A vision of utopia from the crucible of torture – and purty durn holistically balanced and poetic, too, yask me.
I have to admit I find that bit of poetry itself oddly appealing. There's something Coleridge-like about it. And, naturally, I knew you were trying not to argue. Don't worry about it. Argue away. Left-brain awareness wasn't built in a day.
Since we received no comment from the Tsar about the stroke video, my left-brain is concerned that maybe he decided to give himself a left hemisphere stroke. Hope not. There's nothing wrong with left-brain activity. It's just a question of balance.
@ CK MacLeod:
No, that is not what I'm saying. In respect to the Frog, I was only enlisting him about you and the media. As you have pointed out, even the liberal media is warmongering. I agree. As "real world" neurologists point out, subjecting ourselves to electrical media of any sort is damaging and should be held to a minimum (like watching Laker games). But since that's a big leap, as I've suggested before, check out Jill Bolte Taylor's "Stroke" video. It's part of the media, but it speaks to a different "real world" truth about reality. Bolte is a neuro-anatomist who had a stroke. Lost left-brain functioning. Check it out. She doesn't just explain what happened to her, she relives it on camera. It's the other side of reality. When a person subjects themselves to left-brain stimuli and left-brain perspectives all the time, no matter what, the perspective on reality and truth become horribly skewed. The left-brain sees things violently, in relation to authority (and victories). I realize that left-brain mentality sees the discussion of left and right brain awarenesses itself as being not in the real world, but check out the Bolte video. It's a left-brain person expressing what it's like to recognize a different reality. So I'm trying not to "argue." The left-brain argues. I realize that when you have subjecting yourself to as much left-brain support as you have, it's hard to get out of that prison. I'm advocating that you give a whole different part of yourself a chance and see if it doesn't shift your perspective. Hegel and all the rest is left-brain. That information is fine as long as you also experience right brain reality. Creating poetry is the only language activity that is right brain, and even with that, the poetry has to be orally conceived and expressed.
You are a thoughtful person. No doubt about that. But you have subjected yourself to a lot of what I consider to be misinformation. I believe Fuster is in agreement on this point. It's complicated since you also have educated yourself so effectively. It wouldn't surprise me if you are the smartest person there is being subjected to so much media misinformation. That has an effect. How could it not? But anyway, I'm going to supply a quote from a questionable source as well (Wikipedia) that gives an earlier date for when the majority of Americans opposed the Iraq war. So we have had no representation. My majority opinion has not been represented for 6 years. That will, in connection with Afghanistan, go on for another 4. Is it still just "denial" for me to reject the idea that I am a participant, especially when I have no choice about paying taxes? I don't think so:
Within the United States, popular opinion on the war has varied significantly with time. Although there was significant opposition to the idea in the months preceding the attack, polls taken during the invasion showed that a majority of Americans supported their country's action. However, public opinion had shifted by 2004 to a majority believing that the invasion was a mistake, and has remained so since then.
@ CK MacLeod:
Interesting points. I didn't know that about the word peace. That would explain why the word is rarely used in spiritual prescriptions. Instead of advocating peace (shanti), what spiritualists advocate is "non-violence." Plus, there are people like Krishnamurti who taught that in addressing the issue of non-violence even in context of advocacy we imply its opposite. CK MacLeod wrote:
Politicians often have had a more difficult time selling peace to whatever public than selling war
Not true. That idea has been pushed in the media (backed by corporations that benefit from war) and you've fallen for it. For example, Kerry was behind what's his face--the Healthcare lawyer candidate--because the guy whose name I'm forgetting was opposed to the Iraq war. Kerry changed his position, sold himself as anti-war and went ahead in the poles and only after he had victory in his hands did he come out as a relative hawk. Same thing with Obama. The numbers are there. Over 50 percent of the people were opposed to the war from way back and we have backed candidates who said they were opposed and then somehow, we end up with no real choice because both candidates have ended up being for the war every time. Your idea about the skeptic's fallacy is as familiar as the supposed fallacy, going back to the Greeks, but I will, for the most part, spare you my familiar point about powerless males aligning themselves with violent ideologies just to make themselves feel less powerful.
@ CK MacLeod:
Interesting points. I didn't know that about the word peace. That would explain why the word is rarely used in spiritual prescriptions. Instead of advocating peace (shanti), what spiritualists advocate is "non-violence." Plus, there are people like Krishnamurti who taught that in addressing the issue of non-violence even in context of advocacy implied its opposite and was, therefore, problematic. CK MacLeod wrote:
Politicians often have had a more difficult time selling peace to whatever public than selling war
Not true. That idea has been pushed in the media (backed by corporations that benefit from war) and you've fallen for it. For example, Kerry was behind what's his face--the Healthcare lawyer candidate--because the guy whose name I'm forgetting was opposed to the Iraq war. Kerry changed his position, sold himself as anti-war and went ahead in the poles and only after he had victory in his hands did he come out as a relative hawk. Same thing with Obama. The numbers are there. Over 50 percent of the people were opposed to the war from way back and we have backed candidates who said they were opposed and then somehow, we end up with no real choice because both candidates have ended up being for the war every time. Your idea about the skeptic's fallacy is as familiar as the supposed fallacy, going back to the Greeks, but I will, for the most part, spare you my familiar point about powerless males aligning themselves with violent ideologies just to make themselves feel less powerful.
The warriors don’t seek peace, they seek victory, or, in less absolute but still teleological terms, a better position than the one they would be left to occupy if they merely surrendered.
True. But the politicians who sell the war to the public, or just find a way to make it happen no matter what, sell it in context of it bringing peace. So I guess the question has to do with the dime's ownership. Who owns the dime? @ miguel cervantes:
You still didn't tell me what your sign is, Miggs. fuster wrote:
or maybe it’s if there’s not a choice between civilized alternatives then there’s unreally a civilized choice
If I understand that correctly I like it as a response to CK's usual "in the real world" idea. If I was Colin, I would seek to explain to CK that his "in the real world" idea is itself a fabrication.
Now you have a lot of imagination, in certain areas, and yet in others, the parameters are limited
True. My politics don't come from a very imaginative place. So you're on a roll, Miggs. We're all agreeing with you today and vice-versa. Must be an astrological thing. Are you a Sag like George?
I think he agrees only with the bottom line on the particular issue.
That is the main thing that should give you pause. Although, I still stand by the "in for a dime" point. Of course violence is justified if you've already justified the violence. So in a way, once the rules have been established (that we're being violent), I don't see your points as illogical. The problem is that they stem from a fundamental falsehood: that peace can be established through war in the first place. Even WW2 didn't establish peace. In fact, the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and everything linked to it in the Middle East) is still part of the violent non-solution of WW2.
With apologies to Miggs...
CK--
I'm sure it gives you pause that Miggs was agreeing with so much of what you wrote in the post and subsequent comments here. Something to consider.
The phrase "in for a dime in for a dollar" comes to mind. Once you advocate the war within which acts of torture can be justified, you are in for a dollar. The solution is to oppose acts of war in any form for any reason. Keep your dime in your pocket. Then you don't end up writing, as Fuster describes it, a "confused essay." This is why so may political debates are so insane. They take place as if the "in for a dime" part was a given.
Scott Miller wrote:
I meant right-brain awareness wasn't built in a day.
fuster wrote:
Nice phraseology yurself, Frog.
CK MacLeod wrote:
I have to admit I find that bit of poetry itself oddly appealing. There's something Coleridge-like about it. And, naturally, I knew you were trying not to argue. Don't worry about it. Argue away. Left-brain awareness wasn't built in a day.
Since we received no comment from the Tsar about the stroke video, my left-brain is concerned that maybe he decided to give himself a left hemisphere stroke. Hope not. There's nothing wrong with left-brain activity. It's just a question of balance.
Hopefully this will work...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
@ CK MacLeod:
No, that is not what I'm saying. In respect to the Frog, I was only enlisting him about you and the media. As you have pointed out, even the liberal media is warmongering. I agree. As "real world" neurologists point out, subjecting ourselves to electrical media of any sort is damaging and should be held to a minimum (like watching Laker games). But since that's a big leap, as I've suggested before, check out Jill Bolte Taylor's "Stroke" video. It's part of the media, but it speaks to a different "real world" truth about reality. Bolte is a neuro-anatomist who had a stroke. Lost left-brain functioning. Check it out. She doesn't just explain what happened to her, she relives it on camera. It's the other side of reality. When a person subjects themselves to left-brain stimuli and left-brain perspectives all the time, no matter what, the perspective on reality and truth become horribly skewed. The left-brain sees things violently, in relation to authority (and victories). I realize that left-brain mentality sees the discussion of left and right brain awarenesses itself as being not in the real world, but check out the Bolte video. It's a left-brain person expressing what it's like to recognize a different reality. So I'm trying not to "argue." The left-brain argues. I realize that when you have subjecting yourself to as much left-brain support as you have, it's hard to get out of that prison. I'm advocating that you give a whole different part of yourself a chance and see if it doesn't shift your perspective. Hegel and all the rest is left-brain. That information is fine as long as you also experience right brain reality. Creating poetry is the only language activity that is right brain, and even with that, the poetry has to be orally conceived and expressed.
You are a thoughtful person. No doubt about that. But you have subjected yourself to a lot of what I consider to be misinformation. I believe Fuster is in agreement on this point. It's complicated since you also have educated yourself so effectively. It wouldn't surprise me if you are the smartest person there is being subjected to so much media misinformation. That has an effect. How could it not? But anyway, I'm going to supply a quote from a questionable source as well (Wikipedia) that gives an earlier date for when the majority of Americans opposed the Iraq war. So we have had no representation. My majority opinion has not been represented for 6 years. That will, in connection with Afghanistan, go on for another 4. Is it still just "denial" for me to reject the idea that I am a participant, especially when I have no choice about paying taxes? I don't think so:
Within the United States, popular opinion on the war has varied significantly with time. Although there was significant opposition to the idea in the months preceding the attack, polls taken during the invasion showed that a majority of Americans supported their country's action. However, public opinion had shifted by 2004 to a majority believing that the invasion was a mistake, and has remained so since then.
@ CK MacLeod:
Interesting points. I didn't know that about the word peace. That would explain why the word is rarely used in spiritual prescriptions. Instead of advocating peace (shanti), what spiritualists advocate is "non-violence." Plus, there are people like Krishnamurti who taught that in addressing the issue of non-violence even in context of advocacy we imply its opposite.
CK MacLeod wrote:
Not true. That idea has been pushed in the media (backed by corporations that benefit from war) and you've fallen for it. For example, Kerry was behind what's his face--the Healthcare lawyer candidate--because the guy whose name I'm forgetting was opposed to the Iraq war. Kerry changed his position, sold himself as anti-war and went ahead in the poles and only after he had victory in his hands did he come out as a relative hawk. Same thing with Obama. The numbers are there. Over 50 percent of the people were opposed to the war from way back and we have backed candidates who said they were opposed and then somehow, we end up with no real choice because both candidates have ended up being for the war every time. Your idea about the skeptic's fallacy is as familiar as the supposed fallacy, going back to the Greeks, but I will, for the most part, spare you my familiar point about powerless males aligning themselves with violent ideologies just to make themselves feel less powerful.
@ CK MacLeod:
Interesting points. I didn't know that about the word peace. That would explain why the word is rarely used in spiritual prescriptions. Instead of advocating peace (shanti), what spiritualists advocate is "non-violence." Plus, there are people like Krishnamurti who taught that in addressing the issue of non-violence even in context of advocacy implied its opposite and was, therefore, problematic.
CK MacLeod wrote:
Not true. That idea has been pushed in the media (backed by corporations that benefit from war) and you've fallen for it. For example, Kerry was behind what's his face--the Healthcare lawyer candidate--because the guy whose name I'm forgetting was opposed to the Iraq war. Kerry changed his position, sold himself as anti-war and went ahead in the poles and only after he had victory in his hands did he come out as a relative hawk. Same thing with Obama. The numbers are there. Over 50 percent of the people were opposed to the war from way back and we have backed candidates who said they were opposed and then somehow, we end up with no real choice because both candidates have ended up being for the war every time. Your idea about the skeptic's fallacy is as familiar as the supposed fallacy, going back to the Greeks, but I will, for the most part, spare you my familiar point about powerless males aligning themselves with violent ideologies just to make themselves feel less powerful.
I wrote a response to all three of you that got flagged. CK can unflag it I guess. I'll check in later.
CK MacLeod wrote:
True. But the politicians who sell the war to the public, or just find a way to make it happen no matter what, sell it in context of it bringing peace. So I guess the question has to do with the dime's ownership. Who owns the dime?
@ miguel cervantes:
You still didn't tell me what your sign is, Miggs.
fuster wrote:
If I understand that correctly I like it as a response to CK's usual "in the real world" idea. If I was Colin, I would seek to explain to CK that his "in the real world" idea is itself a fabrication.
miguel cervantes wrote:
True. My politics don't come from a very imaginative place. So you're on a roll, Miggs. We're all agreeing with you today and vice-versa. Must be an astrological thing. Are you a Sag like George?
@ CK MacLeod:
CK MacLeod wrote:
That is the main thing that should give you pause. Although, I still stand by the "in for a dime" point. Of course violence is justified if you've already justified the violence. So in a way, once the rules have been established (that we're being violent), I don't see your points as illogical. The problem is that they stem from a fundamental falsehood: that peace can be established through war in the first place. Even WW2 didn't establish peace. In fact, the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and everything linked to it in the Middle East) is still part of the violent non-solution of WW2.
With apologies to Miggs...
CK--
I'm sure it gives you pause that Miggs was agreeing with so much of what you wrote in the post and subsequent comments here. Something to consider.
The phrase "in for a dime in for a dollar" comes to mind. Once you advocate the war within which acts of torture can be justified, you are in for a dollar. The solution is to oppose acts of war in any form for any reason. Keep your dime in your pocket. Then you don't end up writing, as Fuster describes it, a "confused essay." This is why so may political debates are so insane. They take place as if the "in for a dime" part was a given.