Re: PART 1: BOBO'S REPLIES TO: B's Aim of Improving Standards: 'Voices' in My Head, Maybe?
- --- cbobo01 <cbobo@...> wrote:
> For some reason, Lewis' rather lengthy post has yetI don't think Bobo's attorney-like circumlocutions and
> to make it's way into my mail box . . .
excuses mesh very well here -- other than perhaps
revealing an inherent deceptive character in
'being-for-themselves' - - but I think that might be
why he decided to become a lawyer after all, so he can
play the L.A hot shot, and have some humble valet move
his flashy sports car around every day. I hate to
think that there may be some innocent, naive, and
under-represented folks out there, who have, or are
currently, doing time because of people like Mr and
Mrs Bobo, with their indefatigable desire to 'earn'
their brownie points, for whatever unfathomable
reasons -- perhaps to move in next door to some famous
star in Beverly Hills, maybe even beside that living
epitome of outstanding democratic virtue and justice,
that model citizen of theirs, Mr. O.J. Simpson -- but
the thought has crossed my mind.
> With respect to the notion of "the powers that be"I guess what Bobo is saying here is that he would
> being so expansively defined as Lewis suggests, I
> really don't think this concept was meant to apply
> so expansively.
rather have these powers considered as 'phantoms'
'ghosts' or 'voices in my head' as he had somewhat
previously described them to me, than to actually try
to pinpoint them directly. Perhaps this is because
he's afraid that once the finger-pointing starts he
and 'practically everyone else he knows' will have to
> It's the nature of such rhetoric that it often turnsthemselves > as revolutionary find that they have been
> on its users, who having once conceived of
> re-classified as counter-revolutionary by others.I think Jesus in the gospels provided the best insight
to this dialectic of empowerment when, confronted as
to who here on earth shall be the first to transcend
its physical shortcomings, he stated that the first
shall be the last and the last shall be the first.
> It is usually held that in a democratic form ofAgain Jesus taught ultimate sovereignty came in
> government, ultimate power lies with the people, who
> are in fact sovereign.
serving your fellow man. So I think the question a
true democracy should never cease to ask is how we,
the people, both as individuals and as collective
State can best serve our fellow man.
> Lewis asserts that he is engaging in this discussionThat's ALL I really ever said here regarding
> in order to investigate any prevailing need for
> greater socialism
socialism. How this all got misconstrued into several
other mostly derogatory allegations about me from him,
Mirsky, and whoever else, I'd have to say comes from
their need for a scapegoat.
> I think humanity will in all likelihood survive mostat > least in the short run. I do not think that the
> of the current difficulties confronting the world,
> is falling.What about the long run? And how does he gage
survival? Does he mean merely the preservation of the
human body? If so, then Orwell's future world of
cave-dwelling ciphers serving a passionless
intelligence would be a great success for him. Myself,
I think we would be better off if in fact the sky did
fall under such circumstances. Truth is that its not
so much the sky falling as it is mankind's fallen
spirit that troubles both the rich and the poor today.
> Lewis raises the specter of "the philosophicalI say were better off reading Wittgenstein's poetic
> dialectic of historical materialism". This is
> interesting and also why I suggest that we read a
> little Popper on this list. Popper is, after all,
> the great debunker of "historical materialism."
attempt at confirming the soul rather than Popper's
attempt at depicting refutation as being the core of
the scientific method. After all, the real despots,
elites, and technocrats in the present world are
really a product of the latter, not the former.
Wittgenstein's fortunate circumstance, that being that
he was of another aristocrat line did not lend his
poetic justice a self-absorbed, almighty flavor but
merely allowed him to speak his mind over and above
the oppression of his time. If he was poor, more than
likely he would have been just another unheard of
poet. But that's nothing new. Since Descartes' and
Voltaire's effect on history, we have yet to see a
real Renaissance Man outside of money or some kind of
Surely this isn't because poor people are all born
less intelligent than the rich. I have to blame it on
the stifling condition of the environment.
> I think the main point of criticism here would betotalizing/totalitarian
> Lewis' apparently following Marx in the
> linking of the pseudo-scientific pretensions of
> historical materialism with a
> eschatological prophecy.I think he is way off here on Marx's ideology. Marx's
vision was of a world revolution that would culminate
with paradise here on Earth. There is no
eschatological prophecy in Marx's thought. He is
strictly of our world. The eschatological prophecy is
based, I think, more on an anthropological dialectic
which sees man's consciousness rising above itself,
transcending the physical world for a spiritual
existence, something more suited to Christian
Revelation than the evolution and perfection of
economic order, which, presumably, in Marxism, brings
with it an earthly paradise of social order and
> Lewis then offers an interesting quote fromAll consciousness, I think, is an onion peeling
> Merleau-Ponty where Merleau-Ponty interprets
> Kierkegaard interpreting Hegel interpreting
> German Idealism. This is a wonderful onion peeling
process which eventually reaches or becomes its core.
> But when all is said and done, I think Merleau-PontyI think Bobo's general position is that of an
> agrees with the general position that I have staked
> out and disagrees with the general position that
> Lewis seems to be trying to stake out.
empiricist adopting a moral formalism. Such a man I
believe is of a dying breed. He and his ilk is are the
last of a historical era (the age of reason), which
just so happens to be crumbling in so many faces these
days -- those faces, that is, who are brave enough to
watch the malady before there eyes unravel. Sure
enough, I may not be able to provide any type of
measurable proof regarding the death of the
reason-able era, but I think that the true and honest
soul, should he look deep enough within, shall
experience his own undeniable circumstances in much
the same vein as I've attempted to present them here.
I don't know about Merleau Ponty, he spoke some fine
words in his time, but a dead man has no position in
the present other than of the past. Here in the
present we must be more concerned with how our own
personal positions concern the world of self and
other. To sum up myself. I am an existentialist. My
faith has shown me how consciousness evolves from the
human drama, and, as such, it is of my belief that all
consciousnessess move progressively towards a higher,
unified, infinite and immaterial conscious realm. A
person living out this drama to the highest capacity,
that is, a person whose faith in the inexplicable is
so great he is willing to challenge the known and the
unknown, as far as his physical and mental strength
will take him, such a person, no doubt, I'm sure, is
bound to crystallize in his mind a much fuller
understanding of being.
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!