comments of my friends & relatives who rattle off such talking points in casual conversation, sniggering at my dissagrement, annoying though their comments are - I can't see Them as anti-American - it just doesn't wash.
There is part of me that refuses to believe that there are intelligent people who can really accept this bile as thought, and believe it, and support it. It's confusing, and it is crushing. There must be some key to fitting this puzzle together, one which can somehow fit the two pictures together - one of those I Hate, and the other of those I Love - into one seamless picture, without destroying the later group in my heart and soul.
What I've been looking for is an identifiable, credible reason, which explains why those whom we know don't hold deeply anti-American beliefs, yet give their support and sniggers to those who Do hold anti-American stances.
Note that I'm really not talking about just Democrats or Greens, or what have you - there are plenty of Conservatives, Libertarians and non-aligned people who fire off or side with some of the most outrageous and unsupportable comments imaginable.
What I'm looking for is the source of the "sentiment", that gives safe harbor to a Leftist, or it might even be more appropriate to say a "Media Mentality", approach to the important issues of the day.
I'm also quite certain that this is most definitely NOT an issue of intelligence. One person who I know to fit this bill, I've known for 20 years, he's extremely intelligent. He's able to analyze and often solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to deeper issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - his positions don't go past what can be skimmed off from any common media source.
Well, I think that I've finally found the clue that I've been looking for in the "sniggers" that inevitably accompany these demonstrations of support for the popular MSM views. I see them as being a strong clue as to why these otherwise sensible people make these comments, support these views and cast the votes, which they do.
If we turn the calendar focus of our attention back to the turn of the 20th century, the cradle of the "greatest Generation", we can see the first popular stirrings of these views. Much happened in the first years of the 1900's: Abandoned by the philosophers who raised not a peep against several events assaults against the rights of the Individuals:• "Trust Busting" Teddy Roosevelt's first big assaults on private property, • they were the first generations to have their educations mandated, from outside their local communities, to be given outside the home - preferably in public schools, • the banks were corralled under the authority of the FED Reserve, • and they were of course shaken by the destruction of WWI.
The Philosophers greatest betrayal was to tell them that there weren't really any objective truths in the world - in fact there might not really even be a world at all - could be all in your head. The Good began to doubt the power, and worse, the worth of Virtue. In popular culture the Hero's began to be illustrated as strong silent types, burdened with a touch of grief and bitterness, such as Humphrey Bogart's characterization of Sam Spade, and others like him. This Hero was someone who still believed in, and fought for, the Good, but who no longer had confidence that it would be likely to prevail.
As soon as that character trait sank into the American psyche, assisted by the goings on of the Great Depression, there followed the overwhelming destruction of WWII. Well, the Good Guys won… huh, well… now what? Following on victories heels came the anti-hero, the disillusioned man of action bereft of direction and compass - typified by Marlon Brando & James Dean. Prior to their characterizations, the bad guy was still bad, and no one wanted to be like him, but after them, then people began to romance their plight, to sympathize with secular Christian zeal for the victimized, thinking that here were hero's unfairly separated from the pack and victimized by accidental circumstances.
But I think the worst case of cultural evil sunk into the American psyche, like a debilitating disease, through the onslaught of - (before typing the next word, I can't shake the image of the Wizard "Tim" in Monty Python's 'The Holy Grail' describing the fangs of the most horrible monster … which turns out to be a bunny rabbit...) - Humor (... ofcourse after The Knights scoff and attack the bunny, it then leaps and tears their throats out, killing them all).
It is said that Laughter makes the best medicine, what isn't mentioned is that it also makes the most effective and corrosive poison.
Read P.G. Wodehouse' stories of the ultra effective Butler named Jeeves, and you will see humor as it should be conveyed; some shades of that tone can even still be seen in Bill Cosby, where it is peoples foibles and shortcomings that are lanced with humor, so that with the laughter there comes no urge to emulate their failings. That began to change however with TV shows and Movies such as the campy TV versions of Batman & Get Smart, where the Good were made fun of because they were Good. But it reached its first truly destructive plateau, with the characters of M*A*S*H; particularly that of Hawkeye Pierce.
With Hawkeye, it is people's virtues, shown to be mere fronts to hide sins, which are lacerated by his cynical and sarcastic humor, albeit accompanied with touches of kindness and a "heart of gold". The purpose, the function, the result of art - looked for or not, is that people come away from it with a desire to emulate it's hero's '"virtues", the key actions & traits of the Hero of the story. Hawkeye's key actions and traits outside the operating room were those of Slovenliness, a tormenting sense of humor, "little white lies" to aid in womanizing, and in supplying a never ending supply of test tube Gin. His style was that of all things slacker, drawn to expose the fraudulent good among those in authority. All things High are false, all things low are common and "fun", and no things are worthwhile in the long run. That is true and naked evil, and few there are who see it.
Am I overdoing it? I don't think so. Look back to the movies of the 30's & 40's - the only characters with traits resembling this kind of humor were the out & out villains, or beaten up, partially reformed, world weary sidekicks - not the Hero. And even when the hero might be a beaten up world weary type forced by circumstance to become the Hero of the story, while he might slouch & mock when out of the fray, the moment he had to spring into action, he bolted up to his feet, his back ramrod straight, eyes steady & fierce inside a level head. Look at the Hero’s of today’s movies, the slouch never straightens, the humor always mocks, and no conviction is ever held.
The cutting edge of humor has been turned back towards the speaker (listener), cutting and putting down attacker and victim alike, through cynical, sarcastic, mocking. Gone is Sam Spades uprightness, replaced by Hawkeye's slovenliness, gone is Sam Spade's weary but moral tone, replaced by cheap derisive, mocking sarcasm - all capped off with a drunken haze of glamorizing humor and moral superiority which declares NOT I am holier than thou, but I am bitterer than thou, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou.
Emulating that characterization has brought into us an avoidance towards taking action at all, any desire to stand up for what is believed to be right (“nothing really is, don't you know, they'll show their true stripes soon enough”), and humor magnifies it's ability to spread that weakness by infectious humor and the widespread emulation of its style.
Millions of teenagers in the 70's, like me, drank that up, and emulated some shade of it in our behavior. This new corrosiveness was not spread throughout the culture by any force of Evil, but by an association with what was taken to be the good. The Hawkeye we consciously saw was a doctor, working feverishly, heroically, to save soldiers lives. What our minds saw via the subconscious conceptual integrations being made, the point of the show which was transmitted to the world, was that the true bad guys were discipline and standards, and that the greatest fools were those who let themselves be taken in by morality, and that the inevitable victims of the powerful would be those who attempted to defend the Right.
I know my friends to not be bad people, and certainly not evil, however, Evil does not spread through the power of evil alone, but through the errors and toleration of the Good. Evil is by nature a parasitic virus, it must have some vehicle to ride upon in order to smuggle itself into those who don't suspect its presence - that's the only way it can spread.
Knock on the door and proclaim yourself to be evil ("hello, landshark"), and the door will be slammed in your face, possibly followed by a shotgun blast. But claim to be a fellow member of the good, and with some star appeal, affect a twinkling winking humor with hidden implications of evil, and your message will be received, achieved, transmitted and emulated.
Look how "humor" has spread since M*A*S*H. The precocious-tending-towards-obnoxious kids of comedy shows starting with "Leave it to Beaver" have since progressed to those wisecracking snots of "Full House" (usually accompanied by a particularly "hip" [read childish] elderly character), and on to Beavis & Butthead, Bart Simpson, Stewie of The Family Guy - my god, pure sickness and filth with a smiling face "welcome! Come in! My goodness that was funny, rerun that show so I can try to imitate you!" comes the response of it's multi-million person audience.
The problem with Humor, is that outwardly, on the surface, laughter feels Good, a laugh is a laugh is a laugh - it feels pleasant! "What's the problem? " as my 13 yr old continually asks me as I turn his shows off, "You laughed too!". To a certain extent that is true, humor, if it makes the proper integrations with just the right amount of surprise and conceptual homonyms, you get a belly laughing experience. But what you may not notice, unless looking for it, is that of the degrading affect that laugh can have if directed not in support of your values, of civil behavior, of politeness - the stature, the value and seriousness which you allot to particular concepts & persons in your mind, are reduced by laughter being directed at them. There is also a further association being made, between this once sacrosanct serious item of mental furniture and something that is, well, laughable. It establishes a precedent for no longer automatically taking something seriously. That is a very strong offensive beachhead being made in your mind, for the forces opposed to any strongly integrated relationship between reality, and your assessment of its value.
Without that bulwark in the culture to fall back on, the leftists would be mowed down with righteous wrath, but with that "I'm only Joking!" and "you don't seriously believe…" established as a foundation to be built upon, they have the upper hand. It is now the morally upright who find themselves going it alone on muddy ground, with little or no support capable of being lent it from the popular culture, swamped as they are with the echoes still being amplified about through Hawkeye's children.
Homer may have summed this type of attack up best 3000 years ago with Odysseus's Trojan Horse - the ultimate image of virtue and worth to the Trojans was the strong and upright horse - and as they wheeled in that glorious idol wrought by their enemies, followed in by cheerful throngs of revelers, the evil hid in it's belly, and with the coming of night emerged among them, and slaughtered them, and threw down their protecting walls to destruction. Americans were once known as being the most remarkably sunny, optimistic, good natured people on the face of the planet. Now we are more known for celebrities affecting cynical conspiracy theories, bad manners, and the stupidest students on the face of the planet.
