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

Re: [existlist] My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • Albert Dolley
    Trinidad, Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see; that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for your non-belief
    Message 1 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Trinidad,

      Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see; that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for your non-belief thereof ?

      Albert.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Trinidad Cruz
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:37 PM
      Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics


      I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
      of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
      not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
      point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
      suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
      any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
      have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
      of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
      ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
      outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
      NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
      up here again.

      Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
      believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
      consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
      money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
      encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
      any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
      reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
      either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
      disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here
      again.

      Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
      dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
      only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
      intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
      all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
      handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
      matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
      never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
      proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
      can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
      opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
      costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
      military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
      well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
      bringing this up again.

      We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
      should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
      be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
      proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
      to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
      incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
      when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
      well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
      Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
      subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
      red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
      and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
      This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
      here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
      present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will
      continue.

      We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
      could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
      for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?

      Trinidad

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@> wrote:
      > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
      > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.
      >
      > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
      not engage in rhetorical
      > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
      Games annoy me enough
      > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
      the honesty to ask
      > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
      >
      > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
      people in power that
      > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
      >
      > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
      any extended time
      > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
      things. From experiments on
      > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
      there. People knew the
      > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
      "Project for a New
      > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
      is amazing what we can
      > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
      watch Paris Hilton
      > on Larry King.
      >
      > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
      that's my family. I
      > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
      thing my father's
      > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
      socially conservative.
      >
      > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
      most of my views as I
      > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
      >
      > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
      the Twin Towers, as
      > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
      research from Purdue
      > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
      The professors involved
      > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
      their computer models
      > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
      a building would
      > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
      towers, which is the key.
      >
      > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
      will debate what was
      > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
      people certain that
      > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a war.
      >
      > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
      >
      > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
      that are beyond
      > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
      No one propped up
      > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
      enough to believe in both
      > the power and evil of lone individuals.
      >
      > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
      >
      > - CSW
      >






      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date: 7/1/2007 12:19 PM


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      I am going to have to side with TC on this. As much as I dread it, I cannot pass over the apparent contradictions in the whole 9-11 affair. There is more there
      Message 2 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I am going to have to side with TC on this. As much as I dread it, I cannot pass over the apparent contradictions in the whole 9-11 affair. There is more there than can be nose thumbed away.

        WS







        -----Original Message-----
        From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 9:37 am
        Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics

























        I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result

        of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did

        not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the

        point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic

        suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see

        any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I

        have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side

        of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I

        ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the

        outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will

        NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it

        up here again.



        Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that

        believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a

        consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of

        money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever

        encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking

        any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for

        reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this

        either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient

        disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here

        again.



        Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and

        dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can

        only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful

        intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of

        all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best

        handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a

        matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we

        never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the

        proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that

        can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this

        opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more

        costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by

        military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could

        well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not

        bringing this up again.



        We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children

        should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should

        be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal

        proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere

        to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all

        incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force

        when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as

        well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.

        Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of

        subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and

        red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,

        and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.

        This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack

        here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and

        present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will

        continue.



        We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we

        could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car

        for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?



        Trinidad



        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...> wrote:

        >

        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@> wrote:

        > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm

        > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.

        >

        > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do

        not engage in rhetorical

        > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.

        Games annoy me enough

        > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without

        the honesty to ask

        > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.

        >

        > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to

        people in power that

        > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.

        >

        > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for

        any extended time

        > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of

        things. From experiments on

        > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out

        there. People knew the

        > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The

        "Project for a New

        > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it

        is amazing what we can

        > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather

        watch Paris Hilton

        > on Larry King.

        >

        > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --

        that's my family. I

        > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only

        thing my father's

        > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but

        socially conservative.

        >

        > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped

        most of my views as I

        > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.

        >

        > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on

        the Twin Towers, as

        > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The

        research from Purdue

        > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.

        The professors involved

        > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but

        their computer models

        > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of

        a building would

        > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the

        towers, which is the key.

        >

        > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people

        will debate what was

        > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know

        people certain that

        > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a war.

        >

        > I'm just not much for conspiracy.

        >

        > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion

        that are beyond

        > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.

        No one propped up

        > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange

        enough to believe in both

        > the power and evil of lone individuals.

        >

        > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.

        >

        > - CSW

        >

















        ________________________________________________________________________
        AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Trinidad Cruz
        As a matter of fact, I have a credibility stake in 9/11 elsewhere, the nature of which I will never inform you or anyone else at this list. Suffice it to say
        Message 3 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          As a matter of fact, I have a credibility stake in 9/11 elsewhere, the
          nature of which I will never inform you or anyone else at this list.
          Suffice it to say that I will not discuss this matter again, and my
          public opinion on it will never change. You'll have that. I'm done
          with this subject here. Believe anything you want. How's the weather
          there?

          Trinidad

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Dolley" <al_d@...> wrote:
          >
          > Trinidad,
          >
          > Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see;
          that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for
          your non-belief thereof ?
          >
          > Albert.
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Trinidad Cruz
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:37 PM
          > Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics
          >
          >
          > I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
          > of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
          > not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
          > point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
          > suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
          > any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
          > have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
          > of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
          > ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
          > outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
          > NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
          > up here again.
          >
          > Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
          > believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
          > consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
          > money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
          > encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
          > any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
          > reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
          > either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
          > disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here
          > again.
          >
          > Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
          > dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
          > only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
          > intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
          > all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
          > handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
          > matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
          > never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
          > proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
          > can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
          > opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
          > costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
          > military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
          > well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
          > bringing this up again.
          >
          > We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
          > should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
          > be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
          > proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
          > to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
          > incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
          > when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
          > well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
          > Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
          > subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
          > red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
          > and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
          > This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
          > here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
          > present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will
          > continue.
          >
          > We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
          > could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
          > for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?
          >
          > Trinidad
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@> wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@>
          wrote:
          > > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
          > > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.
          > >
          > > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
          > not engage in rhetorical
          > > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
          > Games annoy me enough
          > > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
          > the honesty to ask
          > > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
          > >
          > > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
          > people in power that
          > > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
          > >
          > > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
          > any extended time
          > > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
          > things. From experiments on
          > > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
          > there. People knew the
          > > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
          > "Project for a New
          > > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
          > is amazing what we can
          > > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
          > watch Paris Hilton
          > > on Larry King.
          > >
          > > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
          > that's my family. I
          > > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
          > thing my father's
          > > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
          > socially conservative.
          > >
          > > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
          > most of my views as I
          > > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
          > >
          > > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
          > the Twin Towers, as
          > > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
          > research from Purdue
          > > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
          > The professors involved
          > > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
          > their computer models
          > > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
          > a building would
          > > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
          > towers, which is the key.
          > >
          > > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
          > will debate what was
          > > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
          > people certain that
          > > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a
          war.
          > >
          > > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
          > >
          > > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
          > that are beyond
          > > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
          > No one propped up
          > > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
          > enough to believe in both
          > > the power and evil of lone individuals.
          > >
          > > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
          > >
          > > - CSW
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >
          > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date:
          7/1/2007 12:19 PM
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Albert Dolley
          Trinidad, I don t necessarily believe anything. It s just that this might be part of the equation here. The weather is COLD, it snowed here last week, and this
          Message 4 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Trinidad,

            I don't necessarily believe anything. It's just that this might be part of the equation here. The weather is COLD, it snowed here last week, and this is unusual for this part of town...

            Kind Regards,
            A.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Trinidad Cruz
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:55 PM
            Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics


            As a matter of fact, I have a credibility stake in 9/11 elsewhere, the
            nature of which I will never inform you or anyone else at this list.
            Suffice it to say that I will not discuss this matter again, and my
            public opinion on it will never change. You'll have that. I'm done
            with this subject here. Believe anything you want. How's the weather
            there?

            Trinidad

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Dolley" <al_d@...> wrote:
            >
            > Trinidad,
            >
            > Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see;
            that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for
            your non-belief thereof ?
            >
            > Albert.
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Trinidad Cruz
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:37 PM
            > Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics
            >
            >
            > I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
            > of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
            > not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
            > point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
            > suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
            > any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
            > have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
            > of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
            > ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
            > outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
            > NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
            > up here again.
            >
            > Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
            > believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
            > consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
            > money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
            > encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
            > any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
            > reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
            > either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
            > disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here
            > again.
            >
            > Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
            > dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
            > only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
            > intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
            > all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
            > handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
            > matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
            > never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
            > proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
            > can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
            > opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
            > costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
            > military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
            > well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
            > bringing this up again.
            >
            > We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
            > should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
            > be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
            > proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
            > to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
            > incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
            > when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
            > well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
            > Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
            > subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
            > red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
            > and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
            > This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
            > here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
            > present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will
            > continue.
            >
            > We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
            > could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
            > for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?
            >
            > Trinidad
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@>
            wrote:
            > > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
            > > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.
            > >
            > > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
            > not engage in rhetorical
            > > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
            > Games annoy me enough
            > > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
            > the honesty to ask
            > > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
            > >
            > > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
            > people in power that
            > > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
            > >
            > > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
            > any extended time
            > > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
            > things. From experiments on
            > > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
            > there. People knew the
            > > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
            > "Project for a New
            > > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
            > is amazing what we can
            > > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
            > watch Paris Hilton
            > > on Larry King.
            > >
            > > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
            > that's my family. I
            > > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
            > thing my father's
            > > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
            > socially conservative.
            > >
            > > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
            > most of my views as I
            > > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
            > >
            > > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
            > the Twin Towers, as
            > > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
            > research from Purdue
            > > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
            > The professors involved
            > > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
            > their computer models
            > > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
            > a building would
            > > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
            > towers, which is the key.
            > >
            > > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
            > will debate what was
            > > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
            > people certain that
            > > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a
            war.
            > >
            > > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
            > >
            > > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
            > that are beyond
            > > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
            > No one propped up
            > > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
            > enough to believe in both
            > > the power and evil of lone individuals.
            > >
            > > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
            > >
            > > - CSW
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            ----------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >
            > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date:
            7/1/2007 12:19 PM
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >






            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date: 7/1/2007 12:19 PM


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Exist List Moderator
            ... It is this line that bothers me: certain... opinion. That s the same I hear from too many other people. They are certain of things, when I always argue
            Message 5 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On Jul 02, 2007, at 9:37, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

              > suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
              > any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion.

              It is this line that bothers me: "certain... opinion." That's the
              same I hear from too many other people. They are "certain" of things,
              when I always argue a lack of certainty, and an endless curiosity.
              When too many people are "certain" of things, we end up in the mess
              we are in as a nation -- lots of certainty the other side is ignorant
              and not seeing the facts our side (whatever side) sees so clearly.

              I read an interview with Michael Moore in the Independent and he was
              asked about the documentary "Dead Meat" -- an expose of deaths,
              delays, and worse in Canadian health care. More said, "I don't care
              about your facts. I'll see what I need to see for my views when I
              know I am right. I don't need your truth when I have mine."

              That's where we've been taken over the last 30 years or so.

              Philosophy went the same way, with deep divisions and lots of talking
              past each other. Maybe a Rorty will try to bridge gaps, but they
              usually fails.

              I definitely trust information less and less, having close
              connections to the media. Knowing most information is rigged on one
              side or the other, I just assume I'll never be certain of much more
              than how cruel and vile humans can be to each other.

              > Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now

              Animosity because you indicate I either lied or tried or game you and
              because you said I am not familiar with much of America. I am
              increasingly defensive of my links to the "NASCAR" world of my
              family. I've had enough colleagues and professors insult the
              "uneducated" or "ignorant" of middle America. These people are not
              stupid, but they do have different types of knowledge and definitely
              different values than we find in urban areas.

              > encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
              > any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
              > reform and accountability.

              I lost faith in "reform" long ago. Reform too often gives the
              government/incumbent politicians more power, not less. Instead of
              reform, we could have leaders who actually take their
              responsibilities to hold each branch of government in check -- but
              that's unlikely when so many Senators dream of the White House or
              life-long incomes from lobbying.

              As for "after the fact," I think people curious enough knew what was
              happening as it happened. The problem is that larger society just
              doesn't seem to care until it is too late. People watch terrible
              things happen and rationalize these events. Death and destruction
              "there" do not affect me, so I'll do nothing. That's the sad reality
              of how people function and remain sane.

              Again, I admit that I think most people, maybe a slight majority but
              a majority nonetheless, are interested in their own welfare and that
              of their "tribe" (family, small town, whatever). A lot of
              psychological testing seems to support this. We work best in small
              groups, where because people know you and you know them, social order
              is easier to maintain.

              > Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
              > dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
              > only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
              > intelligence gathering.

              Never disagreed with this notion. I think creating Gitmo or engaging
              in rendition is absurd. It you want to shed light on terrorism, do so
              in public courts so everyone can hear the ideas at work.

              Secrecy breeds yet more cynicism -- especially when it isn't much of
              a secret. The more you deny something that can be proved, the more
              people lose faith in the government. But, once caught in a lie,
              politicians and children seem to add yet more layers of lies.

              > We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
              > could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
              > for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?

              For me, wars should never be measured by money or material goods. If
              it isn't a clear action of self-defense, then it isn't justifiable.
              Any amount of money to defend people is okay as long as the debate
              isn't gamed by others.

              Of course... most debates are gamed. Too many people think serious
              issues belong in a debating society.

              As I said, philosophy went this route and most people stopped paying
              much attention to philosophers.


              - 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
            • Trinidad Cruz
              I d like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising, at least as surprising
              Message 6 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I'd like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from
                you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising,
                at least as surprising as you find mine. I really don't relish playing
                the role in this discourse of citizen, but that is what seems to have
                happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                abiding US citizen? Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I. I
                wonder how then I can be characterized as in the wrong here? Certainly
                not as a citizen. Just for having an opinion I doubt will likely ever
                change? I take it as a responsibility of my citizenship in this
                country to be involved with the system, at least enough to pursue some
                fundamental reforms through my vote whether they come to pass or not.
                I will not surrender so lightly to an inactive cynicism concerning
                something as important as a constitutional democracy. I could not face
                my own children and say I allowed their future to be sold away without
                even voting, let alone voicing any dissent. Why allow yourself to be
                disenfranchised without a fight? This thing, this American experiment,
                is not so easy these days, but it is also not so easy to dismiss as
                worthless by not participating.

                You don't agree with me. So be it. It is within the framework of our
                laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                an opinion. Sometimes one side or the other gives in, but there are no
                rules here other than remaining law abiding. Democratic government is
                not a mystical process in any form. It is simply a group of opinions,
                and a consensus of laws. If that consensus is now being purchased away
                from general opinion by a minute faction of opinion we have a problem.
                We cannot make wealth a criteria of opinion without an equal
                consideration of the criteria of opinion of poverty. The rhetoric of
                opinion in this case does not matter, nor does any agreement, or
                disagreement; only the fact that wealth is actually in such a
                privileged position in the debate over consensus in our franchise. We
                need financial reforms in our political process to restore the
                efficaciousness of debate over consensus. Such reform need not be the
                denial of access to corporate money to public servants, only clear and
                immediate public disclosure.

                Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society. Grass
                roots change in opinion on such matters is a slow process. Monotheism
                and science have developed side by side for thousands of years. They
                must fall into the position in our democracy where they belong -
                opinion. The debate will go on, and most on either side will never
                change their opinion in their lifetime. To me they are like part one
                and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of
                its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our part three in
                this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert its truth
                above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.

                Trinidad
              • eupraxis@aol.com
                To me they are like part one and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our
                Message 7 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  "To me they are like part one and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You
                  despair of philosophy, of its active presence in our society. Our democracy is
                  our part three in this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert
                  its truth above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                  state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our American
                  proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in this constitutional
                  democracy we are actually all philosophers." Trinidad

                  Hey Trin, gettin' all dialectical. I like it.

                  WS

                  In a message dated 7/2/07 5:18:30 PM, TriniCruz@... writes:


                  >
                  > I'd like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from
                  > you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising,
                  > at least as surprising as you find mine. I really don't relish playing
                  > the role in this discourse of citizen, but that is what seems to have
                  > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                  > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                  > abiding US citizen? Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                  > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I. I
                  > wonder how then I can be characterized as in the wrong here? Certainly
                  > not as a citizen. Just for having an opinion I doubt will likely ever
                  > change? I take it as a responsibility of my citizenship in this
                  > country to be involved with the system, at least enough to pursue some
                  > fundamental reforms through my vote whether they come to pass or not.
                  > I will not surrender so lightly to an inactive cynicism concerning
                  > something as important as a constitutional democracy. I could not face
                  > my own children and say I allowed their future to be sold away without
                  > even voting, let alone voicing any dissent. Why allow yourself to be
                  > disenfranchised without a fight? This thing, this American experiment,
                  > is not so easy these days, but it is also not so easy to dismiss as
                  > worthless by not participating.
                  >
                  > You don't agree with me. So be it. It is within the framework of our
                  > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                  > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                  > an opinion. Sometimes one side or the other gives in, but there are no
                  > rules here other than remaining law abiding. Democratic government is
                  > not a mystical process in any form. It is simply a group of opinions,
                  > and a consensus of laws. If that consensus is now being purchased away
                  > from general opinion by a minute faction of opinion we have a problem.
                  > We cannot make wealth a criteria of opinion without an equal
                  > consideration of the criteria of opinion of poverty. The rhetoric of
                  > opinion in this case does not matter, nor does any agreement, or
                  > disagreement; only the fact that wealth is actually in such a
                  > privileged position in the debate over consensus in our franchise. We
                  > need financial reforms in our political process to restore the
                  > efficaciousness of debate over consensus. Such reform need not be the
                  > denial of access to corporate money to public servants, only clear and
                  > immediate public disclosure.
                  >
                  > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society. Grass
                  > roots change in opinion on such matters is a slow process. Monotheism
                  > and science have developed side by side for thousands of years. They
                  > must fall into the position in our democracy where they belong -
                  > opinion. The debate will go on, and most on either side will never
                  > change their opinion in their lifetime. To me they are like part one
                  > and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of
                  > its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our part three in
                  > this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert its truth
                  > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                  > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                  > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                  > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.
                  >
                  > Trinidad
                  >
                  >
                  >




                  **************************************
                  See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • C. S. Wyatt
                  ... What I worry about is the certainty I hear from the two sides (though there are more) in various debates -- and the corresponding divisions in our
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                    > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                    > abiding US citizen?

                    What I worry about is the certainty I hear from the "two sides" (though there are more) in
                    various debates -- and the corresponding divisions in our society. Debate has been
                    replaced by name calling and insinuations that one side alone if privy to the "correct"
                    answers and views on issues.

                    I long for someone, anyone, to come from the radical middle and change the tone of
                    debate so it can be a genuine debate and not the noise that now echoes across the media
                    and Web.

                    > Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                    > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I.

                    My involvement is to oppose almost anything that large organizations, especially the
                    government, claims to be doing for my benefit. I am definitely opposed to any
                    encroachments into my freedoms and those of others. I don't care for any group trying to
                    dictate how private individuals should live.

                    To me, freedoms are under assault from all sides. I think how they view events becomes a
                    way to justify which rights will be taken.

                    Free speech is always under assault. Choices in medical care are limited by the FDA's
                    desire to "protect" me from dangerous treatments. (I was denied painkillers here in MN
                    because the use I had in California was considered "off-label" here. Nice to be protected,
                    isn't it?) The right to drink what I want, smoke what I want, or even eventually decide how
                    to exit life are all dictated to me. It's absurd.

                    I spent a lot of time working for the government. I'm a darn good data analyst. From that
                    work, I learned a lot about other cultures and groups. I trust them even less than our own
                    government, if that's possible.

                    I vote, I write, I volunteer -- but I don't trust. I am a skeptic. That's my nature.

                    > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                    > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                    > an opinion.

                    There is little debate in the mainstream. Political consultants, pollsters, and media analysts
                    talk about politics in terms of horse races, winners and losers. The issues get four
                    minutes, on a good night, and then we are told how leads in what poll by how much. Polls
                    are not debate -- they are nothing but ways to create the impression a polling agency
                    wants.

                    I want debate and discussion, but I want it in a way I seldom see it or hear it, even from
                    the sources I read every day. I am a loyal reader of both The Nation and CATO Bulletin. I
                    read The New Republic and National Review, Telegraph.uk and Le Monde. I'm now reading
                    more in Spanish and Hebrew -- but I admit I cannot read Arabic at all and my business
                    partner (who served in the Middle East for several years speaking Arabic) tells me the
                    English "translations" are nothing close to the real meanings.

                    My radio buttons bounce from NPR and Nova M to Air America and several conservative
                    stations. (I cannot stand Bill O'R and Sean Hannity. I try and try, but they annoy me on
                    radio. Randy Rhodes is just as bad. Terrible radio.)

                    There's just not a lot of real debate. That's why I still turn to S.F. radio stations and
                    newspapers online.

                    > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society.

                    Sadly.

                    > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                    > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                    > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                    > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.

                    Sorry, but I want more science in politics and less religion. A lot less religion.

                    I am glad we have a republican form. I wish we actually respected that form more, but then
                    all three branches would require some leadership.

                    I'll go all the way back to the Greek ideal: a leader needs a moral compass. Wish we had
                    that, but I'm not sure I see many with ethical ideals. We need philosophers in government,
                    men and women with well-rounded educations and experiences. I'm not sure we have
                    that, especially when I have had a chance to talk to leaders one-on-one. Some turned out
                    to be much less intelligent than I had hoped. Some were just plain ignorant.

                    Philosophy is something I support -- or I wouldn't have the Web site and discussion list.
                    What I fear is that divisions have increased and debate has lost to name calling and
                    stubborn egomania.

                    - CSW
                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                    CS, I think you confuse social discourse with a philosophical position. The latter, if one can manage it, is unable to concede to a position that it considers
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      CS,

                      I think you confuse social discourse with a philosophical position. The
                      latter, if one can manage it, is unable to concede to a position that it considers
                      anathema to truth (or the Good, etc.) assuming such a conclusion has already
                      been made and that that position culminates in something like what Kant called
                      a "maxim". As I am on the left, there are some positions that have achieved
                      such an axiomatic status and cannot be 'mediated' by anything, especially by
                      some nebulous middle. We have already danced that tango, so I will leave it at
                      that.

                      The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can take place, but
                      if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should celebrate any
                      middle. The middle course in an 'evolution/creation' debate would be what? What
                      is the middle course on 'Iraq is an illegal invasion', or 'torture is a crime
                      against humanity', or 'the vice president is part of the executive'?

                      And as a side in a debate, I have no regard for watering an ethical position
                      down to that same middle, radical or not. Philosophy is, for me, a sublated
                      manifestation of war. I am not of the mind to allow the right-wing, which has
                      all but ruined this country and continues to do so still, to imagine that it has
                      anything to say about god and country any longer.

                      Finally, we are well aware of your libertarian position, as well as other
                      specific positions. I haven't seen any change of mind since I have been at this
                      group. You seem as certain, at times, as anyone else here, and on matters that
                      I have an almost opposite position. What middle course there?

                      'Debate' (what passes for debate in the US is a scandal) presumes a
                      compromise between parties, but in many instances this is a mirage. Debates are usually
                      held for the sake of affecting listeners, not for achieving a middle path.

                      Wil

                      In a message dated 7/2/07 9:36:21 PM, existlist1@... writes:


                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@.Tr> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                      > > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                      > > abiding US citizen?
                      >
                      > What I worry about is the certainty I hear from the "two sides" (though
                      > there are more) in
                      > various debates -- and the corresponding divisions in our society. Debate
                      > has been
                      > replaced by name calling and insinuations that one side alone if privy to
                      > the "correct"
                      > answers and views on issues.
                      >
                      > I long for someone, anyone, to come from the radical middle and change the
                      > tone of
                      > debate so it can be a genuine debate and not the noise that now echoes
                      > across the media
                      > and Web.
                      >
                      > > Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                      > > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I.
                      >
                      > My involvement is to oppose almost anything that large organizations,
                      > especially the
                      > government, claims to be doing for my benefit. I am definitely opposed to
                      > any
                      > encroachments into my freedoms and those of others. I don't care for any
                      > group trying to
                      > dictate how private individuals should live.
                      >
                      > To me, freedoms are under assault from all sides. I think how they view e
                      > vents becomes a
                      > way to justify which rights will be taken.
                      >
                      > Free speech is always under assault. Choices in medical care are limited by
                      > the FDA's
                      > desire to "protect" me from dangerous treatments. (I was denied painkillers
                      > here in MN
                      > because the use I had in California was considered "off-label" here. Nice to
                      > be protected,
                      > isn't it?) The right to drink what I want, smoke what I want, or even
                      > eventually decide how
                      > to exit life are all dictated to me. It's absurd.
                      >
                      > I spent a lot of time working for the government. I'm a darn good data
                      > analyst. From that
                      > work, I learned a lot about other cultures and groups. I trust them even
                      > less than our own
                      > government, if that's possible.
                      >
                      > I vote, I write, I volunteer -- but I don't trust. I am a skeptic. That's my
                      > nature.
                      >
                      > > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                      > > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                      > > an opinion.
                      >
                      > There is little debate in the mainstream. Political consultants, pollsters,
                      > and media analysts
                      > talk about politics in terms of horse races, winners and losers. The issues
                      > get four
                      > minutes, on a good night, and then we are told how leads in what poll by how
                      > much. Polls
                      > are not debate -- they are nothing but ways to create the impression a
                      > polling agency
                      > wants.
                      >
                      > I want debate and discussion, but I want it in a way I seldom see it or hear
                      > it, even from
                      > the sources I read every day. I am a loyal reader of both The Nation and
                      > CATO Bulletin. I
                      > read The New Republic and National Review, Telegraph.uk and Le Monde. I'm
                      > now reading
                      > more in Spanish and Hebrew -- but I admit I cannot read Arabic at all and my
                      > business
                      > partner (who served in the Middle East for several years speaking Arabic)
                      > tells me the
                      > English "translations" are nothing close to the real meanings.
                      >
                      > My radio buttons bounce from NPR and Nova M to Air America and several
                      > conservative
                      > stations. (I cannot stand Bill O'R and Sean Hannity. I try and try, but they
                      > annoy me on
                      > radio. Randy Rhodes is just as bad. Terrible radio.)
                      >
                      > There's just not a lot of real debate. That's why I still turn to S.F. radio
                      > stations and
                      > newspapers online.
                      >
                      > > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society.
                      >
                      > Sadly.
                      >
                      > > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                      > > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                      > > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                      > > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.
                      >
                      > Sorry, but I want more science in politics and less religion. A lot less
                      > religion.
                      >
                      > I am glad we have a republican form. I wish we actually respected that form
                      > more, but then
                      > all three branches would require some leadership.
                      >
                      > I'll go all the way back to the Greek ideal: a leader needs a moral compass.
                      > Wish we had
                      > that, but I'm not sure I see many with ethical ideals. We need philosophers
                      > in government,
                      > men and women with well-rounded educations and experiences. I'm not sure we
                      > have
                      > that, especially when I have had a chance to talk to leaders one-on-one.
                      > Some turned out
                      > to be much less intelligent than I had hoped. Some were just plain ignorant.
                      >
                      > Philosophy is something I support -- or I wouldn't have the Web site and
                      > discussion list.
                      > What I fear is that divisions have increased and debate has lost to name
                      > calling and
                      > stubborn egomania.
                      >
                      > - CSW
                      >
                      >
                      >




                      **************************************
                      See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Trinidad Cruz
                      Well Wil, in a real sense this is a dialectical problem of importance. CSW wants leadership with a moral compass, as he puts it. We have a moral and ethical
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well Wil, in a real sense this is a dialectical problem of importance.
                        CSW wants leadership with a moral compass, as he puts it. We have a
                        moral and ethical compass here. It is our constitution and system of
                        laws. It is in no way an absolute. It is a chosen consensus containing
                        provision for change and adaptation through debate and new consensus
                        by freely elected representatives. Because it cannot be taken as an
                        absolute it seems to lose importance in the face of both science and
                        religion. Neither naturalism nor theism should dictate to our
                        synthesis here, only propose and debate; yet we find most often as CSW
                        indicates hard-line uncompromising debate between the two. Such
                        stubbornness and egotism in debate is not necessarily harmful, in fact
                        I am generally encouraged by the fact that discussion in such areas is
                        so uncompromising, as such futile discussion shifts importance to the
                        synthesis we have developed to make way for such debate in a bloodless
                        forum in the first place. As people are faced with the futility of
                        absolutes they generally fall back toward a reliance on our synthesis
                        here. It has ever been so in our history, and men have suited the
                        times when the threat to it was real. It is simply grander than any
                        absolute truth.

                        Philosophy cannot reject theism out of hand; only monotheism and its
                        attendant concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, and creationism.
                        Philosophy cannot reject naturalism out of hand; only its
                        functionalist arguments for an absolute materialism. Philosophy cannot
                        allow for solutions that are absolute. The synthesis becomes of the
                        greatest importance. This is not epiphenomenalism because the
                        synthesis is not taken as an absolute, only as something of greater
                        importance than absolutes and subject to change. It is in this, an
                        ethic in a continuously developmental frame. Hobbes, inspired by
                        Plato, struggled through the bare bones of this proposition here 400
                        years ago; so we cannot argue that philosophy has not been shaping the
                        world here all along. The constitution, our system of laws, are a
                        philosophy. This cannot be taken, as it so often mistakenly is, as an
                        idealism. Idealism is a process of casting ideas as absolutes. In such
                        a case then, lower forms in the dialectic to be believed in rather
                        than known. All we can ever know are synthetic forms changing with
                        consensus. We can believe anything. We may not cast our synthesis here
                        as an ideal, as something to believe in; because in doing so we will
                        never know it. Its importance is not even in knowing it as an
                        experience; but rather in individually working at its continuing
                        synthesis. It will not age well. To store it, is to sour it to an
                        ideal, and make it dialectically less. It is good that the struggle
                        for absolutes is loud. Such a circumstance will push us to attend to
                        our synthesis. Only in that attention will it remain healthy and
                        sweet, because it cannot be believed in and remain important, only
                        worked at. Working at it, is knowing it for what it is.

                        Trinidad
                      • eupraxis@aol.com
                        TC, Agreed. I think. WS ... From: Trinidad Cruz To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 9:55 am Subject: [existlist] My views
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          TC,

                          Agreed. I think.

                          WS







                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 9:55 am
                          Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics

























                          Well Wil, in a real sense this is a dialectical problem of importance.

                          CSW wants leadership with a moral compass, as he puts it. We have a

                          moral and ethical compass here. It is our constitution and system of

                          laws. It is in no way an absolute. It is a chosen consensus containing

                          provision for change and adaptation through debate and new consensus

                          by freely elected representatives. Because it cannot be taken as an

                          absolute it seems to lose importance in the face of both science and

                          religion. Neither naturalism nor theism should dictate to our

                          synthesis here, only propose and debate; yet we find most often as CSW

                          indicates hard-line uncompromising debate between the two. Such

                          stubbornness and egotism in debate is not necessarily harmful, in fact

                          I am generally encouraged by the fact that discussion in such areas is

                          so uncompromising, as such futile discussion shifts importance to the

                          synthesis we have developed to make way for such debate in a bloodless

                          forum in the first place. As people are faced with the futility of

                          absolutes they generally fall back toward a reliance on our synthesis

                          here. It has ever been so in our history, and men have suited the

                          times when the threat to it was real. It is simply grander than any

                          absolute truth.



                          Philosophy cannot reject theism out of hand; only monotheism and its

                          attendant concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, and creationism.

                          Philosophy cannot reject naturalism out of hand; only its

                          functionalist arguments for an absolute materialism. Philosophy cannot

                          allow for solutions that are absolute. The synthesis becomes of the

                          greatest importance. This is not epiphenomenalism because the

                          synthesis is not taken as an absolute, only as something of greater

                          importance than absolutes and subject to change. It is in this, an

                          ethic in a continuously developmental frame. Hobbes, inspired by

                          Plato, struggled through the bare bones of this proposition here 400

                          years ago; so we cannot argue that philosophy has not been shaping the

                          world here all along. The constitution, our system of laws, are a

                          philosophy. This cannot be taken, as it so often mistakenly is, as an

                          idealism. Idealism is a process of casting ideas as absolutes. In such

                          a case then, lower forms in the dialectic to be believed in rather

                          than known. All we can ever know are synthetic forms changing with

                          consensus. We can believe anything. We may not cast our synthesis here

                          as an ideal, as something to believe in; because in doing so we will

                          never know it. Its importance is not even in knowing it as an

                          experience; but rather in individually working at its continuing

                          synthesis. It will not age well. To store it, is to sour it to an

                          ideal, and make it dialectically less. It is good that the struggle

                          for absolutes is loud. Such a circumstance will push us to attend to

                          our synthesis. Only in that attention will it remain healthy and

                          sweet, because it cannot be believed in and remain important, only

                          worked at. Working at it, is knowing it for what it is.



                          Trinidad

















                          ________________________________________________________________________
                          AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • C. S. Wyatt
                          ... To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow evolutionary steps. My very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                            > The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can take place, but
                            > if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should celebrate any
                            > middle.

                            To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow evolutionary steps. My
                            very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely to be a position adopted
                            by most voters / politicians. Instead of trying for an "outright win" in the political arena, I
                            try to argue other elements of the problem. For example, it is hard to argue that the
                            application reveals social and political biases in the courts. Also, one can point to those
                            freed thanks to DNA and modern forensics. In other words, I shift the debate to those
                            areas I think there might be consensus.

                            Do I surrender my philosophical notion that the state shouldn't take a life? No. But, I also
                            realize there is a more effective approach politically.

                            I've shifted a lot in life, from the normal "left" of undergraduate years to a libertarian
                            approach. The more I worked in / around government, the less I trusted it.

                            My philosophical approach is to still dream of a time when people get along and help each
                            other voluntarily. I still imagine people have a responsibility to mutually respect each
                            other's rights and freedoms.

                            Politically? I see government in all nations is about the powerful elites, not idealism.

                            Philosophical grounding would help our leaders, as it would any group of people. I want
                            people to consider "The Other" and how our choices impinge on the other. I want people
                            to consider, "What if country/group X did Y to me? What of my rights, then?"

                            Yes, I'm definitely more libertarian than I was two decades ago. I'm also more pro-union,
                            I'm generally more ambivalent about my support for the ACLU (I cannot believe they are
                            supporting the installation of foot baths in our colleges in Minnesota -- uhg), and still a
                            devoted supporter of the National Wildlife Federation (but not the Sierra Club).

                            My philosophy remains apart from political action because I have to compromise to get
                            things done at the university and in our schools. You cannot go in with "I think we should
                            shift taxes collected from one district to the inner city schools" -- a position I hold.
                            Instead, you have to explain to the suburbs why they don't want inner city schools
                            collapsing and failing. My beliefs have to be mediated to get action.

