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

My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.