Positions of public cynicism are now the common stance of celebrities of all types. Spawned from the culture that lifted up entertainment such as M*A*S*H, with it's corrosive humor trained on anything resembling upright behavior & idealizing slovenly, hedonistic behavior as "Authentic" and sincere and more humanitarian than others, more Caring than any other.
After the widespread events of disillusionment in the last few decades (Hoover, JFK, Vietnam, always Vietnam, Nixon , Abscam, Jimmy "I have sinned" Swaggart and on and on) People are desirous, even eager, to come off rather as too smart to fall for believing in integrity and honesty from people with any hint of wealth and power or moral standing, than to be fooled yet again.
Taken together, the How’s identified in the previous post (The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 1), and this cynical humor as the standard backdrop to everyone's behavior, what else can we expect from our friends who find that the popularity of a position will have more currency and importance to their social standing and so adopt them as theirs (“after all, it’s not like they’re REALLY important to anything”); they are going to strike the pose of a Hawkeye Pierce, a sneering grin directed at anyone who claims to stand for virtue (“obviously a hypocrite”).
Again, with our Media Cultures’ glamorizing cynical humor over moral clarity, it leaves the casual citizen more likely to adopt as their new credo NOT “I am holier than thou”, but “I am bitterer than thou”, and I… I am not going to be duped, taken in like thou (“won’t get fooled again!”). Take a look at any popular TV character, such as that of Chandler from "Friends" - does that not sum him up rather well?
People who have no real interest in economics and politics, nevertheless don't want to appear to be clueless, so they adopt the language that they've heard used by those who are culturally acclaimed as knowing, and who have some tinge of glamour or status associated with them, which they can by association, siphon off of. Couple this with the stance educated into them through their professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and so not only do they not understand it the concepts they are scoffing at, they don't think that there really exists any relevant link, value or importance in it to their lives.
So we've got not only the urge to not be duped, but the desire to look like someone who won't be duped, and to tap into the cultural glow by adopting that (anti) Hero glamour.
Just as we might respond to a flat earther with an "Oh Come On!" were they to say that the earth was flat and there's no such thing as gravity, even though we aren't able to explain the reasoning behind it Newton’s theories, they "Feel" that they have an exceptionally valid and established set of reasons behind the assertions made by the Authorities they respect. They don't have an interest in investigating the point, they don't think it is necessary at all, and they're satisfied with the story they are passing on and upholding.
From this combination of sequences, we get people primed to continue the liberal line, but also to parrot and give a pass to the ones truly in the "know" to work their acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
But I’m not bitter about it.
Yeah right.
The Gridlock of unintegrated 'Knowledge' Part 1 (revised)
July 23
I want to take a small digression from the Aha! thread, to look at some examples of language mastering individuals. Two from today’s news:
Juan Williams is saying on Fox, that we shouldn't attack Hezbollah because it'll destabilize the new Lebanese democratic Government - as if it could be a stable Government, when it’s entire southern portion is controlled by a defacto Government. of Terrorists within, who are controlled by Iran & Syria from without. To him, because the Lebanese Government has the name, the title of Government, whether or not they have any actual substance, they are in his eyes, a legitimate and independent Government.
The "Peace Movement" when mentioned, is given a matter of fact regard among the Media Culture, and few question their claim to be acting for peace, even though it flies in the face of all history and knowledge of human behavior. Without being challenged, they assert that you can end a conflict between a peaceful nation and a warlike nation, by having the peaceful one disarm and give concessions to the warlike one, that that will somehow cause the warlike entity to see the light of nice behavior, and chuck it's ambitions for power.
There is something about being able to pin a word or name such as “Peace Movement” or “Democratic Government” to a collection of data and aspirations, pseudo-concepts - and by repeating it with sincerity and presumed moral authority, which makes it resemble nothing so much as an stylized incantation. Somehow they expect this process alone will have the power of making it true – true for us, true for them, and true in fact. The astonishing part is that for those involved in repeating it, it IS true; and those who question it’s truth, they look upon as interesting and slightly alarming bacteria swimming about in the petrie dish of Television.
How is it possible, we ask, for Leftist's to hold to these "ideas"(there are far many more than just leftists who operate in this way, but one step at a time)? What I'd like to question is what it is about those who harbor a Media Mentality, that causes them to approach the critical issues of the day, Ideas, Responsibility – Maturity, issues which they are clearly interested in, without ever really penetrating those issues. They ask plenty of questions, but they just keep repeating the same conclusions they had before asking their questions, they reduce thinking to a process of Parroting long dead answers to new questions.
How and Why does this occur? I think that there are two main mid-level reasons that explain this, one, the How, having to do with Education and the other, the Why, having to do with Glamour. In this Part1, I’ll look at the How in Education, the Glamourous Why portion I’ll leave for Part 2.
This is not an issue of intelligence, one person I've known for 25 years, is extremely intelligent. He's able to comprehend, figure out and solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - he doesn't go past what he's seen on TV. If he hears someone with some degree of credentialed fame (and even better, if there's some version of a cynical conspiracy theory associated with it), then that is what he will regard as having the status of truth.
Before condemning those who are behaving this way, you and I might want to consider what we know about the Law of Gravity. Or any of Newton’s 3 Laws of Physics. Or any other foundational law of Science. There's not one in a thousand of us who understands these laws, who can explain them, and who can demonstrate the key principles constituting them.
When we hear of those who lived before Newton, or primitive peoples of today who still have not heard of Newton’s laws, we us nod our heads knowingly, and snigger at those who supposedly believed that the Sun revolved about the earth, that planetary revolution occurred in circles, and so on.
But I say that we know our current laws no better than they, and we respect them with little better reason than those “old fools” did - we take it on authority (which is how it is taught to us - as their beliefs were taught to them) to be true. Teachers 'teach' these highly complex and astounding accomplishments of the human mind, which flow from the pinnacle of an enormous amount of lesser principles, laws and concepts spanning mathematics and other branches of the sciences - to 8th & 9th graders. 8th & 9th graders, who more than likely barely have a grasp of even long division and basic algebra - if that, let alone Calculus. And though they Don’t understand it, they are told that if they can pass an exam on it – they do understand it "Congratulations, you passed!".
This new knowledge they are 'taught' amounts to little more than pronouncements from authority, commands that are accepted, memorized for tests, and reinforced occasionally by other teachers, newspaper and magazine articles, and other parts of the cultural media.
But it is not understood. The 'knowledge' they have in their mind is little more than a label reading "Physics" pasted upon an empty box, attached to an equally worthwhile diploma; if they've collected enough boxes of 'knowledge' while at school. This is, I think, an extremely important concept to grasp, and has implications for the Aha! example of mental integration.
These ideas are ‘taught’, they are given as pronouncements from on high, with the clear implication that those who don't grasp them are as stupid as the medievalists, and those who don't accept them are fools and objects of mockery that can have no credibility in polite company. Those who have managed to collect enough nicely labled boxes, should just move on down the line, and shake those boxes as little as possible, so no one will notice that the majority of them are empty.
Newton’s laws of Physics are taught to nearly all the students in our highly technological society. And it is taught in the same manner, and with the same implications attached, with which people are 'taught' that FDR's welfare state policies ended the great depression, that Capitalism and all people of wealth and power are corrupt and bad, and that the United States of America in particular and Western Civilization in general, are hypocritical buffoons who only pretend to uphold Truth, Justice and the American Way, but in fact are behind the scenes just tools for greedy conspiracists and shadowy cabals of the powerful.
This method of 'Education' is extremely telling and alarming. Even worse, I don't think that the people responsible for it, realize that there is any problem with it, whatsoever.
These tenants of leftist ideology are not identified as such (and truth be told, were the Conservatives to run the schools, they would handle the situation no differently, only substituting different points of ‘knowledge’), but are presented as straight forward information that one should 'know' and adhere to, just as one should equally accept the laws of Physics, though understood no better. Any confession of ignorance or doubt regarding these issues will be met with just as much condemnation and derisive laughter as is reserved for those who question whether or not the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. They are items that are just 'known' and not questioned seriously - if you must raise a question about them, you just go through the motions of thinking it over and give back the 'answer' once again. It's known. It's part of everything else that it 'known'. Your beliefs are tied to it, your diploma is tied to it, your credibility is tied to it, to the carefully stacked pile of nicely labled boxes, some full, some empty, some in between, which supports your entire life. And it's not like most people realize that they don't know, like their teachers, they think that repeating back the approved answers IS knowing. To have memorized the Correct Answers, is to Know!
Now then, with this perspective, look again at your fellow Americans who accept the party line of the MSM and Hollywood, and who look at you as if you were wearing medieval monks’ robes when you make your claims of American Exceptionalism. Couple this with the stance educated into them through the professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can and should be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and it is no wonder that they don't think it's of any real value or import to their lives.
From this combination of sequences, we get people who are not only primed to continue unconciously (literaly) to carry forward the liberal line, but who will fight for it, not argue for it, but fight for it, demonstrate for it, evangelize for it, and so work it's acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
These 'truths' that are accepted through the perversion of the teaching process, are integrated into ones knowledge, unbalancing their belief system and their self esteem, through pure forces of authority, intimidation and fear, and they are tied deeply tied to their desire to be accepted among peers and society.
