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

Re: tough enough for what?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.