Commenter Archive

Comments by Scott Miller

On “What they do not want to know about American democracy

The other way of looking at it would be to recognize my attempt to get a straight answer from you. Failing that, I will once again play the new age meanie and supply the answer myself:
B-pyscho asked you a question and you outed your real belief system. You think people are horrible creatures. You think you're a horrible creature. SInce I try to respect your blog's rules of engagement--which means trying to ignore the real reason why people act horribly, including us, I get caught up in your game. That doesn't serve you. The game allows you to try to get me to recognize how horrible I am. I want you to recognize your innate goodness because I see the remainder of it in you from an earlier time, before this system got to you. If we all lived in a different way, I think you'd be fine. You're not a killer. You don't boast about killing anyone and you wouldn't do that even if you had killed someone--even if you had killed someone who in your opinion deserved to die. You're not like that. In a different living situation, you'd be fine. On the other hand, some people perpetuate the homicidal mania that birthed this country and continues to be expressed by its worst citizens. By playing to the idea that you should defend them, you make it impossible to recognize your own goodness. It feels right to you in the moment but it comes at a cost. I'm telling you once again that you could stop.


I'm also saying that only bad people boast of killing someone--even an evil person. Again, simple. And nothing good is going to come of it. To live well, we must first establish our goodness. Granted, horrible people have been allowed to establish a seemingly insurmountable amount of problems in this country. We can't change it in degrees. That appears realistic to you. You credit yourself with a kind of positivity because you're being realistic in that way. It's not positivity. It's resignation and your words speak to resignation. They are, then, fatalistic. Instead, we can be truly realistic and insist on truly noble behavior regarding what we will champion. "Right living" is what Buddhists call it. We can all practice it. It's been done before and it should be done again right now.


And though I got the numbers wrong, I was generally referring to the Jews killed by the Nazis. I just didn't identify them as such because there were also a lot of other great people murdered. The Jews back then seemed to me to be of remarkably high character in general, and though I am most positive about the artists and philosophers who we have some personal history of, the whole lower-income, very religious part of the Jewish culture in pre-Nazi Germany was also very different in a great way. I can't spell schteddle, but if I could I'd use it to describe them that way. Of course, I just did anyway. Whatever. You get my point. And don't think I'm upset here. This is old news between us. You know that. I'm just saying, come in, the water is great. Spiritually, we can all still bath in the positivity that positive people living on this planet have created. Their murders aside, they were amazing human beings. Their spirit is still here. Come on in.


And, furthermore, what makes the implications of my analysis any more representative of “fatalistic negativity” than the implications of yours?

Easy answer: Mine points to the fact that there have been large groups of people on this planet who have developed cultures that supported life sustaining good-will toward the vast majority of other living things around them. They were not murderous in general, they shared what they had even with strangers and conducted themselves honorably when it came to gender relations. None of those things are true in general for the people who took over this continent. For four hundred years they have been raping, killing, stealing and hoarding. Who are they? The greediest of the greedy. Willing to face tremendous challenges to cross the ocean for what they could steal. They were bad before they got here and they became worse when they arrived. They were the worst where they were and they came here. Robin Williams said of the Puritans, "Imagine people so uptight that even the British couldn't stand them." And the fact that you can't see how bad the murderers have been in the face of relative goodness is the kind of thinking you should be careful with. It causes depression. The belief that everyone has been as bad as the worst people in history (for what they have done to the planet now in respect to resources) is depressing. It's disheartening. I am heartened by the knowledge that people haven't all been as greedy and murderous as the people who killed all the friendly Island people, the Native Americans, the African slaves. American corporations like IMB were also complicit in what the Nazis did. They did what they did in East Asia in the 70s for ignoble reasons. They fought with the wealthy in WW1. They did what they did in the Middle East these past 10 years. Who are these Americans you ask? Again, and as usual in this specific regard, you sound like a defense attorney. The murderer is in plain view. I'm referring to people who may not be sitting there in a defense chair, but you know the murders happened, and I have identified the first perps specifically. Columbus, Cortez, Pizzaro started the killing. Their letters prove them to be horrible human beings. They were the worst of their cultures I'm sure, and that horribleness was transplanted along with the what the Puritans did. The Civil War was just as bad. The North sent boat loads of Irish immigrants to die or be killed for not going to be killed. I have been specific. I haven't just championed all the victims. There are accounts of who Columbus killed. In his own words they were people who were generous to a fault and good. What you have written makes no sense in connection with that fact. Debate that point specifically if you can. Do you defend Columbus? Have you read his letters. Was a typical human? No, he was a horrible, horrible human. One of the worst in history. His letters prove that and his actions are documented as well. Do you debate that specifically? And in not recognizing the relative goodness of some of the worlds worst actions, when there is documented proof of how different they were than their killers, you do them yet another injustice. You can hide behind your words but what do they really defend? If I'm wrong and you see the goodness is some large groups of people who have lived on this planet, simply say that. Tell me I'm wrong about your negativity instead of talking in circles. Be simple and specific so I can know I'm wrong. I would like to be wrong. Then I would suggest you be more clear about things in your writing. If I'm wrong and you do feel positive about some people who have lived on this planet then you could be more clear and not write things that do imply that you think all humans are the same. Again, I would be happy to be wrong. Since I don't think I am, I think it would be better for you if you would look into your heart and see if you are just prejudiced against humans or not. If you are, then okay. We'll all live with it and we'll know that when we read things you've written we're reading things written by someone who feels the way you do. If not, then just acknowledge that there have been good people living peacefully and well on this planet. They were killed by horrible people who, if I'm right, you let off the hook by looking at their deeds as just somehow typical of humanity. I will admit that I misunderstood you and even apologize if you will just simply tell me that you do recognize that some humans have shown the capacity to be good in large groups for many generations. Simple.