How that is done, I’ll leave for Part 2.
I want to take a small digression from the Aha! thread, to look at some examples of language mastering individuals. Two from today’s news:
Juan Williams is saying on Fox, that we shouldn't attack Hezbollah because it'll destabilize the new Lebanese democratic Government - as if it could be a stable Government, when it’s entire southern portion is controlled by a defacto Government. of Terrorists within, who are controlled by Iran & Syria from without. To him, because the Lebanese Government has the name, the title of Government, whether or not they have any actual substance, they are in his eyes, a legitimate and independent Government.
The "Peace Movement" when mentioned, is given a matter of fact regard among the Media Culture, and few question their claim to be acting for peace, even though it flies in the face of all history and knowledge of human behavior. Without being challenged, they assert that you can end a conflict between a peaceful nation and a warlike nation, by having the peaceful one disarm and give concessions to the warlike one, that that will somehow cause the warlike entity to see the light of nice behavior, and chuck it's ambitions for power.
There is something about being able to pin a word or name such as “Peace Movement” or “Democratic Government” to a collection of data and aspirations, pseudo-concepts - and by repeating it with sincerity and presumed moral authority, which makes it resemble nothing so much as an stylized incantation. Somehow they expect this process alone will have the power of making it true – true for us, true for them, and true in fact. The astonishing part is that for those involved in repeating it, it IS true; and those who question it’s truth, they look upon as interesting and slightly alarming bacteria swimming about in the petrie dish of Television.
How is it possible, we ask, for Leftist's to hold to these "ideas"(there are far many more than just leftists who operate in this way, but one step at a time)? What I'd like to question is what it is about those who harbor a Media Mentality, that causes them to approach the critical issues of the day, Ideas, Responsibility – Maturity, issues which they are clearly interested in, without ever really penetrating those issues. They ask plenty of questions, but they just keep repeating the same conclusions they had before asking their questions, they reduce thinking to a process of Parroting long dead answers to new questions.
How and Why does this occur? I think that there are two main mid-level reasons that explain this, one, the How, having to do with Education and the other, the Why, having to do with Glamour. In this Part1, I’ll look at the How in Education, the Glamourous Why portion I’ll leave for Part 2.
This is not an issue of intelligence, one person I've known for 25 years, is extremely intelligent. He's able to comprehend, figure out and solve nearly any problem put in front of him. He can read human psychology, and group dynamics with the best of them. But when it comes to issues of politics, economics or of cultural judgment - he doesn't go past what he's seen on TV. If he hears someone with some degree of credentialed fame (and even better, if there's some version of a cynical conspiracy theory associated with it), then that is what he will regard as having the status of truth.
Before condemning those who are behaving this way, you and I might want to consider what we know about the Law of Gravity. Or any of Newton’s 3 Laws of Physics. Or any other foundational law of Science. There's not one in a thousand of us who understands these laws, who can explain them, and who can demonstrate the key principles constituting them.
When we hear of those who lived before Newton, or primitive peoples of today who still have not heard of Newton’s laws, we us nod our heads knowingly, and snigger at those who supposedly believed that the Sun revolved about the earth, that planetary revolution occurred in circles, and so on.
But I say that we know our current laws no better than they, and we respect them with little better reason than those “old fools” did - we take it on authority (which is how it is taught to us - as their beliefs were taught to them) to be true. Teachers 'teach' these highly complex and astounding accomplishments of the human mind, which flow from the pinnacle of an enormous amount of lesser principles, laws and concepts spanning mathematics and other branches of the sciences - to 8th & 9th graders. 8th & 9th graders, who more than likely barely have a grasp of even long division and basic algebra - if that, let alone Calculus. And though they Don’t understand it, they are told that if they can pass an exam on it – they do understand it "Congratulations, you passed!".
This new knowledge they are 'taught' amounts to little more than pronouncements from authority, commands that are accepted, memorized for tests, and reinforced occasionally by other teachers, newspaper and magazine articles, and other parts of the cultural media.
But it is not understood. The 'knowledge' they have in their mind is little more than a label reading "Physics" pasted upon an empty box, attached to an equally worthwhile diploma; if they've collected enough boxes of 'knowledge' while at school. This is, I think, an extremely important concept to grasp, and has implications for the Aha! example of mental integration.
These ideas are ‘taught’, they are given as pronouncements from on high, with the clear implication that those who don't grasp them are as stupid as the medievalists, and those who don't accept them are fools and objects of mockery that can have no credibility in polite company. Those who have managed to collect enough nicely labled boxes, should just move on down the line, and shake those boxes as little as possible, so no one will notice that the majority of them are empty.
Newton’s laws of Physics are taught to nearly all the students in our highly technological society. And it is taught in the same manner, and with the same implications attached, with which people are 'taught' that FDR's welfare state policies ended the great depression, that Capitalism and all people of wealth and power are corrupt and bad, and that the United States of America in particular and Western Civilization in general, are hypocritical buffoons who only pretend to uphold Truth, Justice and the American Way, but in fact are behind the scenes just tools for greedy conspiracists and shadowy cabals of the powerful.
This method of 'Education' is extremely telling and alarming. Even worse, I don't think that the people responsible for it, realize that there is any problem with it, whatsoever.
These tenants of leftist ideology are not identified as such (and truth be told, were the Conservatives to run the schools, they would handle the situation no differently, only substituting different points of ‘knowledge’), but are presented as straight forward information that one should 'know' and adhere to, just as one should equally accept the laws of Physics, though understood no better. Any confession of ignorance or doubt regarding these issues will be met with just as much condemnation and derisive laughter as is reserved for those who question whether or not the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. They are items that are just 'known' and not questioned seriously - if you must raise a question about them, you just go through the motions of thinking it over and give back the 'answer' once again. It's known. It's part of everything else that it 'known'. Your beliefs are tied to it, your diploma is tied to it, your credibility is tied to it, to the carefully stacked pile of nicely labled boxes, some full, some empty, some in between, which supports your entire life. And it's not like most people realize that they don't know, like their teachers, they think that repeating back the approved answers IS knowing. To have memorized the Correct Answers, is to Know!
Now then, with this perspective, look again at your fellow Americans who accept the party line of the MSM and Hollywood, and who look at you as if you were wearing medieval monks’ robes when you make your claims of American Exceptionalism. Couple this with the stance educated into them through the professors, that there are no truly integrated principles, that things can and should be approached with Clintonian compartmentalization, and it is no wonder that they don't think it's of any real value or import to their lives.
From this combination of sequences, we get people who are not only primed to continue unconciously (literaly) to carry forward the liberal line, but who will fight for it, not argue for it, but fight for it, demonstrate for it, evangelize for it, and so work it's acidic poison deeper into the cultural mainstream.
These 'truths' that are accepted through the perversion of the teaching process, are integrated into ones knowledge, unbalancing their belief system and their self esteem, through pure forces of authority, intimidation and fear, and they are tied deeply tied to their desire to be accepted among peers and society.
How that is done, I’ll leave for Part 2.
More Ahh... ha-ha-....Aha!
July 20
Ahh... ha-ha-....Aha!
I've been thinking about how our minds do or don't work to make language come out of our mouths. Gagdad Bob over at One Cosmos, was noting how some people, usually elites (I might say those who are more reliant on the impression that their language makes upon others) often seem to succumb to their language, rather than mastering it - they are more people spoken by language, rather than people speaking language themselves. It's as if having memorized various quotes, terms, phrases and definitions, they lay in wait for any moment that could plausibly be deemed appropriate for pulling them out; as if all they’ll ever have to say was long ago stored in their memory like a series of pre-recorded statements, mental DJ’s waiting to play their intellectual Top 40 jingles. Then as they try to elaborate in conversation, their comments more often than not, are either of a low level conceptual nature, or so mistreat the high level concepts as to contort them into a lower level nature.
Surely we've all come across one of these pompous, affected characters before (perhaps even found our(my)self as one of them at times, saying something chiefly because it would go over well, whether or not it was well thought out - hmm?). Think of a character such as Voltaire's Pangloss or even Diane Chambers from the TV show "Cheers" - wanna-be Elites, consumed with all things Intellectual (sounding), always speaking stiltedly - like walking plagiarisms, they seem to contort their attention in order to selectively grasp at fragments of life around them for the sole purpose of ostentatiously displaying their horded, long dead, ideas for your admiration. They contrast poorly with those who instead seek to engage life and describe their experience of it as best they can with the appropriate language available to them, and while their vocabulary and allusions may or may not be lacking, their meaning is clear, lively and sparkling with insight & humor. People like H.L. Mencken, Irving Babbitt, Richard Mitchell, or Winston Churchill - they make language dance, sparkling and alive – and their language makes our own minds feel more alive at its touch between our ears.
Why is that? What is it we DO with language? What does language DO to us? Or rather, what is the process our brains engage in, that results in language? How is it that it becomes alive or dead in nature, high or low in content? And why is it that we are susceptible to being taken over by that language - like in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (subtitled The Modern Prometheus), that ever popular Sci-Fi theme of Technology overcoming it's Creators, of Robots going from serving people to enslaving their creators whom they once served. Language can be used to lift you on high, or drag you down into interior darkness. Language might best be looked upon, depending on it's relationship to your Mind, as either Prometheus’s Fire or a Frankenstein’s Monster. If your use of language descends from Prometheus, from high level concepts, it will energize & lift you up. On the other hand, if from Frankenstein, dominated by glitzier earthly level concepts, it may well dazzle you, for a time, but in the end turn and pursue you to the ruins of spirit and soul.
