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

tough enough for what?

Expand Messages
  • Mc Colly, Fred James
    to leave those devious whores to carry on with business as usual ? there may be a quantitative difference in the number of dead during the next
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      to leave those devious whores to carry on with "business as usual"?
      there may be a quantitative difference in the number of dead during the
      next administration, but the quality will still be dead...they are of
      the same tribe and don't give a rat's ass about what might be in your
      best intrest ( unless, of course, you're one of them) or mine or our
      neighbors ( or our neighbor's combat age sons)...their quest for
      supremacy is doomed like all human endevor...you are finite, i am
      finite, and so are they...take a look around...we can talk after we
      clear away the rubble from the impending collapse...do F16's fly
      efficiently on ethanol? bone up on your spengler..
      fred
    • bhvwd
      ... usual ? ... the ... of ... your ... our ... trepidation could be in order. I am on many sides as I have lived a considerable time. Most of those sides
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 7, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mc Colly, Fred James"
        <fmccolly@...> wrote:
        >
        > to leave those devious whores to carry on with "business as
        usual"?
        > there may be a quantitative difference in the number of dead during
        the
        > next administration, but the quality will still be dead...they are
        of
        > the same tribe and don't give a rat's ass about what might be in
        your
        > best intrest ( unless, of course, you're one of them) or mine or
        our
        > neighbors ( or our neighbor's combat age sons)...their quest for
        > supremacy is doomed like all human endevor...you are finite, i am
        > finite, and so are they...take a look around...we can talk after we
        > clear away the rubble from the impending collapse...do F16's fly
        > efficiently on ethanol? bone up on your spengler..
        > fred
        >Fred, a paranoia seeps from your post and it seems a certain
        trepidation could be in order. I am on many sides as I have lived a
        considerable time. Most of those sides self destruct with the
        movement through time, but the association with some people and
        action groups change your trajectory.LBJ`s ruthless drafting and war
        making got my attention and at my present age I feel how it could be
        easy to force the young to war and kill. Old people do not fight and
        the idea of strong, young surrogates to defend is most appealing.
        Einstein put some change to that war cycle as nuclear war can
        envelope all.
        Bush and the neocons curtailed change with conventional war making.
        A great majority finds that unacceptable. The Asian street howls for
        food and fuel and our young offer token appeasement. Obama will talk
        us out of all these connundrums. I fear Obama is sending us toward a
        Harry Truman moment. The Jews may spare us the button pushing but
        any such aggression takes us to very high risk levels. All three
        candidates have vowed full defense for the Jews.
        It seems F16`s fly on JP4 but they are being phased out. They are
        powerful and graceful in flight and it is easy to have affection for
        them. F22 should keep air superiority for twenty years and so it is
        possible to bomb, bomb. bomb bomb bomb Iran. Remember, Mccain is a
        fighter/bomber pilot. Just take out Iran and starve the bastards out.
        He claims it is already working but the neocons have said many
        falsehoods. The idea we can pacify starvation and blank poverty with
        anything but food and social order is murky. So what is the kill
        number to finally suppress growth of unstable populations ? Which
        ironbutt plan will do the job ? I think nukes, conventional,
        machete and stones will be in the mix. It seems we are beyond food
        and birth control. Bill
      • Exist List Moderator
        Not sure what any of this has to do with existentialism, or general philosophy. People are self interested, small groups and some tribal cultures
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 8, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Not sure what any of this has to do with existentialism, or general
          philosophy.

          People are self interested, small groups and some tribal cultures
          notwithstanding. And, even those often place one small tribe against
          another.

          I was reading a critique of anthropology and history texts written in
          the 1980s. Many attributed qualities to long-vanished tribes that
          cannot be proved or disproved, but certainly seem unlikely. Even in
          the ancient Americas, even if these idealistic texts skimmed the
          truth, tribes slaughtered each other and held to violent superstitions.

          "One of them" is a programmed human response, if you believe most
          current evolutionary psychologists. We evolved to care most about our
          small group of familiars. There's nothing nefarious at work. Even
          Camus famously stated he would choose his mother over his idealism.

          Most early Continental thought, and even much current thought, is not
          about "us" but about power and the "I/we" to which one belongs. Hegel?
          Nietzsche? Certainly not proponents of egalitarian ideals.

          I do not see a time when self / tribe is unimportant. What matters is
          how we negotiate through our differences -- and that assumes others
          want to negotiate.

          - 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
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          CS, I am not sure to whom you are responding and what your general argument is favoring. What text are you citing that critiques 80 s anthropology? What is
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 8, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            CS,

            I am not sure to whom you are responding and what your general argument is
            favoring. What text are you citing that critiques 80's anthropology? What is
            this difference that you mention between "us" and the "I/we" that you say is
            common in Continental thought? And what do mean by calling Hegel anti-egalitarian?

            Wil



            **************
            Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
            Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
            (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&
            NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Exist List Moderator
            ... Responding to the strange meanderings posted recently by Bill and Mc Colly (sp?). The notion that there is a nefarious political class, on left and right,
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 8, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              On Jun 08, 2008, at 16:03, eupraxis@... wrote:

              > I am not sure to whom you are responding and what your general
              > argument is
              > favoring. What text are you citing that critiques 80's anthropology?
              > What is
              > this difference that you mention between "us" and the "I/we" that
              > you say is
              > common in Continental thought? And what do mean by calling Hegel
              > anti-egalitarian?


              Responding to the strange meanderings posted recently by Bill and Mc
              Colly (sp?). The notion that there is a nefarious political class, on
              left and right, assumes a lot more negative about people than I have
              encountered. I'm not a conspiracy theorists, and knowing leaders in
              both parties I have come to believe many more are earnest than is
              realized. However, we tend to attribute negative (even "evil" or
              "bad") motivations to those disagreeing with our views.

              I spent three years in the deep pits of DARPA research. I really
              didn't see people motivated by "evil" -- they really had rationalized
              their views or their fears. If you read the Senate Intelligence
              Committee report carefully, you find a suggestion not of leaders
              lying, but of only seeing what they wanted and selectively discounting
              anything they didn't want to believe. Nothing nefarious in being
              blindly stupid... though we have seen willful ignorance can be
              dangerous.

              Yes, there are "evil" men and women. Definitely. But, I think we
              assume there are more of these than there really are. I think there
              are people who truly do believe whatever their superstitions
              (religions being included) tell them. Their "sins" are mistakes...
              while my sins are evil.

              This is where we could discuss "Bad Faith" and authenticity. We could,
              on this list, discuss the philosophical underpinnings of situations or
              issues. Rants don't help place anything in context.

              I am also stating that what we think is "right" is shaped by some
              underlying, probably evolutionary, desire to protect our group. We
              rationalize morality. (I'd point to Pinker, Hauser, de Wall, Dawkins,
              and numerous others who suggest an evolutionary origin to what is
              considered moral by our species.)

              Hegel believed in powerful states, guided by a leadership class. While
              he was a supporter of a standard education, rule of law, etc, he also
              showed a sense of elitism. I don't think this is a bad thing -- I want
              leaders who are "better" in some way: better educated? Better
              informed? I'm not sure... but I know I don't think everyone is capable
              of every job.

              Equality under the law is not the same as equality of ability. (Not
              that we have equality under the law in Western nations, but it is
              something we strive for, I believe.)

              As for the text I was reading, it was a critique of the history books
              being used in Texas and California schools. These books are both
              political correct and afraid of offending the religious right. As a
              result, these books try for a meaningless, conflict-free, version of
              history. The author of the text was the head of UCLA's history
              department, Nash.

              http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/nash/

              He's a supporter of "multicultural" history, but not the whitewashed
              sort we now teach. Instead of a "Western = bad, colonial, etc."
              perspective, he wants to remind people that most civilizations were
              pretty far from perfect.

              We should never delude ourselves -- all of us are biased, all cultures
              are flawed, and we (whoever "we" are) have no monopoly on good
              intentions. Of course, intentions don't make us right. We just need
              some leaders who will admit that they, too, can be wrong.

              - C. S. Wyatt
              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
              that I shall be.
              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
            • bhvwd
              ... anthropology? ... that ... Mc ... on ... have ... in ... rationalized ... discounting ... there ... could, ... or ... Dawkins, ... While ... also ... want
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 8, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                <existlist1@...> wrote:
                >
                > On Jun 08, 2008, at 16:03, eupraxis@... wrote:
                >
                > > I am not sure to whom you are responding and what your general
                > > argument is
                > > favoring. What text are you citing that critiques 80's
                anthropology?
                > > What is
                > > this difference that you mention between "us" and the "I/we"
                that
                > > you say is
                > > common in Continental thought? And what do mean by calling Hegel
                > > anti-egalitarian?
                >
                >
                > Responding to the strange meanderings posted recently by Bill and
                Mc
                > Colly (sp?). The notion that there is a nefarious political class,
                on
                > left and right, assumes a lot more negative about people than I
                have
                > encountered. I'm not a conspiracy theorists, and knowing leaders
                in
                > both parties I have come to believe many more are earnest than is
                > realized. However, we tend to attribute negative (even "evil" or
                > "bad") motivations to those disagreeing with our views.
                >
                > I spent three years in the deep pits of DARPA research. I really
                > didn't see people motivated by "evil" -- they really had
                rationalized
                > their views or their fears. If you read the Senate Intelligence
                > Committee report carefully, you find a suggestion not of leaders
                > lying, but of only seeing what they wanted and selectively
                discounting
                > anything they didn't want to believe. Nothing nefarious in being
                > blindly stupid... though we have seen willful ignorance can be
                > dangerous.
                >
                > Yes, there are "evil" men and women. Definitely. But, I think we
                > assume there are more of these than there really are. I think
                there
                > are people who truly do believe whatever their superstitions
                > (religions being included) tell them. Their "sins" are mistakes...
                > while my sins are evil.
                >
                > This is where we could discuss "Bad Faith" and authenticity. We
                could,
                > on this list, discuss the philosophical underpinnings of situations
                or
                > issues. Rants don't help place anything in context.
                >
                > I am also stating that what we think is "right" is shaped by some
                > underlying, probably evolutionary, desire to protect our group. We
                > rationalize morality. (I'd point to Pinker, Hauser, de Wall,
                Dawkins,
                > and numerous others who suggest an evolutionary origin to what is
                > considered moral by our species.)
                >
                > Hegel believed in powerful states, guided by a leadership class.
                While
                > he was a supporter of a standard education, rule of law, etc, he
                also
                > showed a sense of elitism. I don't think this is a bad thing -- I
                want
                > leaders who are "better" in some way: better educated? Better
                > informed? I'm not sure... but I know I don't think everyone is
                capable
                > of every job.
                >
                > Equality under the law is not the same as equality of ability.
                (Not
                > that we have equality under the law in Western nations, but it is
                > something we strive for, I believe.)
                >
                > As for the text I was reading, it was a critique of the history
                books
                > being used in Texas and California schools. These books are both
                > political correct and afraid of offending the religious right. As
                a
                > result, these books try for a meaningless, conflict-free, version
                of
                > history. The author of the text was the head of UCLA's history
                > department, Nash.
                >
                > http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/nash/
                >
                > He's a supporter of "multicultural" history, but not the
                whitewashed
                > sort we now teach. Instead of a "Western = bad, colonial, etc."
                > perspective, he wants to remind people that most civilizations
                were
                > pretty far from perfect.
                >
                > We should never delude ourselves -- all of us are biased, all
                cultures
                > are flawed, and we (whoever "we" are) have no monopoly on good
                > intentions. Of course, intentions don't make us right. We just
                need
                > some leaders who will admit that they, too, can be wrong.
                > I suggest many will not aced to so light a prescription.
                Insulation is really about being an island and even his handlers leak
                isolation. Our president now must surrender power in the middle of a
                full force political war. The transition team exists and I wish them
                luck. Executive looting is not a crime in DC. Many want to talk about
                that, is the repository of justice to become the cul de sac of
                freedom. I might stab a point at general philosophy in that it is
                better to be alive since dead is forever. Bill
                > - 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
                >
              • eupraxis@aol.com
                CS, Responding to the strange meanderings posted recently by Bill and Mc Colly (sp?). The notion that there is a nefarious political class, on left and right,
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 8, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  CS,

                  Responding to the strange meanderings posted recently by Bill and Mc Colly
                  (sp?). The notion that there is a nefarious political class, on left and right,
                  assumes a lot more negative about people than I have encountered. I'm not a
                  conspiracy theorists, and knowing leaders in both parties I have come to believe
                  many more are earnest than is realized. However, we tend to attribute
                  negative (even "evil" or "bad") motivations to those disagreeing with our views.

                  Response: Then you should count yourself as very lucky indeed. If the Bush
                  administration does not count as nefarious to you, I am not sure what can. But
                  if that term strikes you as too comic book, why not just use the term
                  "criminal"?
                  ---
                  I spent three years in the deep pits of DARPA research. I really didn't see
                  people motivated by "evil" -- they really had rationalized their views or their
                  fears.

                  Response: Well, maybe the fourth year would have been the charm? Yikes! What
                  in the world were you doing there?
                  ---
                  If you read the Senate Intelligence Committee report carefully, you find a
                  suggestion not of leaders lying, but of only seeing what they wanted and
                  selectively discounting anything they didn't want to believe. Nothing nefarious in
                  being blindly stupid... though we have seen willful ignorance can be dangerous.

                  Response: Yes, the report was nuanced ("bi-partisan") so as not to declare
                  open war on the GOP. I have a pdf of the report, however, and it certainly comes
                  as close as one could want in calling the push to war insincere and biased.
                  What more could you want?

                  I, for one, would love to see the whole cabal tried for treason and then sent
                  to the Hague for their crimes against humanity. But maybe I am just from an
                  other tribe?
                  ---
                  Yes, there are "evil" men and women. Definitely. But, I think we assume there
                  are more of these than there really are. I think there are people who truly
                  do believe whatever their superstitions (religions being included) tell them.
                  Their "sins" are mistakes... while my sins are evil.

                  Response: Millions dead and displaced; torture; renditions; civil liberties
                  lost; politics by division? No, sir, their "sins" are quite criminal.
                  ---
                  This is where we could discuss "Bad Faith" and authenticity. We could, on
                  this list, discuss the philosophical underpinnings of situations or issues. Rants
                  don't help place anything in context.

                  Response: Please, do.
                  ---
                  I am also stating that what we think is "right" is shaped by some underlying,
                  probably evolutionary, desire to protect our group. We rationalize morality.
                  (I'd point to Pinker, Hauser, de Wall, Dawkins, and numerous others who
                  suggest an evolutionary origin to what is considered moral by our species.)

                  Response: I disagree with that. This just another version of what used to be
                  called "psychologism". The truths behind the war and the rest were kept under
                  wraps, not because "the genes" made them do it, or to protect the cave, but
                  because the rationale was based on motivations that were best kept secret for fe
                  ar of protests. I can't believe that anyone still thinks otherwise.

                  And as you mention him, I have great problems with Pinker's reductivism and
                  his neo-racism -- his theory on the superiority of Ashkenazi Jews, and related
                  matters (including his attitudes about certain others) is well known. He heard
                  him at a talk at NYU some time ago. His apologetics were even worse than his
                  initial comments. He would say that he was not a racist and did not believe in
                  race, and then make a claim for race and submit his own as superior to the
                  rest. It was quite remarkable. Many persons walked out, many Jews included. I
                  found him arrogant and oddly naïve. But you can Google him. There are any number
                  of videos and blogs about it.

                  Wil



                  **************
                  Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
                  Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
                  (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&
                  NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • C. S. Wyatt
                  I can t comment on Pinker s views on racial differences, since I have only worked on general issues of decision making and brain damage. I do know that there
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 8, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I can't comment on Pinker's views on racial differences, since I have only worked on
                    general issues of decision making and brain damage. I do know that there are cultural
                    differences that seem to affect brain development -- but those are not the result of
                    breeding, since adopted children reflect the linguistic development of their new families.
                    (Curiously, twin studies show moral impulses and even sociopathy more likely to be
                    genetic.)

                    My mention of Pinker was within a group of scholars. To dismiss his general research
                    based on his ignorance or biases might not be the right thing to do. This doesn't mean his
                    biases don't affect his research, either. Freud and Jung said some pretty ludicrous things
                    about Jewish brains.

                    This does point to something I do think we need to remember: being skilled or knowledgeable in one area does not make one special in all areas -- or even above
                    reproach. We have Heidegger as a pretty good example of stupid brilliance.

                    As for being deluded, versus intentionally nefarious, I theorize that anyone wanting to be
                    president, prime minister, or whatever a nation has, is able to convince his or her self of all
                    sorts of things. I'm not saying this is a good thing; too many are unable or unwilling to
                    listen to advisers.

                    What makes a person want power? Or, once a "good" person has power, what causes the
                    eventual isolation and detachment? I wish I knew. Even admired men and women have
                    been extremely flawed -- more so as their power and influence increased.

                    - CSW
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.