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

The loonies on the lawn

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    How do people get far out? Many it seems just cannot back out of the tunnel they have crawled into. Chaney seems a case in point. He is the kind of
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 5, 2009
      How do people get far out? Many it seems just cannot back out of
      the tunnel they have crawled into. Chaney seems a case in point. He
      is the kind of politician I feared. Nixon was another and so was
      Lyndon Johnson. It wasn't necessarily what they were thinking it was
      the cold certitude they employed in prosecuting their positions. Once
      the lens is ground the perspective changes to accommodate the bent
      apparition. The true ideologues remain cemented to their lens and
      never look at anything without it in place. Militarism seems a
      particularly powerful way of looking at the world. For Chaney war is
      the only way to react to the world. Of course his business
      alliance with the military industrial complex caused his foreign
      policy to demand constant war as a backdrop for the profit mechanism
      he needed. He is now trying to cause a self fulfilling prophecy as he
      begs the terrorists to attack and restore his war footing. With
      Chaney this is particularly onerous as he has at his disposal a
      covert army of hired guns , bombers and hit men. He wants torture
      and in the name of public safety he will allow any barbarism.
      The present administration is presently ignoring him but Chaney
      may be too dangerous to let alone. Many constitutional lawyers think
      he has crossed the line more than once into the area of war crimes.
      It may be playing into his hands to indite him but if he continues
      his treasonous banter his own patriot act may be needed to suppress
      him. If he continues to exercise power outside of office he comes
      under the light of sedition statutes. I think as in the case of the
      Illinois Governor we must not shrink from stopping his illegal and
      dangerous activities. Because a person appears authoritarian,
      exudes confidence and has an iron will to continue does not put him
      above the law. Fanatacism works that way and putting such people back
      into a social order where they can no longer wreck havoc on society
      may be necessary. Extremism is the result of looking through a
      convenient lens for a long time. A neuroscientist, a war mongering
      milatarist, a weak minded ex president or a fraudulent investment
      executive have one particular and self serving world view. For those
      who have overstayed their welcome if there is no carcass to caucus
      about slow starvation is an option. It is the whining that must be
      put up with. Bill
    • bhvwd
      ... He ... was ... Once ... is ... mechanism ... he ... think ... the ... him ... back ... society ... those ... Troy Oz Au. Mr Brown and Mr Obama have to
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 5, 2009
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > How do people get far out? Many it seems just cannot back out of
        > the tunnel they have crawled into. Chaney seems a case in point.
        He
        > is the kind of politician I feared. Nixon was another and so was
        > Lyndon Johnson. It wasn't necessarily what they were thinking it
        was
        > the cold certitude they employed in prosecuting their positions.
        Once
        > the lens is ground the perspective changes to accommodate the bent
        > apparition. The true ideologues remain cemented to their lens and
        > never look at anything without it in place. Militarism seems a
        > particularly powerful way of looking at the world. For Chaney war
        is
        > the only way to react to the world. Of course his business
        > alliance with the military industrial complex caused his foreign
        > policy to demand constant war as a backdrop for the profit
        mechanism
        > he needed. He is now trying to cause a self fulfilling prophecy as
        he
        > begs the terrorists to attack and restore his war footing. With
        > Chaney this is particularly onerous as he has at his disposal a
        > covert army of hired guns , bombers and hit men. He wants torture
        > and in the name of public safety he will allow any barbarism.
        > The present administration is presently ignoring him but Chaney
        > may be too dangerous to let alone. Many constitutional lawyers
        think
        > he has crossed the line more than once into the area of war crimes.
        > It may be playing into his hands to indite him but if he continues
        > his treasonous banter his own patriot act may be needed to suppress
        > him. If he continues to exercise power outside of office he comes
        > under the light of sedition statutes. I think as in the case of
        the
        > Illinois Governor we must not shrink from stopping his illegal and
        > dangerous activities. Because a person appears authoritarian,
        > exudes confidence and has an iron will to continue does not put
        him
        > above the law. Fanatacism works that way and putting such people
        back
        > into a social order where they can no longer wreck havoc on
        society
        > may be necessary. Extremism is the result of looking through a
        > convenient lens for a long time. A neuroscientist, a war mongering
        > milatarist, a weak minded ex president or a fraudulent investment
        > executive have one particular and self serving world view. For
        those
        > who have overstayed their welcome if there is no carcass to caucus
        > about slow starvation is an option. It is the whining that must be
        > put up with. Bill
        >SO, using the Victory bullion fortune remoniterise at 1000$ US per
        Troy Oz Au. Mr Brown and Mr Obama have to play lets make a deal.
        They may already have done so. A new golden standard for a new
        golden age. Bill
      • chris lofting
        ... the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die Kierkegaard Chaney, Nixon, Johnson etc all made
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 5, 2009
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bhvwd
          > Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 9:30 AM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] The loonies on the lawn
          >
          > How do people get far out? Many it seems just cannot back out of
          > the tunnel they have crawled into. Chaney seems a case in point. He
          > is the kind of politician I feared. Nixon was another and so
          > was Lyndon Johnson. It wasn't necessarily what they were
          > thinking it was the cold certitude they employed in
          > prosecuting their positions.

          " the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for
          which I can live and die" Kierkegaard

          Chaney, Nixon, Johnson etc all made commitments in accord with what
          Kierkegaard expressed - they are/were prepared to die for their positions.
          The mindsets reflect a selection of the POSSIBLE mindsets available given
          our neurology and its seeding of social sameness and individual differences.

          Fundamentalism is a property of a focus on self over others and is a NATURAL
          property of our nature as a primate species. The more assertion of
          individuality the more borders created, the more focus on local context,
          competitiveness, self-organising systems. The full spectrum is huge and
          covers all possible behaviours given a specialist context and so covers high
          precision differentiating to low precision integrating (the latter covers
          the emergence of wave perspectives from pulse perspectives)

          The dynamics involved cover what the ancient Greeks called enantiodromia and
          this dynamic covers all scales and that includes historical dynamics
          covering generations. As these social dynamics play out, so individuals are
          born into certain times and some 'fit in' really well, others do not. What
          is obvious at the social level is the dynamics of competitive vs cooperative
          perspectives, of differentiating vs integrating and the mix of such. HIGH
          level differentiating will elicit a social bias to the individual over the
          group, the assertion of one's OWN context to replace the existing context. A
          lesser level is where the individual is still competitive but serves the
          existing context in that competitiveness. From a leadership perspective this
          latter is leadership from the back (management) the former from the front -
          recurse these and a spectrum emerges of POSSIBLE states, all with a
          'purpose', and all interacting with reality at the one instance where local
          context then 'selects' the best/worst fits and that can include one's
          assertion of one's own context over that local context! (and so
          competitiveness, argumentative etc etc etc)

          From a SPECIES position the only 'truth' is the survival of the species and
          its components in local collectives. From the SINGULAR position the only
          'truth' is in one's own survival and the adoption of a mindset to achieve
          such. (neurologically, the FEELING of 'truth' is sourced in the feeling of
          'correctness' that goes with syntax processing. Dig deeper and we find
          association of 'truth' with territorial mapping and so with a sense of
          personal/collective identity/ownership - dig deeper and we find the feeling
          of 'truth-as-identity' tied to a feeling of wholeness and so of symmetry -
          but that LACKS precision - is too static in a dynamic universe. That said,
          we realise that the best adaptation to a thermodynamic universe is energy
          conservation and so a symmetric perspective over all - but this is also a
          social perspective and the individual disappears to be 'one of many' all
          considered 'same'! THAT said, the closed nature of the collective is open to
          the unique perspectives of conscious individuals where such can re-organise
          the collective over night - and so the dynamics of part/whole,
          free-will/determinism, transcending/transforming, anti-symmetry/symmetry etc
          etc etc)

          Kierkegaard's statement was based on ignorance of our species nature and the
          specialist roles particular members of the species can play, and the unique
          perspectives emergable from those roles together with the occasional
          'innovative' perspective of an individual. GIVEN the understanding of our
          PARTICULAR natures we can identify core, generic, purpose in each of us
          where such covers serving the species over serving the self - thus if one
          struggles in trying to assert self so there is always the fall back on
          serving the species.

          Chris
          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
        • bhvwd
          ... of ... point. He ... idea for ... positions. ... given ... differences. ... a NATURAL ... context, ... and ... covers high ... covers ... enantiodromia and
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 6, 2009
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bhvwd
            > > Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 9:30 AM
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [existlist] The loonies on the lawn
            > >
            > > How do people get far out? Many it seems just cannot back out
            of
            > > the tunnel they have crawled into. Chaney seems a case in
            point. He
            > > is the kind of politician I feared. Nixon was another and so
            > > was Lyndon Johnson. It wasn't necessarily what they were
            > > thinking it was the cold certitude they employed in
            > > prosecuting their positions.
            >
            > " the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the
            idea for
            > which I can live and die" Kierkegaard
            >
            > Chaney, Nixon, Johnson etc all made commitments in accord with what
            > Kierkegaard expressed - they are/were prepared to die for their
            positions.
            > The mindsets reflect a selection of the POSSIBLE mindsets available
            given
            > our neurology and its seeding of social sameness and individual
            differences.
            >
            > Fundamentalism is a property of a focus on self over others and is
            a NATURAL
            > property of our nature as a primate species. The more assertion of
            > individuality the more borders created, the more focus on local
            context,
            > competitiveness, self-organising systems. The full spectrum is huge
            and
            > covers all possible behaviours given a specialist context and so
            covers high
            > precision differentiating to low precision integrating (the latter
            covers
            > the emergence of wave perspectives from pulse perspectives)
            >
            > The dynamics involved cover what the ancient Greeks called
            enantiodromia and
            > this dynamic covers all scales and that includes historical dynamics
            > covering generations. As these social dynamics play out, so
            individuals are
            > born into certain times and some 'fit in' really well, others do
            not. What
            > is obvious at the social level is the dynamics of competitive vs
            cooperative
            > perspectives, of differentiating vs integrating and the mix of
            such. HIGH
            > level differentiating will elicit a social bias to the individual
            over the
            > group, the assertion of one's OWN context to replace the existing
            context. A
            > lesser level is where the individual is still competitive but
            serves the
            > existing context in that competitiveness. From a leadership
            perspective this
            > latter is leadership from the back (management) the former from the
            front -
            > recurse these and a spectrum emerges of POSSIBLE states, all with a
            > 'purpose', and all interacting with reality at the one instance
            where local
            > context then 'selects' the best/worst fits and that can include
            one's
            > assertion of one's own context over that local context! (and so
            > competitiveness, argumentative etc etc etc)
            >
            > From a SPECIES position the only 'truth' is the survival of the
            species and
            > its components in local collectives. From the SINGULAR position the
            only
            > 'truth' is in one's own survival and the adoption of a mindset to
            achieve
            > such. (neurologically, the FEELING of 'truth' is sourced in the
            feeling of
            > 'correctness' that goes with syntax processing. Dig deeper and we
            find
            > association of 'truth' with territorial mapping and so with a sense
            of
            > personal/collective identity/ownership - dig deeper and we find the
            feeling
            > of 'truth-as-identity' tied to a feeling of wholeness and so of
            symmetry -
            > but that LACKS precision - is too static in a dynamic universe.
            That said,
            > we realise that the best adaptation to a thermodynamic universe is
            energy
            > conservation and so a symmetric perspective over all - but this is
            also a
            > social perspective and the individual disappears to be 'one of
            many' all
            > considered 'same'! THAT said, the closed nature of the collective
            is open to
            > the unique perspectives of conscious individuals where such can re-
            organise
            > the collective over night - and so the dynamics of part/whole,
            > free-will/determinism, transcending/transforming, anti-
            symmetry/symmetry etc
            > etc etc)
            >
            > Kierkegaard's statement was based on ignorance of our species
            nature and the
            > specialist roles particular members of the species can play, and
            the unique
            > perspectives emergable from those roles together with the occasional
            > 'innovative' perspective of an individual. GIVEN the understanding
            of our
            > PARTICULAR natures we can identify core, generic, purpose in each
            of us
            > where such covers serving the species over serving the self - thus
            if one
            > struggles in trying to assert self so there is always the fall back
            on
            > serving the species.
            >
            > Chris
            > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
            >Chris, Your use of a quote from SK is indicative of your love of
            meaningless verbiage. The man simply could not make up his mind and
            so he rambled in circles, he thought about thinking, and trembled in
            agnosticism. It is said he ended his extended tension with some
            hybrid god as conciliation. I am not that sort of existentialist and
            detest such dalliance with the fire of belief. Endless , pointless
            verbiage is in itself a stalling tactic perhaps used by those who
            cannot commit to a reasoned world. I have made that commitment to
            rational living and have had a good deal of success providing a
            life filled with scientific labor devoid of belief. I know it
            works, I have lived it and find real loathing of those who attempt
            to blabber out of existential responsibility in order to assuage
            their fear of the wrath of god or the responsibility of human
            progress.
            I have been warned words mean nothing, have been threatened with
            exclusion from the avant guard and still I will not spend my time
            reading or discussing the trembling trash written by the uncommitted.
            If the rational mind is at odds with itself, I suggest you look at
            the actual progress that has built a better world. I ask you to state
            your position regarding atheism, rationality and modernism. If you
            attempt an escape into your SK like posturing I will not respond, it
            is not worth my time.
            So I put the question to you,are you an existentialist ? If not why
            the hell do you attempt to write here ? If you claim to be an
            existentialist please inform me why you boast such confidence.
            Neuroscience speak is not relevant in this discussion, this is an
            existential site peopled by many of considerable writing skill. Can
            you cut it? Bill
          • chris lofting
            ... ... atheism - there is no need for the god hypothesis but there IS a sense of collective spirit shared across all humans as symmetry-determined
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 6, 2009
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bhvwd
              > Sent: Saturday, 7 February 2009 4:35 AM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: The loonies on the lawn
              >
              <snip>
              > >Chris, Your use of a quote from SK is indicative of your love of
              > meaningless verbiage. The man simply could not make up his
              > mind and so he rambled in circles, he thought about thinking,
              > and trembled in agnosticism. It is said he ended his extended
              > tension with some hybrid god as conciliation. I am not that
              > sort of existentialist and detest such dalliance with the
              > fire of belief. Endless , pointless verbiage is in itself a
              > stalling tactic perhaps used by those who cannot commit to
              > a reasoned world. I have made that commitment to rational
              > living and have had a good deal of success providing a life
              > filled with scientific labor devoid of belief. I know it
              > works, I have lived it and find real loathing of those who
              > attempt to blabber out of existential responsibility in
              > order to assuage their fear of the wrath of god or the
              > responsibility of human progress.
              > I have been warned words mean nothing, have been threatened
              > with exclusion from the avant guard and still I will not
              > spend my time reading or discussing the trembling trash
              > written by the uncommitted.
              > If the rational mind is at odds with itself, I suggest you
              > look at the actual progress that has built a better world.
              > I ask you to state your position regarding atheism,
              > rationality and modernism.

              atheism - there is no need for the 'god' hypothesis but there IS a sense of
              collective 'spirit' shared across all humans as symmetry-determined life
              forms (we ARE 'all connected' in that the emotions covering sympathy/empathy
              ties us all - mirror neurons reinforce that connectivity). The ignorance of
              consciousness as to what is going on is covered in such perspectives as that
              of 'angels' etc where in this link we find basic dynamics of context pushing
              neural buttons are sensed and interpreted as if 'spirits' at work -
              http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html

              More recent work with mirror neurons suggests a main difference between our
              use and the use of such in monkeys is our ability to interpret mime -
              indicating the ability to pretend, to imagine. Something the monkeys could
              NOT do. See such research as in:

              Dehaene, S., et al (eds)(2005)"From Monkey Brain to Human Brain" MITP

              rationality - the issues in the brain with regard to differences in
              precision processing, and so resolution power, bring out styles of logic
              covering symmetry and asymmetric logics. The former lacks precision in it
              cannot reduce past a PAIR (and so favours symmetry) - as such the
              BI-conditional dominated all thinking and this covers social dynamics as it
              does the 'logic' of dreams. The latter covers high precision thinking that
              includes the asymmetry of the conditional. It requires EDUCATION to develop
              this ability as it does in developing regulation of our more
              primate-grounded emotions. NOT educating people along this line means we
              have some very smart apes hanging around and they dominate at the moment ;-)

              Other life forms have reasoning skills but we include in reasoning the
              ability to falsely reason and so justify all sorts of perspectives! The
              development of consciousness as a proactive agent of mediation allows for
              selective reasoning and includes the use of being unreasonable/irrational as
              a way to escape false reasoning. As such, reasoning allows for the
              refinement of intuitive, immediate, responses to situations and
              consciousness allows for refinement of reasoning and that included the
              exploitation of intuition where such has been refined by reasoning.

              modernism - the initial dynamics were good but the movement into
              post-modernism opened up a reaction to the diversity of issues raised where
              the cutting of old ties, antiquated perspectives, removed a sense of
              committed 'meaning' that comes with such long-standing ties. The
              sophistication of arguments etc flummoxed the masses to a level where 'any
              metaphor will do' type of thinking developed - this being a manifestation of
              symmetric thinking. Science itself is grounded in a perspective that DEMANDS
              symmetry (repeatability, falsifiability etc etc) and so the push of
              scientific perspectives without education of such other than to 'those with
              natural skills' (about 15% of the population) elicited a dumbing-down of the
              population (standards were dropped, and still are being dropped).

              Most hard-core science-trained individuals (the over-educated) turned their
              back on such development (they are not too good at politics) and we find
              ourselves in the mess we are in, a lot of smart apes playing their alpha
              male/female games but globally and so out of context (where such games fit
              locally).

              The IDM material in fact aids in education through identifying all of the
              specialist perspectives as local manifestations of our filtering system -
              the neurology. LOCAL context customisations bring out differences but behind
              them all is a level of sameness spanning the species (and so a ground in the
              symmetric, the determinism of the species within which operates
              consciousness as an agent of mediation and so 'randomiser' of data, a maker
              of choices, to elicit unique perspectives and so able to break and make
              symmetries proactively rather than the reactive path that favours a
              reduction to symmetric living reactively)

              > If you attempt an escape into
              > your SK like posturing I will not respond, it is not worth my time.

              I was not posturing, just quoting a existentialist perspective applicable to
              all the people you hate so much. As such I was emphasising that your
              perspective is no different emotionally to theirs. The rage you apply to
              Cheney etc is I am sure the same as the rage he applies to those who are
              against him!

              > So I put the question to you,are you an existentialist ?

              No. I am a human FIRST. THEN comes a favouring of existentialist
              perspectives but a perpetual re-questioning of such given the work in
              neurosciences etc. YOUR obvious desire to escape your apeness is amusing at
              times, sad at other times.

              > If
              > not why the hell do you attempt to write here ? If you claim
              > to be an existentialist please inform me why you boast such
              > confidence.

              I am more integrated than you; transcendence covers enantiodromia as it does
              the development of wisdom - thus the circular dynamic is more so spiral in
              form. Thus development covers more awareness of the depth of our being as
              individuals, as humans and as apes and the mix. You present more as an
              over-educated, over-specialist, individual and as such one incapable at the
              moment to extend one's perspective - you appear to live in fear and with it
              express anger etc and cover a symmetric mindset (where stereotyping is a
              trait)! - perhaps scientific method has got to you where you LIVE IT rather
              than USE IT?

              The focus in science on SAMENESS, on algorithms and formulas through use of
              scientific method and its roots in symmetry, inevitably leads to a symmetric
              bias in perspective but such is misleading when applied to the universe as a
              whole. In fact all that traditional science has covered so far, in the
              context of understanding the universe etc, is to reveal only 6% of what is
              there! All of that work has been grounded in SYMMETRIC perspectives and so
              only brings out the symmetry present, the rest remains 'hidden' until we
              change our perspectives where such is possible given the asymmetry of
              consciousness and so a movement into modernism-squared where the
              methodologies used in science are open to questioning. Neuroscience is
              aiding in that work in that we can map-out modernism to post-modernism
              (where the plethora of gods/belief systems are now seen as METAPHORS and so
              increasing in number when the intent was to remove such beliefs! - as such
              the spiritual aspect of our species is recognised as vague/general and so in
              need of labelling to fit each individual's perspective where such includes
              secular fundamentalism as it does religious fundamentalism - all the
              interchangeable metaphors covering the ONE generic 'trait')

              > Neuroscience speak is not relevant in this discussion, this
              > is an existential site peopled by many of considerable
              > writing skill.

              ....meaningless in the context of resolving the issues of our time. There is
              no room in philosophy for those NOT up to date with neurosciences since the
              tie of consciousness/meaning/mediation to our nature as neuron-dependent
              life forms is inescapable. It makes no difference how good a writer you
              are, how good you are at rhetoric, it still reduces in the long run to
              'wind' if there is no empirical support for the material. The excuse in the
              past has been to lack of empirical data covering the dynamics of thought etc
              but that is now being resolved day by day. Ignoring the research data is
              akin to putting oneself in the same state as the mentioned rabbi and his
              perspective of 'angels' (see above link).

              The only reason I can see for ignoring the research is for the sake of
              defending oneself where the specialist talents of writing skills are under
              threat - you cannot bulldoze your way through life based on rhetoric alone -
              it has been tried and shown to be a failure in contributing to resolving the
              issues of our time; thus an upgrade in methodology is required where
              adapting a set of patterns to live-by requires a little knowledge of one's
              species nature beside one's singular nature.

              Chris
              http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.