I think I’ve found a clue in “Ahh! Ah, ha-ha-....Aha!”. Everyone is familiar with the Aha! Affect to one degree or another, where seemingly out of the blue, an answer blazes into your mind after seeking after it for some period of time. IMHO, The Aha! Effect, is when a sudden integration of a large array of seemingly disconnected data, is integrated into one, bringing many into one related whole. The intensity of the Aha! Felt by the person experiencing it, is likely in proportion to the quests size and duration in both time and effort.
It dawned on me recently, that laughter is probably closely related to the Aha! effect, with a slightly different flavor. It too, is the sudden integration of two or more unlooked for data relations in a way that is seemingly contrary to logic and/or custom… until you receive that integrating bit of data in the punch line. Varying the degree that the items are normally thought to be unrelated, the unexpectedness, the suddenness, and the number of integrations made by the punch line, corresponds to the intensity of the laughter. It’s interesting (and painfully tedious!) to watch children learning to express a sense of humor. They do seem to get that the key to humor, is putting together things that don’t normally belong, but it takes a seemingly long while for them to realize that the punchline needs to make it look like the items are related, though unexpectedly.
What parent hasn’t had to endure a 5-7 year olds attempts at writing Knock-Knock Jokes(“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Petunia, Petunia who? Petunia scrambled eggs!AH-HA-HA-HAA!” it takes SO long for the child to progress to (“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Orange-ya glad I didn’t say Knock-Knock again?! AH-HA-HA-HAA!” and finally you can honestly chuckle along with them). It’s a process of integrating seemingly unrelated data in a way that provides a pleasant, unlooked for surprise at their being linked together.
Integration of data and concepts from the simplest to the highest levels of an hierarchy, is, I think, key to many of the mysteries of how the brain works, and of language itself, a process of integrating from the perceptual to the conceptual (low to high), under a label of words and phrases. If you make your integrations Vertically, then you get a progressively wider perspective , and understanding of life. If however if you go predominantly Horizontally, with only the most unavoidable Vertical Integrations, then it only makes life more complicated and confused – gone is your ability to maintain peace of mind amongst the storms of life.
Ahh... ha-ha-....Aha!
I've been thinking about how our minds do or don't work to make language come out of our mouths. Gagdad Bob over at One Cosmos, was noting how some people, usually elites (I might say those who are more reliant on the impression that their language makes upon others) often seem to succumb to their language, rather than mastering it - they are more people spoken by language, rather than people speaking language themselves. It's as if having memorized various quotes, terms, phrases and definitions, they lay in wait for any moment that could plausibly be deemed appropriate for pulling them out; as if all they’ll ever have to say was long ago stored in their memory like a series of pre-recorded statements, mental DJ’s waiting to play their intellectual Top 40 jingles. Then as they try to elaborate in conversation, their comments more often than not, are either of a low level conceptual nature, or so mistreat the high level concepts as to contort them into a lower level nature.
Surely we've all come across one of these pompous, affected characters before (perhaps even found our(my)self as one of them at times, saying something chiefly because it would go over well, whether or not it was well thought out - hmm?). Think of a character such as Voltaire's Pangloss or even Diane Chambers from the TV show "Cheers" - wanna-be Elites, consumed with all things Intellectual (sounding), always speaking stiltedly - like walking plagiarisms, they seem to contort their attention in order to selectively grasp at fragments of life around them for the sole purpose of ostentatiously displaying their horded, long dead, ideas for your admiration. They contrast poorly with those who instead seek to engage life and describe their experience of it as best they can with the appropriate language available to them, and while their vocabulary and allusions may or may not be lacking, their meaning is clear, lively and sparkling with insight & humor. People like H.L. Mencken, Irving Babbitt, Richard Mitchell, or Winston Churchill - they make language dance, sparkling and alive – and their language makes our own minds feel more alive at its touch between our ears.
Why is that? What is it we DO with language? What does language DO to us? Or rather, what is the process our brains engage in, that results in language? How is it that it becomes alive or dead in nature, high or low in content? And why is it that we are susceptible to being taken over by that language - like in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (subtitled The Modern Prometheus), that ever popular Sci-Fi theme of Technology overcoming it's Creators, of Robots going from serving people to enslaving their creators whom they once served. Language can be used to lift you on high, or drag you down into interior darkness. Language might best be looked upon, depending on it's relationship to your Mind, as either Prometheus’s Fire or a Frankenstein’s Monster. If your use of language descends from Prometheus, from high level concepts, it will energize & lift you up. On the other hand, if from Frankenstein, dominated by glitzier earthly level concepts, it may well dazzle you, for a time, but in the end turn and pursue you to the ruins of spirit and soul.
I think I’ve found a clue in “Ahh! Ah, ha-ha-....Aha!”. Everyone is familiar with the Aha! Affect to one degree or another, where seemingly out of the blue, an answer blazes into your mind after seeking after it for some period of time. IMHO, The Aha! Effect, is when a sudden integration of a large array of seemingly disconnected data, is integrated into one, bringing many into one related whole. The intensity of the Aha! Felt by the person experiencing it, is likely in proportion to the quests size and duration in both time and effort.
It dawned on me recently, that laughter is probably closely related to the Aha! effect, with a slightly different flavor. It too, is the sudden integration of two or more unlooked for data relations in a way that is seemingly contrary to logic and/or custom… until you receive that integrating bit of data in the punch line. Varying the degree that the items are normally thought to be unrelated, the unexpectedness, the suddenness, and the number of integrations made by the punch line, corresponds to the intensity of the laughter. It’s interesting (and painfully tedious!) to watch children learning to express a sense of humor. They do seem to get that the key to humor, is putting together things that don’t normally belong, but it takes a seemingly long while for them to realize that the punchline needs to make it look like the items are related, though unexpectedly.
What parent hasn’t had to endure a 5-7 year olds attempts at writing Knock-Knock Jokes(“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Petunia, Petunia who? Petunia scrambled eggs!AH-HA-HA-HAA!” it takes SO long for the child to progress to (“Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Knock-knock! Who’s there? Orange, Orange who? Orange-ya glad I didn’t say Knock-Knock again?! AH-HA-HA-HAA!” and finally you can honestly chuckle along with them). It’s a process of integrating seemingly unrelated data in a way that provides a pleasant, unlooked for surprise at their being linked together.
Integration of data and concepts from the simplest to the highest levels of an hierarchy, is, I think, key to many of the mysteries of how the brain works, and of language itself, a process of integrating from the perceptual to the conceptual (low to high), under a label of words and phrases. If you make your integrations Vertically, then you get a progressively wider perspective , and understanding of life. If however if you go predominantly Horizontally, with only the most unavoidable Vertical Integrations, then it only makes life more complicated and confused – gone is your ability to maintain peace of mind amongst the storms of life.
What is a proper view of Man's Nature? Aha!
July 19
What is a proper view of Man's Nature?
Given the assumptions that Man is a being of self-made soul, is the Thucydidean view that civilization is only a thin veneer upon the savage nature of Man, easily scratched away by adversity, valid?
Is the enlightenment and Socratic view that Man is by nature good, and perfectible, if only he is exposed to rational education, valid?
Or is the view that Man is but a fickle opportunist, who with limited prognosticative abilities, puts upon the public nature he thinks will win him the most favor to come, valid?
Or the Religious view, that Man is fallen, and can never be improved, only forgiven and pitied, and must forever be enyolked to rigorous oversight by the clergy, valid?
The question is important, because we are investing our war-time strategy in a bet upon Democracy being able to bring a goodness inherent in Man, where he will be able to lift himself by his own bootstraps, and become civil, responsible members of civilization.
How much of Man's nature is fixed within him at an early age, if not at birth, and how much is it open to influence?
For myself, I think that it is something that in theory can be changed, but that it requires an astounding level of emotional impact (Wham!) to do it at all, and for it to last, that influence must be sustained over a significant length of time.
As we saw with 9/11, while an entire nation can be swayed and changed - for the vast majority of the population the effects will only last for a short time. Still, for those who felt the same level of impact - why were they changed for the long-term? The people who made massive changes to their nature & beliefs, came from all walks of life, actors, truck drivers, teachers, etc - as did those who were only momentarily moved, if at all.
So what theory can account for it? I think it may have to do with the gut reactions best expressed by “Ahh!... ah, ha-ha… Aha!”. I suppose I’ll have to elaborate on that some… more to come.
What is a proper view of Man's Nature?
Given the assumptions that Man is a being of self-made soul, is the Thucydidean view that civilization is only a thin veneer upon the savage nature of Man, easily scratched away by adversity, valid?
Is the enlightenment and Socratic view that Man is by nature good, and perfectible, if only he is exposed to rational education, valid?
Or is the view that Man is but a fickle opportunist, who with limited prognosticative abilities, puts upon the public nature he thinks will win him the most favor to come, valid?
Or the Religious view, that Man is fallen, and can never be improved, only forgiven and pitied, and must forever be enyolked to rigorous oversight by the clergy, valid?
The question is important, because we are investing our war-time strategy in a bet upon Democracy being able to bring a goodness inherent in Man, where he will be able to lift himself by his own bootstraps, and become civil, responsible members of civilization.
How much of Man's nature is fixed within him at an early age, if not at birth, and how much is it open to influence?
For myself, I think that it is something that in theory can be changed, but that it requires an astounding level of emotional impact (Wham!) to do it at all, and for it to last, that influence must be sustained over a significant length of time.
As we saw with 9/11, while an entire nation can be swayed and changed - for the vast majority of the population the effects will only last for a short time. Still, for those who felt the same level of impact - why were they changed for the long-term? The people who made massive changes to their nature & beliefs, came from all walks of life, actors, truck drivers, teachers, etc - as did those who were only momentarily moved, if at all.
So what theory can account for it? I think it may have to do with the gut reactions best expressed by “Ahh!... ah, ha-ha… Aha!”. I suppose I’ll have to elaborate on that some… more to come.
A comment on Islamists, Leftists, and Failure to Launch: It's a Peter Pandemic
July 19
This is inspired by a Post & comments over at Gagdad Bob's One Cosmos http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/,
Tuesday, July 18, 2006 Islamists, Leftists, and Failure to Launch: It's a Peter Pandemic:
Keep in mind that their is no "capitalist system" out there that is acting, extending itself into corners of the world, peoples lives, or anything else. There is no Ministry of Capitalism that makes capitalist decisions or marketing plans, and any Gov's attempt to act as if it were such a thing, to guide or regulate it, is but Gov's attempt to exert power & skim some wealth from it's people.
Capitalism is more of a lack of system, than a positive set systems - it is what results when people are free to live, trade, speak & do as they see fit - secure in their rights to pursue Happiness (however well or poorly they understand that concept) where they will. It is people's philosophy (or lack of it) that guides what they will seek after, which others will provide for them for a fee, whether it be refined or vulgar.
What people seem to miss, is that freedom, to be stable & prosperous, REQUIRES that people behave in an Adult like manner. Gov, and the demagogues who feed it, understand at some level that peoples worst fear is having to be responsible for their own convictions and actions - more than anything else they are terrified of that - of growing up.
In a proper "Capitalist System", i.e. freedom with sacred Rights, and the rule of Law, that type of evasion isn't possible - not for long anyway, and so people out of necessity will grow up and behave responsibility. In this system, there is a balance, the wheel spins smoothly and swiftly, and any rocks or mud flung upon it is flung back off rather quickly.
It has been from Gov stepping in to "fix" this system, that has given us the systematic problems we have now. Each correction (establishing the Fed, IRS, Mandatory "Education", Welfare...) afixes a weight to that smoothly spinning wheel. The shimmey that people begin to notice soon afterwards, is "fixed" by attaching another weight to the wheel, and the shimmey turns to a wobble, and so on.
Gov action in the economy (into our lives and responsibilities) in an attempt to relieve people of the need to be responsible for their own lives.. and people (not most, at least not at first, but only the noisiest) like being able to evade their responsibilities, so they support more and more of it, which further throws the system even further out of balance.
People now don't "feel" (Feelings soon take the place of thoughts when the sense of there being consequences for your actions is removed) they have to take an active hand in many areas of their own lives, such as the education of their children, or even of themselves for that matter "Look there are Gov standards(!) and regulations! I escape having to think any further on this one too! I have a diploma, I'm Educated! All is well!".
And so the wheel wobbles on - for awhile, and the shimmey becomes a vibration, then a wobble, and begins to wear dangerously into the tread.
What the world of Islam has never had, because of the all encompassing nature of it's religion which dictates right action in all areas of life - is freedom. The freedom to choose, for well or ill, and to suffer the rewards or consequences of their actions. The people of Isalm don't have the luxury even of deciding whether or not to shave, or what to put on in the morning, some aspect of the Koran, or Sharia, has already made that decision for them.There will be very little adult behavior, where adult decisions are never given the freedom to be made.
This is inspired by a Post & comments over at Gagdad Bob's One Cosmos http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/,
Tuesday, July 18, 2006 Islamists, Leftists, and Failure to Launch: It's a Peter Pandemic:
Keep in mind that their is no "capitalist system" out there that is acting, extending itself into corners of the world, peoples lives, or anything else. There is no Ministry of Capitalism that makes capitalist decisions or marketing plans, and any Gov's attempt to act as if it were such a thing, to guide or regulate it, is but Gov's attempt to exert power & skim some wealth from it's people.
Capitalism is more of a lack of system, than a positive set systems - it is what results when people are free to live, trade, speak & do as they see fit - secure in their rights to pursue Happiness (however well or poorly they understand that concept) where they will. It is people's philosophy (or lack of it) that guides what they will seek after, which others will provide for them for a fee, whether it be refined or vulgar.
What people seem to miss, is that freedom, to be stable & prosperous, REQUIRES that people behave in an Adult like manner. Gov, and the demagogues who feed it, understand at some level that peoples worst fear is having to be responsible for their own convictions and actions - more than anything else they are terrified of that - of growing up.
In a proper "Capitalist System", i.e. freedom with sacred Rights, and the rule of Law, that type of evasion isn't possible - not for long anyway, and so people out of necessity will grow up and behave responsibility. In this system, there is a balance, the wheel spins smoothly and swiftly, and any rocks or mud flung upon it is flung back off rather quickly.
It has been from Gov stepping in to "fix" this system, that has given us the systematic problems we have now. Each correction (establishing the Fed, IRS, Mandatory "Education", Welfare...) afixes a weight to that smoothly spinning wheel. The shimmey that people begin to notice soon afterwards, is "fixed" by attaching another weight to the wheel, and the shimmey turns to a wobble, and so on.
Gov action in the economy (into our lives and responsibilities) in an attempt to relieve people of the need to be responsible for their own lives.. and people (not most, at least not at first, but only the noisiest) like being able to evade their responsibilities, so they support more and more of it, which further throws the system even further out of balance.
People now don't "feel" (Feelings soon take the place of thoughts when the sense of there being consequences for your actions is removed) they have to take an active hand in many areas of their own lives, such as the education of their children, or even of themselves for that matter "Look there are Gov standards(!) and regulations! I escape having to think any further on this one too! I have a diploma, I'm Educated! All is well!".
And so the wheel wobbles on - for awhile, and the shimmey becomes a vibration, then a wobble, and begins to wear dangerously into the tread.
What the world of Islam has never had, because of the all encompassing nature of it's religion which dictates right action in all areas of life - is freedom. The freedom to choose, for well or ill, and to suffer the rewards or consequences of their actions. The people of Isalm don't have the luxury even of deciding whether or not to shave, or what to put on in the morning, some aspect of the Koran, or Sharia, has already made that decision for them.There will be very little adult behavior, where adult decisions are never given the freedom to be made.
Disneyland for the Devil
July 15
Aristotle from his "On Metaphysics(Book IV)"
"... for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. "
Our tradition of Western Civilization has come down to us from Homer to Thales through Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Marcus Aurellius to Augustine, Aquinas & down through the Enlightenment with Montaigne, Locke and the Founders, and many, many more.
It was in the time of the Enlightenment, that the fruit of Western Civilization, Liberal Learning, that learning necessary for a free soul, began to split in two different directions. One branch led from John Locke to Adam Smith and the American Founders, with their strong reliance on Virtue and it's requirement of Free Will. The other branch went through Descartes, Rousseau, and the French Philosophes with their ultimate rejection of Virtue and Free Will.
This last branch settled on what would become determinism, by misapplying "Reason", making it synonymous with the new so called Scientific Method. They looked at all areas of human thought, actions & behavior from the Watchmaker's perspective so popular at that time, and assumed to themselves the ability to measure all that was worth measuring; and if it couldn't be measured, then surely it must not either really exist, or else must be rather unimportant. Top of their list of Human qualities to be investigated, measured and tagged, was Free Will and the Soul.
This new flavor of Liberal thinking, looked at Free Will very closely, but when they couldn't see how it ticked, they concluded that it must not really exist at all. They concluded that since there is no measurable Free Will, then what must really be happening when people "thought" they were making a choice of their own Free Will, was only the end result of a series of complicated cause and effect reactions to environmental factors, which was what really determined human behavior. From this they determined that if that was the case, then it must be that if you could only find the proper series of actions, triggers or levers to throw, then ipso facto, you would be able to produce more desirable outcomes in people’s behavior - outcomes could be not only caused, but determined. In other words, if you properly wound the clock, it would tick smoothly along and tell the time ever so smoothly, as long as some conscientious person stayed on hand to keep winding it up.
This notion is central to all that has become leftist thought, and it is what divorced it from the long train of Liberal Thinking that painstakingly came down to us through Western Civilization, and has put it in direct opposition to all that stands at the foundation of not only Western Civilization, but Civilization itself.
Their deterministic concept makes ANY statement of ethical Good or Evil, necessarily into a massive threat to ALL of their beliefs. It also, I would argue, destroys the ability to engage in truly critical thinking & replaces the very idea of decisions (choice) with desirable and expected outcomes. It is also unfortunately THE perfect environment for Evil (of the secular or religious variety) to flourish and to grow & grow & grow.
If any "Bad" actions are by their nature only the result of a large chain of disruptive ripples brought about by society, which Causes people to behave and react in unproductive manners, then there are no bad people, there is no Evil, there is only those who have been mis-directed by society. With that being the case, Evil can stand up in broad daylight, practice it's evil deeds, and all the while claim it's fully justified by the long chain of events that made it act as it does. There is no responsibility. There is also no recognition. Perfectly decent minded people who wouldn't dream of doing Bad things (Of course since there is no Bad, this works out well), merely do what is necessary to help accomplish the collective nudging needed to bring about the perfect lockstep tick-tocking of the ideal society.
This is Disneyland for the Devil, so to speak.
It has been from this line of reasoning that has flowed torrents of people determined to fix all those other people unaware of these truths, so that their world would tick along as those in the know, thought it should, the do-gooder types. These were the people who became the Socialists, renamed themselves to the Progressives when people figured out what Socialists were, then swiped the name 'Liberals' when people figured out what the Progressives were, and who are now trying to recast themselves as Progressives again (what, after all, is in a name).
In their view, all that is required for society to be idyllic is corrective nudging by intellectuals (who are the only ones who can be expected to fully grasp such a long & complicated chain of actions & reactions, and thus best determine how to neutralize them) through governmental power, guiding the application of more money and coercive action. This also required progressively, slowly, step by step, removing those pesky dead white guys of Western Civilization with their ideas of right and wrong, free will & souls; from the educational system, and replacing them with less demanding works, words, phrases & lessons. And forget about competitions! Those must go too, the disruptive ripples that THAT can cause! All very counter productive. In fact, those dead white guys & competitors are the ONLY ones who can properly be called Bad.
Leftists truly believe that if they can just accomplish this, this wiping of Western Civilization off from the face of Western Civilization, then soon, we’ll have a very nicey-nice environment where everybody is taken care of, and where there is no need for struggle, everybody will be made calm and happy - just wind them up, set them correctly, and viola – Utopia!
Aristotle from his "On Metaphysics(Book IV)"
"... for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. "
Our tradition of Western Civilization has come down to us from Homer to Thales through Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Marcus Aurellius to Augustine, Aquinas & down through the Enlightenment with Montaigne, Locke and the Founders, and many, many more.
It was in the time of the Enlightenment, that the fruit of Western Civilization, Liberal Learning, that learning necessary for a free soul, began to split in two different directions. One branch led from John Locke to Adam Smith and the American Founders, with their strong reliance on Virtue and it's requirement of Free Will. The other branch went through Descartes, Rousseau, and the French Philosophes with their ultimate rejection of Virtue and Free Will.
This last branch settled on what would become determinism, by misapplying "Reason", making it synonymous with the new so called Scientific Method. They looked at all areas of human thought, actions & behavior from the Watchmaker's perspective so popular at that time, and assumed to themselves the ability to measure all that was worth measuring; and if it couldn't be measured, then surely it must not either really exist, or else must be rather unimportant. Top of their list of Human qualities to be investigated, measured and tagged, was Free Will and the Soul.
This new flavor of Liberal thinking, looked at Free Will very closely, but when they couldn't see how it ticked, they concluded that it must not really exist at all. They concluded that since there is no measurable Free Will, then what must really be happening when people "thought" they were making a choice of their own Free Will, was only the end result of a series of complicated cause and effect reactions to environmental factors, which was what really determined human behavior. From this they determined that if that was the case, then it must be that if you could only find the proper series of actions, triggers or levers to throw, then ipso facto, you would be able to produce more desirable outcomes in people’s behavior - outcomes could be not only caused, but determined. In other words, if you properly wound the clock, it would tick smoothly along and tell the time ever so smoothly, as long as some conscientious person stayed on hand to keep winding it up.
This notion is central to all that has become leftist thought, and it is what divorced it from the long train of Liberal Thinking that painstakingly came down to us through Western Civilization, and has put it in direct opposition to all that stands at the foundation of not only Western Civilization, but Civilization itself.
Their deterministic concept makes ANY statement of ethical Good or Evil, necessarily into a massive threat to ALL of their beliefs. It also, I would argue, destroys the ability to engage in truly critical thinking & replaces the very idea of decisions (choice) with desirable and expected outcomes. It is also unfortunately THE perfect environment for Evil (of the secular or religious variety) to flourish and to grow & grow & grow.
If any "Bad" actions are by their nature only the result of a large chain of disruptive ripples brought about by society, which Causes people to behave and react in unproductive manners, then there are no bad people, there is no Evil, there is only those who have been mis-directed by society. With that being the case, Evil can stand up in broad daylight, practice it's evil deeds, and all the while claim it's fully justified by the long chain of events that made it act as it does. There is no responsibility. There is also no recognition. Perfectly decent minded people who wouldn't dream of doing Bad things (Of course since there is no Bad, this works out well), merely do what is necessary to help accomplish the collective nudging needed to bring about the perfect lockstep tick-tocking of the ideal society.
This is Disneyland for the Devil, so to speak.
It has been from this line of reasoning that has flowed torrents of people determined to fix all those other people unaware of these truths, so that their world would tick along as those in the know, thought it should, the do-gooder types. These were the people who became the Socialists, renamed themselves to the Progressives when people figured out what Socialists were, then swiped the name 'Liberals' when people figured out what the Progressives were, and who are now trying to recast themselves as Progressives again (what, after all, is in a name).
In their view, all that is required for society to be idyllic is corrective nudging by intellectuals (who are the only ones who can be expected to fully grasp such a long & complicated chain of actions & reactions, and thus best determine how to neutralize them) through governmental power, guiding the application of more money and coercive action. This also required progressively, slowly, step by step, removing those pesky dead white guys of Western Civilization with their ideas of right and wrong, free will & souls; from the educational system, and replacing them with less demanding works, words, phrases & lessons. And forget about competitions! Those must go too, the disruptive ripples that THAT can cause! All very counter productive. In fact, those dead white guys & competitors are the ONLY ones who can properly be called Bad.
Leftists truly believe that if they can just accomplish this, this wiping of Western Civilization off from the face of Western Civilization, then soon, we’ll have a very nicey-nice environment where everybody is taken care of, and where there is no need for struggle, everybody will be made calm and happy - just wind them up, set them correctly, and viola – Utopia!
Pain and Suffering
July 08
There is no pain so great as the memory of joy in present grief
--Aeschylus
Pain and Suffering, you can't avoid them, you can't defeat them. Like levels in a video game, pain and suffering will never cease, only be repeated until learned and then exchanged for new & possibly more severe troubles. Why? I think that the question points out a misunderstanding of the game of Life.
Life is not played, lived to gain Things. Life is lived to gain skills in living - to forge purer & more solid character, a more refined and expanded, well rounded soul. In this life, nothing lasts but that and in the off chance that there is another life, you will be unable to take anything other than YOU with you.
This is not to denegrate or devalue Things and/or the desire for them - only an admonition to be sure that their pursuit and gain accomplishes Value and that that is done in the service of other higher Values.
I think that everyone must admit that there is a secret and dangerous, pleasure and satisfaction in the sentiment of complaint and self pity. There is inherent in it an opportunity for communing with yourself, of being able to exalt yourself, your standing and your worthiness of attention and sympathy from others.
Something to think on here is Milton's description of Satan sitting in Hell contemplating himself alone. Your misery becomes magnified, and by association, you become magnified - at least in your mind - but only in your mind. In the reality still existing around, you become withdrawn and lessened. The individual should never lose sight of the value of authentic individuality, but they should also never lose sight of the fact that cutting himself off from others, from the life around you, limits and lessens, reduces, the size and scope of the values and experience possible to you.
And at root, that focus forms and springs from the root of all evil - the desire for the unearned. As if releasing the controls of a video game to let the play smash all around and into your player would generate admiration for your skill at playing! Outrageous!
Whenever we turn to our own unproductive obsessions, we also engage in a related form of this. It's a chance to wallow in a stagnating bath of "you-ness", without developing & improving You in the least. It is only in turning your interests to productive action that any value is created - in which You are created.
This will not ease the experience of pain and suffering. Will not aleviate it. The death of a loved one will only ever be horrible. Understanding all of this will not free you from experiencing pain and suffering. Understanding all of this will only add to your experience of it an added layer of awareness of the sublime.
No one should seek after suffering, and you mustn't ignore, or try to downplay it, or even attempt to in some wierd way to revere it, only try to learn some value from the context of its experience, and grow from it, and live on.
That is what we do. That is Life.
Pain and Suffering, you can't avoid them, you can't defeat them, you can only rise above them by acknowledging them and accepting them - not focusing on them, but just accepting them - and moving on with them, towards your Values.
In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.-- Aeschylus
There is no pain so great as the memory of joy in present grief
--Aeschylus
Pain and Suffering, you can't avoid them, you can't defeat them. Like levels in a video game, pain and suffering will never cease, only be repeated until learned and then exchanged for new & possibly more severe troubles. Why? I think that the question points out a misunderstanding of the game of Life.
Life is not played, lived to gain Things. Life is lived to gain skills in living - to forge purer & more solid character, a more refined and expanded, well rounded soul. In this life, nothing lasts but that and in the off chance that there is another life, you will be unable to take anything other than YOU with you.
This is not to denegrate or devalue Things and/or the desire for them - only an admonition to be sure that their pursuit and gain accomplishes Value and that that is done in the service of other higher Values.
I think that everyone must admit that there is a secret and dangerous, pleasure and satisfaction in the sentiment of complaint and self pity. There is inherent in it an opportunity for communing with yourself, of being able to exalt yourself, your standing and your worthiness of attention and sympathy from others.
Something to think on here is Milton's description of Satan sitting in Hell contemplating himself alone. Your misery becomes magnified, and by association, you become magnified - at least in your mind - but only in your mind. In the reality still existing around, you become withdrawn and lessened. The individual should never lose sight of the value of authentic individuality, but they should also never lose sight of the fact that cutting himself off from others, from the life around you, limits and lessens, reduces, the size and scope of the values and experience possible to you.
And at root, that focus forms and springs from the root of all evil - the desire for the unearned. As if releasing the controls of a video game to let the play smash all around and into your player would generate admiration for your skill at playing! Outrageous!
Whenever we turn to our own unproductive obsessions, we also engage in a related form of this. It's a chance to wallow in a stagnating bath of "you-ness", without developing & improving You in the least. It is only in turning your interests to productive action that any value is created - in which You are created.
This will not ease the experience of pain and suffering. Will not aleviate it. The death of a loved one will only ever be horrible. Understanding all of this will not free you from experiencing pain and suffering. Understanding all of this will only add to your experience of it an added layer of awareness of the sublime.
No one should seek after suffering, and you mustn't ignore, or try to downplay it, or even attempt to in some wierd way to revere it, only try to learn some value from the context of its experience, and grow from it, and live on.
That is what we do. That is Life.
Pain and Suffering, you can't avoid them, you can't defeat them, you can only rise above them by acknowledging them and accepting them - not focusing on them, but just accepting them - and moving on with them, towards your Values.
In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.-- Aeschylus
Observations on Oedipus
June 20
Overview of Oedipus:
Oedipus is a man who is unbalanced between mind and body. Neglectful of inconvenient facts which may impede his desires (Oedipus is nominally lame from the pins hammered into his ankles as a baby being exposed, one of the meanings of Oedipus is swollenfoot), prideful of his ability to perform intellectual tricks (the sphinx's riddle), and disdainful of any Deeper Truths which are not readily apparent to his eye.
He is new to the city of Thebes, and without regard to any deeper knowledge, sets out to cure all of it's troubles, simply by way of his glib mental tricks. As the apparent immediate prosperity due to his solution to the Sphinx's riddle begins to wear away, and a papered over evil begins to reassert itself, he again glibly declares that he himself, will solve all the problems once again, setting off another even more devastating round of unintended consequences.
The play is his discovery, and we the audience discover it too, that closer consideration slowly reveals deeper layers of truth. In the Play we discover ever more deeper Truths about Oedipus and his relation to his family, friends and body politic, of the unstoppable momentum of Underlying Principled Truths, and of man's inability and folly in trying to bury them with sophistry. Truths, which had he taken the care to move more slowly and inquiringly, reveal what happens to a man who tries to soar by way of mental gymnastics alone, separated from, and disregarding the wider truths of Nature, the earth and body politic about him. Taking each truth as if it were an isolated fact in a sophistic syllogism, which may be sound within its own internal logic chopping, and has the Hubris to deem that soundness as valid for ignoring all the outlying facts of reality:
He is at root someone trying desperately to deny and ignore who he is, in order to avoid becoming what he fears - and the inevitable result of not facing or trying to understand your most dreaded fears, and instead Acting, based on only the most superficial of sophistic deductions - attempting to use unprincipled, pragmatic, sophistry to override the course of Truth and Principle, results in bringing the dreaded fear into realization (the law of unintended consequences).
One of the key questions that Sophocles nearly begs you to ask of his play, is why did Oedipus not investigate the rumors of his 'fate' further? Because, as with most pretentious elites - then and now -, whose heads are stuffed with facts devoid of an integrating Education, he had gleaned a superficial level of understanding, and deeming that Sound, felt no need to look any further, to learn any more of the relevant facts or principles involved - just dove headlong after his immediate conclusion, and so immediately brought about the first of the fears he sought to avoid, killing his true father. Was the carriage'd man who roughly shoved him aside a bad man, or a man having a bad day? Oedipus didn't even turn to look at the carriage he no doubt must have heard approaching him from behind, much less step aside for it to pass, and on being accosted as the carriage barreled down upon him, he felt no need to question or consider - he only knew that in that moment he immediately felt offended and pained, surely they must be thugs and brigands - who else would wish him to step aside from the track he was walking on? and that was all the sufficient cause and knowledge he felt he needed to justify killing the men he had never met before.
Did he ever investigate the reason for his deformity? Did he ever ask of his 'parents' (whom here stand in for, and signify a somewhat deeper level of underlying truths and principles) the reason for the scars upon his ankles? Did he ever delve any deeper into the mystery of his 'Fate'? Had he been someone who had paid attention, and sought deeper wisdom, he would have discovered the truth - and in so doing, Possibly might have changed his stars, but Teiresias knew that the Gods & Fate knew their subject, knew that he would plunge in disregarding all custom, disdainful of any and all deeper meanings in favor of a glib solution, and so guaranteed -- his Tragic fate.
Oedipus and those like him, would say that his Fate was determined by the Gods, but the Gods only understand that their subjects who suffer from Hubris, will react based on the surface appearance of things; they will not delve deeper into Truths & Principles - the realm of the Gods, the Hubristic will instead attempt to set themselves up as Gods, daring to think that what is apparent to their eyes is all that needs to be known and is in their direct control. The Gods don't determine men's Fate, they just know the results that must follow from those who place appearances above, and in opposition to, the deeper truths of Life.
The scars upon his foot? psh-posh, they're just scars, signifying nothing, implying nothing, able to reveal no Truths of any importance whatsoever - facts are merely facts, and are integrated no further into life than that which their appearance seems to show. In the same fashion, Oedipus "answered" the riddle of the Sphinx:
Had he given it a just a little further consideration, he might have noted that while,
"To Laius, King of Thebes, an oracle foretold that the child born to him by his queen Jocasta would slay his father and wed his mother. So when in time a son was born the infant’s feet were riveted together and he was left to die on Mount Cithaeron. But a shepherd found the babe and tended him, and delivered him to another shepherd who took him to his master, the King of Corinth. Polybus being childless adopted the boy, who grew up believing that he was indeed the King’s son. Afterwards doubting his parentage he inquired of the Delphic god and heard himself the word declared before to Laius. Wherefore he fled from what he deemed his father’s house and in his flight he encountered and unwillingly slew his father Laius. Arriving at Thebes he answered the riddle of the Sphinx and the grateful Thebans made their deliverer king. So he reigned in the room of Laius, and espoused the widowed queen. Children were born to them and Thebes prospered under his rule, but again a grievous plague fell upon the city. Again the oracle was consulted and it bade them purge themselves of blood-guiltiness. Oedipus denounces the crime of which he is unaware, and undertakes to track out the criminal. Step by step it is brought home to him that he is the man. The closing scene reveals Jocasta slain by her own hand and Oedipus blinded by his own act and praying for death or exile."The story of Oedipus the King is, I think, the story of discovering the Law of unintended consequences, resulting from acting on superficial conclusions, unsupported by deeper understanding.
Oedipus is a man who is unbalanced between mind and body. Neglectful of inconvenient facts which may impede his desires (Oedipus is nominally lame from the pins hammered into his ankles as a baby being exposed, one of the meanings of Oedipus is swollenfoot), prideful of his ability to perform intellectual tricks (the sphinx's riddle), and disdainful of any Deeper Truths which are not readily apparent to his eye.
He is new to the city of Thebes, and without regard to any deeper knowledge, sets out to cure all of it's troubles, simply by way of his glib mental tricks. As the apparent immediate prosperity due to his solution to the Sphinx's riddle begins to wear away, and a papered over evil begins to reassert itself, he again glibly declares that he himself, will solve all the problems once again, setting off another even more devastating round of unintended consequences.
The play is his discovery, and we the audience discover it too, that closer consideration slowly reveals deeper layers of truth. In the Play we discover ever more deeper Truths about Oedipus and his relation to his family, friends and body politic, of the unstoppable momentum of Underlying Principled Truths, and of man's inability and folly in trying to bury them with sophistry. Truths, which had he taken the care to move more slowly and inquiringly, reveal what happens to a man who tries to soar by way of mental gymnastics alone, separated from, and disregarding the wider truths of Nature, the earth and body politic about him. Taking each truth as if it were an isolated fact in a sophistic syllogism, which may be sound within its own internal logic chopping, and has the Hubris to deem that soundness as valid for ignoring all the outlying facts of reality:
All Grass is vegetation,Reality in this case is ignored, but still, and in spite of that ignorance, Grass persists in growing only in shades of Green. Yet the narrow form of the syllogism (even though the rules are not kept) are offered up as proof of validity, blatantly ignoring Aristotle's rule that the syllogism must integrate with the facts of reality surrounding it, just as much as it must with the rules of the syllogism, and its internal logic as well.
Some vegetation is Pink,
Grass is Pink.
He is at root someone trying desperately to deny and ignore who he is, in order to avoid becoming what he fears - and the inevitable result of not facing or trying to understand your most dreaded fears, and instead Acting, based on only the most superficial of sophistic deductions - attempting to use unprincipled, pragmatic, sophistry to override the course of Truth and Principle, results in bringing the dreaded fear into realization (the law of unintended consequences).
One of the key questions that Sophocles nearly begs you to ask of his play, is why did Oedipus not investigate the rumors of his 'fate' further? Because, as with most pretentious elites - then and now -, whose heads are stuffed with facts devoid of an integrating Education, he had gleaned a superficial level of understanding, and deeming that Sound, felt no need to look any further, to learn any more of the relevant facts or principles involved - just dove headlong after his immediate conclusion, and so immediately brought about the first of the fears he sought to avoid, killing his true father. Was the carriage'd man who roughly shoved him aside a bad man, or a man having a bad day? Oedipus didn't even turn to look at the carriage he no doubt must have heard approaching him from behind, much less step aside for it to pass, and on being accosted as the carriage barreled down upon him, he felt no need to question or consider - he only knew that in that moment he immediately felt offended and pained, surely they must be thugs and brigands - who else would wish him to step aside from the track he was walking on? and that was all the sufficient cause and knowledge he felt he needed to justify killing the men he had never met before.
Did he ever investigate the reason for his deformity? Did he ever ask of his 'parents' (whom here stand in for, and signify a somewhat deeper level of underlying truths and principles) the reason for the scars upon his ankles? Did he ever delve any deeper into the mystery of his 'Fate'? Had he been someone who had paid attention, and sought deeper wisdom, he would have discovered the truth - and in so doing, Possibly might have changed his stars, but Teiresias knew that the Gods & Fate knew their subject, knew that he would plunge in disregarding all custom, disdainful of any and all deeper meanings in favor of a glib solution, and so guaranteed -- his Tragic fate.
Oedipus and those like him, would say that his Fate was determined by the Gods, but the Gods only understand that their subjects who suffer from Hubris, will react based on the surface appearance of things; they will not delve deeper into Truths & Principles - the realm of the Gods, the Hubristic will instead attempt to set themselves up as Gods, daring to think that what is apparent to their eyes is all that needs to be known and is in their direct control. The Gods don't determine men's Fate, they just know the results that must follow from those who place appearances above, and in opposition to, the deeper truths of Life.
The scars upon his foot? psh-posh, they're just scars, signifying nothing, implying nothing, able to reveal no Truths of any importance whatsoever - facts are merely facts, and are integrated no further into life than that which their appearance seems to show. In the same fashion, Oedipus "answered" the riddle of the Sphinx:
"What goes on four legs in the morning, two in the afternoon, and three in the evening"Oedipus' answer was,
"Man. As a child he crawls on all fours, as an adult he walks upright on two, and as an old man, he hobbles with a cane".But as with his other solutions, it is a superficial answer, and entirely misses the deeper truth.
Had he given it a just a little further consideration, he might have noted that while,
- Babies do crawl on all fours, and in doing so they are 'in touch' with themselves they see and do what they do - if a lady is fat, they ask why, not realizing the question may be rude.Oedipus, in solving the riddle of the Sphinx so swiftly and glibly and sweeping up all glory to himself as a result, unintentionally gave the Sphinx the last laugh, as this man, this leader, armed with easy answers, rushes out to 'fix' a number of things with his solutions, and brings about a doom that will destroy himself, his family, and his community.
- As a fresh-faced adult, they are standing upright, their eyes looking up and away, less in touch with the earth, with reality, easily stepping into holes with their gaze raised high, or overlooks the dangers before them.
- As an old man, while he does walk with a cane, his eyes are cast lower, still seeing far, but also now taking in the ground upon which he carefully walks, and he walks with the aid of a wooden cane, signifying a support fashioned from nature, by his mind, to connect him more steadily with, and so better supported by, the earth - he is not just old, but Wise.
I remember once upon a time, back when I was alive - The Father's Day Mythos
Original Postdate: June 18
I'm sitting here, dimly remembering what it was like to be alive. The things that conjure up such memories - chanced whiffs of the carnival food court, a sight of short shorts rippling and swaying down the event aisle.
I remember the distance between the living moments - the sight of something you wanted, and thought there might be only the least chance of getting, but sure that it'd be worth it, victory or failure. Your friends with you, either way it washed out, the laughs pleased or strained that would flow at the recounting moments, days and weeks later - didn't matter, it'd improve, depending on the drift of the punch line in that retelling, it'd ring your living life true.
The world was, if not ours, at least graspable, and potentially wondrous.
I remember once upon a time, back when I was alive - the sights and sounds. Ahh me.
And now? Am I dead?
No, not dead, but not really alive either, not in the same way at least; it's a cliche, but like most, has some grounding in truth, when young you live for the moment - alive without the constant reflection upon issues of what you should do, must do, is the risk worth doing, and so on. The constant chatter of maturity. It's not bad, not less... but more deliberate, and definitely different.
Kids see it as well, the not quite verbalized, but constant in the back of all their thoughts when they do regard you, is that you're not really a person, you're a grown-up. More a myth than a Man.
So now I'm no longer alive in the slightly dangerous way of youth, but a man-myth, one that my kids halfheartedly believe in - sometimes more intensely than others. Just as God seems real and vivid in times of danger and desperation, so do the dispensations’ of Dad, and his benevolence or wrath impending, his feelings suddenly and surprisingly real, etched about his eyes, the connection between your actions and that etching strangely and jarringly felt within and without yourself. His story suddenly in mind, commandments at the tip of your tongue... Fatherhood is the turning point of your living life into living myth, where not necessarily the actions you'd prefer to take - will be the ones that you do take - no, they must all be passed through the filter of your Pater myth for the higher good of your children.
They are worth it, it is a Choice that you choose, and creations that you would not forgo for anything - but still the memory of being alive tugs at your soul now and again, especially as they walk the paths which you once trod (unknown to them - you hope). At those moments, you seem to be living within a strange kaliedescope, memories of your past life superimposing themselves across the images before you and them - memories clang about your brain as you tell them the requirements of your mythos, even as you find yourself screaming it above what you wish you could DO in those blessedly unreflective moments.
Not yet, you wish, not yet... But then you do think beyond the moment, and two or three levels deeper, and you make the proper choice, the choice required of your mythos, but more importantly, by their lives being lived before you, which you value more than living, and that they need to be guided by - even if they don't do as you say, the pronouncement will be lodged into their minds, and it will work it's magic into their lives now - or in the life to come for them, when they remember too, the memories of being alive.
And they too will remember the need to live the myth, and pass on the mythos, revised and improved, to guide the lives that they've created and are responsible for - more precious than living itself.
I'm sitting here, dimly remembering what it was like to be alive. The things that conjure up such memories - chanced whiffs of the carnival food court, a sight of short shorts rippling and swaying down the event aisle.
I remember the distance between the living moments - the sight of something you wanted, and thought there might be only the least chance of getting, but sure that it'd be worth it, victory or failure. Your friends with you, either way it washed out, the laughs pleased or strained that would flow at the recounting moments, days and weeks later - didn't matter, it'd improve, depending on the drift of the punch line in that retelling, it'd ring your living life true.
The world was, if not ours, at least graspable, and potentially wondrous.
I remember once upon a time, back when I was alive - the sights and sounds. Ahh me.
And now? Am I dead?
No, not dead, but not really alive either, not in the same way at least; it's a cliche, but like most, has some grounding in truth, when young you live for the moment - alive without the constant reflection upon issues of what you should do, must do, is the risk worth doing, and so on. The constant chatter of maturity. It's not bad, not less... but more deliberate, and definitely different.
Kids see it as well, the not quite verbalized, but constant in the back of all their thoughts when they do regard you, is that you're not really a person, you're a grown-up. More a myth than a Man.
So now I'm no longer alive in the slightly dangerous way of youth, but a man-myth, one that my kids halfheartedly believe in - sometimes more intensely than others. Just as God seems real and vivid in times of danger and desperation, so do the dispensations’ of Dad, and his benevolence or wrath impending, his feelings suddenly and surprisingly real, etched about his eyes, the connection between your actions and that etching strangely and jarringly felt within and without yourself. His story suddenly in mind, commandments at the tip of your tongue... Fatherhood is the turning point of your living life into living myth, where not necessarily the actions you'd prefer to take - will be the ones that you do take - no, they must all be passed through the filter of your Pater myth for the higher good of your children.
They are worth it, it is a Choice that you choose, and creations that you would not forgo for anything - but still the memory of being alive tugs at your soul now and again, especially as they walk the paths which you once trod (unknown to them - you hope). At those moments, you seem to be living within a strange kaliedescope, memories of your past life superimposing themselves across the images before you and them - memories clang about your brain as you tell them the requirements of your mythos, even as you find yourself screaming it above what you wish you could DO in those blessedly unreflective moments.
Not yet, you wish, not yet... But then you do think beyond the moment, and two or three levels deeper, and you make the proper choice, the choice required of your mythos, but more importantly, by their lives being lived before you, which you value more than living, and that they need to be guided by - even if they don't do as you say, the pronouncement will be lodged into their minds, and it will work it's magic into their lives now - or in the life to come for them, when they remember too, the memories of being alive.
And they too will remember the need to live the myth, and pass on the mythos, revised and improved, to guide the lives that they've created and are responsible for - more precious than living itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)