From what I've read and the pictures I've seen, I also think that a big percentage of the 6 million people that the Nazis killed were different. It seems that they were what I would call "high consciousness" people. I saw a documentary on the Siberian farmers that Stalin killed and they seemed very different to me. Once they were gone, no one could grow food on the land that they had been farming for a long time. They seemed like the real salt of the earth. Just the pics of them make it clear how different they were.


That the way that we establish meaning in our lives – day to day and at whatever crisis – is not merely rational does not make all of our conduct irrational, or for that matter make us different from anyone else

Wrong. Documented clearly and proudly in his own words, we are different than the native people Columbus slaughtered. We are different from the people Cortez slaughtered. We are different from the people Pizarro slaughtered. We are different than the people the Puritans and the settlers slaughtered and killed with diseases. On record, there is evidence of their relative, but profoundly different relationship to private property, and gender relations. Over and over again, the native Americans showed the invading parties huge amounts of patience and generosity. We can all feel differently about what that means. Columbus and the rest thought it was weakness. I think it's sanity. They simply thought quality of life mattered more than wealth. But that is not my point. My point is that time and time and time again, you lump all humankind into one sort and your opinion is not backed up by any history except the history of the victor and while I continue to sympathize with the reason (half of you finds it repugnant to link up with a victim mentality that led to walking passively into the Nazi trains), I cannot sympathize with what b-psycho correctly identifies as your fatalistic negativity. The negativity comes from observing the most violent country in the history of the world from the inside. In respect to the years in which the killing was done, Nazis don't hold a candle to what so-called Americans have done to people were very different, and seeing that from the inside and having allowed yourself to be influenced for so long by American propaganda, you fall prey to the idea that Americans are the same as everyone else. Not true. They have been the worst people on this planet because they have been the worst people on this planet for by far the longest time.

On “peculeyaya

I will work on the illustration idea this week.


The self-portrait becomes more obvious with the visuals added. You were on stage, or at least sitting on a chair in front of an audience when I heard this poem the first time. It was in a place near LACMA, sort of. In that area. An art gallery maybe? Anyway, it was cool to see this written as well. If you just did the kind of thing we were working out for WIHY, you could just film yourself and have the words pan across screen too. That would be particular lee cool with this poem.


Indeed, that is the one! My favorite and it still works to this day. If you are inclined, I think you should film yourself reading the poem.
Thanks for posting it. I really do dig it, Curly. Sorry.

On “The Brady Bunch Annihilated

Well stated, Mr. M. An especially good point about "it's all rape" being offense to the victims of rape and since my wife is on the board of a big and very active organization called Rape Crisis in our home town, it's a good thing we made that clear.


Interesting. So you're saying that taken to its logical extreme (which could be either nihilistic or fantastical by the way) liberalism ends up having to recognize that there just isn't any way for us to reproduce in a way that's consisted with "right" living. It's all rape. Unfortunately, that becomes a nihilistic justification for borderline reasoning. It doesn't even play both ends against the middle. It plays one end against the middle and then acts as if both ends are being played. What we want to do instead is reject both extremes and then have a dynamic connection to the relative truth that can be worked out well in between. That is better than what I see as Hegelian dualism used in the unconscious pursuit of philosophical unhappiness. But I also sympathies with the notion that human reproduction is a problem no matter what. Lots of great people didn't participate for that reason. But the removal of their genes from the gene pool may also explain why we're so bad off at this point.

On “approximately

It might work. Of course I understand if you think that that encouragement to trust us is just another Scorpionic attempt to end up half way across some body of water before stinging you. I know. We live with the mistrust.


Frog, you would say that. Fortunately, I'm not only all for scorpions to keep on living, but I'm also all for frogs living too, and that balances out the universal energies here, and things are fine despite all the pooping.

On “Negative Action

I was wondering how you'd worm out and in with that one. You did not disappoint. Good job.


The truth as I see it is that if Mr. MacLeod had been half as okay with commerce as he professes to be he would have no bill problems. But he knows what comes with real commerce orientation and can't abide by it, so he doesn't play the game in a way that works financially. No amount of bill paying (whether or not it was connected to love) would keep him from bringing it to ruin because he doesn't believe in success and he's right not to. Or at least he's been right. If he doesn't think he's right now, and really wanted his bills to be paid he could make it happen. He's just too big of a secret long-haired commie hippie-type pinko word lover to really allow himself to be commercially tainted.


So should I stop praising CK so much? CK has always recommended that, but I figure he's old enough to not let it go to his head.

On “Was I

Wonderful imagery. I love the way you broke the poem up with the title being the first line. It makes the internet a co-conspirator in the down the stemming.

On “Open Thread

Baseball trades are so weird now. It is a lot of money, but it's the kind of money teams are spending. The fly in the ointment might actually turn out to be that kid pitcher De Rosa that the Dodgers gave up. He's got a real fastball--the kind of fastball players only have a few years. Those are the money-ball years, when a guy plays great for a team that isn't payin' them. Then they sign a big contract and can never pitch well again, but that De Rosa kid might be Cy Young for a few years.


Yes, but it's like what you see with movie directors. If a movie has a bunch of actors all delivering amazing performances, you have to credit the director. If you have a bunch of previously good actors sucking, you have to blame the director. I think Bobby V is a genius in respect to baseball smarts. But geniuses almost always suck when it comes to interpersonal interactions. So he probably really mind fucked everybody and that means all these guys could get back to playing well under Mattingly, who seems like an idiot but probably has good people skills. So the trade might work for LA. Anyway, all that money won't be as wasted as what the Angels did with P and CK. Wilson has totally lost his velocity. Down like 6 mph.


I've been hearing the first part. Didn't know Crawford was in the mix. I guess all the LA teams are just going to get everything they need for nothing from now on. Maybe they'll even be given a whole football team. I think the first guy the new LA football team should be given is that RG3 guy, Even if he doesn't end up in LA, I predict that he will be considered the greatest football player of all time in 10 years.


Using my usual steroid system, Jeter is clean. He has never gotten bigger, he has never had a string of odd injuries, and he really never raged. In fact, he is the poster boy for the reverse in every way. Average size, durable, and so evenly keeled that it's kind of creepy. So I'd say Bayless may have picked the one guy in the league most undeserving of a steroid accusation. It's so stupid that it defies even a Bayless level of logic. Is it possible then that he just wanted to say something sensational and picked the one person to accuse that no one would believe and therefore do no real harm. I know that's giving Bayless way more credit than he deserves, but I think it's possible.

On “Victory Boulevard

Declarations are easy. Actually being "immune to what this world offers" is a rare thing, accomplished by very few. They claim happiness. And even though my "Everybody wins" post is a shorter, funnier response to this post, I'll add something. Nietzsche's already worthwhile spiritual aphorisms come first throughout this list and are followed by my newcomer improvements:

“What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.”
We are a loving conduit between Form and Formlessness.
“I love those who do not know how to live, except by going under, for they are those who cross over.”
We love the chaotic nature of existence, as well as the inevitability of rupture and change.
“I love the great despisers because they are the great reverers and arrows of longing for the other shore.”
We love both shores, and all shores, and no shore because what is dispatched is not decidable in respect to an angelic destination or structure.
“I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, but who sacrifice themselves for the earth, that the earth may some day become the overman’s.”
We love those who have fun going down into a borderless, unlegislated space that gives way to irreducible, intrasubjective experiencing.
“I love him who lives to know, and who wants to know so that the overman
may live some day. And thus he wants to go under.”
We love those who Know from having been in love with the unknown. Thus they went under.
“I love him who does not hold back one drop of spirit for himself, but wants to be entirely the spirit of his virtue; thus he strides over the bridge as spirit."
We love those who recognize themselves as a freeplaying bridge made of spirit that neither Form nor Formlessness creates alone.
“I love him who makes his virtue his addiction and his catastrophe: for his virtue’s sake he wants to live on and live no longer.”
We love those who make their virtue their addiction and their catastrophe: for their virtue’s sake they want to live and live no longer.”
“I love him whose soul squanders itself, who wants no thanks and returns
none: for he always gives away and does not want to preserve himself.”
We love the squandering soul who wants no thanks and returns none: for they always give themselves away and do not want to preserve themselves.
“I love him who is abashed when the dice fall to make his fortune, and asks, ‘Am I then a crooked gambler?’ For he wants to perish.”
We love those who weep when the dice fall to make their fortune and dance merrily when the dice fall to ruin them.
“I love him who casts golden words before his deeds and always does even
more than he promises: for he wants to go under.”
We love those who cast golden words accessed from a Formless source of Knowledge without calling those golden words their own.
“I love him who justifies future and redeems past generations: for he wants to perish of the present.”
We love our present expression as freeplaying bridges.
“I love him who chastens his god because he loves his god: for he must
perish of the wrath of his god.”
We love both Form and Formlessness.
“I love him whose soul is deep, even in being wounded, and who can perish of a small experience: thus he goes gladly over the bridge.”
We love the Soul that is a bridge between Mind and Spirit, and we love the human Spirit that is a freeplaying bridge between Form and Formlessness.
“I love him whose soul is overfull so that he forgets himself, and all things are in him: thus all things spell his going under.”
We love those who forget the self and find all things in the Self.
“I love him who has a free spirit and free heart: thus his head is only the entrails of his heart, but his heart drives him to go under.”
We love those whose heart is free: thus their head is only the entrails of their heart.
“I love all those who are as heavy drops, falling one by one out of the dark cloud that hangs over men: they herald the advent of lightening, and, as heralds, they perish.”
We love all those who are as crystal clear drops, falling one by one out of the dark cloud that hangs over humankind: they herald the advent of Kundalini, and, as heralds, they perish. We also love all those who are as conduits for Formlessness, catching its fallen love that express our experience of Yoga: they herald the advent of Knowledge, and, as
heralds, they express the eternal overture.
“Behold, I am a herald of the lightening and a heavy drop from the cloud; but this lightning is called overman.”
Behold, the lightening strikes from Below as well as from Above, and it is in us all.

On “Open Thread

Hmm. Yeah, that would work.


Mantle may have been the most talented baseball player in history. Agreed. In respect to his injury, it always pissed me off that sprinklers were ever allowed to be just left out there in the field. What were people thinking? Maybe in some minor league park, but in Yankee stadium? I never understood that.


Frog: during the game in Detroit today the announcers quoted Al Kaline as saying "Trout reminds (him) of Mantle." I've been wondering when that comparison would be made. I think it's apt and I know you are a Trout appreciator as well. Also, has Granderson done something to sour Yankee fans opinion of him? Just going by his performance last weekend, he looked great to me. I haven't seen someone play that far in, take so many basehits away, but also cover territory to the fence like that in long time. He may deserve your snub for some reason, but he beat up the Angels.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.



Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins