Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: PART 1: BOBO'S REPLIES TO: B's Aim of Improving Standards: 'Voices' in My Head, Maybe?

Expand Messages
  • Lewis Vella
    ... I don t think Bobo s attorney-like circumlocutions and excuses mesh very well here -- other than perhaps revealing an inherent deceptive character in
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- cbobo01 <cbobo@...> wrote:
      > For some reason, Lewis' rather lengthy post has yet
      > to make it's way into my mail box . . .

      I don't think Bobo's attorney-like circumlocutions and
      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"
      > being so expansively defined as Lewis suggests, I
      > really don't think this concept was meant to apply
      > so expansively.

      I guess what Bobo is saying here is that he would
      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
      take cover.

      > It's the nature of such rhetoric that it often turns
      > on its users, who having once conceived of
      themselves > as revolutionary find that they have been
      > 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 of
      > government, ultimate power lies with the people, who
      > are in fact sovereign.

      Again Jesus taught ultimate sovereignty came in
      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 discussion
      > in order to investigate any prevailing need for
      > greater socialism

      That's ALL I really ever said here regarding
      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 most
      > of the current difficulties confronting the world,
      at > least in the short run. I do not think that the
      sky
      > 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 philosophical
      > 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."

      I say were better off reading Wittgenstein's poetic
      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
      'higher' institution.
      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 be
      > Lewis' apparently following Marx in the
      > linking of the pseudo-scientific pretensions of
      > historical materialism with a
      totalizing/totalitarian
      > 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
      harmony.

      > Lewis then offers an interesting quote from
      > Merleau-Ponty where Merleau-Ponty interprets
      > Kierkegaard interpreting Hegel interpreting
      > German Idealism. This is a wonderful onion peeling
      > project.

      All consciousness, I think, is an onion peeling
      process which eventually reaches or becomes its core.


      > But when all is said and done, I think Merleau-Ponty
      > 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.

      I think Bobo's general position is that of an
      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.
      Lewis

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
      http://greetings.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.