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

Bound to remember

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    I will venture to say that your easterm european memory holds both friends and foe. I will not be so foolish as to deny you your prejudiced and hard won
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I will venture to say that your easterm european memory holds both
      friends and foe. I will not be so foolish as to deny you your
      prejudiced and hard won knowledge. I will keep my chest of survival
      remembrances no matter how you upbrade me to desist. The delusion
      that all is forgotten and forgiven vanishes in the apparition of
      situations such as where to build the fusion reactor. France fought
      with us in our revolution and we came to her aid in the World Wars.
      The proof is written in the blood of allies .
      When choice presents, we reward our trusted friends and deny our
      enemies. I doubt you will dissuade me from such choices. Bill
    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
      you don t address this to anyone in particular, but i ll answer. ... actually most balts think of themselves as northern europeans with cultures, worldviews,
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        you don't address this to anyone in particular, but i'll answer.

        > I will venture to say that your easterm european memory holds both
        > friends and foe.

        actually most balts think of themselves as northern europeans with
        cultures, worldviews, values most similar to Finland & Scandinavia...
        (the eastern identity is mostly shared post-soviet trauma.)

        as for "friend" or "foe," i prefer to think of the relationship a daina
        singer has to someone or something that has her attention: she sings to
        that person with total concentration. it is a Buber-type i-thou (informal
        second person) attention state (expressed grammatically), an
        acknowledgement of the other as another: friend, foe, or potentially one
        or the other.

        > I will not be so foolish as to deny you your prejudiced and hard won
        > knowledge. I will keep my chest of survival remembrances no matter how
        > you upbrade me to desist.

        i have no desire to take responsibility for you. i acknowledge what you
        said and respond with disagreement.

        for me there's a difference between people and government, especially
        when it isn't even by and for the people.

        > The delusion that all is forgotten and forgiven vanishes in the
        > apparition of situations such as where to build the fusion reactor.

        where to build the fusion reactor can be determined by more rational means
        than war.

        all should not be forgotten. the Hitler - Stalin pact that set off events
        resulting in the loss or ruin of life of millions and millions (including
        in my family), should be remembered as a lesson for all time that should
        never happen again in any variation. but those most responsible for
        creating that situation and carrying it out are pretty much dead. how can
        you blame someone who either wasn't born or was a small child when that
        happened? each generation has enough responsibilities without taking on
        the sins of their grandparents or parents - they have their own world
        to create.

        > France fought with us in our revolution and we came to her aid in the
        > World Wars. The proof is written in the blood of allies.

        we also fought Mexico and the first americans.
        Japan and Germany are now our allies.

        there are no eternal enemy people.

        > When choice presents, we reward our trusted friends and deny our
        > enemies. I doubt you will dissuade me from such choices. Bill

        yeah, don't take no genius to figure that one out.

        but what happens to the principle of individual choice and responsibility
        on existlist if you don't acknowledge the individual, or think he makes a
        difference? if you lump the dissident, conscientious objector, or
        headbanger with the drum banger in one undifferentiated "with us or
        against us"?

        aija
      • Mary Jo Malo
        all should not be forgotten. the Hitler - Stalin pact that set off events resulting in the loss or ruin of life of millions and millions (including in my
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 1 6:04 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          "all should not be forgotten. the Hitler - Stalin pact that set off
          events resulting in the loss or ruin of life of millions and millions
          (including in my family), should be remembered as a lesson for all
          time that should never happen again in any variation. but those most
          responsible for creating that situation and carrying it out are
          pretty much dead. how can you blame someone who either wasn't born or
          was a small child when that happened? each generation has enough
          responsibilities without taking on the sins of their grandparents or
          parents - they have their own world to create." Aija

          I agree with this particular opinion. It admits both memory and
          lesson without carrying the same kind of genocidal madness into the
          present and future. I'm of mixed heritage (Scots-Irish, French-
          Canadian, Native American & German), and I'd have to be at war with
          myself continuously, because all my ancestors are innocent and
          guilty! There are plenty of modern genocidal governments and factions
          to deal with today. Undoubtedly they have ancient roots, but how they
          will all be 'resolved' won't only be political. There may be species
          wide ramifications as Trinidad suggests. Personally and individually
          I can't hate someone I don't know; and find it especially difficult
          to hate someone I do know, but find racial, ethnic or class
          discrimination particularly abominable and not worthy of the rules of
          debate. Done preachin' - Mary


          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
          wrote:
          >
          > you don't address this to anyone in particular, but i'll answer.
          >
          > > I will venture to say that your easterm european memory holds
          both
          > > friends and foe.
          >
          > actually most balts think of themselves as northern europeans with
          > cultures, worldviews, values most similar to Finland &
          Scandinavia...
          > (the eastern identity is mostly shared post-soviet trauma.)
          >
          > as for "friend" or "foe," i prefer to think of the relationship a
          daina
          > singer has to someone or something that has her attention: she
          sings to
          > that person with total concentration. it is a Buber-type i-thou
          (informal
          > second person) attention state (expressed grammatically), an
          > acknowledgement of the other as another: friend, foe, or
          potentially one
          > or the other.
          >
          > > I will not be so foolish as to deny you your prejudiced and hard
          won
          > > knowledge. I will keep my chest of survival remembrances no
          matter how
          > > you upbrade me to desist.
          >
          > i have no desire to take responsibility for you. i acknowledge
          what you
          > said and respond with disagreement.
          >
          > for me there's a difference between people and government,
          especially
          > when it isn't even by and for the people.
          >
          > > The delusion that all is forgotten and forgiven vanishes in the
          > > apparition of situations such as where to build the fusion
          reactor.
          >
          > where to build the fusion reactor can be determined by more
          rational means
          > than war.
          >
          > all should not be forgotten. the Hitler - Stalin pact that set off
          events
          > resulting in the loss or ruin of life of millions and millions
          (including
          > in my family), should be remembered as a lesson for all time that
          should
          > never happen again in any variation. but those most responsible
          for
          > creating that situation and carrying it out are pretty much dead.
          how can
          > you blame someone who either wasn't born or was a small child when
          that
          > happened? each generation has enough responsibilities without
          taking on
          > the sins of their grandparents or parents - they have their own
          world
          > to create.
          >
          > > France fought with us in our revolution and we came to her aid in
          the
          > > World Wars. The proof is written in the blood of allies.
          >
          > we also fought Mexico and the first americans.
          > Japan and Germany are now our allies.
          >
          > there are no eternal enemy people.
          >
          > > When choice presents, we reward our trusted friends and deny our
          > > enemies. I doubt you will dissuade me from such choices. Bill
          >
          > yeah, don't take no genius to figure that one out.
          >
          > but what happens to the principle of individual choice and
          responsibility
          > on existlist if you don't acknowledge the individual, or think he
          makes a
          > difference? if you lump the dissident, conscientious objector, or
          > headbanger with the drum banger in one undifferentiated "with us or
          > against us"?
          >
          > aija
        • Exist List Moderator
          I would argue self interest came into play when the French helped America. Their goal was to force the British into defending as many lines as possible --
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 1 12:05 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I would argue "self interest" came into play when the French "helped"
            America. Their goal was to force the British into defending as many
            lines as possible -- hence weakening the British Empire while the
            French were busy expanding their colonial holdings. It had nothing to
            do with agree with us or supporting us. The enemy of my enemy...

            As for WWII, I just can't see the French as the "loyal allies"
            revisionists want to create. The French didn't exactly line up for the
            Resistance, as many want to imagine. The Vichy French were still a
            majority in some surveys through the 1950s. How was this possible?
            Because some agreed with Hitler's "final solution" on racist grounds.
            They are still xenophobic, and anti-semitic / anti-Islamic tendencies
            still coexist in the French mind. Their colonial downward spiral left a
            nasty bigotry in some quarters -- especially when Islamic radicals were
            bombing metro stations in the 60s and 70s.

            History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind wars
            fade. It's the same when Americans imagine the Civil War was about
            slavery or that WWII had anything at all to do with saving the Jewish
            population. Wars are generally about territory and resources, not moral
            causes. When they are about moral causes, you have a hard time
            maintaining public support. Imagine that -- people won't fight wars
            based on morality. Just try to get Americans or Europeans to deal with
            the Sudan or North Korea through military action. Won't happen. Most
            Americans didn't support our actions in the former Yugoslavia until
            after we "won" the peace.

            You should read the NY Times condemnations of WWII while we were
            fighting and after we occupied Berlin. The Times suggested we were
            failing miserably and were wasting our time trying to defend Berlin. It
            wasn't until Kennedy that Americans suddenly agreed with our support of
            West Germany. It's all about selling the idea in terms of self-defense.

            No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would
            rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally. I
            actually trust the Japanese a slight bit more... especially since for
            once in history Japan isn't likely to dominate Asia again.

            - CSW
          • Ehab Shoubaki
            On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, Exist List Moderator ... Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ? How can one now discern
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 1 12:44 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, "Exist List Moderator"
              <existlist1@...> said:

              >
              > History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind wars
              > fade.
              >
              > - CSW
              >



              Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ? How
              can one now discern what's true from what's convenient without living
              through that particular era....

              ehab
            • Mary Jo Malo
              No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally. I actually trust the
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 1 4:05 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                "No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would
                rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally. I
                actually trust the Japanese a slight bit more... especially since for
                once in history Japan isn't likely to dominate Asia again." - CSW

                I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in their
                own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as conventional
                weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
                aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
                forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary


                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                <existlist1@t...> wrote:
                > I would argue "self interest" came into play when the
                French "helped"
                > America. Their goal was to force the British into defending as many
                > lines as possible -- hence weakening the British Empire while the
                > French were busy expanding their colonial holdings. It had nothing
                to
                > do with agree with us or supporting us. The enemy of my enemy...
                >
                > As for WWII, I just can't see the French as the "loyal allies"
                > revisionists want to create. The French didn't exactly line up for
                the
                > Resistance, as many want to imagine. The Vichy French were still a
                > majority in some surveys through the 1950s. How was this possible?
                > Because some agreed with Hitler's "final solution" on racist
                grounds.
                > They are still xenophobic, and anti-semitic / anti-Islamic
                tendencies
                > still coexist in the French mind. Their colonial downward spiral
                left a
                > nasty bigotry in some quarters -- especially when Islamic radicals
                were
                > bombing metro stations in the 60s and 70s.
                >
                > History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind
                wars
                > fade. It's the same when Americans imagine the Civil War was about
                > slavery or that WWII had anything at all to do with saving the
                Jewish
                > population. Wars are generally about territory and resources, not
                moral
                > causes. When they are about moral causes, you have a hard time
                > maintaining public support. Imagine that -- people won't fight wars
                > based on morality. Just try to get Americans or Europeans to deal
                with
                > the Sudan or North Korea through military action. Won't happen.
                Most
                > Americans didn't support our actions in the former Yugoslavia until
                > after we "won" the peace.
                >
                > You should read the NY Times condemnations of WWII while we were
                > fighting and after we occupied Berlin. The Times suggested we were
                > failing miserably and were wasting our time trying to defend
                Berlin. It
                > wasn't until Kennedy that Americans suddenly agreed with our
                support of
                > West Germany. It's all about selling the idea in terms of self-
                defense.
                >
                > No country is perfect, and all allegiances shift over time. I would
                > rather have scientific work done in Japan than France, personally.
                I
                > actually trust the Japanese a slight bit more... especially since
                for
                > once in history Japan isn't likely to dominate Asia again.
                >
                > - CSW
              • Exist List Moderator
                ... I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly unlikely to blindly trust anything nuclear. - C. S. Wyatt I am what I am at this moment, not
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 1 6:35 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Jul 01, 2005, at 16:05, Mary Jo Malo wrote:

                  > I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in their
                  > own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as conventional
                  > weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
                  > aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
                  > forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary
                  >

                  I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly unlikely
                  to blindly trust anything nuclear.


                  - C. S. Wyatt
                  I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                  that I shall be.
                  http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                  http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                • bhvwd
                  CSW, They will not forget, and so you want to give them fusion power? You ever been in a knife fight? Do you listen to what the adversary says or concentrate
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 1 7:57 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    CSW, They will not forget, and so you want to give them fusion power?
                    You ever been in a knife fight? Do you listen to what the adversary
                    says or concentrate into getting your blade in meat? The French
                    consider themselves the bastion of liberty and civilisation, the japs
                    are a beaten and vengeful society in decline. Look at their
                    demographics. The chinese will eat the japs, we will still keep the
                    germans off the back of that stinky, snale eating French whore. Bill
                  • Mary Jo Malo
                    Who s talking nuclear? There are new weapons in development that don t guarantee mutually assured destruction. The future is other kinds of weapons, the kind
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 1 8:19 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Who's talking nuclear? There are new weapons in development that
                      don't guarantee mutually assured destruction. The future is other
                      kinds of weapons, the kind that involve plausible deniability. Mary

                      In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator <existlist1@t...>
                      wrote:
                      > On Jul 01, 2005, at 16:05, Mary Jo Malo wrote:
                      >
                      > > I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in
                      their
                      > > own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as
                      conventional
                      > > weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
                      > > aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
                      > > forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary
                      > >
                      >
                      > I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly
                      unlikely
                      > to blindly trust anything nuclear.
                      >
                      >
                      > - C. S. Wyatt
                      > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                      > that I shall be.
                      > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                      > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                    • Bob Keyes
                      True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The Israelis are working on poisions that will only kill Arabs.... Call that genetic engineering or what
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 1 8:55 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The Israelis are
                        working on poisions that will only kill Arabs.... Call that genetic
                        engineering or what but it is reality. We are studying the same stuff. Same
                        with Russia China ,, blah blah...



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On
                        Behalf Of Mary Jo Malo
                        Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 11:19 PM
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Bound to remember


                        Who's talking nuclear? There are new weapons in development that
                        don't guarantee mutually assured destruction. The future is other
                        kinds of weapons, the kind that involve plausible deniability. Mary

                        In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator <existlist1@t...>
                        wrote:
                        > On Jul 01, 2005, at 16:05, Mary Jo Malo wrote:
                        >
                        > > I don't really trust either of them because they have to act in
                        their
                        > > own national interests. Japan may not dominate as far as
                        conventional
                        > > weapons, but they are economically and technologically very
                        > > aggressive. They are also very greatly bound to remember. Have you
                        > > forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Time will tell. - Mary
                        > >
                        >
                        > I think the experiences of the Japanese make them particularly
                        unlikely
                        > to blindly trust anything nuclear.
                        >
                        >
                        > - C. S. Wyatt
                        > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                        > that I shall be.
                        > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                        > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer




                        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Susan Schnelbach
                        The same way historians do - from analysis of writings of the time. This, however, ends up being guesswork and hypothesis in many cases.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 1 9:40 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The same way historians do - from analysis of writings of the time.
                          This, however, ends up being guesswork and hypothesis in many cases.


                          On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Ehab Shoubaki wrote:

                          >
                          > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, "Exist List Moderator"
                          > <existlist1@...> said:
                          >
                          >
                          >>
                          >> History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind
                          >> wars
                          >> fade.
                          >>
                          >> - CSW
                          >>
                          >>
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ?
                          > How
                          > can one now discern what's true from what's convenient without living
                          > through that particular era....
                          >
                          > ehab
                          >
                          >
                          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                          > nothing!
                          >
                          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Bob Keyes
                          In all cases.. Bob.. ... From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Susan Schnelbach Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:41 AM
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 1 9:51 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In all cases..
                            Bob..

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On
                            Behalf Of Susan Schnelbach
                            Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:41 AM
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Bound to remember


                            The same way historians do - from analysis of writings of the time.
                            This, however, ends up being guesswork and hypothesis in many cases.


                            On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Ehab Shoubaki wrote:

                            >
                            > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:05:13 -0700, "Exist List Moderator"
                            > <existlist1@...> said:
                            >
                            >
                            >>
                            >> History is being rewritten as memories of the actual events behind
                            >> wars
                            >> fade.
                            >>
                            >> - CSW
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Then how can one find truth in history , if there is such a thing ?
                            > How
                            > can one now discern what's true from what's convenient without living
                            > through that particular era....
                            >
                            > ehab
                            >
                            >
                            > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                            > nothing!
                            >
                            > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >



                            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • Exist List Moderator
                            ... Of course, a major problem with the above statement is that Israelis of semitic heritage are nearly identical to their Arabian *semitic* neighbors. Not to
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jul 2 7:49 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Jul 01, 2005, at 20:55, Bob Keyes wrote:

                              > True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The Israelis are
                              > working on poisions that will only kill Arabs....

                              Of course, a major problem with the above statement is that Israelis of
                              semitic heritage are nearly identical to their Arabian *semitic*
                              neighbors. Not to mention that fact Arab-Israelis in the parliament
                              have been on the intelligence panel.

                              A further complication is that nearly a third of Israeli citizens are
                              from non-semitic backgrounds and lack a demonstrable genetic link the
                              the region. Israeli law gives citizenship to any person of Jewish
                              faith, including converts. Also, it gives residency to any Arab-Israeli
                              with a historical link to the territory but willing to disavow violence
                              and work within the Israeli state.

                              I cannot envision a biological agent able to determine ones faith,
                              since that's the only true link among all Jewish Israeli citizens. I am
                              certain my mutt heritage leaves me barely semitic at all.

                              This sort of nonsense is why people still read and believe the Elders
                              of Zion.

                              Israel has low-level, medium-range nuclear fusion weapons, according to
                              Jane's. The benefits of nuclear weapons without the nasty
                              after-effects. Oh, yes, that's the type of reactor core we'll be
                              building in France -- which is also wanting to help Iran with a
                              reactor. Gotta love the planning there.

                              - CSW
                              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                              that I shall be.
                              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                            • Mary Jo Malo
                              Gotta love this planning as well. http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm But at least there s nothing nuclear in the reports. That should make our sick Gulf War
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jul 3 5:58 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Gotta love this planning as well.

                                http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

                                But at least there's nothing nuclear in the reports. That should make
                                our sick Gulf War vets feel better. Over the years, Independence Day
                                has lost some of its lustre. On balance however, it's still better to
                                be here than there.

                                Mary


                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                                <existlist1@t...> wrote:
                                > On Jul 01, 2005, at 20:55, Bob Keyes wrote:
                                >
                                > > True mary, a biological weapon is much more dangerous. The
                                Israelis are
                                > > working on poisions that will only kill Arabs....
                                >
                                > Of course, a major problem with the above statement is that
                                Israelis of
                                > semitic heritage are nearly identical to their Arabian *semitic*
                                > neighbors. Not to mention that fact Arab-Israelis in the parliament
                                > have been on the intelligence panel.
                                >
                                > A further complication is that nearly a third of Israeli citizens
                                are
                                > from non-semitic backgrounds and lack a demonstrable genetic link
                                the
                                > the region. Israeli law gives citizenship to any person of Jewish
                                > faith, including converts. Also, it gives residency to any Arab-
                                Israeli
                                > with a historical link to the territory but willing to disavow
                                violence
                                > and work within the Israeli state.
                                >
                                > I cannot envision a biological agent able to determine ones faith,
                                > since that's the only true link among all Jewish Israeli citizens.
                                I am
                                > certain my mutt heritage leaves me barely semitic at all.
                                >
                                > This sort of nonsense is why people still read and believe the
                                Elders
                                > of Zion.
                                >
                                > Israel has low-level, medium-range nuclear fusion weapons,
                                according to
                                > Jane's. The benefits of nuclear weapons without the nasty
                                > after-effects. Oh, yes, that's the type of reactor core we'll be
                                > building in France -- which is also wanting to help Iran with a
                                > reactor. Gotta love the planning there.
                                >
                                > - CSW
                                > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                > that I shall be.
                                > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                              • George Walton
                                From Harry G. Frankfurt s On Bullshit The contemporary proliferation of bullshit...has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jul 3 6:43 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  From Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit

                                  "The contemporary proliferation of bullshit...has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "antirealist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective reality. One response to the loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his
                                  own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.

                                  "But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistent to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial----notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."



                                  Which I suppose means no one can suggest Frankfurt is actually being sincere about this, right?

                                  Unless of course the above is merely an exercise in irony. Or perhaps it's yet another manifestation of malarkey.

                                  My own reaction is that Frankfurt has more or less hit the bullseye here because the bullseye is embedded in the inherently problematic nature of having a point of view about it at all.

                                  In other words, instead of aiming the discussion at what is said to be or not to be bullshit [free will, situational ethics, pragmatism, idealism, critical rationalism, God, the Bush Administration etc] Frankfort seems to imply that those doing the aiming are, in turn, mere fonts of bullshit themselves. And if how we come to understand our own self is ultimately seen to be bullshit how could any perspective emanating from this profoundly problematic font not necessarily be bullshit as well? Then we only have to figure out how to juxtapose this point of view with the necessary assumption it cannot help but be bullshit too. Then we come face to face once again with the seeming intractable impediment of language itself in the attempts made to "resolve" it once and for all.

                                  Philosophically, perhaps, it is not whether you are being sincere that is the starting point.....but "who" "you" "are" when insisting this is so. Human identity as a kind of quantum mechanics. I may be sincere in believing this point of view is correct. But there is no way I can know it reflects what is true. The observation and the observer are always intricately intertwined in the seeming mystery of the entanglement itself.

                                  Thus how we think about ourselves can only be understood in relationship to all of the countless countervailing variables that came together over the years to create this particular point of view. In other words, who really knows what to expect when they turn the next corner. Even in reading this post it might trigger in you a whole new way of looking at things. And once that happens the potential for yet more change in your "reality" can rapidly evolve into that proverbial snowball.

                                  Then it only becomes a question of deciding whether or not this is the good news or the bad. Not that either assumption can be seen as anything other then yet more bullshit, of course.

                                  So by all means: choose wisely.

                                  george






                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Yahoo! Mail Mobile
                                  Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                  someone a while back asked about the half-glassers being optimists or pessimists. (a lot of that has to do with early childhood experiences in addition to
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Jul 3 9:28 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    someone a while back asked about the half-glassers being optimists or
                                    pessimists. (a lot of that has to do with early childhood experiences in
                                    addition to inherited tendencies and cultural orientation.)

                                    but also maybe "unsophisticated" people as do children see both potential
                                    good and bad in people. they know first-hand how indifferent or hostile
                                    the world and other people can be, but they reject academic
                                    confabulations, classifications, and schemes that do nothing more than
                                    lead to despair, gloom, and suicide as a pointless dead end. there is joy
                                    in small things - in celebrations, and the occasional turn in good fortune
                                    to offset the drudgery or outright suffering of everyday life. for much
                                    of human existance, one could turn to nature and her cycles, or turn to
                                    rythms in dance, music, and ritual as a way to regain balance and order
                                    when trauma and disorder had disrupted the will to keep on truckin.'

                                    the word "bullshit" is neither objective, neutral, nor factual but an
                                    emotional summary of attitude. trying to be true to oneself, sincere, as
                                    opposed to deliberately obfuscating, hiding, or redirecting investigation
                                    of whatever is phenomenologically possible to observe, evalutate, and
                                    categorize does hold distinctive meaning for most people even when they
                                    subscribe to semiotic realities, observational and computational limits.
                                    "sincerity" or "truth" to ones best intentions is not at odds with doing
                                    the best we can with probability assessments and other ways of getting at
                                    "truth" all the while knowing it can not be essentialist fixed Absolute,
                                    but an ongoing process continuously tested.

                                    the individual has meaning in terms of other individuals who give reality
                                    checks, thus also providing the location or context in which the
                                    individual finds herself inseparable from her observation.

                                    aija,
                                    still experiencing as deeply moving, purposeful, and full of hope a
                                    childrens' song and dance festival where folk musicians, a rock star, and
                                    a symphony orchestra performed together with 35,000 children from every
                                    region and the rock star dedicated the song called "my song" to the
                                    children the refrain including "i know no one will sing that song in my
                                    place" (my translation of Renars Kaupers and Inga Cipe of the group Prata
                                    Vetra/Brainstorm) and the final stanza "between a moment and eternity."

                                    > From Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit

                                    > "The contemporary proliferation of bullshit...has deeper sources, in
                                    > various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable
                                    > access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the
                                    > possibility of knowing how things truly are.

                                    > Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to
                                    > identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to
                                    > his own nature.

                                    > Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial----notoriously less
                                    > stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar
                                    > as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."

                                    george:

                                    > In other words, instead of aiming the discussion at what is said to be
                                    > or not to be bullshit [free will, situational ethics, pragmatism,
                                    > idealism, critical rationalism, God, the Bush Administration etc]
                                    > Frankfort seems to imply that those doing the aiming are, in turn, mere
                                    > fonts of bullshit themselves.

                                    > Then we come face to face once again with the seeming intractable
                                    > impediment of language itself in the attempts made to "resolve" it once
                                    > and for all.

                                    > Philosophically, perhaps, it is not whether you are being sincere that
                                    > is the starting point.....but "who" "you" "are" when insisting this is
                                    > so. Human identity as a kind of quantum mechanics. I may be sincere in
                                    > believing this point of view is correct. But there is no way I can know
                                    > it reflects what is true. The observation and the observer are always
                                    > intricately intertwined in the seeming mystery of the entanglement
                                    > itself.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.