                            I am not a politician, since I couldn't compromise nearly as often as it is required. But, I
                            have been much better at compromise in the last four years than in the past.

                            Pragmatism becomes more appealing when I need to accomplish something. At those
                            moments, Rorty and Schiappa guide my reasoning. When I shift to freedoms, I still turn to
                            a mix of Continental thinkers.

                            Philosophy and the reality conflict. I support republican ideals, with limits on the majority.
                            I always fear the majority and its ability to abuse power -- even when my views might be
                            in the majority.

                            When we implement a philosophy, it changes. What is good in the ideal is always off when
                            men and women try to implement those ideals.

                            Politics is about getting things done. It means terrible choices, like which houses must
                            give way to new roads and transit lines. Politics is not philosophy, at those moments. But, I
                            think philosopher-leaders would ask, "Is it really fair that we always put the roads through
                            poor or middle-income neighborhoods?" I want politicians to feel some internal agony
                            over every choice, while still making a choice.

                            Isn't that the core of existentialism? Most choices have a negative, Sartre said, but we tend
                            to ignore the negatives so we can act free of guilt. I want more guilt from our leaders. Lots
                            more guilt.
                          • bhvwd
                            ... take place, but ... celebrate any ... evolutionary steps. My ... to be a position adopted ... win in the political arena, I ... to argue that the ...
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                              > > The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can
                              take place, but
                              > > if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should
                              celebrate any
                              > > middle.
                              >
                              > To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow
                              evolutionary steps. My
                              > very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely
                              to be a position adopted
                              > by most voters / politicians. Instead of trying for an "outright
                              win" in the political arena, I
                              > try to argue other elements of the problem. For example, it is hard
                              to argue that the
                              > application reveals social and political biases in the courts.
                              Also, one can point to those
                              > freed thanks to DNA and modern forensics. In other words, I shift
                              the debate to those
                              > areas I think there might be consensus.
                              >
                              > Do I surrender my philosophical notion that the state shouldn't
                              take a life? No. But, I also
                              > realize there is a more effective approach politically.
                              >
                              > I've shifted a lot in life, from the normal "left" of undergraduate
                              years to a libertarian
                              > approach. The more I worked in / around government, the less I
                              trusted it.
                              >
                              > My philosophical approach is to still dream of a time when people
                              get along and help each
                              > other voluntarily. I still imagine people have a responsibility to
                              mutually respect each
                              > other's rights and freedoms.
                              >
                              > Politically? I see government in all nations is about the powerful
                              elites, not idealism.
                              >
                              > Philosophical grounding would help our leaders, as it would any
                              group of people. I want
                              > people to consider "The Other" and how our choices impinge on the
                              other. I want people
                              > to consider, "What if country/group X did Y to me? What of my
                              rights, then?"
                              >
                              > Yes, I'm definitely more libertarian than I was two decades ago.
                              I'm also more pro-union,
                              > I'm generally more ambivalent about my support for the ACLU (I
                              cannot believe they are
                              > supporting the installation of foot baths in our colleges in
                              Minnesota -- uhg), and still a
                              > devoted supporter of the National Wildlife Federation (but not the
                              Sierra Club).
                              >
                              > My philosophy remains apart from political action because I have to
                              compromise to get
                              > things done at the university and in our schools. You cannot go in
                              with "I think we should
                              > shift taxes collected from one district to the inner city schools" -
                              - a position I hold.
                              > Instead, you have to explain to the suburbs why they don't want
                              inner city schools
                              > collapsing and failing. My beliefs have to be mediated to get
                              action.
                              >
                              > I am not a politician, since I couldn't compromise nearly as often
                              as it is required. But, I
                              > have been much better at compromise in the last four years than in
                              the past.
                              >
                              > Pragmatism becomes more appealing when I need to accomplish
                              something. At those
                              > moments, Rorty and Schiappa guide my reasoning. When I shift to
                              freedoms, I still turn to
                              > a mix of Continental thinkers.
                              >
                              > Philosophy and the reality conflict. I support republican ideals,
                              with limits on the majority.
                              > I always fear the majority and its ability to abuse power -- even
                              when my views might be
                              > in the majority.
                              >
                              > When we implement a philosophy, it changes. What is good in the
                              ideal is always off when
                              > men and women try to implement those ideals.
                              >
                              > Politics is about getting things done. It means terrible choices,
                              like which houses must
                              > give way to new roads and transit lines. Politics is not
                              philosophy, at those moments. But, I
                              > think philosopher-leaders would ask, "Is it really fair that we
                              always put the roads through
                              > poor or middle-income neighborhoods?" I want politicians to feel
                              some internal agony
                              > over every choice, while still making a choice.
                              >
                              > Isn't that the core of existentialism? Most choices have a
                              negative, Sartre said, but we tend
                              > to ignore the negatives so we can act free of guilt. I want more
                              guilt from our leaders. Lots
                              > more guilt.
                              >CSW, With the people we have at the top there is no guilt.
                              Caligula rules and look out if you are his horse or sister. Bill
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.