Oh, and I also watched the Clippers lose to the Cavs.
Nah - Curtis White falls into Nietzschean polytheism (with a pantheistic face), and he also doesn't know anything about nuclear materials. But I'll think some more about deep ecologism in this framework.
I was avoiding mentioning the Clippers. Didn't watch the game, but was told about it by someone who saw true Clipper-ness in the bald fact of it. "Did you hear the Cavs losing streak is over?"
"No."
"Guess who they beat!"
Took me three guesses to get to the Clips. If I hadn't been distracted by Egypt I might have gotten it on the first try.
But they have you well-trained indeed to love your suffering.
So tell us, Colin, is the ‘wonderful democratic revolution’ just around the corner,
(K)no(w)!(:) It's coming up right behind you! Look out! miguel cervantes wrote:
I do agree on your final point,
Nah - you only think you agree on the final point. If you actually agreed, you'd be compelled to accept - and expand upon and improve - the entire system. If you understood, you wouldn't, as a patriotic American - you think of yourself as an American patriot, right? - speak so derisively of democracy and revolution. The messianic insight requires and commands the social and universal teaching.
@ Scott Miller:
That would be, broadly speaking, the monotheistic system as I understand it, yes. Also: Freedom to seek justice for all, freedom in seeking freedom and justice for all, justice in realizing freedom for all, etc. Which goes to what's missing between the opposition between revolutions of liberty vs. revolutions of justice - sometimes also revolutions of desire vs. revolutions of need, revolutions of the brain vs. revolutions of the empty stomach (or total disposession, as in peasant and slave revolts).
The basic distinction is one that Hannah Arendt emphasized, and that miguel is invoking. Arendt's reading lends itself to the conservative notion that the second kind of revolution is to be feared and resisted at all costs, while the first may have its place - that would enable you to adopt the position of Edmund Burke, who supported the American Revolution and condemned the French. Marxism makes the same distinction, but reaches a different judgment: It asserts that the revolutions that take as their cause and end the re-creation of the whole human being and all of societal relations are the final, necessary, and ultimate historical task. The other kind of revolution, bourgeois revolution of the American type, is in this framework an advance, but not the final advance.
I would argue that the distinction or opposition is faulty in a number of ways, especially where it leads to the false conclusion that societal relations and in particular the plight of the poor, the wretched, the dispossessed, the slave can be only indirectly addressed - that the revolution of liberty doesn't or, as American conservatives seem to believe, can't take social justice into account. The two terms remain interdependent: Liberty goes wrong without justice as much as justice goes wrong without liberty. I have support from the prophetic sources here, too. The Hebrew prophets, the Gospels, and Mohammed were all clear on this subject, and their commandments are unambiguous.
They are also clear on the need to re-make oneself - to re-create the human being in accordance with the dictates of faith. That correction of dialectical materialism via Locke to which I alluded would be in comprehension of rather than the more common, typically modern peremptory rejection of the religious insight. Messianic religion understands this project of re-making the soul better than physical science, and better than political science or ethics. Arguably, physical science and ethics cannot understand it at all, because they cannot understand the human being or the concept of the divine except as particular examples, specimens, belonging to categories, rather than as unique beings and ends in themselves. They have been since the Enlightenment so determined to unburden us of myth and all of the social strictures associated with it that they have threatened to replace one form of ignorance with another. Given absolute power, they work to erase the human absolutely, because they cannot recognize it, and never knew it, though cannot escape it.
The only way, the
Egypt example is operative, is if their was a third force that challenged
both Fatah and Hamas, that is yet to be seen,
A bit elliptical, as is your habit - but you appear to have stumbled part of the way at least into the truth. There is a third force acting upon that polity - mainly emanating from the state of Israel. The problem is what it's a third force for.
Scott Miller wrote:
Nah - Curtis White falls into Nietzschean polytheism (with a pantheistic face), and he also doesn't know anything about nuclear materials. But I'll think some more about deep ecologism in this framework.
I was avoiding mentioning the Clippers. Didn't watch the game, but was told about it by someone who saw true Clipper-ness in the bald fact of it. "Did you hear the Cavs losing streak is over?"
"No."
"Guess who they beat!"
Took me three guesses to get to the Clips. If I hadn't been distracted by Egypt I might have gotten it on the first try.
But they have you well-trained indeed to love your suffering.
@ miguel cervantes:
Thank you for linking to something that doesn't make me want to throw up!
miguel cervantes wrote:
(K)no(w)!(:) It's coming up right behind you! Look out!
miguel cervantes wrote:
Nah - you only think you agree on the final point. If you actually agreed, you'd be compelled to accept - and expand upon and improve - the entire system. If you understood, you wouldn't, as a patriotic American - you think of yourself as an American patriot, right? - speak so derisively of democracy and revolution. The messianic insight requires and commands the social and universal teaching.
@ Scott Miller:
That would be, broadly speaking, the monotheistic system as I understand it, yes. Also: Freedom to seek justice for all, freedom in seeking freedom and justice for all, justice in realizing freedom for all, etc. Which goes to what's missing between the opposition between revolutions of liberty vs. revolutions of justice - sometimes also revolutions of desire vs. revolutions of need, revolutions of the brain vs. revolutions of the empty stomach (or total disposession, as in peasant and slave revolts).
The basic distinction is one that Hannah Arendt emphasized, and that miguel is invoking. Arendt's reading lends itself to the conservative notion that the second kind of revolution is to be feared and resisted at all costs, while the first may have its place - that would enable you to adopt the position of Edmund Burke, who supported the American Revolution and condemned the French. Marxism makes the same distinction, but reaches a different judgment: It asserts that the revolutions that take as their cause and end the re-creation of the whole human being and all of societal relations are the final, necessary, and ultimate historical task. The other kind of revolution, bourgeois revolution of the American type, is in this framework an advance, but not the final advance.
I would argue that the distinction or opposition is faulty in a number of ways, especially where it leads to the false conclusion that societal relations and in particular the plight of the poor, the wretched, the dispossessed, the slave can be only indirectly addressed - that the revolution of liberty doesn't or, as American conservatives seem to believe, can't take social justice into account. The two terms remain interdependent: Liberty goes wrong without justice as much as justice goes wrong without liberty. I have support from the prophetic sources here, too. The Hebrew prophets, the Gospels, and Mohammed were all clear on this subject, and their commandments are unambiguous.
They are also clear on the need to re-make oneself - to re-create the human being in accordance with the dictates of faith. That correction of dialectical materialism via Locke to which I alluded would be in comprehension of rather than the more common, typically modern peremptory rejection of the religious insight. Messianic religion understands this project of re-making the soul better than physical science, and better than political science or ethics. Arguably, physical science and ethics cannot understand it at all, because they cannot understand the human being or the concept of the divine except as particular examples, specimens, belonging to categories, rather than as unique beings and ends in themselves. They have been since the Enlightenment so determined to unburden us of myth and all of the social strictures associated with it that they have threatened to replace one form of ignorance with another. Given absolute power, they work to erase the human absolutely, because they cannot recognize it, and never knew it, though cannot escape it.
miguel cervantes wrote:
A bit elliptical, as is your habit - but you appear to have stumbled part of the way at least into the truth. There is a third force acting upon that polity - mainly emanating from the state of Israel. The problem is what it's a third force for.