Commenter Archive

Comments by bob

On “New Recommended Browsing Beta – Updated

went to MS help - Either I don't have compatibility view or it's just too late in the day...


On my computer, the Post Text box merges into the right hand column.

On “Theo-Anthropology and the Essence of Christianity

@ CK MacLeod:

Don't want to overstep here - what about Anne?


@ Scott Miller:

The comparison between Hegel and Buddhism is something that leads him into confusion.

Ah Scott, I'v been living in confusion for much longer than this latest exchange with Colin.

I'm sorry for the inartful #44.

On the comparison issue, in #36 I had specified that I was following the Gelugpa school's presentatin of these issues. So I wasn't sure what your comment referred to. I should have made that clear.

My "gods and goddeses" point was to amplify your Chenrezig point. From your comment I inferred you did not know it was a more general phenonomen. Perhaps that was incorrect.

On "crazy wisdom"...I don't really get the point you're making in #48.

On “East is West and West is East and Never the Met Are Twain (light posting)

@ CK MacLeod:

The rights of Zombies leaving for greener pastures may eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.

On “Bleeding Heart Conservatives

Personally, I was disappointed SP refudiated "refudiate" by taking it down in subsequent iterations. I thought the Shakespeare defense had merit.

The rest of it....

"Common moral sense" is self evidently not common, moral or sensical, nor intended to be, but rather a Declaration of Co-Dependency with the atavistic image she has re-created herself into.

On “East is West and West is East and Never the Met Are Twain (light posting)

@ CK MacLeod:

Well, OK. Rereading the original post and #15, they say kinda the same thing, but they also illustrate the quandry you describe. Very allusive, interconnected vs straightforward and logical.

I'm not sure how long I've been commenting here, but the whole time my impression has been the "open discussion, small audience" mode vs the "sectarian, large(r) audience mode". In other words, it sounds like you're kinda catching up to the reality of ZC - for better or worse. (Assuming, against all evdence that I'm any kind of judge of what reality is.)

The point of the lunganalysis is that, to pivot successfully you have to be in firm contact with the ground. The original post above, not so much. #15, more so.


@ CK MacLeod:


I recognize active neural plasticity when I see it.

The "earning a living" part I get, I mean, I've wondered "How does this guy make $ with all the intense blogging?"

But your post indicates that's just the tip of the synapse.

In Tibetan terms, your lung energy is out of whack.

The W article focuses on the esoteric aspects of it, but the exoteric remedies I've run across for out of whack lung include:

sex, scotch, red meat, chocalate.

This assumes a reasonably clean living person.

Of course all this can be overdone, the key is to view it as medicine (I'm actually serious), altho having fun is part of the treatment too.


Hokey smokes Bullwinkle!

On “How to make money: James M Buchanan on completing the American Revolution

@ CK MacLeod:

I also included he word variant to modify "orthodoxy", perhaps too weak a word to convey Buchanan's innovation. (Also, maybe this is a contradictory formulation, can there be a variant of orthodoxy?)

At any rate, the orthodoxy is that money is, should be, commodity based. Buchanan's innovation is change this to: money should function as if it were commodity based. But the indended result is the same (same in the sense of what is frequently claimed for commodity money) even if the mechanism is innovative.

The other orthodox aspect is as a cri de coueur for US sovereignty and world pre-eminence. It strikes me as kinda Panama Canal-y. (I problably shouldn't include this since if this makes no sense as stated, I'm probably not going to be albe to explain it for a while.)


OK "back door" is a poor choice of words.

Still, comparing it to the current workings of the Fed seems to undersell it a fair amount. So, let me rephrase:

If Buchanan means anything, he means a fundamental change in our financial system. Otherwise, what's the point?

This would constitutionalize a variant of conservative orthodoxy that the country does not have a consensus in favor of. It would be operated by a structure beyond the majority control. (The dynamics of demographics of the country probably not in favor of current conservative orthodoxy) If it did ever get enacted, it would be very difficult to overturn.

Again, otherwise, what's the point?

I am making the argument conservatives make about "activist judges" usurping the legislative branch's role.

Honestly, both of you know a lot more about all this than I do. And I'm amazed that I seem t be making as much sense (comparatively speaking) as your reactions suggest.

But this seems to me not a silver bullet, but a can of worms.


I guess I'm assuming that Buchanan's proposal is intended as a back door method for Rex's view. Otherwise, what's the point?

I do agree that this proposal has something of flavor of the parts of the Constituion that are "beyond that of democratic majoritarian politics" to protect "the minoity " the fathers were so fond of. But I don't see that as a good thing.

"Majoritarian politics" and politics are not the same thing. The Senate, Electoral College and the Court are quite enough that's beyond that of democratic majoritarian politics for me. This strikes me as a rear guard actin of conservatism to at least blunt the force of the demographics running in a less conservative direction.


@ CK MacLeod:


And if the United States should constitutionalize the dollar, along the lines suggested here, there would be little or no concern about the adherence of other countries to the dollar’s continuation as the international unit of account


There's already more than a little concern about the role of the dollar with China last year proposing a gradual move away from the dollar, citing among other things the Triffin dilemma.

Buchanan's remark simply brushes the issue aside without giving any justification for his confidence. In fact he does not refer to globalization directly at all. The large and growing interdependence of the national economies of the world is a fact that can't be simply brushed aside. Without some discussion of this, this idea seems incomplete at best.


@ Rex Caruthers:

Clearly it is controversial. Otherwise that's what we would be doing.

My point is that " stable predictable money" is possible only in a trivial sense. Yes we can order that a dollar is worth a specific quantity of silver, or whatever, but the real economy will accomplish the effect of fiat money through other media of exchange. Except such a system produces higher highs and lower lows with less predicability.

In any event, I guess I'm Troskyite about this, ie I don't think "stable predicable money" is possible in one country. The globlalized economy depends on fiat money and the US no longer has the critical mass to bend the world economy to its will.


@ Rex Caruthers:

What you do with Valuable stable money is put it in long term investments like new corporations that grow,and make one rich for a lifetime,not a few years or months.

Like tulips or cornering the gold market?

Predation is fundamental to all ecconomic activity, and certainly the free market.

I don't pretend to understand how all this is supposed to work, but my gut tells me you are promising way too much here.

Selfishness and altruism are both necessary, but each is not sufficient alone. If you want to argue that this proposal produces the right mix of the two impulses, let's hear it.

You also seem to be saying this proposal will turn back the clock on globalization. I just don't see that as possible.

On “Who “they” is

In GOP we trust.

On “Flamesem & Japesem (while Laughing at the Ground)

@ CK MacLeod:

It depends on how flexible your definitions of "selected" and "exaggeration" are.

Thoughts, patterns, concepts are all part of life. If anything, the definition becomes tautological at some point of anyalysis.


@ Joe NS:

My point is that we think in terms of our bodies a lot of the time, so is it any wonder that artists might take that and deconstruct it in various ways for various effects.

A Theater Prof I had defined art as "the selected exaggeration of life". I have not encountered a better one since then. It is wonderfully innocent of the "beauty" and "uplifting" sentiments that sometimes cloud discussions of art.

As for bad language, personally I cleaned up my mouth when my daughter was born. Now if one of the 7 words escapes my lips, people are aghast. Yes, we have become desentitized to these words, but their referents are still the same, and the use of that language carries an aggresive quality that frequently does diminish us. So maybe it's worthwhile if ithis kind of art to remind us of that.


@ Joe NS:

The Biblical notion that man was formed from the dust seems to me to cover all the bases without luridly dwelling on the viscera, which are not representative of man.

No shit? That's the heart of the matter, I can feel it in the pit of my stomach, what you said really pisses me off, come again??

We use the visera and their products to describe the human condition all the time.

"luridly" is pretty much the point of this kind of art. Personally, I'm kinda surprised it still seems to work.


@ CK

And I say almostbecause the dynamic you describe, pretty much describes history. I mean the idea that, finally,Our People, in all of human history, has stumbled upon, been revealed to, invented, a "universal community whose precepts would re-make the world" has been pretty much universal.

What I mean to suggest is that the dynamic of conservative and liberal is a biological adaptation encoded in our genes, and played out in our brain chemistry, and then our thoughts and actions.

Figuring out where the boundary between adaptive and destructive social behavior will always be a dynamic process because it is part of how homo sapiens behave.

That some people tend in one direction or the other is part of what has made human society successful.

The jumble and contradictions you describe is who and what we are, both as individuals and as societies.@ CK MacLeod:



There’s a constant attempt – it’s almost definitional for the “right” – to guard the border between us and them,

It's not almostdefinitional, it isdefinitional.

The border may be spacial, genetic or ideological.

This is a necessary function, and in evolutionary terms, reasonalbly easy to define. Heightend senstivity to threat by some of the ingroup is an evolutionary adaptation that allowed stone age people to survive constant danger.

However, taken too far, the ingroup shrinks too small to survive.

Which is the role of the Ur left, to expand the ingroup, to make alliances with other ingroups to provide the critical mass needed for defense - as long as it doesn't go too far and dilute the ingroup's control over itself.



Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins