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

Re: Winding down

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    As much as I applaud the Paul s enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they re willing to bust monopolies and end corporations equal rights with individuals in
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 17, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      As much as I applaud the Paul's enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they're willing to bust monopolies and end corporations' equal rights with individuals in the courts, with the same zeal they'd use to further dismantle unions and the safety net for the neediest citizens, their anger with the Fed doesn't persuade me to take them seriously. Talk of free markets means nothing without an authority to enforce such but they seem anti-regulatory. Very incoherent. If libertarians want to expand their Jeffersonian, propertied, aristocratic ideal, this too is being met by growing national and global protests of your so-called levelers. The Paul's may not be right, but they're still wrong.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
      >
      > Bill,
      >
      > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it's Congressman Ron Paul and his son over in the Senate who've stood (and often alone) against the fiscal and civil liberty ravages of an unfettered national security state, as well as against the privileged position of international finance capital. In last week's Republican presidential debate, it was Paul who took on the Federal Reserve and the disgraceful TARP bailouts, while the latest Neocon fad candidate challenged him with a ringing endoresment of a previous Fed chairman that bailed out the hedge funds. And yes he is a medical man, intimating recently that homosexuality is less a moral than a biological phenomenon when pressed by a preacher excited about gays in the military -- hardly what you'd expect from a Step n' Fetchit for the Religious Right. As in all things political, we're necessarily in for a penny, but not for a pound, and we're getting our penny's worth with Paul.
      >
      > Irvin
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Let's keep our perspective Bill. If anyone's "ginning" us up for a war with a mythically-inflated Iran it's a certain sophisticate lobby often funded from affluent Beverly Hills and the Hamptons (neither of which are being picketed by what Nietzsche might call the levelers) and which often manipulates the Holy Rollers. You're old enough to remember the seventies when it was the oil companies that pled for a restrained, even-handed policy in the Middle East -- a plea that begat (besides Senator Fullbright and Senator Percy's removal) a rash of oil company credit cards being cut up and returned from certain quarters. And before we indulge in a partisan Democrat revisionism, remember it was President Eisenhower that disengaged from Korea, asserted the national interest over the narrow during the Suez Crisis, and forewarned of the military-industrial complex. And who, aside from Senators Ron and Rand Paul, dare to take on that same lobby and complex today?
      > > > Irval, I remember that Ron is a flight surgeon and therefore a military officer. That sheep has teeth and his anti abortion stance little but a front for his DOD ties. The Pauls are just a wing of the right who emphasise social conservatism while supporting homeland defense. Ike understood the MIC and warned it would become a monster that could eat the country. With Five Stars on his collar he could say what he wanted and that Kansas boy knew something about dismantling war machines. Ask Irvin Rommel. Bill
      > > > Irvin
      > > >
      >
    • William
      ... Where are the Rockefeller republicans? The obstructionism of the far right crazies is strangling progress and the real revolt will need come from a middle
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 17, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > As much as I applaud the Paul's enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they're willing to bust monopolies and end corporations' equal rights with individuals in the courts, with the same zeal they'd use to further dismantle unions and the safety net for the neediest citizens, their anger with the Fed doesn't persuade me to take them seriously. Talk of free markets means nothing without an authority to enforce such but they seem anti-regulatory. Very incoherent. If libertarians want to expand their Jeffersonian, propertied, aristocratic ideal, this too is being met by growing national and global protests of your so-called levelers. The Paul's may not be right, but they're still wrong.
        >
        > Mary
        > Mary, Looking at the republican presidential candidates I am jolted by the strangeness, the radicalism and the anti american values I see. As all consider themselves conservatives that may be the common bond that unites them in their unacceptability. No wonder the sensible and rational republicans are dissatisfied with the choices they are given. The party goes further and further to the right and the moderate members of the party are excluded . If you dont believe in electrified fences to kill latinos crossing the border you are out.
        Where are the Rockefeller republicans? The obstructionism of the far right crazies is strangling progress and the real revolt will need come from a middle that rejects all the madness on the far right. The electorate needs to recalculate its political compass and reject all the single issue madness . If you are against abortion you still do not vote for a nincompoop like Bachmann. If you hate the IRS you do not vote for an eccentrick like Ron Paul. The News media, a slave to news cycle happenings give these kooks top billing as if their prattlings are the real news. So I will not be watching the rest of the republican debates just as I will not answer endless questioners from credit card companise and health insurance companies. It has become a matter of not adding to the garbage pile that has become Americam business and republican politics. If the republicans send me a candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Cabot Lodge I will consider he or she. I will not consider cultists, religous fanatics or economic opportunists. Get serious GOP or get lost. Bill
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Bill,
        > >
        > > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it's Congressman Ron Paul and his son over in the Senate who've stood (and often alone) against the fiscal and civil liberty ravages of an unfettered national security state, as well as against the privileged position of international finance capital. In last week's Republican presidential debate, it was Paul who took on the Federal Reserve and the disgraceful TARP bailouts, while the latest Neocon fad candidate challenged him with a ringing endoresment of a previous Fed chairman that bailed out the hedge funds. And yes he is a medical man, intimating recently that homosexuality is less a moral than a biological phenomenon when pressed by a preacher excited about gays in the military -- hardly what you'd expect from a Step n' Fetchit for the Religious Right. As in all things political, we're necessarily in for a penny, but not for a pound, and we're getting our penny's worth with Paul.
        > >
        > > Irvin
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Let's keep our perspective Bill. If anyone's "ginning" us up for a war with a mythically-inflated Iran it's a certain sophisticate lobby often funded from affluent Beverly Hills and the Hamptons (neither of which are being picketed by what Nietzsche might call the levelers) and which often manipulates the Holy Rollers. You're old enough to remember the seventies when it was the oil companies that pled for a restrained, even-handed policy in the Middle East -- a plea that begat (besides Senator Fullbright and Senator Percy's removal) a rash of oil company credit cards being cut up and returned from certain quarters. And before we indulge in a partisan Democrat revisionism, remember it was President Eisenhower that disengaged from Korea, asserted the national interest over the narrow during the Suez Crisis, and forewarned of the military-industrial complex. And who, aside from Senators Ron and Rand Paul, dare to take on that same lobby and complex today?
        > > > > Irval, I remember that Ron is a flight surgeon and therefore a military officer. That sheep has teeth and his anti abortion stance little but a front for his DOD ties. The Pauls are just a wing of the right who emphasise social conservatism while supporting homeland defense. Ike understood the MIC and warned it would become a monster that could eat the country. With Five Stars on his collar he could say what he wanted and that Kansas boy knew something about dismantling war machines. Ask Irvin Rommel. Bill
        > > > > Irvin
        > > > >
        > >
        >
      • Mary
        Bill, The centrism you seem to advocate is what has actually been occurring in the form of gridlock and compromise for several decades. It s really a sort of
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 19, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill,

          The centrism you seem to advocate is what has actually been occurring in the form of gridlock and compromise for several decades. It's really a sort of stalemate between two philosophies. The fringes, attempting to pull us their direction, are simply reacting to the failure of centrist policies to prevent destabilizing recessions and to increase more wealth for the wealthiest. I think single issue radical postures are necessary to energize voters, but they shouldn't be allowed to run as either democrat or republican. They should have to run independently and live up to their voting and incumbency records. Far too many run for office, making promises they never intend to keep when once beholden to either party's contribution and election machinery. That capital alone undermines statesmen, says it all. A Nietzschean perspective is really beyond philosophy and political involvement; a Sartrean one is founded in philosophical principles originating in Hegel. Existentialism is aligned with the latter.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
          > >
          > > As much as I applaud the Paul's enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they're willing to bust monopolies and end corporations' equal rights with individuals in the courts, with the same zeal they'd use to further dismantle unions and the safety net for the neediest citizens, their anger with the Fed doesn't persuade me to take them seriously. Talk of free markets means nothing without an authority to enforce such but they seem anti-regulatory. Very incoherent. If libertarians want to expand their Jeffersonian, propertied, aristocratic ideal, this too is being met by growing national and global protests of your so-called levelers. The Paul's may not be right, but they're still wrong.
          > >
          > > Mary
          > > Mary, Looking at the republican presidential candidates I am jolted by the strangeness, the radicalism and the anti american values I see. As all consider themselves conservatives that may be the common bond that unites them in their unacceptability. No wonder the sensible and rational republicans are dissatisfied with the choices they are given. The party goes further and further to the right and the moderate members of the party are excluded . If you dont believe in electrified fences to kill latinos crossing the border you are out.
          > Where are the Rockefeller republicans? The obstructionism of the far right crazies is strangling progress and the real revolt will need come from a middle that rejects all the madness on the far right. The electorate needs to recalculate its political compass and reject all the single issue madness . If you are against abortion you still do not vote for a nincompoop like Bachmann. If you hate the IRS you do not vote for an eccentrick like Ron Paul. The News media, a slave to news cycle happenings give these kooks top billing as if their prattlings are the real news. So I will not be watching the rest of the republican debates just as I will not answer endless questioners from credit card companise and health insurance companies. It has become a matter of not adding to the garbage pile that has become Americam business and republican politics. If the republicans send me a candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Cabot Lodge I will consider he or she. I will not consider cultists, religous fanatics or economic opportunists. Get serious GOP or get lost. Bill
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Bill,
          > > >
          > > > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it's Congressman Ron Paul and his son over in the Senate who've stood (and often alone) against the fiscal and civil liberty ravages of an unfettered national security state, as well as against the privileged position of international finance capital. In last week's Republican presidential debate, it was Paul who took on the Federal Reserve and the disgraceful TARP bailouts, while the latest Neocon fad candidate challenged him with a ringing endoresment of a previous Fed chairman that bailed out the hedge funds. And yes he is a medical man, intimating recently that homosexuality is less a moral than a biological phenomenon when pressed by a preacher excited about gays in the military -- hardly what you'd expect from a Step n' Fetchit for the Religious Right. As in all things political, we're necessarily in for a penny, but not for a pound, and we're getting our penny's worth with Paul.
          > > >
          > > > Irvin
          > > >
          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Let's keep our perspective Bill. If anyone's "ginning" us up for a war with a mythically-inflated Iran it's a certain sophisticate lobby often funded from affluent Beverly Hills and the Hamptons (neither of which are being picketed by what Nietzsche might call the levelers) and which often manipulates the Holy Rollers. You're old enough to remember the seventies when it was the oil companies that pled for a restrained, even-handed policy in the Middle East -- a plea that begat (besides Senator Fullbright and Senator Percy's removal) a rash of oil company credit cards being cut up and returned from certain quarters. And before we indulge in a partisan Democrat revisionism, remember it was President Eisenhower that disengaged from Korea, asserted the national interest over the narrow during the Suez Crisis, and forewarned of the military-industrial complex. And who, aside from Senators Ron and Rand Paul, dare to take on that same lobby and complex today?
          > > > > > Irval, I remember that Ron is a flight surgeon and therefore a military officer. That sheep has teeth and his anti abortion stance little but a front for his DOD ties. The Pauls are just a wing of the right who emphasise social conservatism while supporting homeland defense. Ike understood the MIC and warned it would become a monster that could eat the country. With Five Stars on his collar he could say what he wanted and that Kansas boy knew something about dismantling war machines. Ask Irvin Rommel. Bill
          > > > > > Irvin
          > > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • William
          ... Now I may agree with you that we are living through a time of necessary reevaluation of the equalities of rich/poor, smart/stupid, right /left. I am a
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 19, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            >
            > Bill,
            >
            > The centrism you seem to advocate is what has actually been occurring in the form of gridlock and compromise for several decades. It's really a sort of stalemate between two philosophies. The fringes, attempting to pull us their direction, are simply reacting to the failure of centrist policies to prevent destabilizing recessions and to increase more wealth for the wealthiest. I think single issue radical postures are necessary to energize voters, but they shouldn't be allowed to run as either democrat or republican. They should have to run independently and live up to their voting and incumbency records. Far too many run for office, making promises they never intend to keep when once beholden to either party's contribution and election machinery. That capital alone undermines statesmen, says it all. A Nietzschean perspective is really beyond philosophy and political involvement; a Sartrean one is founded in philosophical principles originating in Hegel. Existentialism is aligned with the latter.
            >
            > Mary
            > Mary, I have thought philosophy to be a broader and more encompassing subject than is politics. I do not think the hard left has a right to kidnap existentialism. That Sartre was a communist does not make existentialism a captive of communism.
            Now I may agree with you that we are living through a time of necessary reevaluation of the equalities of rich/poor, smart/stupid, right /left. I am a centrist and want the left to reassert itself in the name of balance. I would like to see it accomplished peacefully, without violent revolution. I do not think such mundane aspirations encoumpass an abandonment of existentialism to a leftest caball. Fn`s politics were before the modern era but should I try to characterise his politics I would guess he was a right winger. Perhaps our lord of the texts will comment. Certainly Heidegger was far right and Camus could be seen as on the right. Branding existentialism as leftist may be tempting to the left but I think you would be better served remaining in the political rhelm rather than branding existentialism as a leftist endeavour. I would like to see Bernakee fired, I would like to see the lobbying laws strengthened, but that is the view of a centrist attempting to regain balance. It does not mean I will join the tea party or the occupy Wall Street crowd. I am happy about the COLA raise but for me that is fairness in economics,not politics. Bill
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > As much as I applaud the Paul's enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they're willing to bust monopolies and end corporations' equal rights with individuals in the courts, with the same zeal they'd use to further dismantle unions and the safety net for the neediest citizens, their anger with the Fed doesn't persuade me to take them seriously. Talk of free markets means nothing without an authority to enforce such but they seem anti-regulatory. Very incoherent. If libertarians want to expand their Jeffersonian, propertied, aristocratic ideal, this too is being met by growing national and global protests of your so-called levelers. The Paul's may not be right, but they're still wrong.
            > > >
            > > > Mary
            > > > Mary, Looking at the republican presidential candidates I am jolted by the strangeness, the radicalism and the anti american values I see. As all consider themselves conservatives that may be the common bond that unites them in their unacceptability. No wonder the sensible and rational republicans are dissatisfied with the choices they are given. The party goes further and further to the right and the moderate members of the party are excluded . If you dont believe in electrified fences to kill latinos crossing the border you are out.
            > > Where are the Rockefeller republicans? The obstructionism of the far right crazies is strangling progress and the real revolt will need come from a middle that rejects all the madness on the far right. The electorate needs to recalculate its political compass and reject all the single issue madness . If you are against abortion you still do not vote for a nincompoop like Bachmann. If you hate the IRS you do not vote for an eccentrick like Ron Paul. The News media, a slave to news cycle happenings give these kooks top billing as if their prattlings are the real news. So I will not be watching the rest of the republican debates just as I will not answer endless questioners from credit card companise and health insurance companies. It has become a matter of not adding to the garbage pile that has become Americam business and republican politics. If the republicans send me a candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Cabot Lodge I will consider he or she. I will not consider cultists, religous fanatics or economic opportunists. Get serious GOP or get lost. Bill
            > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Bill,
            > > > >
            > > > > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it's Congressman Ron Paul and his son over in the Senate who've stood (and often alone) against the fiscal and civil liberty ravages of an unfettered national security state, as well as against the privileged position of international finance capital. In last week's Republican presidential debate, it was Paul who took on the Federal Reserve and the disgraceful TARP bailouts, while the latest Neocon fad candidate challenged him with a ringing endoresment of a previous Fed chairman that bailed out the hedge funds. And yes he is a medical man, intimating recently that homosexuality is less a moral than a biological phenomenon when pressed by a preacher excited about gays in the military -- hardly what you'd expect from a Step n' Fetchit for the Religious Right. As in all things political, we're necessarily in for a penny, but not for a pound, and we're getting our penny's worth with Paul.
            > > > >
            > > > > Irvin
            > > > >
            > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Let's keep our perspective Bill. If anyone's "ginning" us up for a war with a mythically-inflated Iran it's a certain sophisticate lobby often funded from affluent Beverly Hills and the Hamptons (neither of which are being picketed by what Nietzsche might call the levelers) and which often manipulates the Holy Rollers. You're old enough to remember the seventies when it was the oil companies that pled for a restrained, even-handed policy in the Middle East -- a plea that begat (besides Senator Fullbright and Senator Percy's removal) a rash of oil company credit cards being cut up and returned from certain quarters. And before we indulge in a partisan Democrat revisionism, remember it was President Eisenhower that disengaged from Korea, asserted the national interest over the narrow during the Suez Crisis, and forewarned of the military-industrial complex. And who, aside from Senators Ron and Rand Paul, dare to take on that same lobby and complex today?
            > > > > > > Irval, I remember that Ron is a flight surgeon and therefore a military officer. That sheep has teeth and his anti abortion stance little but a front for his DOD ties. The Pauls are just a wing of the right who emphasise social conservatism while supporting homeland defense. Ike understood the MIC and warned it would become a monster that could eat the country. With Five Stars on his collar he could say what he wanted and that Kansas boy knew something about dismantling war machines. Ask Irvin Rommel. Bill
            > > > > > > Irvin
            > > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Mary
            ... Bill, First, let me say I m ecstatic about the COLA. But inasmuch as you agree that philosophy is broader, and as such informs politics and science, its
            Message 5 of 26 , Oct 20, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Bill,
              > >
              > > The centrism you seem to advocate is what has actually been occurring in the form of gridlock and compromise for several decades. It's really a sort of stalemate between two philosophies. The fringes, attempting to pull us their direction, are simply reacting to the failure of centrist policies to prevent destabilizing recessions and to increase more wealth for the wealthiest. I think single issue radical postures are necessary to energize voters, but they shouldn't be allowed to run as either democrat or republican. They should have to run independently and live up to their voting and incumbency records. Far too many run for office, making promises they never intend to keep when once beholden to either party's contribution and election machinery. That capital alone undermines statesmen, says it all. A Nietzschean perspective is really beyond philosophy and political involvement; a Sartrean one is founded in philosophical principles originating in Hegel. Existentialism is aligned with the latter.
              > >
              > > Mary
              > > Mary, I have thought philosophy to be a broader and more encompassing subject than is politics. I do not think the hard left has a right to kidnap existentialism. That Sartre was a communist does not make existentialism a captive of communism.
              > Now I may agree with you that we are living through a time of necessary reevaluation of the equalities of rich/poor, smart/stupid, right /left. I am a centrist and want the left to reassert itself in the name of balance. I would like to see it accomplished peacefully, without violent revolution. I do not think such mundane aspirations encoumpass an abandonment of existentialism to a leftest caball. Fn`s politics were before the modern era but should I try to characterise his politics I would guess he was a right winger. Perhaps our lord of the texts will comment. Certainly Heidegger was far right and Camus could be seen as on the right. Branding existentialism as leftist may be tempting to the left but I think you would be better served remaining in the political rhelm rather than branding existentialism as a leftist endeavour. I would like to see Bernakee fired, I would like to see the lobbying laws strengthened, but that is the view of a centrist attempting to regain balance. It does not mean I will join the tea party or the occupy Wall Street crowd. I am happy about the COLA raise but for me that is fairness in economics,not politics. Bill

              Bill,

              First, let me say I'm ecstatic about the COLA.

              But inasmuch as you agree that philosophy is broader, and as such informs politics and science, its concepts must be articulated in order to do so, which is probably why they're little discussed here. I'm only trying to re-engergize this group's purpose in asking: conservatism, centrism, and leftism are based on which philosophical concepts and formal theory?

              Camus was philosophically moderate, embracing a poetic Nietzsche, as well as the melancholy Kierkegaard, but he was politically left and thoroughly anti-nihilistic. His concept of the absurd reflects this amalgam. Of course he condemned Stalinism; they all did eventually. "The Rebel" is less philosophical than moral and poetic; his understanding of Hegel minimal, and as I once averred, gleaned only through Marx.

              His moderate stance regarding Algeria was perhaps the only exception, but in that case, he was reluctant to give the Islamic right absolute power, because poor pied-noirs, his mother and relatives lived there during the crisis. As a former Algerian journalist, he was socialist, and his sympathies then, and always, remained with poor workers, not the middle class which benefited from systemic racism and cyclical violence. He wasn't simply opposed to revolution; he endorsed rebellion.

              As for other existentialists, I humbly and gladly yield to our `lords of the texts'.

              Mary

              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > As much as I applaud the Paul's enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they're willing to bust monopolies and end corporations' equal rights with individuals in the courts, with the same zeal they'd use to further dismantle unions and the safety net for the neediest citizens, their anger with the Fed doesn't persuade me to take them seriously. Talk of free markets means nothing without an authority to enforce such but they seem anti-regulatory. Very incoherent. If libertarians want to expand their Jeffersonian, propertied, aristocratic ideal, this too is being met by growing national and global protests of your so-called levelers. The Paul's may not be right, but they're still wrong.
              > > > >
              > > > > Mary
              > > > > Mary, Looking at the republican presidential candidates I am jolted by the strangeness, the radicalism and the anti american values I see. As all consider themselves conservatives that may be the common bond that unites them in their unacceptability. No wonder the sensible and rational republicans are dissatisfied with the choices they are given. The party goes further and further to the right and the moderate members of the party are excluded . If you dont believe in electrified fences to kill latinos crossing the border you are out.
              > > > Where are the Rockefeller republicans? The obstructionism of the far right crazies is strangling progress and the real revolt will need come from a middle that rejects all the madness on the far right. The electorate needs to recalculate its political compass and reject all the single issue madness . If you are against abortion you still do not vote for a nincompoop like Bachmann. If you hate the IRS you do not vote for an eccentrick like Ron Paul. The News media, a slave to news cycle happenings give these kooks top billing as if their prattlings are the real news. So I will not be watching the rest of the republican debates just as I will not answer endless questioners from credit card companise and health insurance companies. It has become a matter of not adding to the garbage pile that has become Americam business and republican politics. If the republicans send me a candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Cabot Lodge I will consider he or she. I will not consider cultists, religous fanatics or economic opportunists. Get serious GOP or get lost. Bill
              > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Bill,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it's Congressman Ron Paul and his son over in the Senate who've stood (and often alone) against the fiscal and civil liberty ravages of an unfettered national security state, as well as against the privileged position of international finance capital. In last week's Republican presidential debate, it was Paul who took on the Federal Reserve and the disgraceful TARP bailouts, while the latest Neocon fad candidate challenged him with a ringing endoresment of a previous Fed chairman that bailed out the hedge funds. And yes he is a medical man, intimating recently that homosexuality is less a moral than a biological phenomenon when pressed by a preacher excited about gays in the military -- hardly what you'd expect from a Step n' Fetchit for the Religious Right. As in all things political, we're necessarily in for a penny, but not for a pound, and we're getting our penny's worth with Paul.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Irvin
              > > > > >
              > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Let's keep our perspective Bill. If anyone's "ginning" us up for a war with a mythically-inflated Iran it's a certain sophisticate lobby often funded from affluent Beverly Hills and the Hamptons (neither of which are being picketed by what Nietzsche might call the levelers) and which often manipulates the Holy Rollers. You're old enough to remember the seventies when it was the oil companies that pled for a restrained, even-handed policy in the Middle East -- a plea that begat (besides Senator Fullbright and Senator Percy's removal) a rash of oil company credit cards being cut up and returned from certain quarters. And before we indulge in a partisan Democrat revisionism, remember it was President Eisenhower that disengaged from Korea, asserted the national interest over the narrow during the Suez Crisis, and forewarned of the military-industrial complex. And who, aside from Senators Ron and Rand Paul, dare to take on that same lobby and complex today?
              > > > > > > > Irval, I remember that Ron is a flight surgeon and therefore a military officer. That sheep has teeth and his anti abortion stance little but a front for his DOD ties. The Pauls are just a wing of the right who emphasise social conservatism while supporting homeland defense. Ike understood the MIC and warned it would become a monster that could eat the country. With Five Stars on his collar he could say what he wanted and that Kansas boy knew something about dismantling war machines. Ask Irvin Rommel. Bill
              > > > > > > > Irvin
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • William
              ... As far as science is concerned I see it as informing existential philosophy. The early existentialists were hardly better informed of their philogenetic
              Message 6 of 26 , Oct 20, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Bill,
                > > >
                > > > The centrism you seem to advocate is what has actually been occurring in the form of gridlock and compromise for several decades. It's really a sort of stalemate between two philosophies. The fringes, attempting to pull us their direction, are simply reacting to the failure of centrist policies to prevent destabilizing recessions and to increase more wealth for the wealthiest. I think single issue radical postures are necessary to energize voters, but they shouldn't be allowed to run as either democrat or republican. They should have to run independently and live up to their voting and incumbency records. Far too many run for office, making promises they never intend to keep when once beholden to either party's contribution and election machinery. That capital alone undermines statesmen, says it all. A Nietzschean perspective is really beyond philosophy and political involvement; a Sartrean one is founded in philosophical principles originating in Hegel. Existentialism is aligned with the latter.
                > > >
                > > > Mary
                > > > Mary, I have thought philosophy to be a broader and more encompassing subject than is politics. I do not think the hard left has a right to kidnap existentialism. That Sartre was a communist does not make existentialism a captive of communism.
                > > Now I may agree with you that we are living through a time of necessary reevaluation of the equalities of rich/poor, smart/stupid, right /left. I am a centrist and want the left to reassert itself in the name of balance. I would like to see it accomplished peacefully, without violent revolution. I do not think such mundane aspirations encoumpass an abandonment of existentialism to a leftest caball. Fn`s politics were before the modern era but should I try to characterise his politics I would guess he was a right winger. Perhaps our lord of the texts will comment. Certainly Heidegger was far right and Camus could be seen as on the right. Branding existentialism as leftist may be tempting to the left but I think you would be better served remaining in the political rhelm rather than branding existentialism as a leftist endeavour. I would like to see Bernakee fired, I would like to see the lobbying laws strengthened, but that is the view of a centrist attempting to regain balance. It does not mean I will join the tea party or the occupy Wall Street crowd. I am happy about the COLA raise but for me that is fairness in economics,not politics. Bill
                >
                > Bill,
                >
                > First, let me say I'm ecstatic about the COLA.
                >
                > But inasmuch as you agree that philosophy is broader, and as such informs politics and science, its concepts must be articulated in order to do so, which is probably why they're little discussed here. I'm only trying to re-engergize this group's purpose in asking: conservatism, centrism, and leftism are based on which philosophical concepts and formal theory?
                >
                > Camus was philosophically moderate, embracing a poetic Nietzsche, as well as the melancholy Kierkegaard, but he was politically left and thoroughly anti-nihilistic. His concept of the absurd reflects this amalgam. Of course he condemned Stalinism; they all did eventually. "The Rebel" is less philosophical than moral and poetic; his understanding of Hegel minimal, and as I once averred, gleaned only through Marx.
                >
                > His moderate stance regarding Algeria was perhaps the only exception, but in that case, he was reluctant to give the Islamic right absolute power, because poor pied-noirs, his mother and relatives lived there during the crisis. As a former Algerian journalist, he was socialist, and his sympathies then, and always, remained with poor workers, not the middle class which benefited from systemic racism and cyclical violence. He wasn't simply opposed to revolution; he endorsed rebellion.
                >
                > As for other existentialists, I humbly and gladly yield to our `lords of the texts'.
                >
                > Mary
                > Mary ,your phrase "informs politics and science" is most interesting.A philosophy of existentialism especially a general,not personal philosophy, is very hard to define. Certainly such a philosophy has little to do with making rules or offering moral bulls. I find the politics of the existentialists greatly devorced from existential philosophy. These people were all over the map politically .
                As far as science is concerned I see it as informing existential philosophy. The early existentialists were hardly better informed of their philogenetic place in the cosmos than pre darwinians and any cosmology that might impact on theistic possibilities just was not available. Eienstein and his mind blowing equations and papers were barely understood at the dawn of existentialism but the big bang and atomic science definitely informed existentialism not visa versa.The general tenants of existentialism were not violated by the great discoveries of physics and biology and thus the philosophy remained solvent in world ideas. Religions and cults based in personalities took huge hits from the facts of the new science. To this day the faith based groups resist the progress of science and the leveling of genetics has shot the shit out of despotic totalitarianism. The confluence of high level genetics and fortunate life experience certainly can build a more advanced person but that individual is not a god he is just a person who has moved ahead in the competition of life.
                So we see we are all much the same in our genetic make up and contemporary place in an ever expanding universe. The idea of individual responsibility in a godless universe is forwarded and again existentialism remains unscathed while more dogmatic systems fail. That modernism informs science to find out more seems secure but what modernism presernts to politics seems less clear. I think the political diversity of the named existentialists demonstrates that. So far the very general concepts of existential thoughts seem whole but adopting political stances or making existential rules are verboten,at least to me. Bill
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > As much as I applaud the Paul's enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they're willing to bust monopolies and end corporations' equal rights with individuals in the courts, with the same zeal they'd use to further dismantle unions and the safety net for the neediest citizens, their anger with the Fed doesn't persuade me to take them seriously. Talk of free markets means nothing without an authority to enforce such but they seem anti-regulatory. Very incoherent. If libertarians want to expand their Jeffersonian, propertied, aristocratic ideal, this too is being met by growing national and global protests of your so-called levelers. The Paul's may not be right, but they're still wrong.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Mary
                > > > > > Mary, Looking at the republican presidential candidates I am jolted by the strangeness, the radicalism and the anti american values I see. As all consider themselves conservatives that may be the common bond that unites them in their unacceptability. No wonder the sensible and rational republicans are dissatisfied with the choices they are given. The party goes further and further to the right and the moderate members of the party are excluded . If you dont believe in electrified fences to kill latinos crossing the border you are out.
                > > > > Where are the Rockefeller republicans? The obstructionism of the far right crazies is strangling progress and the real revolt will need come from a middle that rejects all the madness on the far right. The electorate needs to recalculate its political compass and reject all the single issue madness . If you are against abortion you still do not vote for a nincompoop like Bachmann. If you hate the IRS you do not vote for an eccentrick like Ron Paul. The News media, a slave to news cycle happenings give these kooks top billing as if their prattlings are the real news. So I will not be watching the rest of the republican debates just as I will not answer endless questioners from credit card companise and health insurance companies. It has become a matter of not adding to the garbage pile that has become Americam business and republican politics. If the republicans send me a candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Cabot Lodge I will consider he or she. I will not consider cultists, religous fanatics or economic opportunists. Get serious GOP or get lost. Bill
                > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Bill,
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it's Congressman Ron Paul and his son over in the Senate who've stood (and often alone) against the fiscal and civil liberty ravages of an unfettered national security state, as well as against the privileged position of international finance capital. In last week's Republican presidential debate, it was Paul who took on the Federal Reserve and the disgraceful TARP bailouts, while the latest Neocon fad candidate challenged him with a ringing endoresment of a previous Fed chairman that bailed out the hedge funds. And yes he is a medical man, intimating recently that homosexuality is less a moral than a biological phenomenon when pressed by a preacher excited about gays in the military -- hardly what you'd expect from a Step n' Fetchit for the Religious Right. As in all things political, we're necessarily in for a penny, but not for a pound, and we're getting our penny's worth with Paul.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Irvin
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > Let's keep our perspective Bill. If anyone's "ginning" us up for a war with a mythically-inflated Iran it's a certain sophisticate lobby often funded from affluent Beverly Hills and the Hamptons (neither of which are being picketed by what Nietzsche might call the levelers) and which often manipulates the Holy Rollers. You're old enough to remember the seventies when it was the oil companies that pled for a restrained, even-handed policy in the Middle East -- a plea that begat (besides Senator Fullbright and Senator Percy's removal) a rash of oil company credit cards being cut up and returned from certain quarters. And before we indulge in a partisan Democrat revisionism, remember it was President Eisenhower that disengaged from Korea, asserted the national interest over the narrow during the Suez Crisis, and forewarned of the military-industrial complex. And who, aside from Senators Ron and Rand Paul, dare to take on that same lobby and complex today?
                > > > > > > > > Irval, I remember that Ron is a flight surgeon and therefore a military officer. That sheep has teeth and his anti abortion stance little but a front for his DOD ties. The Pauls are just a wing of the right who emphasise social conservatism while supporting homeland defense. Ike understood the MIC and warned it would become a monster that could eat the country. With Five Stars on his collar he could say what he wanted and that Kansas boy knew something about dismantling war machines. Ask Irvin Rommel. Bill
                > > > > > > > > Irvin
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Mary
                ... Bill, I suppose I can agree that existentialism doesn t indicate any specific political stance, but existentialism concerns authenticity and to that
                Message 7 of 26 , Oct 24, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Bill,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > The centrism you seem to advocate is what has actually been occurring in the form of gridlock and compromise for several decades. It's really a sort of stalemate between two philosophies. The fringes, attempting to pull us their direction, are simply reacting to the failure of centrist policies to prevent destabilizing recessions and to increase more wealth for the wealthiest. I think single issue radical postures are necessary to energize voters, but they shouldn't be allowed to run as either democrat or republican. They should have to run independently and live up to their voting and incumbency records. Far too many run for office, making promises they never intend to keep when once beholden to either party's contribution and election machinery. That capital alone undermines statesmen, says it all. A Nietzschean perspective is really beyond philosophy and political involvement; a Sartrean one is founded in philosophical principles originating in Hegel. Existentialism is aligned with the latter.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Mary
                  > > > > Mary, I have thought philosophy to be a broader and more encompassing subject than is politics. I do not think the hard left has a right to kidnap existentialism. That Sartre was a communist does not make existentialism a captive of communism.
                  > > > Now I may agree with you that we are living through a time of necessary reevaluation of the equalities of rich/poor, smart/stupid, right /left. I am a centrist and want the left to reassert itself in the name of balance. I would like to see it accomplished peacefully, without violent revolution. I do not think such mundane aspirations encoumpass an abandonment of existentialism to a leftest caball. Fn`s politics were before the modern era but should I try to characterise his politics I would guess he was a right winger. Perhaps our lord of the texts will comment. Certainly Heidegger was far right and Camus could be seen as on the right. Branding existentialism as leftist may be tempting to the left but I think you would be better served remaining in the political rhelm rather than branding existentialism as a leftist endeavour. I would like to see Bernakee fired, I would like to see the lobbying laws strengthened, but that is the view of a centrist attempting to regain balance. It does not mean I will join the tea party or the occupy Wall Street crowd. I am happy about the COLA raise but for me that is fairness in economics,not politics. Bill
                  > >
                  > > Bill,
                  > >
                  > > First, let me say I'm ecstatic about the COLA.
                  > >
                  > > But inasmuch as you agree that philosophy is broader, and as such informs politics and science, its concepts must be articulated in order to do so, which is probably why they're little discussed here. I'm only trying to re-engergize this group's purpose in asking: conservatism, centrism, and leftism are based on which philosophical concepts and formal theory?
                  > >
                  > > Camus was philosophically moderate, embracing a poetic Nietzsche, as well as the melancholy Kierkegaard, but he was politically left and thoroughly anti-nihilistic. His concept of the absurd reflects this amalgam. Of course he condemned Stalinism; they all did eventually. "The Rebel" is less philosophical than moral and poetic; his understanding of Hegel minimal, and as I once averred, gleaned only through Marx.
                  > >
                  > > His moderate stance regarding Algeria was perhaps the only exception, but in that case, he was reluctant to give the Islamic right absolute power, because poor pied-noirs, his mother and relatives lived there during the crisis. As a former Algerian journalist, he was socialist, and his sympathies then, and always, remained with poor workers, not the middle class which benefited from systemic racism and cyclical violence. He wasn't simply opposed to revolution; he endorsed rebellion.
                  > >
                  > > As for other existentialists, I humbly and gladly yield to our `lords of the texts'.
                  > >
                  > > Mary
                  > > Mary ,your phrase "informs politics and science" is most interesting.A philosophy of existentialism especially a general,not personal philosophy, is very hard to define. Certainly such a philosophy has little to do with making rules or offering moral bulls. I find the politics of the existentialists greatly devorced from existential philosophy. These people were all over the map politically .
                  > As far as science is concerned I see it as informing existential philosophy. The early existentialists were hardly better informed of their philogenetic place in the cosmos than pre darwinians and any cosmology that might impact on theistic possibilities just was not available. Eienstein and his mind blowing equations and papers were barely understood at the dawn of existentialism but the big bang and atomic science definitely informed existentialism not visa versa.The general tenants of existentialism were not violated by the great discoveries of physics and biology and thus the philosophy remained solvent in world ideas. Religions and cults based in personalities took huge hits from the facts of the new science. To this day the faith based groups resist the progress of science and the leveling of genetics has shot the shit out of despotic totalitarianism. The confluence of high level genetics and fortunate life experience certainly can build a more advanced person but that individual is not a god he is just a person who has moved ahead in the competition of life.
                  > So we see we are all much the same in our genetic make up and contemporary place in an ever expanding universe. The idea of individual responsibility in a godless universe is forwarded and again existentialism remains unscathed while more dogmatic systems fail. That modernism informs science to find out more seems secure but what modernism presernts to politics seems less clear. I think the political diversity of the named existentialists demonstrates that. So far the very general concepts of existential thoughts seem whole but adopting political stances or making existential rules are verboten,at least to me. Bill

                  Bill,

                  I suppose I can agree that existentialism doesn't indicate any specific political stance, but existentialism concerns authenticity and to that extent, one's involvement should reflect one's integrity and values. This requires some personal introspection rather than sucking up the media's pablum as the masses do.

                  As for individual responsibility, I think we disagree about this expression. I suspect anyway, that you mean being responsible for one's self, whereas I think it's more about responsibility and less about individual, being responsible to our families and communities. This seems more in line with at least Sartre's idea that our choices obviously affect others.

                  I'm not sure, however, that science informs either of these except that authentic people add less confusion to the mix, and others are then free to make their own decisions based on our own. Responsibility itself is a moral and ethical value, whether individually or socially construed, as work ethic or "he who doesn't work, doesn't eat", etc. What science offers existentialism is as vague as political considerations.

                  Mary


                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > As much as I applaud the Paul's enmity with the Koch brothers, unless they're willing to bust monopolies and end corporations' equal rights with individuals in the courts, with the same zeal they'd use to further dismantle unions and the safety net for the neediest citizens, their anger with the Fed doesn't persuade me to take them seriously. Talk of free markets means nothing without an authority to enforce such but they seem anti-regulatory. Very incoherent. If libertarians want to expand their Jeffersonian, propertied, aristocratic ideal, this too is being met by growing national and global protests of your so-called levelers. The Paul's may not be right, but they're still wrong.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Mary
                  > > > > > > Mary, Looking at the republican presidential candidates I am jolted by the strangeness, the radicalism and the anti american values I see. As all consider themselves conservatives that may be the common bond that unites them in their unacceptability. No wonder the sensible and rational republicans are dissatisfied with the choices they are given. The party goes further and further to the right and the moderate members of the party are excluded . If you dont believe in electrified fences to kill latinos crossing the border you are out.
                  > > > > > Where are the Rockefeller republicans? The obstructionism of the far right crazies is strangling progress and the real revolt will need come from a middle that rejects all the madness on the far right. The electorate needs to recalculate its political compass and reject all the single issue madness . If you are against abortion you still do not vote for a nincompoop like Bachmann. If you hate the IRS you do not vote for an eccentrick like Ron Paul. The News media, a slave to news cycle happenings give these kooks top billing as if their prattlings are the real news. So I will not be watching the rest of the republican debates just as I will not answer endless questioners from credit card companise and health insurance companies. It has become a matter of not adding to the garbage pile that has become Americam business and republican politics. If the republicans send me a candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Cabot Lodge I will consider he or she. I will not consider cultists, religous fanatics or economic opportunists. Get serious GOP or get lost. Bill
                  > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > Bill,
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it's Congressman Ron Paul and his son over in the Senate who've stood (and often alone) against the fiscal and civil liberty ravages of an unfettered national security state, as well as against the privileged position of international finance capital. In last week's Republican presidential debate, it was Paul who took on the Federal Reserve and the disgraceful TARP bailouts, while the latest Neocon fad candidate challenged him with a ringing endoresment of a previous Fed chairman that bailed out the hedge funds. And yes he is a medical man, intimating recently that homosexuality is less a moral than a biological phenomenon when pressed by a preacher excited about gays in the military -- hardly what you'd expect from a Step n' Fetchit for the Religious Right. As in all things political, we're necessarily in for a penny, but not for a pound, and we're getting our penny's worth with Paul.
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > Irvin
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                  > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > Let's keep our perspective Bill. If anyone's "ginning" us up for a war with a mythically-inflated Iran it's a certain sophisticate lobby often funded from affluent Beverly Hills and the Hamptons (neither of which are being picketed by what Nietzsche might call the levelers) and which often manipulates the Holy Rollers. You're old enough to remember the seventies when it was the oil companies that pled for a restrained, even-handed policy in the Middle East -- a plea that begat (besides Senator Fullbright and Senator Percy's removal) a rash of oil company credit cards being cut up and returned from certain quarters. And before we indulge in a partisan Democrat revisionism, remember it was President Eisenhower that disengaged from Korea, asserted the national interest over the narrow during the Suez Crisis, and forewarned of the military-industrial complex. And who, aside from Senators Ron and Rand Paul, dare to take on that same lobby and complex today?
                  > > > > > > > > > Irval, I remember that Ron is a flight surgeon and therefore a military officer. That sheep has teeth and his anti abortion stance little but a front for his DOD ties. The Pauls are just a wing of the right who emphasise social conservatism while supporting homeland defense. Ike understood the MIC and warned it would become a monster that could eat the country. With Five Stars on his collar he could say what he wanted and that Kansas boy knew something about dismantling war machines. Ask Irvin Rommel. Bill
                  > > > > > > > > > Irvin
                  > > > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.