We had a good discussion of Eddy Bernays and his huckstering -- on these boards, in 2002 or 2003. I'd revive it now, but it's been pruned and now only exists in the memory tube.
Still, it's been interesting to follow the discussion among eley, ren, and Kerry on the subject of manipulation generally, in the Scofield Bible thread.
One of the areas of discussion in Scofield Bible included references to Edward Bernays, "a master huckster," who showed us how to manipulate people, years ago. In a nutshell, Bernays was "a glorified press agent at best, a young Machiavelli at worst. He preferred the more majestic appellation 'public relations counselor,' but the title was at once too august for the kinds of chicanery Bernays practiced and too modest for its impact."
An example of his chicanery:
quote:
Lucky Strike Cigarettes had a problem. Women, an increasingly important market, were not buying Luckies in the expected quantities because, surveys in the 1930's showed, many felt the forest-green package clashed with their wardrobes. The obvious solution would have been to change the color, but George Washington Hill, the president of American Tobacco, adamantly refused, claiming he had already spent millions of dollars to advertise that green package. What to do? "If you won't change the color of the package, change the color of fashion -- to green," advised a young public relations man named Edward Bernays. And Bernays systematically set out to make green the fashion color of the 1934 season.
Under the auspices of a local charity, Bernays planned a Green Ball and dispatched a well-connected society matron to the Paris couturiers to coax them into providing green gowns for the event. He convinced a leading textile manufacturer to sponsor a Green Fashions Fall luncheon for fashion editors and invited an art historian and a psychologist to expatiate on the significance of green. He organized a Color Fashion Bureau, which disseminated trends to the press, naturally emphasizing the popularity of the color green.
Using green paper, he concocted a letter-writing campaign to interior decorators, art-industry groups, department stores and clubwomen describing the sudden "dominance" of green. He induced department stores to feature green dresses and suits in their window displays, and he persuaded the Reinhardt Galleries to hold a "Green Exhibition" of paintings. The result of this six-month flurry: green became the hot new color of fashion.
So it was with Edward L. Bernays, who died March 9 at 103. In a career that began shortly before World War I and ended with his retirement in the early 60's, Bernays, a master huckster, advised companies, individuals and institutions as diverse as Diaghilev's Ballet Russe, General Motors, Procter & Gamble, R. H. Macy & Company, Cartier, Claire Boothe Luce and Samuel Goldwyn.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: --Kate,
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
The discussion of Bernays was about as far as I was able to get in those videos, Kate (I work off of several computers and it was 'too slow' in all of them--I kept trying to retrack it but it kept stopping).
In all of this, also considering the talk of how 'religion' gets involved in all of this, I remembered the esoteric religious concept of 'the trickster'. If you google 'The Trickster', you'll get several good sites. One from Wikipedia is this:
While 'the trickster' is a mixed bag, the manner of the trickster 'manipulating divine precepts' (dare I say 'almost to their will') is another 'mythic message' in the cultural milieu....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
The thing about a fully executed thought is 1) it's fully executed, meaning ... 2) the questions (from the thinkers who would watch the video) are asked and answered. For me, it's the questions that impel the next pursuit of meaning.
I've not had the time to see any of the videos, but I am curious about them, and I have certainly enjoyed reading this conversation.
Kate
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I appreciate this thread, with its more specific focus on the psychological marketing angle. And perhaps we can give Thom's new book a little plug here too, in case anyone misses it down there in Cracking the Code:
quote:
Millions of working Americans talk, act, and vote as if their economic interests match those of the megawealthy, global corporations, and the politicians who do their bidding. How did this happen? According to Air America radio host Thom Hartmann, the apologists of the Right have become masters of the subtle and largely subconscious aspects of political communication. It's not an escalation in Iraq, it's a surge; it's not the inheritance tax, it's the death tax; it's not drilling for oil, it's exploring for energy. Conservatives didn't intuit the path to persuasive messaging; they learned these techniques. There is no reason why progressives can't learn them too. In Cracking the Code, Hartmann shows you how. Drawing on his background as a psychotherapist and advertising executive as well as a national radio host, he breaks down the structure for effective communication, sharing exercises and examples for practical application.
Originally posted by Kerry: The discussion of Bernays was about as far as I was able to get in those videos, Kate (I work off of several computers and it was 'too slow' in all of them--I kept trying to retrack it but it kept stopping).
In all of this, also considering the talk of how 'religion' gets involved in all of this, I remembered the esoteric religious concept of 'the trickster'. If you google 'The Trickster', you'll get several good sites. One from Wikipedia is this:
While 'the trickster' is a mixed bag, the manner of the trickster 'manipulating divine precepts' (dare I say 'almost to their will') is another 'mythic message' in the cultural milieu....
In my study of myth, especially from a structuralist perspective, the trickster is seen as an interstitial form in the myth.
quote:
interstitial - pertaining to, situated in, or forming interstices.
quote:
interstices - A space, especially a small or narrow one, between things or parts
So we have this basic structural concept from the structuralists. Society consists of identifiable abstract forms, and there is also the space between those forms.
An interstitial character personifies that space between form, and as such transgresses the boundaries of what are defined as socially acceptable in a given culture.
In looking at myths, then, the hypothesis from structuralists like Claude Levi Strauss, was that myth offered insights into the structures (the forms) of societies.
If we look loosely at the concept of myth, and see it's enmeshment in literature and art, we can, for instance, see heroes and heroines in movies in a structural perspective of this sort:
Abstract Alien Resurrection (1997) heightens the movements across dark humor and horror, and enables more pronounced and complex conjunctions across the three types of "shadows," particularly in the case of monstrous female characters like Ripley. Thus, like the Terminator films, which used a hybrid action-science fiction-horror-comedic format, and a strong female central character, Alien Resurrection enables us to glimpse, through a glass darkly, other ways in which the gendered and raced complexities of the Frankenstein cinematic myth may be traced.
Another type of interstitial character that has interesting characteristics is the loner. There are many types and they evolved in interesting ways in American wild west mythology. Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name in his speghetti western Dollars trilogy, his own, self-directed movie, clearly influenced by that earlier trilogy, this one, High Plains Drifter, the loner is The Stranger. Loners are characters who do not necessarily follow societal rules (are therefore interstitial in nature) and also have special powers to get things done.
A related term to their actions: Transgression.
quote:
Transgression may be a legal transgression: a crime. A social transgression: violating a norm. Interesting enough—anybody know what a transgression in geology means? Well, it means where the water is ingressing on the shore. Okay, so it's transgressing where it shouldn't be, as opposed to regressing where the shore gets larger and larger. It's quite interesting.
----->
The term goes back to Middle English transgraven from the old French trangressa from late Latin trangede through to transgrin—that means basically to step across (trans=across, and grade "to go" from gradus or step. This word is incredibly rich; it gives us degree and all sorts of things. And the ProtoIndoEuropean root is ghradh which means to walk. From this root we have such words as egress, dispense, and progress. A transgression is basically something which is off the path. It's off the Tao, one might say.
----->
What I am trying to do is to deal with definition, not so much in fixing the fences (excluding and including) but determining how large we need to make the corral in which to include all of these various perspectives and choices. It is very interesting just how many there are. Physical, sexual, behavioral, body-builders, BDSM, martial arts, many references to the Bush administration for some reason, graffiti in terms of inscribing transgression on the urban landscape, the Hermes figure of the in-between, and then basically the whole question of "Othering" and looking toward the Other. (source (interesting literary discussion by the way))
Sorry, can't help myself, another one from the above discussion, this one has too many references to what I was saying in it to overlook, and I especially like the way this guy references his own life:
quote:
Heinz Insu Fenkl: This morning when I was thinking about good examples of transgression, Terri pointed out that I should look at my own experience. I realized, that instead of looking for examples of transgression in Korean folk tales which I specialize in, I could talk about my own life, which by definition was transgressive.
I was born at a time when mixed marriages were officially forbidden. My father was in the US Army at the time, and they had these anti-fraternization policies so technically children like me were not supposed to exist. Of course many of us did exist. They couldn't prevent American soldiers from having relationships with Korean women, but we technically did not exist in a social environment where there was a thing called "Command Sponsorship." If an American soldier wanted to have his family in Korea, he had to be Command Sponsored for his family to be given special privileges on Army bases. But there were so many Amer-Asian children and the children of mixed marriages in the area where I lived, which was outside the major in-processing center called the Army Service Command near the port city of Inching. There were so many of us that the Army base itself couldn't officially say, "We have X number of these mixed children around." And so they pretended we didn't exist, and we got to go on base.
I learned a great deal about American culture by going to the movie theater, which allowed us to go into any movie whatsoever because we didn't exist. They couldn't sell us a Child's ticket because, to do so admitted that children existed on that base. It was an odd position where I was constantly reminded of things that I was not supposed to be able to do—lots of Thou Shalt Nots. In context, I was then not given any guidance; there were no real consequences for this kind of transgression. So I grew up in a very odd environment.
Later, of course, with some academic training, I look back on that experience as both interstitial and liminal. We'll talk a little about that as we go on. I started a Ph. D. program as a folklorist, and then I went into things like ethnographic theory. I didn't finish my Ph.D. but instead published my first book, Memories of My Ghost Brother, which was all about this liminal and interstitial childhood. A liminal condition is a condition of being in between or on the threshold of the door. Liminality is an in-between position from which there is an implicit departure. A liminal condition is generally a transitional condition. In rites of passage one begins as a child, has identity stripped away, becomes sub-human, and then becomes an adult. The liminal condition is that transitional period. In Korea I was reminded of another condition — interstitiality. The person in that in-between condition, or contexted in that condition, does not necessarily want to be in a transitional phase and end up as something else. It is continually in-between and it's usually something about its context or chronology, or something that causes that interstitial thing to then become categorized.
When we talk about the transgressive, I think both liminality and interstitiality often occur simultaneously. As we continue our discussion, it might be good to identify some of the finer points among transgressive behaviors and transgressive modes of existence. Then I'll talk a little bit about social norms. In Western culture, we exist in a society in which most social norms are based on culture that itself is based on proscription: most social rules are Thou Shalt Nots. In other cultures that are based predominately on prescriptions — Thou Shalts — you will behave this way, this way, this way, if the thing is not predefined for you. Then the category of behavior that's left over for you is actually radically different...
So... are psychologists transgressors of interstitiality?
the trickster is seen as an interstitial form in the myth.
Kokopelli is the mythic New Mexican trickster. He is torcido, which means "gnarled" in spanish, so he is apparently a result of mutation or maiming.
Kokopelli is a seducer, and has dreadlocks. He wanders the land playing a flute, and sensual pleasure is his motivation. On his back he carries a sack of seeds, which attract all to his promise of fertility. Kokopelli precedes the Conquistadores as his image is carved on many petroglyph sites. Welcoming the traveling stranger who carried seed was a lifesaver to pre-Columbian societies, so you can see how this myth rose to such importance.
quote:
monstrous female characters like Ripley.
In the movie, the Alien (Xenomorph) is sexually attracted to her, and Ripley seduces the alien into trusting her. But it was a devious ruse. When the alien is most vulnerable, Ripley causes the alien to be sucked out to the vacuum of space through a small window. It was horrible watching that lovestruck alien getting sucked through a hole a little at a time, whth only his head remaining at the end.
It's a modern version of the age-old myth of the Black Widow. I didn't know if it was a classic gynophobia piece or a celebration of female power.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
It's a modern version of the age-old myth of the Black Widow. I didn't know if it was a classic gynophobia piece or a celebration of female power.
I think as a structural concept, or to use a more familiar literary term, a metaphor, its meaning can be made up by a context, it's just a form, or maybe as an interstitial -- an anti-form, like anti gravity or something.
Any references for that Kokopelli character from New Mexico?
So, "gnarled? is an interstitial quality. Were you aware of that in relation to Gnarlodius?
An interstitial character personifies that space between form, and as such transgresses the boundaries of what are defined as socially acceptable in a given culture.--ren
Yes, you could see 'the trickster' as an 'interstitial form'. However, I think the trickster takes on a little more character than that. The trickster manipulates. The trickster compels. The trickster takes the duality of the 'good-evil' paradigm and plays with its dichotomies--juggling the issues like a showman, challenging you to see through the trickster if you dare.
This site had a more thorough depiction of the trickster in esoteric thought:
The trickster is an important archetype in the history of man. He is a god, yet he is not. He is the wise-fool. It is he, through his creations that destroy, points out the flaws in carefully constructed societies of man. He rebels against authority, pokes fun at the overly serious, creates convoluted schemes, that may or may not work, plays with the Laws of the Universe and is sometimes his own worst enemy. He exists to question, to cause us to question not accept things blindly. He appears when a way of thinking becomes outmoded needs to be torn down built anew. He is the Destroyer of Worlds at the same time the savior of us all.
The Trickster lives inside and outside of Time. He is of our world, yet not of our world, so our laws will not always apply. Other symbols, associated with him include keys, clock, masks, infinity among other mythological images
Trickster is a creator, a joker, a truth teller, a story teller, a transformer linked to the spiritual frequency changes humanity is experiencing at this time.
We seem most accessible to the synchronistic gifts of the Trickster when we ourselves are at or near boundaries or are experiencing transition states, periods of major life transitions seem to be occasioned by an abundance of meaningful coincidence. Personal growth sees not only to facilitate synchronicity, but in turn to be facilitated by it. As an archetype, the Trickster, the boundary dweller, finds expression through human imagination and experience.
The 'interstitium' of the trickster is as a taunting role. Those 'in transitions' most likely are susceptible to the trickster's play. In such states, it's important to give oneself 'room to be', and 'explore ones own incongruities' with a searching and happy probe--the trickster is there to help.
Other thoughts from that site:
quote:
Physical reality is a game in which the Trickster challenges us at every turn. That is his role in the duality of this bio-genetic experiment in liner tome and emotion.
Trickster is the teacher, when you attract lessons into one's life. With his lessons, he awakens us to who we are and allows us to explore the true purpose of our soul's journey in the holographic experience through which we experience consciously at this level of awareness.
His energy allows us to break out of old stereotypes, whether they've been imposed by ourselves, our families, our culture, or circumstance. This is the energy that opens the world of limitless possibilities and it behooves us all to work with it before it destroys us, to touch the Trickster as he touches us.
Trickster is a teacher, survivor, hero, always traveling, outrageous and cunning, foolish and wise, mischievous and often doing good despite himself. He is a metaphor for the evolution of consciousness in the alchemy of time.
'Taunting you on the way to enlightenment'. The jester to the soul. Gleefully exposing the meaning and the limitations of opposites as if 'nothing else mattered'.......
quote:
Is Karl Rove a triskster?
...very likely so....
Here's an interesting point of the 'negative' aspect of 'the trickster' that above connection brought out:
quote:
When you abuse someone, that is the trickster in you, showing itself. When you allow yourself to be abused, playing the victim, and remain stagnant in your life, the trickster aspect of you is in control.
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
These are somewhat inclusive forms, these forms that deal with transitional understanding, at least as I see them, not schematically exclusive. That interstitial form is meant in a more general way to be inclusive of the range of characteristics of the trickster and other in betweens, like the shaman and the mystic, not to be less than it. I Googled "interstitial character trickster" and lots came up plenty of sites correlating trickster with interstitial.
quote:
Interstitial 1
Trickster is the god of this world, as it is; not perfect; not eternally changeless. When anyone, god or man, attempts cause a seperation between the divine and the banal - Trickster intervenes.
Turner and Van Gennep keep turning up:
quote:
When someone claims innate superiorness of their own worldview above all others, Trickster shows their foolishness - such as in this next tale. Eshu’s two color hat
Perhaps the most famous Yoruba story about Eshu concerns two inseparable friends who swore undying fidelity to one another but neglect to acknowledge Eshu. These two friends work on adjacent fields. One day Eshu walks on the dividing line between their fields, wearing a cap that is black on one side and red (or white) on the other. He saunters between the fields, exchanging pleasantries with both men. Afterwards, the two friends got to talking about the man with the cap, and fall to violent quarreling about the color of the man’s hat, calling each other blind and crazy. The neighbors gather about, and then Eshu arrives and stops the fight. The friends explain their disagreement, an Eshu shows them the two-sided hat—all this to chastise the friends for not putting him first in their doings. The lesson of the tale is obvious, but just as interesting is where it places the god. Moving along the seam between two different worldviews, he confuses communication, reveals the ambiguity of knowledge, and plays with perspective. (Runester: Trickster)
That's followed by Interstitial 2, where
Trickster teaches with his practical jokes and pranks that (among other things) no ones viewpoint is perfect; no one has perfect knowledge.
and Interstitial 3 where:
Trickster is not always creating chaos. He is the one who taught mankind to fish with a net, and catch prey with traps. Trickster is cunning, but it is the cunning of the empty belly.
So interstitial is a broad general sense of form, rather than a confining one.
And Victor Turner and Arnold Van Gennep keep turning up on this subject:
quote:
Of particular relevance in the study of the trickster is van Gennep and Turner's focus on social status and social structure. Turner opined that a social structure consists of a system of social positions, and "the units of social structure are relationships between statuses, roles and offices." Organized culture and civilization require differentiation, roles and structure. Roles define continuity; they designate positions and statuses in the structure of society. Consequently, structure produces social distance and inequality that subtly leads to alienation beyond conscious recognition. We erroneously tend to see others as a collection of individuals with discrete differences, and assume that the character of the group can be derived from those of the individuals... much like having a bird of a feather kind of mentality. Hansen says this fundamentally wrong assumption robs us of the understanding that we are being victimized by a social structure that rules over us practically invisibly and without our knowledge of its effects upon us.
Van Gennep described three major stages of the overarching social structure that is typically found in many cultures. Essentially, most cultures have important transitions, such as puberty, marriage, change in leadership, and death. During these transitions people often experience emotional stress involving separation (dissolution), transition (a period of adjusting to new experiences), and incorporation (combining the new experiences with the familiar in the maturation process). These three passages involve revisions in structural positions that involve an entire group and not just an individual. Van Gennep and Turner call these passages liminality, communitas, and anti-structure.
--------->
One of Turner's students and literary theorist, Barbara Babcock, illustrates why it is instructive to study the anti-structural traits of the trickster.
Having identified 16 characteristics of tricksters and their six functions in society, Babcock says that trickster tales help us become conscious of aspects of life and culture that might otherwise be neglected. She further describes the trickster's congruence to creativity, saying: "In contrast to routine thinking, the creative act of thought is always double-minded, i.e., a transitory state of unstable equilibrium where the balance of both thought and emotion is disturbed."
Hansen says that if we selectively cherish our own beliefs and values while avoiding others, we build a structured life that stifles creativity. Meanwhile, the trickster traits of anti-structure subtly steer us towards a re-vision of our fixed notions by upsetting our customary habits. The more rigidly we hold onto our slice of the world, the more we resist change, and the greater our anguish when novel circumstances requires adaptation. The agony of dissonance reduces when we incorporate the new experiences with the old. Think of the private giving the master sergeant a piece of his mind. He may lose his "peace" of mind if he doesn't adjust to his new surroundings!
Turner notes that "liminal situations and roles are almost everywhere attributed with magico-religious properties that are often regarded as dangerous, inauspicious, or polluting to persons, objects and relationships that have not been properly inducted into the liminal context." Such people as diviners, witches, prophets and rainmakers dwell within ambiguous circumstances and are often viewed as having supernatural power. They occupy the middle ground of binary opposites between God and man. This middle ground is abnormal, non-natural, and holy. It is the liminal, the interstitial, the anti-structural; it provides contact with the supernatural realm. It is the domain of the trickster and the netherworld of spirits whose existence blurs the separation between life and death.
One example of perpetual liminality is the life of the mystic. However, this not an ordinary illustration of passage and transition. Rather, the mystic's strong, disruptive and sometimes, grotesque anti-structural qualities reflect permanent immersion in trickster phenomenon. The intervention of the supernatural into the rational world is often profoundly unsettling and the latter often consider the mystic to be deviant or psychotic. Hansen remarks that it is no accident that the mystic is often cloistered and has therefore shielded divinity's contact with the larger world. Having lost this understanding we continue to question whether God exists when what we might instead wonder in the face of mysticism, "Is God sane"? (above link)
Interesting thoughts, ren. I won't have time to comment much right now--but maybe some others could do so. I would add as I ponder that question above that 'the trickster' might argue that the 'sanity of God' is 'no more nor no less' that 'that which we ascribe to God'...as the trickster sticks his (or her--or both) tongue out at you..........
Keep the faith....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Originally posted by /rén: the [rational often consider the mystic to be deviant or psychotic.
That would explain the hunched back of Kokopelli. In the Pueblo Indian version, young maidens are urged to avoid him, while barren oldsters are urged to seek him out. The trickster is the redeemer of the hopeless, not an idol to the perfect.
Fascinating how these mythical figures are so identical across time and space.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by carmenjonze: "Interstitials" are also known as "advertisements"...In 1930s entertainment, they would have been also known as "musical shorts" or "newsreels"...
Good point, and thanks for linking this interstitial theme directly to the marketing angle in this thread, and suggesting the way marketing can be used in the same way "mythical figures" across "time and space" have used forms to embed ideas in our impressionable cognitive gray matter.
Advertising... little mini myths inserted in between the bigger stories (the myth of news, the myth of soap operas, the tricksters in a comedy show), everyone sitting, passively watching on the couch. Hmmm.
Fascinating how these mythical figures are so identical across time and space.
Suggestions/hypothesis have been formed by the structuralists of days gone by that these forms are deeply embedded in our DNA, which leads their positing about the existence of the basic forms our minds begin with even before birth (not as blank slates at all), and thus the correlations were also attempted between the Chomksy/psych linguistic theories that language comes as a prepackaged set of basic forms somewhere in the gray matter we know as brains, and humans just need be exposed to a language, or several languages, at the right time and their own language making cognitive structures already in place will respond by recreating that language. The same for these myths.
Fascinating how these mythical figures are so identical across time and space.
Suggestions/hypothesis have been formed by the structuralists of days gone by that these forms are deeply embedded in our DNA, which leads their positing about the existence of the basic forms our minds begin with even before birth....--ren
Esoteric religion starts with the premise that the focus for all religions of the world are similar--and eventually relate to 'the enlightenment of man'. I think such archetypical elements, as Jung proposed, 'cross cultural barriers' and are 'deeply embedded'--but I think that hypothesis, ren, is giving 'DNA' too much credit. As in the book, The Collapse of Chaos (by Stewart and Cohen), 'form' appears to be a basic element of the universe. While DNA can carry such 'regularities of form', it is conducive to alterations by the immediate environment. Stewart and Cohen point out that cloned cats, with exactly the same DNA, don't look alike--and the changes in their hair color and such is attributed to the changes in environment offered in each uterus where the developing cat fetus is occurring--however, in a manner that we still don't understand. In establishing the idea that 'form' is a basic element of the universe, the authors point out that computers have helped us recreate this phenomenon. In the book, they describe a computer 'automaton' called 'Langston's Ant' that is a computer program that starts with very simple instructions and ends up producing a definite pattern--and no one knows why and, significant for almost all other physical events in physical science, no one has a mathematical formula that can describe its regularity.
We're into the 'limits of knowledge as we know it'--exactly where 'the trickster' likes to play....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Forms can be masked on the surface to give different looks, Kerry, that's how metaphor works, that's how propaganda works, that's how the trickster works. Forms are what you see when the surface is "seen through" or when the visionaries come along and notice the emperor has no clothes, or there's a little man behind the curtain. The confusion is between the "look" and the "seeing." If one doesn't "see" that, then one is primed for the illusionist's tricks. One cat doesn't look like a canary, they both look like cats at least, the basic form "cat" is there. That they develop slightly differently only informs us that change of the look of forms is possible. Just as the basic form "language" is purported to be already present in our brain structure to begin with. Basic form for seeing "cat" is there in our brains. This all goes back to the side of philosophy that Plato took in his arguments with Aristotle, and comes all the way down to the side Jung took in his arguments with Freud.
When you go through the rite of passage we know as "boot camp" they strip you of your "look" and take you down to your basic form, then rebuild you to "look" like a soldier. The "look" includes role playing behavioral patterns.
Forms are what you see when the surface is "seen through" or when the visionaries come along and notice the emperor has no clothes, or there's a little man behind the curtain. The confusion is between the "look" and the "seeing." If one doesn't "see" that, then one is primed for the illusionist's tricks.--ren
I think, with concerns to this issue of 'enlightenment of man', it gets even a little more complicated, or 'involved', than that.
It's not only just the aspect of the existence of 'form' as a basic element of the universe that matters--it matters just as much what that 'form' could mean and to whom (or what). In a way, what makes 'form' matter. If you are going to conclude that 'form matters only for itself', you have another tautologic conundrum of reason that makes no sense. If 'A=A' is the premise, there is no way to reason with it. It is 'its own existence'--and whether anything or anyone else recognizes that, 'it' matters not.
So, what makes 'form' matter? As far as I can see, it would be something to interpret 'form'--which, as I see it, would be a conscious consideration requiring a position of 'self' to interpret it from such a 'consciousness'. The philosophical dilemma is: Is this 'self' a part of the 'form' it is interpreting--or, in the act of 'interpreting', somehow 'separate from'? A 'dilemma' that I believe only 'the trickster' knows how to 'solve'........
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
I don't have much energy to get into this at the moment, but my own version of what you've said is in what I mean by words like "intentionality." The forms are there, but inert until we apply our intentionality and make them meaningful to us. I'm pretty solid with that. That's our implicit freedom to act on the structure of aboutness as our consciousness. If we are not honest about that freedom we open ourselves to malfois, or bad faith, where our thoughts about are not directed honestly about a something. In so doing, we deny our freedom (bad faith to do that) and perhaps we are then vulnerable to the trickster as well.
If we are not honest about that freedom we open ourselves to malfois, or bad faith, where our thoughts about are not directed honestly about a something, so we deny our freedom (bad faith to do that) and perhaps we are then vulnerable to the trickster as well.
I agree with you in principle, ren. We have 'the freedom' to be 'honest'. However, straining that pronouncement is the term 'honest'. How do we determine 'honesty'--in what we think and how we think? Some of that even depends on 'what we are thinking of'....
Plus, this issue of 'form' and 'interpretation'--especially a 'self' to 'interpret with' (and how 'separate from form' that may or may not be--not just the 'self' but the 'thinking structure of self')--is met with many cognitive pitfalls. First off, as 'interpretor', how are you so sure you've got the picture of the entire 'form'? Secondly, as 'form', how are you sure your 'interpretation' completely 'interprets it'? They are reciprocal arguments of the same problem: The 'separateness' of 'interpretation' and 'form', and the confusions that allows, is the very stuff that 'the trickster' embellishes--and its lack of 'resolution' is 'the trickster's working palate', or modus operandi...
I really don't know a way to 'completely resolve it'--that's why I still have a 'belief' in the 'integrity binder' that I choose to call 'God', which, to me, as being both 'the resolution of', and 'the resolver of', 'truth'. In that 'belief', I also conclude that 'if our purpose is true, our understanding will be correct'--again, something I cannot 'completely resolve' on my own but trust the 'integrity' of this 'premise'....
In this world, it appears, only 'time will tell'....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
One of the ways I see these efforts to work out problems of this nature, is with the analogy to vertical and horizontal thinking. Vertical is like being deeply analytical in a certain vein of thought, and horizontal is like stepping back to see the bigger picture that the veins make together. Not everyone is skilled at doing both. It's a concern with vertically focused thinking that one can get too hung up on the details that they become lost in the tangle of their own thoughts. With big picture thinking, one can miss enough of the critical details that the picture one comes up with is horribly misconstrued, or at least skewed enough to not make a representative picture, kind of like a Picasso, maybe.
At some point I just have to let go of the vertical analysis and act on what I have in place, and hope that my analysis has informed me enough that my gut reactions are about good representative forms I've put in place in my own mind with that analysis. After all, that's generally what I'm reacting to, those internalized forms. If my analysis was honest enough, it usually is good enough. But there's a line, a palm at the end of the mind, so to speak, and we are acting on things we can't know for certain beyond that much of the time -- at least that's what I find.
I find the concept of 'the trickster' one of the more intriguing in esoteric thought. 'The trickster' proposes 'truth and honesty' in a world of 'chance and circumstance'--then, in the world of 'truth and honesty', 'the trickster' proposes 'chance and circumstance'. While, fundamentally, I think the role of 'the trickster' implies a 'higher order of thinking and feeling' than what appears present in the mundane world, with the manner of application by 'the trickster' assuring us that deeply embedded in the mundane, if you look long enough, you can see the profound. But, as a 'mundane mind', just like the fate of the prophet Moses in Exodus, you can 'see the promised land'--but you can't live there...or, at least, that's what it appears...in this world....
What makes you 'not be able to live there'? It's sort of like what the words of one of the Eagles songs says: 'You call some place paradise, you kiss it good-bye...'.
I have many ideas--and examples from my own profession--concerning the concepts you bring up, ren.
quote:
Vertical is like being deeply analytical in a certain vein of thought, and horizontal is like stepping back to see the bigger picture that the veins make together.
The 'bigger picture' is 'no one's concern', ren. No one has a monopoly on what 'the bigger picture' looks like. Plus, as I think is obvious in my profession, those who profess a 'knowledge of the bigger picture', if you don't have a 'picture of your own to compare it with', may be lying (which gets back to this concept of 'honesty'). For instance, when it comes to the 'altruism that God endorses', even by those who 'profess it in the public or on the pulpit', if they are in a situation where they think their life is in danger, without fail, it's ALL 'ME! ME! ME!' that they profess at that point....and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....
Or, how about the issue of 'sick children' and 'concerned mothers'? It's well known that most 'sick children' will get over what they are 'sick over' without any need for intervention with antibiotics. It's even well known that overuse of antibiotics creates 'super-bugs' that learn how to be resistant to the antibiotics we use--and the more often we use them, the more resistance can develop. However, when it comes to any ONE 'sick child' and any ONE 'concerned mother', discussing the nuances of 'overuse of antibiotics' may or may not satiate the mother. She doesn't care what 'the bigger picture' is--she wants 'her child taken care of'. And, then, factor in the very real perspective that in any ONE 'sick child'--while statistically they are very likely to get over their earache without any treatment--there is the slim possibility that any ONE earache could progress to meningitis. Now, factor into the practitioner's position that 'treating an earache with antibiotics' is more defensible in court in the case it 'progresses to meningitis' than 'not treating it' and, viola, the 'bigger picture' gets blurred. And, since the practitioner is limited on time in any one patient (and even 'doing every lab study known to medicine' still won't factor out any 'slim possibility that it could progress to meningitis'), it becomes easier to 'prescribe an antibiotic' than to explain why 'we are not prescribing an antibiotic'--which would 'prove wrong' if this child is the one that succumbs to the 'slim chance of getting meningitis'--and, so, it's more expedient to 'give the antibiotic'. In many cases, it makes the mother happier, who cares what the child thinks, and it better covers the physician in the slim chance that 'meningitis ensues' (after all, he or she 'tried to treat it'). Never mind the very cogent argument that 'if the child is going to get meningitis, treatment with an oral agent may not change that possibility'--it doesn't come up (and wouldn't be 'resolvable' even if it did--however, the idea that this 'careless doctor didn't even try to treat it when it was just an earache and, now, look at what's left after meningitis' certainly would come up in any potential lawsuit case this would involve...)....and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....
quote:
Not everyone is skilled at doing both.
Actually, 'doing both' still doesn't solve the problem...and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....
quote:
At some point I just have to let go of the vertical analysis and act on what I have in place, and hope that my analysis has informed me enough that my gut reactions are about good representative forms I've put in place in my own mind with that analysis.
Yes, many good doctors act on 'gut feeling'. But, that doesn't seem to factor well into 'the science of medicine'--which, at least in America, a modern image that has lately overridden the longtime honored 'art' medicine used to portray...and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....
quote:
If my analysis was honest enough, it usually is good enough.
True. But, it's never 'completely certain'--and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....
quote:
But there's a line, a palm at the end of the mind, so to speak, and we are acting on things we can't know for certain beyond that much of the time --
...and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly........
There's an old adage that I remember from so long ago that I don't remember when I first heard it: 'For those who think, life is a comedy. For those who feel, life is a tragedy.' I then add my perspective: 'For me, life is a tragic comedy'....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
The 'bigger picture' is 'no one's concern', ren. No one has a monopoly on what 'the bigger picture' looks like.
These two thoughts don't mean a whole lot together related to what I was saying. The big picture is how I navigate, personally, so it's my concern. I create, stike that, I "have" my big picture, or I let it be what it is, might be a better sense of it. I move back and forth between my big picture and the details of the forms of my mind I have created, even in a discussion. "Monopoly" is not an issue. Much of the big picture I'm trying to infer is wonderment, wonderment is open ended. It cannot be monopolized, unless conceptualized, then it's not wonderment any more.
Let me try to point to what I mean by big picture, it cannot be described. It would not be what I am aware of if it could.
I think you are confusing what I mean with what you mean about "truth" and "honesty." That's perhaps why for me, phrases like:
quote:
For instance, when it comes to the 'altruism that God endorses', even by those who 'profess it in the public or on the pulpit', if they are in a situation where they think their life is in danger, without fail, it's ALL 'ME! ME! ME!' that they profess at that point....and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....
Really doesn't connect to anything for me. Because to me there isn't an "authority" concept like God for me as a big picture. God is a concept, a part, not the whole. The whole doesn't have authority apart from me. In a sense you've sorted that out, but you've sorted out what was already the point for me.
So, big picture, mine, I "step back" and can't really engage your discussion of all the different possibilities for how others may get lost in the tangle of possible "big picture" scenarios you imagined, because all of the details you note don't have any connection to what I mean. Getting lost in details is analysis. Big picture is not analysis.
That's what I was trying to say, how when it gets tangled and the hobbits head into a swamp with Smeagle, they get lost, because they rely on Smeagle's "knowledge" to get through.
quote:
Actually, 'doing both' still doesn't solve the problem...
What problem doesn't it solve for you?
There is no "trickster" by the way, it's one of a few concepts that personifies the interstices of knowingness pictures, which are the details, not the big picture I'm inferring. Constantly personifying it creates a fallacious concept, the "big picture" here is to see that, not be confused with a new form of self programming.
My sense in what you do with your analysis is that you are attempting to deal with your own concern about certainty. You pointed that out to me, as if I don't know it but in fact it's coming from your vision, not mine. To whit:
quote:
quote:
If my analysis was honest enough, it usually is good enough.
True. But, it's never 'completely certain'--and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....
Since that was precisely my point, there is no trickster. I am the trickster, it's part of me, the uncertainty of it all.
The issue of interstices, is the existential issue that we tend with our rational cognition to create concepts, which have by their nature a closedness about them, we tend to grasp -- even clutch with fear -- those concepts because they have that self deluding potential to create a sense of certainty, and in that process we create an illusion of solidity. But surrounding that solidity is the undefined, the uncertain, the interstices. You are programming away from that awareness with your phrase: The trickster smiles knowingly.
That's a kind of schizoid cognition to create that concept in itself. The rational process is a process of creating schisms. Clutching at the schisms is what we can notice we do, and noticing that it's possible to unclutch. It's another delusion to imagine the unknown can be personified and clutch that personification. The unknown can be seen for many as fear, and that can be personified as evil, and then we get good and evil, clean and unclean, all sorts of self tricking concepts. And "the trickster smiles knowingly." Well... yes, now hat it's been created, it can.
If you don't have the unknown as part of your big picture, then your picture is incomplete. it will not be very big. A big picture therefore includes acceptance of the unknown, a letting go acceptance, not a clutching acceptance, clutching being integral with a "knowingness." It's an acceptance that there is no separate entity smiling at you.
The big picture is how I navigate, personally, so it's my concern.--ren
OK, so you're not trying to 'dissolve the self' into this 'bigger picture'. That's comforting.......
quote:
I create my big picture.
And, as R.D. Laing points out, the applied 'big picture' through society and industry is a political perspective--not a 'knowledgeable one'....
quote:
"Monopoly" is not an issue.
It is when it's applied through society and industry....
quote:
I think you are confusing what I mean with what you mean about "truth" and "honesty."
So, you mean 'chance and circumstance'?........
quote:
For instance, when it comes to the 'altruism that God endorses', even by those who 'profess it in the public or on the pulpit', if they are in a situation where they think their life is in danger, without fail, it's ALL 'ME! ME! ME!' that they profess at that point....and 'the trickster' smiles knowingly....--me
Really doesn't connect to anything. Because to me there isn't an "authority" concept like God for me. In a sense you've sorted that out, but you've sorted out what was already the point.--ren
Actually, all I see myself doing is sorting out the incongruities that are involved in the thinking process and social mores. The 'authority concept of God' is just another 'applied big picture' in which NO ONE has a monopoly over (but many try)....
quote:
So, big picture, mine, I step back and can't really engage your discussion of all the different possibilities for how others may get lost in the tangle of possible big picture scenarios you imagined.
What I really think I'm touching on is this distinction between 'professed, or proposed, image' and 'abject reality'--as promoted and applied by society and institution but interpreted by every thinking person. It actually does concern 'truth and honesty' because, without it, I see no basis for determining what a 'false image' is in any proposition brought forth....
quote:
Actually, 'doing both' ('vertical and horizontal thinking') still doesn't solve the problem...
What problem doesn't it solve for you?
The problem of 'promoting the big picture' in any way. And, the conundrum that 'promoting the big picture' against the 'interests of the self' that it appears to go against....
quote:
There is no "trickster" by the way, it's one of a few concepts that personifies the interstices of knowingness.
I think as an abstract conception, 'the trickster' is a very good 'working concept'. It portrays 'the self' vicariously through 'the other'--and, then, displays all the foibles involved in 'resolution of self' through the 'big picture order' by having you address it as 'self', abstractly, and, if you progress on with that, then 'self', definitely....
quote:
Constantly personifying it creates a fallacious concept, the "big picture" here is to see that, not be confused with a new form of self programming.
That's only if you are assuming that 'any personification' is a 'fallacious concept' on your way to the realization of 'the big picture'...what I guess Ronald Rutherford has countered as being your views on 'nihilism'....
quote:
My sense in what you do with your analysis is that you are attempting to deal with your own concern about certainty.
My profession, and 'the image' it contains, preempts any alternative of 'less than certainty' as it stands today--and it's implied that 'appearing less than certain' is conducive to 'professional suicide'....'image' vs. 'abject reality'...
quote:
It's another delusion to imagine the unknown can be personified.
That's not exactly what I see 'the trickster' as doing. What I see 'the trickster' as doing is using the unknown to the trickster's advantage--every time in the process of applying it as if it were 'known'....
quote:
The unknown can be seen for many as fear, and that can be personified as evil, and then we get good and evil, clean and unclean, all sorts of self tricking concepts. And the trickster smiles knowingly.
....yet, even 'knowing that' doesn't 'dissolve away' good and evil, clean and unclean--so, 'the trickster' keeps smiling....knowingly....
quote:
A big picture therefore includes acceptance of the unknown, there is no separate entity smiling at you.
Unless it's 'the entity' that finally has you 'accepting it'....
You cannot get away from the wiles of 'the trickster' so easily, ren. Much of what 'the trickster' shows is much of who we are....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Overall, you and I seem to be on different wavelengths in terms of our expressions of this, Kerry.
But this quote and quip style has now got out of hand for me.
I have no interest in responding to quote and quip posting. Sorry. It's emblematic of the whole nonsense of human miscommunication I'm trying to express.
Perhaps the differences between my sense of seeing, and your sense of seeing, comes out starkly in this form for me, and for me its with a sharing that is ultimately futile in achieving communication. But many people seem to like it. It's been a problem for me since I entered this ethereal zone of words.
It actually becomes a parody of what I'm trying to express. If someone doesn't recognize that one's own rational process is that of creating a maze, one will be ultimately subject to trapping oneself in one's own mind mazes. That's something I can observe in myself, whether I can share my experienced observation is problematically difficult, and relies on a sense of trust in communication. Inevitably we each are subject to our own awareness on the matter. Any rational linkages are tentative and can do little more than offer a life ring to each other.
What you are creating for me is your own maze of what I said, not what I tried to say or meant to say. It becomes a kind of game. I've played it out numerous times, but I'm to a point in my life where I lose interest, and I've, I'm afraid, lost it here. The rational toying just gets old after it's done so many times. The hook just isn't there anymore. (The trickster hook, by the way.) That hooking process comes out of the obsession with rational meaning and the attachment humans place on the security of meaning. That's just a basic truth, and the honesty I refer to is about that. We can, without being honest, delude ourself into believing our rational minds can actually know with certainty. You seem inclined to personify that process with what I would call metaphors. I'm not so inclined. That's as far as I can go in sharing what I do. What I actually do is inaccessible to anyone but me.
Maybe a pertinent question is, can one live comfortably with uncertainty? I had a long discussion about that with a very good friend of mine, she happened to be my wife during this discussion, and it lasted until we parted. She was of the belief that everything was knowable. I don't know if her upbringing as a Catholic had anything to do with setting that up or not. I can't know. But she could never get herself to accept the sense that an ultimate unknowableness was possible. I asked her to "image" infinity. It was when I tied to do that as a boy, lying on my back in the back yard at night, looking up at the stars when I first tried to imagine no end. I could get my mind to ask the question, but to imagine there would never be an end, no matter which direction I went? Kind of blew my mind. No matter how far you try to calculate the distance, it will never be completely defined. Oddly enough, the same is true about Pi I discovered not long after that, thus the actual defined circumference of a circle can never be computed to completion.
I don't agree or disagree with pretty much every one of your interpretations of what I tried to express in every one of your quips to one of the quotes you fractured out of my effort at context. We just don't seem to be on the same sense of it. What it amounts to is whether I want to go along and keep doing the fractured vertical analysis process you seem to enjoy. A few posts back -- Posted 23 October 2007 09:40 -- I made what I would call a mental movement. It's a gesture, of sorts, to remove myself from the rational trap that pursuit of these ideas becomes. It was not analytical. I see it didn't connect for you. I just want to recall it so you know I did it. There's no more to be done than that, really. I see we are back into endless analysis, which I'm basically done with on this. Once I'm in what I call my seeing, everything just works off the forms I've already developed, and those forms have probably been there for years on this matter. What you are saying is very familiar. The process of the trickster manifestation you've created is not new.
I'd rather not continue to respond in this fractured way if you don't mind. To respond to each one of the fractured pieces will then create more potential misinterpretations, more fracturing, and the whole, a whole that includes the interminable unknown, whole is an inappropriate metaphor, I'm afraid, clumsy even, but I don't have one that really does the the trick of sharing what that is for me. I don't see this as a part of what I am trying to share, and to continue with it would be to contribute to creating an illusion, or delusion. Maybe in your words it's the trickster at work in me to go on, and I don't wish to accommodate that process. I find this process in itself a fallacy of human communication. At some point I just step away. It's a fallacy because it has all the appearance of trying to get at understanding while instead it creates further misunderstanding.
These things you keep sorting out and defining -- like abject reality, professed reality -- they are just concepts if we are not sharing certain basic features, which I see we are in some peripheral ways, yet we are not able to acknowledge them, partly because of what I see as personal definitional styles. So, we may be talking about the same things, we may not. Hit or miss. You keep taking things and sorting them into these definitional isolates, and the very thing I am trying to express to you disappears when I read it back. The same pattern now has reoccurred for too long to continue, for me.
The trickster is a definitional concept for you. It seems important to you, that's ok, I don't want to dissolve it if it works for you, but as a definitional concept it's not important to me, it's a class of concepts regarding a field of perception I am seeing as the undefined. But I've already said it fits into a broader field of awareness that you keep actually restating as something which you believe is somehow different:
quote:
Kerry:
quote:
Ren: It's another delusion to imagine the unknown can be personified.
That's not exactly what I see 'the trickster' as doing. What I see 'the trickster' as doing is using the unknown to the trickster's advantage--every time in the process of applying it as if it were 'known'....
Yes, ok, but it doesn't work for me to do what you do there, although it could if I wanted it to.
The way I tend to see it where I've gone with my mind, you just created a concept (personified it) of the unknown, you call it "trickster" and with that concept you created a tidy rational description that defined a particular way one might rationally work things out with oneself with this personification.
Where is this entity that does this? I wonder myself. Outside oneself? Maybe you attach what occurs in your own existential process to something outside yourself, but I don't. I recognize an internal process, that I am creating with that process the sense that something outside of me maybe mirrors it. But I also am aware my own perceptions can be faulty. So I have the truth and honesty that all I have are my experiences, my perceptions, my potentially faulty translations. This trickster thing you are talking about is at that translational juncture, as I see it. I can trick myself in many ways in my rational efforts to make sense of my experiences. If I insist on "knowing" I am in a sense already tricked. Any effort to make anything beyond that translational juncture becomes metaphorical. Metaphor is form, not knowledge. The conceptual trickster is a metaphor and you seem to be rationally working it for yourself. If it keeps you sane, functional, balanced, whatever, please don't let me shake that for you. Ok?
quote:
...yet, even 'knowing that' doesn't 'dissolve away' good and evil, clean and unclean--so, 'the trickster' keeps smiling....knowingly....
Goodness, Kerry, who created those things? For me, those are the binary opposition rational processes I've tried to share about the basic rational cognitive features I work in my mind. It works, for me, to see it in that simple form, but I don't know if it can work for you. These cognitive features of ours may be too fragile to mess with at some point. I don't have a trickster smiling. You do, ok, cool. I am aware of tricteristic processes in my own way, it seems to keep me going in good stead.
quote:
Unless it's 'the entity' that finally has you 'accepting it'....
You cannot get away from the wiles of 'the trickster' so easily, ren. Much of what 'the trickster' shows is much of who we are....
It's perhaps helpful to be conscious that it's your wily trickster you're describing, Kerry, to project yours onto others is to go beyond the palm at the end of the mind. Misery loves company and all that. When I speak of liminality, antistructure, and all that lies in the realm I imagine with those thought tools I've created, that too is about defining much of who we are. I was at a Keith Jarret piano concert once, way back in the early eighties, and someone kept coughing, and it was effecting his "stream of consciousness" playing that he used to do in those concerts. So he stopped playing, stood and came to the front of the stage, paused a moment, looking down at his tennis shoes, then looked out into the audience and said: "sometimes when we aren't paying attention we get bored, and when we get bored, we sometimes cough because our mind is off somewhere else, lost in thoughts. Maybe if we'd just pay attention to what's going on between the notes, we wouldn't lose our attention, and we wouldn't get so bored."
There was of course no coughing after that when he went back to his piano and continued. But the point I got from that was profound for me. The notes are what we tend to think of as music, but music is also all else that goes with it in order for the notes to have definition as notes to make the music. What's going on between the notes? That also defines us. I don't have to call what shows it the trickster. I see it as attention, awareness.
quote:
quote:
A big picture therefore includes acceptance of the unknown, there is no separate entity smiling at you.
That's only if you are assuming that 'any personification' is a 'fallacious concept' on your way to the realization of 'the big picture'...what I guess Ronald Rutherford has countered as being your views on 'nihilism'....
There may be a separate entity smiling at you in your mind, not mine. Not in what I mean by that clumsily devised, essentially incomplete concept, "big picture." I slipped into the generic you when I wrote that, I apologize. Again, I don't wish to dissuade you on the matter of your trickster.
About Ronald... Honestly? There's little likelihood Ronald has any sense of these matters as they relate to me.
If you actually believe you and Ronald have some connection on this issue, I suggest you take it up with him.
Since I see my name batted around I always feel no invitation is necessary for me pontificate on matters that I can not know or fail to grasp the nuance from the masters.
But Kerry, I really have no idea what ren's thoughts on Nihilism is. I can only identify what I see as nihilistic thoughts running amuck.
quote:
...what I guess Ronald Rutherford has countered as being your views on 'nihilism'....
While some may have felt the they were playing the part of trickster, with the creation of elaborate mazes, I can either accept the challenge or go around it all I want. I guess I have free will, whether they acknowledge it or not.
For even a gerbil choses to get on the wheel. I can only conclude that all living beings must have the will to power.
quote:
I do not speak to the weak: they want to obey and generally lapse into slavery quickly. In the face of merciless nature, let us still feel ourselves as merciless nature! But I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
OK, ren, so be it. I see you encapsulate your position as being 'beyond--or without--reason, or rationality', and that's fine. I really don't have a problem with that. Whether you 'depersonalize it', or 'personalize it', whether you 'adhere to any form of procedure or conduct' or not, is up to each of one of us to determine that for ourselves. It's in the 'determination for ourselves' that I suspected your 'big picture' was, in some way, 'disregarding--or dissolving self' to do it (these were the implications I was making to RR's 'nihilism'). Maybe you can see that your manner of acknowledging 'uncertainty', and ultimately 'accepting uncertainty', can appear to some (it appeared that way to me) to 'resolve self into no meaning'--and, therefore, ultimately 'no self'.
As I see it, as inexact as it is, it is 'meaning' that establishes 'self'--the problem is, as far as I can see it, what that means to 'other selves' in a world of 'incomplete' or 'uncertain' meaning--that's what I see as the politics, and the science, of existence. Choosing 'not to make that a part of yourself' is 'your perogative'. Saying, or implying, that it, in any way, 'dissolves self' to accept the 'conclusion of uncertainty' is the thing I am contending with at least in how 'I see' what you are saying...I don't even see the 'conclusion of uncertainty' dissolving 'self' even if the 'self' is using that as the 'conclusion'--and it seemed to me you did. That's the only contention I see....
quote:
But Kerry, I really have no idea what ren's thoughts on Nihilism is. I can only identify what I see as nihilistic thoughts running amuck.--RR
Well, it was you who kept claiming 'nihilism' every time ren spoke--any anyone agreed--it seemed--and, after reading the definition for nihilism ('a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless'), it did seem that ren's 'uncertainty conclusion' was 'nihilistic'--and, if you agree with that, this may be the only thing we ever agree upon.........
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Well, it was you who kept claiming 'nihilism' every time ren spoke--any anyone agreed--it seemed--and, after reading the definition for nihilism ('a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless'), it did seem that ren's 'uncertainty conclusion' was 'nihilistic'--and, if you agree with that, this may be the only thing we ever agree upon....
Kerry, Yes, I think we agree on that conclusion. But I am not sure it was a pattern-at least consciencely in my posting.
But I am sure there is a lot of things we can agree with. Like the situation in Burma is unacceptable. We just may differ on how to solve or how to handle this problem.
Carry on...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Kerry, I fear you've set up what I've said into your own rational mode, which creates that sense of exclusiveness about the rational and the whole as you've formulated it:
quote:
I see you encapsulate your position as being 'beyond--or without--reason, or rationality'
Just step back a moment and imagine "whole."
Whole is inclusive, not exclusive as I'm imagining it. If it's inclusive, then I would assume it includes reason and rationality. By setting it up as a "position" frame, I sense you frame your own thoughts to making the two exclusive. What I'm trying to set out is a system of thought that includes the vertical aspects (for want of a better visual descriptor) of reason, and then steps back and incorporates them into a larger view as well. The "vertical" reasoning can be used to define forms within the whole. Once defined these forms can be useful to us in different ways. I'll try to share what I mean by that as I go along. To try to do that rationally, as you have, does tend to use the rational features of binary-ness, and so I can see how you might have concluded I might mean one excludes the other of the concepts.
I am fully aware that I don't really have a good way of getting what I mean across, though I've tried for years.
I see rationality as a process of encapsulating and essentially defining aspects of the whole. The idea that definition has space, like "notes" or the sounds of piano music have "space" between them, is one of those epiphany moments when I first saw it. I've had virtually no problem expressing what I mean with others who have had that similar "aha!" moment, and with those who haven't, all the rational attempts to explain it tend to fail, until finally an "aha!" might occur. There's a process that Gregory Bateson has identified, which he calls "deutero leraning" or "learning to learn" which seems to incorporate it, but again, it's something that almost needs to be experienced.
I would agree that there is a correlation between the urge for meaning and the formation of a concept we call "self." To see that the self is part of something larger, "infinite" to use a word that reaches for concepts of the indefinite (in - define - ite), may be a driving force towards spiritual seeking if a causality for that universal in humans need be looked for. To recognize that the self is part of indeterminacy does not negate the self to me. It is just a part of a self determining process in our own very real day to day process of life, and as social beings, it's clear that we need to make up rules amongst ourselves in order for our behavior to work it self out in some group fashion that can achieve cooperative goals. We are by nature social beings and our cognitive tools -- all of them, ration, empathy, emotions, etc., -- come into play in that concerted strategy. Making up rule sets is what we do, and we can do it almost on the fly. Rule sets change according to circumstances and better rule sets can be devised to deal with problems, and social change often results. But because they can and do change, we see also that there is an uncertainty aspect, the liminal between the rule sets, for instance, and without that awareness we could be really, really rigid in our cultures, not very adaptive.
I hope you can see that your application of nihilism to this system does not result in a view point that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded, and that existence is senseless. I think of it as making the sense of existence more profound, because it points to our ability to agree consciously to the rules, and our very freedom to do so. This is of course at the heart of the dilemma that existentialists worked on through much of the twentieth century. The implication that we each need to agree to these rule sets we come up with implies a sense of democracy that could tend towards anarchy if full freedom to not agree to each individual wants a different set of rules to go buy. But in order to define your way through life, to "navigate" as I alluded to earlier, one does need to set up rule sets that will be within the whole if awareness, and the whole would imply that which is beyond, or uncertain.
We who have studied cultures, cultural anthropologists and others are aware that cultures actually acknowledge their agreements to work together by the rules. One of the ways this comes out is in rituals, and one example is what we call a ritual of inversion. Mardi Gras is one, I went through one of those crossing the equator, where I went from being a "polywog" to a "shellback," and the character, or structure of the ritual inversion was well described by this writer in the introduction to: Crossing the line: sex, power, justice, and the U.S. Navy at the equator.(military rituals)
These rituals give an opportunity for the social order to be turned on its head for a bit, just for a short time, and we can sort of wink at each other, sharing the knowledge that we all know that at some level, we agree to what we are doing out of our own, free choice.
So, while I would not be a proponent of some notion that there is one, ultimate set of meanings, I would stress that we do have an ultimate need for meanings, social structure, definitions or however we best describe it, or we cannot adapt as social beings to the activity we call living. We might be adapting in some other way, much more instinctual at base.
What I'm trying to stress is the relevance of the rational aspects to our selves as social beings, not trying to negate it out of existence. I see the form as something that can be used in a lot of different context, thus the contexts creating the meaning, but the reality of form is always there underneath. Some of it perhaps we can actually create and form as some sort of structure in the mind, but as Plato, and Jung might try to argue, these forms come out of innate formes we have in our very being, our birth, thus I had said our DNA to give some reference to that.
Again, back to the binary rational process, especially the duality of Western thought going back at least to the Greeks. In expressing this with that binary thought process, the tendency is to create a that/not at the beginning in the thinking out process. It's a natural consequence of identifying the binary parts. Thus the creation of a defined self/dissolved-self dichotomy, which can lead to an either or movement in the thought when it could be simply inclusively both.
Hope that helps move this discussion towards understanding.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,
I would agree that there is a correlation between the urge for meaning and the formation of a concept we call "self." To see that the self is part of something larger, "infinite" to use a word that reaches for concepts of the indefinite (in - define - ite), may be a driving force towards spiritual seeking if a causality for that universal in humans need be looked for. To recognize that the self is part of indeterminacy does not negate the self to me. It is just a part of a self determining process in our own very real day to day process of life, and as social beings, it's clear that we need to make up rules amongst ourselves in order for our behavior to work it self out in some group fashion that can achieve cooperative goals. We are by nature social beings and our cognitive tools -- all of them, ration, empathy, emotions, etc., -- come into play in that concerted strategy. Making up rule sets is what we do, and we can do it almost on the fly. Rule sets change according to circumstances and better rule sets can be devised to deal with problems, and social change often results. But because they can and do change, we see also that there is an uncertainty aspect, the liminal between the rule sets, for instance, and without that awareness we could be really, really rigid in our cultures, not very adaptive.
Just wondering, how do you make your living? Your whole life seems to be deep introspection.
I sometimes wonder how long it takes you to brush your teeth in the morning.
Posts: 1807 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: 23 June 2005
Just wondering, how do you make your living? Your whole life seems to be deep introspection.
I sometimes wonder how long it takes you to brush your teeth in the morning.
PeeWee, what I articulated there comes to me in a flash, sort of all at once, more like just looking. I don't think it in words. It takes a little time to put it into words, but I'm getting better at it. I see it along with everything else I do without really having to focus. That's why I can build a house without cutting my limbs off, or nailing my hand to a board with a compression nailer accidentally, and still enjoy my mind at the same time.
But you didn't really want to know that, did you...
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
OK, ren, in an attempt not to address your position 'point by point', I'll try to encapsulate my views of some of the issues you address with respect to how 'I' see it.
In regards to this 'concept of the whole' that you allude to, I characterize it a little differently--and, I guess (since you mentioned 'Western thought'--implying a distinction of 'Eastern thought'?), one that is more in line with my own 'cultural mores'. I conceptualize that 'concept of whole' as 'God'. And, just like this issue of 'self', by its own existence, 'gaining meaning' (even if 'incomplete' or compromised by 'uncertainty'), the 'singularity that is God' as 'the whole' which I encapsulate confirms the 'self'--it doesn't deny or negate it. 'God', in this sense, is 'the ultimate SELF'.
There are some reasons I see that as necessary--all related to how I, personally, 'approach life'--and the 'process of rationality', if you will. While I sensed that your view seemed to 'dissolve rationality into the nothingness as a whole', I could also see how that view in many ways is true with what I see going on in this world--especially when I consider it 'rationally'. But, instead of extrapolating that to this idea of 'the whole' being a 'social phenomenon' that, in some ways, 'disregards the rational', I integrated the concept of 'whole' into a conclusion that, if I don't 'rationally conclude it', I will eventually be able to 'conclude it with a rationale'--or 'meaning' (even if it's one I cannot completely 'describe' because I cannot possibly consider 'every possible option' in my consideration).
Follow that? It's OK if you don't--these are issues 'without definitive words'....
However, this 'conclusion with meaning as a whole that the self can determine' is an important one for me because it does another thing--it has me continue reasoning with the incongruities I perceive in this world for a 'solution' (at heart, I am a clinician). The problem with that motive is 'basing it on the world I see'--because I see too many incongruities. So, in this 'uncertainty world', I have to make certain assumptions. First, that there is a 'meaning that perseveres through all life'. Second, I can eventually come to that recognition. Third, those elements that don't make sense (either from 'internal drives in myself' or 'external actions, and presumed motives, of others'--the 'irrational components') can be characterized in two ways: One, maybe I haven't gotten enough of the gist of the issue to make sense of it yet. Or, two, there isn't a sense to it.
However, the second one distresses me due to my original premise of the 'sense of the whole as God'. So, I follow a couple of patterns to avoid that 'conclusion'. One, I promote the idea (just like Jesus, by the way--in fact, I learned it from my interpretation of reading the Bible) that 'some who are acting out are not doing it with a rationale--or the rationale that they are promoting isn't true to the way they are acting (at least with how I see it)'. And, as I've said, these are the only people Jesus ever spoke against--hypocrites. The other, I resign myself to the idea that even my own actions may be misdirected or misinformed--sometimes because I AM misdirected or misinformed. At this point, I conclude that 'continued reassessment' is pertinent for me to 'continually strive' for such 'unitary meaning' as 'truth'--and the idea that 'self' can eventually know it or reveal it. It's a 'faith initiative'--and anything that has an 'uncertain component' to it has to have, in some ways, a 'faith initiative' to it. And, that 'faith' is my conceptualization of 'the whole that is God--and truth', the 'integrity binder' that, if appropriately positioned (in thought and conduct), 'guides' (if you will) the rest....
If it's 'not there'--and the conclusion is 'nothingness' (at least with respect to 'the self')--then, the results of any of our actions (both personally and socially) will be so determined by the method and manner we 'conclude it'. If you look closely at my description here, you'll note it's 'irrational perspective' (and that is what happens when you 'think of things beyond the uncertainty we face'--it's 'conclusion' is, on face value, only 'irrationally certain' as much as it is 'rationally uncertain'--sort of like 'it is but it isn't'). While the 'unity is God', we 'conclude it'......
I may have more to say later. For now, I gotta go....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
There's duality in Eastern Thought too, but they have a different approach to it as a tradition, like Buddhism, which distinguishes it as a tradition.
Whole equals inclusiveness when I use it. Just keep that in mind. Rational thought goes through a process of conceptualizing (creating a "position" for instance) and often that will involve a process of defining, objectifying, and separating, with the sense of excluding one from another of concepts. For instance, "liberals" and "conservatives." And then people spend eons differentiating one from another and trying to put each other and themselves in categories. If you accept the reality that we are potentially and can be all of it, the discussion focus can be different, about creating definable walls and barriers so much as just seeing these things. That's all, it's just a shift. I can go about endlessly defining things with you, or I can choose not to. I always have that freedom -- if I choose to see it and acknowledge it, especially once it's come to my liminal field of awareness.
How you wish to characterize what you mean by "whole" is of course a choice in that general field of awareness. Is it a narrowing and separating process when it occurs?
Let me ask you this, we have a notion, we call it "infinity." Can you create an image in your mind of infinity? Honestly, I can't. So we can create a concept for something but we can't imagine it. We can't actually experience it with our faculties, but we can give it a name. Another name for the undefinable could be "God." I suppose it would depend on what one is doing cognitively when using that term.
I think a lot of confusion arises from the rational process itself, and I see it's a process you are very adept with. I see that confusion comes up in the very structure of our language, which is a language that lends itself to using the features of rationality -- some who are the life long students of language tell me -- to the production of rational thinking. If you imagine that languages all are in a constant process of change due to patterns of usage, new ways of forming words into thought concepts as life itself evolves, than it's not too hard to imagine that over the past five hundred years or so, the English language has itself evolved to go along with an increasing reliance on the rational cognitive features that seem to have returned to prominence with the influence of such theological thinkers as Descarte, and his "I think, therefore I am" line from his Discours on Method.
When you use words in your analysis like "necessary," what do you imagine you are trying to say with that? I see "necessary" as related to a context that involves a rational logical process. So to me, "necessary" appeals to logic and the rational process. Some pattern or element is "necessary" to complete the process. It will then be rational, not "irrational." To precisely define the circumference of a circle you would need the completion of the calculation for pi. Pi can not be ever completely calculated, so the circumference of the circle cannot be precisely defined. It's considered irrational. Yet, we can see a circle, we can talk about it. So it's not necessary in that way at all to precisely define it. These "forms" can "be" without the rationality of precise definition. So we have this sense of "Jungian" archetypes and other senses of form without, or even before, the effort to rationally define them into existence. But rationality is certainly something I would include in my mind of what I do with ration and also a part of what I see as much more extending to indeterminate. But without a sense of completion, objectification, I'm not sure where the sense of "necessary" fits.
Rationality is a good cognitive tool, I'm pleased to have it. I try to make it as good a tool as I can possibly make it. I certainly wouldn't exclude any of the things you say. I am a good tool user, a good problem solver -- I had the best school to develop problem solving techniques you could hope for. A two hundred fifty acre farm with the worst junk machinery you could imagine, it was always breaking down, and then there were the animals with all their problems. I do my own troubleshooting, mostly, but that's only ration as a tool. Just as what I'm doing here with it, to try to describe the way I think, listen to you describe yours, and try to reach some sort of understanding.
Here's what strikes me as an interpretation problem. If I suggest a sense that there is a whole that includes unknown and undefinable, that suggestion of unknown does not have to equate to "nothingness." whatever nothingness might mean, it does not mean that if I don't know something, then it doesn't exist.
In a similar vein, if I think of the self as flexibly determinate, not defining a self doesn't mean the self "doesn't exist." It means more to me that we haven't taken into account the rational steps to set up a social matrix and all the things that make a self definable. But the basis for doing that, all the biological and cognitive structures of a biological being that need to be there for a self to be definable, do not suddenly disappear.
When you used the term "nothingness" I was reminded of my effort to make sense of Sartre, many years ago. The problem Sartre was struggling with in his long "essay" he titled: Being and Nothingness was the implicit rationalities in determinism, a very forceful rationally-based philosophical movement of the period. The "I think, I am" creation of being was a major force behind it, in my observation of the various schools of thought. It's also deeply intertwined in the liberal philosophical thought that evolved from Descartes, which included the evolution of our sciences. These are the results of what were perceived as logical ontologies. It reminded me of your use of the term "necessary" early on in your essay, and my response to recognizing the sense of necessary in a rational, logical process. It's a sort of self determining ontology of the process.
I connect with Being and Nothingness going back to moments as a boy, lying in the grass on a warm summer night, and looking up at the stars, trying to imagine how there could be no "end" to where I was looking. Sartre saw that rational thinking set up a frame in the mind where "completion" was possible, and once "possible" is in the mind, humans become haunted by it, I think that's his way of putting it. He wanted to show we need not be. What he sees as a "no-thing-ness" is in reference to rational cognition. It's in that sense definitional. From a rational mode we have a built in logical urge to be, and with that goes an urge to be complete as a kind of proof of it. As I interpret Sartre, he sees the urge for that proof as a kind of process of self delusion, or bad faith. Those are correlated patterns. It's not essential to be in a rational mode to see that, but describing it from a rational mode makes it seem to be so.
I cannot 'imagine' infinity--but, by the same token, ren, I cannot 'imagine' nothingness, either. If either of these concepts are pertinent to 'the whole', I cannot 'imagine' them.
There are several 'words' we use thinking we know what we mean--and how to get there. In his discussion on Kant, Bertrand Russell in his book, The History of Western Philosophy, documents three 'concepts' that we cannot 'know rationally'--but we use all the time and assume (rationally closer to 'induction' than 'deduction') their 'meaning'--God, immortality, and freedom.
All abstractions from a 'deductive angle' are irrational in, by the fact they are 'abstractions', we have no 'empiric evidence' of their existence in this world--only in the 'world of our mind and ideas'.
I'm not here to 'make a conclusion' out of that--just observe it.
Is the 'whole' you are proposing a 'whole that includes everyone'? I think if you 'go that far' with your assumption, due to its 'all-inclusive selves' and you capacity to 'include all', the concept will not be much different from the one of 'abject individualism' since it will have no defining characteristics that 'separate the parts from the whole'.....
Also, recognize that 'binary thinking' isn't just a 'personal thought process'--'binary existence' is inculcated into the very 'society'--the primary one in esoteric religion (and it has many components) is 'male/female'. How do you approach that 'binary condition', ren? Your connection above talks of Naval personal 'transforming from the uninitiated to initiated' as being 'female to male' components. While that may 'ramp up' the comraderie of the unit, it in no way dissipates 'binary thinking'--in fact, it endorses it...if 'the whole' is a 'unity' (or 'all inclusive') to you, how do you 'rectify' the 'binary perspective' of 'male/female'? I don't see 'social functions' resolving this.......
Plus, I really don't like the idea that 'SELF' is the 'cause of all the Western woes'--'selfishness' may be, but that's NOT the 'perspective of self' I'm speaking of. How do you 'rectify selfishness to SELF'? Jesus gave us the straightest answer: 'Love your neighbor AS YOURSELF'......
Just thoughts.....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
I'm using whole as a pointer, not a defined concept. Unfortunately is difficult to use language for some things. To do so in dialog is easier if an understanding and agreement can be reached. If you analyze as you do, you will only be able to define pieces. That's the limitation of rational thinking.
I'm fine with the "thinking we know what we meant" part, and I understand the "and how to get there" add on. It's just we also can recognize we don't "know" how to get there.
How do you deal with that?
Can you let it be? Or do you feel compelled to go through to what Sartre identified as "completion" because your rational faculty set that up as possible, as a cognitive frame? I can't answer that for you obviously.
quote:
I cannot 'imagine' infinity--but, by the same token, ren, I cannot 'imagine' nothingness, either. If either of these concepts are pertinent to 'the whole', I cannot 'imagine' them.
I agree with the way you put that, and yes, that's the nature of that faculty as I see it too. I just wanted to call attention to it.
quote:
Also, recognize that 'binary thinking' isn't just a 'personal thought process'--'binary existence' is inculcated into the very 'society'--the primary one in esoteric religion (and it has many components) is 'male/female'. How do you approach that 'binary condition', ren? Your connection above talks of Naval personal 'transforming from the uninitiated to initiated' as being 'female to male' components. While that may 'ramp up' the comraderie of the unit, it in no way dissipates 'binary thinking'--in fact, it endorses it...if 'the whole' is a 'unity' (or 'all inclusive') to you, how do you 'rectify' the 'binary perspective' of 'male/female'? I don't see 'social functions' resolving this.......
Again, I want to show I agree. Indeed, that's what I was trying to express, it "endorses" the rational binary process, recognizes the very features of social roles and their place, and shows a shared understanding of the need for this thinking in our very social construction of selves; and by inverting roles, in the ritual inversion aspect of the ritual drama, we can wink to each other at our understanding that social roles are really voluntary constructions of this process, and that we agree with them. I think if you can see that, then this urge you have to "dissipate" these sorts of cognitive characteristics might transform to something else.
For me it's not about dissipating, it's about understanding, seeing, and acknowledging to discuss these ideas. I become more aware of my "freedom" in the process.
And why be concerned with the causality factor of self as the source of Western woes? I wouldn't see it that way by necessity, only a logical reasoning that creates its own conclusion. But I would see many other possibilities, too, so I wouldn't necessarily settle on that narrative.
I'm fine with the "thinking we know what we meant" part, and I understand the "and how to get there" add on. It's just we also can recognize we don't "know" how to get there.
How do you deal with that?
Can you let it be?--ren
'Letting it be' is my first 'choice of action' on many things I face. If you'll read over my descriptions, I am specifying concepts that are applied--most concerning are those concepts applied against the other's will. I don't think any concept applied against another's will should even be done without being very cogent in the cause of action--'open and up front'.
When I first got into medicine, we were advised to 'judge all decisions on action against the null hypothesis'--what that means is, in any given situation that you find yourself in, judge whatever action you are considering against doing nothing and, if you cannot honestly conclude that your intervention will do any better than doing nothing, then it's better to do nothing--and leave it to nature (not always a 'bad choice'). However, that entire sequence of events hinges on the word 'honestly' again--and, in today's 'age of intervention', I will be willing to bet you that this issue of the 'null hypothesis' isn't even taught in medical schools anymore. There's 'always' an answer to 'act on'--and 'charge for'--nowadays....
Is it better? Hell, this time, I suspect only 'God knows'--we don't do a lot of 'statistical checking on results of actions' (especially if it's a profitable one) nowadays--and the ones we used to check on oftentimes didn't 'prove' the treatment as much as we 'thought it would' ('image' vs. 'abject reality'....). Like coronary bypass surgery has never shown to have a statistical increase in longevity--it does seem to aid the 'quality of life' left. Or, arterial bypass grafting for peripheral arterial disease has never been shown to 'reduce the incidence of amputations' (both these are most likely because neither one of these issues is just a 'large vessel' disease--the smaller vessels that really supply the blood to the tissue are also involved and usually just as badly compromised so 'unplugging the larger pipes' doesn't necessarily mean 'the smaller pipes' are going to supply more.....).
quote:
Or do you feel compelled to go through to what Sartre identified as "completion" because your rational faculty set that up as possible, as a cognitive frame?
Depends on what you mean by 'completion'--and how that relates to 'the whole'.
For instance, as far as 'direct action to another' goes, that, in esoteric religion, is considered a 'masculine feature'. It's 'feminine counterpart' is 'let it be'. If you are the one who has to decide, you have to be adept in determining when it's the right 'time to act' (masculine position)--and when it's the right 'time to let it be' (feminine position). And, that's 'an art'--not a 'science'...
Of course, also realize that, as 'the decider', you have to incorporate both the 'masculine trait of action' and the 'feminine trait of letting it be'--with 'knowledge' determining the difference as each situation arises (as verse 22 in the Gospel of Thomas--'...where the male will not be male nor the female female...)....
quote:
and by inverting roles, in the ritual inversion aspect of the ritual drama, we can wink to each other at our understanding that social roles are really voluntary constructions of this process, and that we agree with them.
That doesn't seem to get to the bottom of this issue of 'resolving binary thinking', ren. 'Volunteering for a role' doesn't 'resolve the discrepancies to the whole' that that 'role restricts to its role function'--in fact, as I've said, it does just the opposite, it endorses 'binary thinking'....
quote:
For me it's not about dissipating, it's about understanding, seeing, and acknowledging to discuss these ideas. I become more aware of my "freedom" in the process.
I agree. 'Awareness' (an important concept in esoteric religion) is always a 'freedom endorsing exercise'....
quote:
And why be concerned with the causality factor of self as the source of Western woes?
What I saw of your videos on 'Century of the Self' seemed to imply it.
Which brings to mind another esoteric concept--the 'little self' vs. the 'bigger self'. 'Little' being both petty and of only transient significance--'Big' implying the more profound 'roles' that 'SELF' can attain...and 'know' (or 'be aware of').....
Later....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
That doesn't seem to get to the bottom of this issue of 'resolving binary thinking', ren. 'Volunteering for a role' doesn't 'resolve the discrepancies to the whole' that that 'role restricts to its role function'--in fact, as I've said, it does just the opposite, it endorses 'binary thinking'....
I'm wondering what you are trying to get at when you refer to "the bottom of the issue of resolving binary thinking." Maybe it is an issue for you. As I said, indeed, yes, these types of rituals endorse it, acknowledge its logic as part of a social construct. I happen to see the social construct as a dynamic ongoing experiment, and while the roles have a logic about them that "we" as a whole create, it's not set in stone. We humans do social constructs, you might say, as life challenge problem solving strategies. As social beings we create and modify our rule sets as we go along. As societies get more complex we can notice a codification of rule set process coming in. Some would like to think of rule sets in fundamentalists terms, even as defined by an ultimate authority, some don't need to do that. Speculations about the why of that abound. It gets to be problem for me at least when the fundamentalists want everyone to agree with the way they want to see them codified and followed.
Binary thinking is what I perceive as a cognitive strategy. What more do you want to resolve about it? It takes on many forms. Our computers are binary thinking apparatuses. For me what I "see" about it in this horizontal way I've tried to express is enough, I can leave it at that and just do it. I also like to be aware I'm doing it, aware that I'm dicing up the whole and sculpting these cognitive forms for my own purposes, which include others' purposes, giving and taking of these forms as we tangle together in this life problem solving effort.
Ah, back to the Century of the Self, and the topic. The use of certain illusions of self which is then manipulated within the less attended meaning of a social matrix this socially and market created self is part of. Then there were all sorts of theories about what the dynamics of that manipulation entails.
My thoughts about the discussion we've just had, is that anyone who goes through the effort to try to understand "self" as you have is less likely to fall for the illusions. You are aware of the trickster element, so you at least know to look for it. I don't see that the self, in the way you articulate it, could fit that formula of "source of Western woes." So whether for the same process of coming to that or not, I agree with you.
In what I saw about the narrative they created with that series, concerning the evolution of those marketing dynamics, I felt they were trying to bring the self they were referring to as more a manufactured and false illusion of separation. Almost a sense of divide and conquer. And from that people were manipulated through what I have seen called commodification. Take for instance, like a bunch of hippies sitting around in tie died clothes, all listening to the same messages in the same rock music sold to them by the rock music industry, smoking pot, all thinking they are bravely and independently rebelling against the "system" while the system happily sells them all the parts.
I don't really have much more to say than any of that right now. What I see is I was trying to share what I was doing by stepping back and noticing horizontal and vertical thinking. We could have gone on with what we were doing and I'd have just done it anyway.
Getting back into a discussion of gender roles and functions, something I've actually taught, involves something of what we were doing in looking at the rational details of how this all works itself out, when I just basically hit this point where I wanted to notice what we were doing. It's the stepping back effect I guess I could call it.
What more do you want to resolve about it (binary thinking)?--ren
I'm somewhat confused about the theme of your position, ren. Is 'binary thinking' an asset--or a liability--when it comes to 'conceptualizing the whole'? Or, is there some 'concept' you are promoting in any way about this 'issue of the whole'? Is 'binary thinking's construct of dualism' a problem in this respect?
I've admitted that 'I'm' a dualist. And, I'm a dualist for the very reason that I don't see the 'coherence' that 'society portends'. In fact, much of what I see 'society' doing is hypocritical--some of minor importance like 'marketing tactics'--some of major concern like 'war propaganda'. Do I personally see 'dualism' as the 'be all end all' of 'truth in general'? No. But, once again, that's not an issue I see 'society' promoting, anyway....I do see 'society' (and those pundits of that persuasion) claiming it's the 'fault of centering on the self' as 'the problem with coherence' and, in that assessment, I see a glitch in its 'basis of fact'--if you don't see and think 'through the self', what do you see and think through?
quote:
In what I saw about the narrative they created with that series, concerning the evolution of those marketing dynamics, I felt they were trying to bring the self they were referring to as more a manufactured and false illusion of separation.--ren
'Awareness' is a 'freedom endorsing act'. If a social function is NOT promoting 'awareness', it WILL BE promoting some form of 'propaganda tactic'--and that WILL NOT BE promoting the 'awareness of self' that a government based on 'individual rights' should, in my opinion....but, blaming 'self' on this debacle is short-circuiting the solution to an 'unaware conclusion'--because, as I see it, only 'selves' can 'be aware'......
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
I'm somewhat confused about the theme of your position, ren. Is 'binary thinking' an asset--or a liability--when it comes to 'conceptualizing the whole'?
One feature I'm trying to call attention to is the either/or of the proposition there, because it has a framing effect. So I'd like to suspend any sense of an answer to the asset or liability question if I may.
Conceptualizing itself is the real issue I'm attempting to address. Binary thinking is the basis for a conceptualizing process, and it is especially beneficial as part of language. It can be a problem to describe and therefore communicate a "no-thing-ness" when the description process involves concepts, which are a form, or a "thingness" if you will, even if abstractly represented through a language.
"Whole" then becomes an abstract concept that includes thingness -- which can be imagined, enclosed or completed, as Sartre might have said -- and includes no-thing-ness, which I would include as infinity, interstitial space between thingnesses, those spaces where the trickster moves and plays, again, if you will, but essentially not-"thing"able, or not-"encapsulate"-able into a definable concept in language, which we use in "reflecting" our thought process, especially in the supraliminal mode. At best it's a "not-that."
If the whole includes what we cannot imagine into a form of thingness, like a concept, whole is not conceptualizeable as a completed thingness because it also infers no-thing-ness, so that sense of whole is incomplete, which is in our lexicon, an incomplete concept.
The confusion can arise, then, in the rational thinking process that has an urge to complete concepts into a kind of thingness. So a word like whole tends to have characteristics of boundary. Whole apple, whole pie, whole city, that sort of thingness.
But if there are no boundaries intended, and yet I say the word "whole" to point to that, what happens in my effort to communicate that intended incompleteness? What are the different possible ways that effort could come across, and how can I be sure in my efforts I am getting across the one I intend?
Can I share a flow of ideas going back and forth including a sense of "whole," like a whole apple, and then mix into that flow an intention of incompleteness with a word that suggests boundaries, i.e. "whole," and expect to get a sense of infinite and no thingness when I talk of something I can't describe using that term "whole"? A term that we do have a sense of boundary about? Can you see the "trickster" potential involved in that?
Is there a way to share a concept for something that has no conceptual features of that sort which has the restrictions of the basic rational steps of binary opposition involving concepts? I think yes, but it involves a sense of "communal" understanding of what's being shared, or maybe a lot of words and hopes that the recipient of this complex set of ideas is paying close attention, and is able to be more than just rational. I think other factors are involved, a willingness towards mutual agreement, empathy for what's being expressed, that sore of extension beyond our rational cognitive faculties. This, itself, is dangerous territory, trickster territory, guru territory, that sort of thing.
I would say we are all dualists, especially when using our rational cognitive processes. I welcome it, it's a wonderful tool. With that, I want to try to see how it happens that we can also create illusions, delusions, and fabricate a sense of reality that may seem real enough to us with this cognitive process, but by which we are "tricked" with the very use of this wonderful tool.
I value what you are saying about "thinking through the self," because I see myself doing that in many ways, and I would say seeing with the self, not through it, as you grammar-ized it. Maybe that's a difference, I'm not sure. It depends at this point what you actually are doing and are aware of as you do what you do in your own process. As I see it, we can only express the refinement of our own awareness to one another, not actually share it. That's therefore beyond me, there's that "palm at the end of the mind" I spoke of, or really Wallace Stevens, the poet did, I just borrowed the expression from his poetic imagination because it fit for me.
I personally do not feel comfortable rationally trying to figure out what the total of society is about through a focus on the individual. I can see the effects on my self, and focus on that, but the accumulation of all of that is some other order of thought for me. It's that "a whole is greater than the sum of the parts" kind of thing.
The Century of the Self that I "saw" while viewing it (others might see a different version of what it means to them than I saw) is about how some very clever people have been in a position to figure out how to shape and influence the whole of society to their benefit. It's a kind of irony in that the conceptual idea is about the individual self in society in doing that, but the actual process being overviewed is how this concept is used to direct the whole accumulation of selves, who seem to end up all acting within a very narrow frame of behavioral options, nearly all of which is beneficial, but the the subtlety of a kind of behavioral influence that makes that all move as a result of a set of conceptual patterns of a select few, who understand how to get people to respond en mass and are in a position with various technologies that can spread these influential ideas to actually get it to happen, is also present. What they "know" is like a kind of black magic that Freud theorized about, and it's something like throwing a bunch of herbs and ingredients into a pot to come up with a witches brew. It's not exact science, but the patterns have been shown to work, and they keep experimenting and refining the ingredients.
What's being discussed in the series is the effects of a numbers game, I see, and a system arises from the game to become what they are talking about, and we individuals adapt to a system without necessarily even needing to understand the whole of the system. As long as the grocery store has food when we go there, the gas station has gas for our big fancy convertible, then the desirably attractive woman in the marketed mode of the day for that style of attractiveness, sitting next to the guy on the seat of the big fancy convertible in the advertisement can make these suggestive moaning sounds about what a big car he has, and the cars sell and the guy feels like he's someone special driving that car.
That's what this thread's about, the Green Ball of 1934 and selling cigarettes to a collective group of individuals, in that case, women. Kate decided to use our little gerbil metaphor now, I see. "Gerbil" is not a partisan concept despite what our binary thinkers supposed when they saw it.
I thought Ronald Rutherford changed the heading to 'Gerbil Ball' as a fluke........
I don't have a lot to say about your discussion of 'whole' and 'parts', ren. I see the sense you are describing....
Let me just add that when I am emphasizing 'rational thought', I'm doing it because I believe it to be the only just method to control other people (by 'rational means')--which is why I emphasize 'open and up front' when it comes to any implication on another--especially against his or her will. I am not shunning the 'world of the irrational' in doing so--I am shunning the 'world of the irrational' being used to control another--especially against their will. I see it extremely important that any implication of action done by any 'authority' be done solely on 'rational ground'--because I see the 'process of rationality' being the only sensible means of control. In that manner, 'everyone' should see the point. If they don't, maybe it's 'not as rational' as others might think--and I am emphatic that the only way to manage autonomous beings is by 'rational means'--'open and up front'--even as I know that 'not all thoughts, or all actions, have a rational basis'.
quote:
I personally do not feel comfortable rationally trying to figure out what the total of society is about through a focus on the individual. I can see the effects on my self, and focus on that, but the accumulation of all of that is some other order of thought for me. It's that "a whole is greater than the sum of the parts" kind of thing.
I don't hold the 'total of society' as a working concept, ren. In fact, if you really think about it, the concept of 'society' is illusionary--and more in the realms of 'abstraction' right up there with 'God, immortality, and freedom'. It's nothing you can 'point to' and say 'That's it'....
You can 'point to' an individual and say 'That's one'. That's a 'basis in fact'. So, your problems with meshing 'whole' with the 'binary thinking of parts' is not the problem I see. I see the concept of 'whole' blurring the 'thinking of parts' in ascribing, in any way, an imposition on another based on the 'interests of the whole'--which I see as being 'irrational' (see above). What can the 'interests of the whole' be that 'usurps the interests of the part'--and how can it be 'implemented' if not through 'another part'? I don't see any sense in that.
'Individual' to me is as encompassing a 'concept' as 'whole' seems to be to you. Every 'one' is an 'individual'--that's the 'expansion of whole' I see. Do 'I', as an 'individual', even one of 'authority', have the right to implement any action on another against his or her will? Only if I profess it's 'rationality' in doing so....
As far as the 'tricksterism' involved in 'taking advantage of the unknown', that would be less likely if every implementation upon another carried with it the rationale for doing so at the time--to the one being 'implemented on' or any 'interested party thereto'. 'Open and up front'.
If you want to do 'irrational actions' on your own for yourself, I have no problem whatsoever with that being done in any peaceful manner or through any autonomous consent (even if they see it as 'irrational'). However, I do NOT think that should EVER be done against someone else's will. When that happens, only 'rational professions' lead to 'just implementations'. This is what I see as a primary emphasis of the 'democracy of individual rights' our founding fathers layed at our feet--that we have, especially recently, 'irrationally trampled on'....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Originally posted by Kerry: I thought Ronald Rutherford changed the heading to 'Gerbil Ball' as a fluke........
If I only had such power. Only the original topic starter can change that. So far we have had:
Green Ball of 1934
Gerbil Ball of 1934
Gerbil Ball of 1984
I am have expecting that the man behind the curtain will change the Ball to Wheel or Treadmill or some other indication of an exercise machine for man or animal...
This is a pattern that has even had to be addressed by Sue at least one time. Especially when the topic once was changed to "." ...
Carry on... Kerry you are doing excellent on making a cooperative dialogue, even Howard would approve (I believe). LOL
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Well said, Kerry, and I understand your position and see it much the same way myself, when I think of it that way.
I'm about ready to step back from this discussion for awhile.
I could open up something on authoritarianism with what you've said, but I'm not really up for that at the moment. I'd be interested, though, to see how your intricate system of understanding based on individual rights would work in some of the ways I think about authoritarianism. ....some day.
I'm could very likely be more with you than you are yourself on the notion of society being an illusion.
An interesting book on the topic, which uses an analysis of our own illusion of what we came to call primitive society as a kind of X-ray lens to see through ourselves as well:
Jesus gave us the straightest answer: 'Love your neighbor AS YOURSELF'......
I didn't say anything about that. I would say this much now: I have a sense of what I call mutual respect that works much the same way, and is determined by a sense of one's individuality that I would think correlates with what I hear from you about self -- a respect for oneself.
I have discovered that some people seem to actually love pain and self abuse, which can be problematic in the paradigm.
I am have expecting that the man behind the curtain will change the Ball to Wheel or Treadmill or some other indication of an exercise machine for man or animal...--RR
I thought someone was alluding to 'the gerbil' being a 'love object' in some male homosexual actions....
As a disclaimer, I don't mean that as an insult, or slur, to either male homosexuals--or gerbils.......
quote:
I'm about ready to step back from this discussion for awhile.--ren
We have probably beat this horse to death by now. Maybe others could chime in.
quote:
I could open up something on authoritarianism with what you've said, but I'm not really up for that at the moment. I'd be interested, though, to see how your intricate system of understanding based on individual rights would work in some of the ways I think about authoritarianism. ....some day.
Good enough--and I've liked the discussion. Also, I haven't forgotten about the 'Century of the Self' videos--I just haven't had a chance to check into the video store (I actually doubt the ones here have have it, and I'll probably be resigned to waiting until my son-in-law, the computer geek who got Sicko to work on my computer when I knew it wouldn't be coming to our area, to do it for me).
quote:
I'm could very likely be more with you than you are yourself on the notion of society being an illusion.
I bet so. We do have that in common...
quote:
An interesting book on the topic, which uses an analysis of our own illusion of what we came to call primitive society as a kind of X-ray lens to see through ourselves as well:
The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion
Yes, that's right up my alley, also. I'm thick into a college text (that I got from my wife's course she recently took at the local college) on Mexican history--which, in itself, is an interesting read (especially contrasting how Mexico 'developed' through a caste-system and much violence, with several decades having almost everyone of their 'presidents' assassinated, to the United States 'pioneering progression' of each 'family unit going West to lay a claim'...two different 'beginnings of society' with correlating 'different priorities of social function'...). But, when finished, I'll come back to this...
quote:
I have a sense of what I call mutual respect that works much the same way, and is determined by a sense of one's individuality that I would think correlates with what I hear from you about self -- a respect for oneself.
Hear, hear (or is it 'here, here'?). A 'society' full of 'respects for oneselves' would be nice...
I better go. Domestic issues calling...
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
is not available there, and they have most everything I've ever wanted that's out.
Amazon indicates it's been out on DVD, but is not available now. As noted in the above link it was put out by the same director who made The Power of Nightmares, another potent documentary, that one focusing on Neoconservatives and how their ideological focus has been used to influence policies, especially explanatory in the world of post 911, with the use of images of fear, and black and white good and evil in the world, that evant made possible.
Here are a couple of reviews from Amazon:
quote:
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful: Controlling the Masses; the Origins of Public Relations and Advertising, May 10, 2007 By Gadget Man (Chester, MD, USA) - See all my reviews
This series details the untold history of the origins of public relations and advertising in the 20th Century. It details how governments and companies have used the teachings of Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays on how to control and manipulate the masses through use of public relations, advertising and propaganda. The majority of the population are assumed to be irrational beings whose thoughts and desires needed to be controlled by the "rational" educated minority to benefit the social good, or in many cases certain groups within society. One gets the feeling from watching this film that there is a profound disdain on the part of the powers that be in both government and industry for the common man and a desire to utilize him primarily for their own ends. Unfortunately, the Western democracies are included in this group in addition to totalitarian states like Nazi Germany. The film states that Josef Goebbels was a great fan of Edward Bernays and owned several of his books. The series also describes how cigarettes were first marketed to women by appealing to challenging mail power. It also attempted to get people to want to buy things they didn't need. I was amazed by the content of this film and would recommend it to anyone interested in history and how organizations manipulate the masses to do what they want them to do. You won't be disappointed. This film is very hard to find. So I'd recommend you buy it here.
quote:
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful: Excellent program on homemade DVD, June 23, 2007 By J. Greenhow - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) I purchased this from Amazon. Watching this documentary followed by Curtis' other work, "The Power of Nightmares," was for me a bit like leaving the Matrix. It will will be difficult to view television or current events in the same way again. Now the bad news. The BBC has not yet released this program on DVD. Therefore any DVD you buy will be homemade (including this one). Also, this particular recording is missing the first minute or so of the first episode. Still, the documentary is profoundly informative and worth the price wherever it can be found.
Might be a good companion watch to reading Thom's new book:
Jesus gave us the straightest answer: 'Love your neighbor AS YOURSELF'......
I didn't say anything about that. I would say this much now: I have a sense of what I call mutual respect that works much the same way, and is determined by a sense of one's individuality that I would think correlates with what I hear from you about self -- a respect for oneself.--ren
Just as an addition to that concept, Jesus was asked 'Who's your neighbor?' in respect to 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. It appears RR should know this answer...
RR? (Hint: It's a famous parable...).
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Kerry, a P.S. from me too, and this is for anyone else interested, as well. I just discovered a site where you can download the Century of the Self documentary, all four parts, and watch it on Quicktime at your leisure. I don't know what other video players can play it, off hand.
The files are MPEG4. At the site below you will find a link to each part. When each link opens, the download window is the small one on the left below the "view thumbnails" window. The main window on each page will offer a chance to watch the movie on line, as well as a series of reviews below.
Kerry, thank you for the kind words. I honestly am not a theologian nor a practicing Christian (Backslider). But unlike others that reject prior lives, I embrace those aspects.
So to answer your question without a word salad to go with it let me present the following link: WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?
Any nihilist wants more, I am sure I can throw together some words for them...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Any nihilist wants more, I am sure I can throw together some words for them...
Now, really, Ronald, why would "any nihilist" want more from you? Or do you misunderstand the term? Perhaps you use it because it's, to you, merely attractive as panache? Otherwise utterly meaningless?
ren, I love that you have taken such an interest in little bitty-wittle me, but you should know by now I enjoy your wit and charming personality. If you want me to be around you don't have to act like this...
quote:
Now, really, Ronald, why would "any nihilist" want more from you? Or do you misunderstand the term? Perhaps you use it because it's, to you, merely attractive as panache? Otherwise utterly meaningless?
Not sure, maybe they will answer for themselves.
Nope.
Could be or that that it fits nicely into my interpretations of certain people.
Plenty of meaning to me, but to you maybe not.
So I only wonder what will it be, the easy way or the hard way?
panache: /rén
Strange, the removal of apparent violence...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
You know, RR, I went to your connection and read it through--as I read it, I said, "Yes, that's the essence of the story. Despite whatever social image and position you may have, you're neighbor is the one you show mercy to--and help. Anyone that you show mercy to and help." Then, it got to this:
quote:
Sometimes we get so involved in "religion" that we forget that we have an obligation toward others. The whole essence of religion, James tells us, is to show compassion on those hurting and keep morally pure (James 1:27). Who is my neighbor? Any person who is hurting. Any person in need. Anyone who needs the saving news of salvation. Jesus tells us that if we love and show compassion on only those who are our friends we really are not doing what God desires. "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?" (Matthew 5:46-47)
Do you know someone who is hurting in their soul? Try to help them with healing. Do you know someone who is hungry? Do what you can to feed them. Do you know someone who is outside of Christ and lost? Show them the saving message of salvation. Remember, every human being in need is our neighbor. Do you love your neighbor? (Matthew 19:19).
Sometimes we get so involved in "religion" that we forget that we have an obligation toward others. The whole essence of religion, James tells us, is to show compassion on those hurting and keep morally pure (James 1:27). Who is my neighbor? Any person who is hurting. Any person in need. Anyone who needs the saving news of salvation. Jesus tells us that if we love and show compassion on only those who are our friends we really are not doing what God desires. "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?" (Matthew 5:46-47)
Do you know someone who is hurting in their soul? Try to help them with healing. Do you know someone who is hungry? Do what you can to feed them. Do you know someone who is outside of Christ and lost? Show them the saving message of salvation. Remember, every human being in need is our neighbor. Do you love your neighbor? (Matthew 19:19).
And, I remembered why I don't like church. You've 'interpreted Jesus' word' for me--and judge that whatever why 'I' interpret it on my own is, in some way, 'less' than your 'lofty stand'. And, it is a 'stand'--propped up by your own sanctimony. But, just like Thomas Jefferson did in his misgivings of the 'Christian faith' representing the 'meaning of the words of Jesus', I think 'Jesus' words' are more profound than that....
Stephen Mitchell, in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus--For Believers and Unbelievers, pointed out that the more complete meaning of any parable is best understood if the one considering it considers it from every person's viewpoint that's in the parable. You aren't just 'the savior' in that parable--you're 'the sufferer'. And, the sanctimonious 'professions of the churchgoers' don't take that to heart because they always approach it as if 'they' are 'the saviors'--or whatever 'they' assert as 'the savior' is 'the savior' despite what any one else may think--even if they consider the 'words of Jesus' for themselves.....
Why is that, RR? If 'faith' doesn't meet 'reason' in 'salvation', what's 'salvation' for? So, why don't you just stop it as any mercy to any-one for any-body? That's the most reasonable position this parable offers...if there really is a 'unity', then 'savior' and 'sufferer' will be known by all....
You know, Jesus was asked why he associated with the 'riffraff' of the day--drunkards and gluttons and 'sinners'. The other two synoptic gospels had the 'churchgoer' answer of 'doctor to the sick' stuff--a 'lofty perch' upon which to 'condescend others' as far as I can tell. However, in Luke (who, interestingly enough, was supposed to have been a physician, himself), this issue is 'answered' quite differently (and its one of the very few--if not the only reference--to 'divine femininity' in the canonized Bible). It's Luke 7:33-35 (NIV version):
quote:
For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' But wisdom is proved right by all her children." (emphasis mine)
I dont' see any church really 'preaching' that....
Keep the faith...
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: ren, I love that you have taken such an interest in little bitty-wittle me, but you should know by now I enjoy your wit and charming personality. If you want me to be around you don't have to act like this...
quote:
Now, really, Ronald, why would "any nihilist" want more from you? Or do you misunderstand the term? Perhaps you use it because it's, to you, merely attractive as panache? Otherwise utterly meaningless?
Not sure, maybe they will answer for themselves.
Nope.
Could be or that that it fits nicely into my interpretations of certain people.
Plenty of meaning to me, but to you maybe not.
So I only wonder what will it be, the easy way or the hard way?
panache: /rén
Strange, the removal of apparent violence...
Ronald, what are you trying to say?
I'm wondering, is all, how it is now that two people on this board have begun to associate the word "nihilism" with me, and with you using it in reference to me. When it turned up in my conversation with Kerry, above, I thought it might be worth the trouble to see what this is all about for you.
Then, when meljomur made some reference to it the other day:
quote:
meljomur Posted 24 October 2007: Ron, you really need to find other words for nihilism, here is some help.
As always, Melissa, you are helpful. But none of the alternatives have the panache as Nihilism and they (from my view) do not carry the same totality of the concept as nihilism does.
While that indicated something about why the word attracts you, it tells me nothing about what it means to you, nor does anything else you've written here on this board, that I've seen, anyway. What I have noticed is all your efforts to associate me with the term, because they tend to show up after many of my posts, with other comments you've been so diligent to make while I've been ignoring you for most of a year now; I don't think there's a need to link all of those, I'm sure you are aware of them just given your above responses, both in that link and on this thread where you more or less tried to agree with what Kerry said, though he had to take the trouble to formulate it. I wonder if you notice that my response to him indicates that his formula doesn't apply to me, but that you agreed with his formula for nihilism?
So, all I'm wondering is, why you have gone through all this trouble to put the word nihilismm in association with so many of my posts as you follow me around the board making comments about me, mostly, not about what I say -- for example, "nihilist" being a personal label, not a description of the content -- and I'm really curious to know what the word actually means to you. Could you explain it without plagiarizing the Wiki or some other site? Perhaps actually take some examples of what I write and point out how what I say makes me a "nihilist"?
"the easy way or the hard way?"
Hmmmm. The easy way for me is to try to explain myself. I'm not sure what the hard way is. Maybe you can tell me...
Kerry, I am not sure if all the 'you's were directed toward me, but I clearly state I am not a theologian and would not be able to answer most of your questions.
quote:
I dont' see any church really 'preaching' that....
It depends on if you believe in "Churches", "Religion" and such. I think it might be better to say the body of Christ is the Church. But again 'What do I know?' ™
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I'm more than willing to explain how the form of the metaphor fits the form of its application whenever I use it. That's all I see any such thing as a label being -- matching forms. If they don't match, then they are inappropriate and should not be applied, and I'll be happy to be the first to drop one.
If you, for instance, come into my discussions, take scraps of my dialog and flee back to the trees and throw them at me like banana peels, I'm likely to come up with a metaphor for that. Especially if I can't get you to respectfully quit, and especially if the behavior turns out to be disruptive, rather than integrative, in my efforts to communicate, which in itself has a form to which common words can be applied. Nerds, for instance, can be very disruptive because they are insensitive to the unspoken context in a discussion. I'm sure you remember that from being in your various in-groups in high school and having nerds disrupt the cohesiveness of your group when it was talking in its in-group language. Labeling's merely a short hand form identifying behavior, but it can certainly be seen as a form of defamation of character, especially if the label suggests something untrue.
But I can always explain a label I might use instead of using one, it just takes a lot of time to do so, over and over and over, complete with illustrations.
The simplest of all things would be a respectful situation where that disruptive behavior wasn't enacted, complete with all the excuses for why it's one's given right to behave in that manner on an open discussion board, and that anyone not happy should simply ignore it.
I don't mind ignoring it, and I have. But when a number of people start associating me with labels that someone takes the trouble to repeat, over and over, and they begin to assume there's some truth to it, and then that gets tangled up in my discussions in complicated ways that are way too much trouble to unravel for you here, though I probably could, then I figure it's time to start sorting things out.
That's all I'm trying to do, sort things out. All clear and above board.
Kerry, I am not sure if all the 'you's were directed toward me, but I clearly state I am not a theologian and would not be able to answer most of your questions.--RR
I agree, RR. It's not 'you'--it's the source you use. Pardon the indiscretion on my part. Although, in my defense, I'll assume that you basically agree with any source you use as a response...I just shouldn't have said it was 'you', directly....
quote:
I think it might be better to say the body of Christ is the Church.--RR
Where's the 'spirit of Christ'?
quote:
So, all I'm wondering is, why you have gone through all this trouble to put the word nihilismm in association with so many of my posts..--ren
Well, if you want my input on this, I believe RR and I are emphasizing different connotations--or nuances--of the word 'nihilist' when it comes to your views (or the 'assumptions of your views') of 'whole'. I think that RR was emphasizing the 'viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded'--I was directing it more towards the '(self) existence is senseless and useless' part.
Just my two cents worth. RR can (and should) speak for himself--especially if he disagrees with my assessment of his 'nihilism' remarks.....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
For the record, I've never shared any position on:
quote:
the 'viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded'
I would really prefer it if such ways of framing ideas were not implied to be associated with me unless I do it myself, in my own way. I think it creates a lot of confused ideas about who someone might really be -- and unfortunately, people do bring their ideas about someone into a discussion of ideas, which can influence the objectivity factor in listening to what's being said. We have so little to go on about such personal matters, especially in this environment, that I can see no sense in making it more confusing.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I know people gerbils do not have long attention spans but the BO thread should have answered all questions but for those that forgot the answer is: No... Übermensch
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Honestly, Ronald Rutherford, I don't believe you have good information.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I know people gerbils do not have long attention spans but the BO thread should have answered all questions but for those that forgot the answer is: No... Übermensch
Sorry, Ronald, the Binary Opposition thread answered no such question.
I would really prefer it if such ways of framing ideas were not implied to be associated with me unless I do it myself, in my own way. I think it creates a lot of confused ideas about who someone might really be...--ren
Sorry, ren, chalk that up to me 'trying to solve the problem' in the clinician fashion that have. At times, it may be imposing and wrong. I admit that. But, when you seem to be 'searching for a response' and the one you are searching it from doesn't 'respond', I feel the need to introject 'my viewpoint' sometimes just to supply a statement 'to respond to'.
But, in the case of RR, to no avail, it appears. Sorry about that miscue.....
quote:
Was Jesus a Nihilist?--Kate
I think Jesus certainly did 'buck the system' for 'higher meaning and understanding'--and did it so constantly and without regard to immediate consequences to himself, it cost him his life ('virtue over life') at the hand of those who didn't want such 'revelations' to become a part of the 'public consciousness'--but, to one degree or another, it did, anyway.....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Sorry, Ronald, the Binary Opposition thread answered no such question.
I am not sure why this is so hard. With your abilities at liminality and subliminality as well as the ability of deciphering interstitial forms then I am not sure why you need to ask such questions. As you explored some concepts, I explored others as well as admire your explorations also. But again you seem to get lost in the data points of others and their line of thinking.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I would really prefer it if such ways of framing ideas were not implied to be associated with me unless I do it myself, in my own way. I think it creates a lot of confused ideas about who someone might really be...--ren
Sorry, ren, chalk that up to me 'trying to solve the problem' in the clinician fashion that have. At times, it may be imposing and wrong. I admit that. But, when you seem to be 'searching for a response' and the one you are searching it from doesn't 'respond', I feel the need to introject 'my viewpoint' sometimes just to supply a statement 'to respond to'.
But, in the case of RR, to no avail, it appears. Sorry about that miscue.....
I understand the gesture, Kerry, and the urge. I suspect its a normal human urge, not just a clinician's. I appreciate your acknowledgment. I was just letting you know my perspective on such matters in case you wanted to know and to take it into account for yourself as a matter of, shall we say, mutual respect.
Note that "the case of RR" has its own history, but what you may perceive as "a problem" is probably something else. A factor that may not be obvious to anyone but those who might pay close attention to others' posting behaviors, is, I don't seek RR out to have discussions about anything on this board or elsewhere, I generally don't even respond. I'm trying to be less blunt about the why of it these days, or I'd explain again, but it's somewhere in the recorded history still on this board. I've suggested to him he might want to try to develop some fresh relationships with some of the new posters that are coming on the board, and if you have some interest in helping him in with that "problem," well... perhaps your clinician's skills might find a place.
Sorry, Ronald, the Binary Opposition thread answered no such question.
I am not sure why this is so hard. With your abilities at liminality and subliminality as well as the ability of deciphering interstitial forms then I am not sure why you need to ask such questions. As you explored some concepts, I explored others as well as admire your explorations also. But again you seem to get lost in the data points of others and their line of thinking.
Indeed, Ronald, that's the pattern I've noticed over your two and something years on this board. I explore some "concepts" and you explore others, generally unrelated, and generally you don't indicate any sensible relationship. Kind of like walking into a museum and splashing paint on someone's art to see if any patterns might emerge. That's especially noticeable if you happen to be on the same thread with me when I have some reason to notice what you are posting, usually because of something you've addressed to some quote from one of my posts that's attracted your wandering attention span. Sometimes you even lace your posts with complaints that I don't pay attention to your wanderings.
I find this amusing, though, the "exploration" you may be referring to, where I believe you first became enamored with your feather helmeted word that we see so often now, nihilism, appears cobbled together from some late Nineteenth Century lines from Nietzshe regarding his Ubermensch and Last Man ideas. What I find amusing is that, a couple of days ago on another thread, I referenced the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey, the shutting down of HAL the computer while the audience hears his first programmed lines, the song Daisy, Daisy, slowly winding down as he his circuits shut off, and you responded that the movie had given you nightmares when you saw it as a six year old. Coincidently, I was reading Nietzshe's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where he introduced his "Last Man" concept you attempted to cobble into that Binary Opposition thread, about when that movie came out, and the lead score to the movie, a movie that so stimulated the subconscious fears of that six year old, with images of apes and of floating alone and lost in eternity, is from Richard Straus's tribute to Nietzshe: Also Sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30 (1896). HAL the computer, as I mentioned, had become an authoritarian nightmare, taking over the space craft, killing the other astronauts, so Dave had to shut it down. Interesting correlative themes in choosing that score for the movie I thought, speaking of authoritarian nightmares, and drawing "sustenance" from Neitzshe:
quote:
It's true that Hitler and his henchmen drew ideological sustenance from Nietzsche, from his one-time idol Wagner, and from their more soberly philosophical compatriots. It's true also that the seed of one element in Nazism can be traced in Nietzsche's radical rejection of the Christian ethos—of mercy and compassion, and the exaltation of the meek—in favor of a hard-edged, clear-eyed, ecstatically arrogant confrontation of the mysteries of the universe. But the pronouncements of his Zarathustra have something of the willful paradoxically of the socialist John Tanner in George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman, who declares he hates the poor so much that he wants to abolish them utterly.
Of course, a six year old would hardly have had much time to develop a full appreciation of history, nor would have read the metaphysical poetry of Nietzsche that was considered especially that work, a piece considered his bildungsroman, and by him, his most important, but it is ever fascinating to me how these subtexts have a way of weaving through themes in oddly coincidental ways.
Though this is probably not much related to the place this topic has come to, I just listened to an old George Carlin cd (well now--it was a album), and thought that the opening topic would be some good comic releif here. It's about the stuff aspect of being a gerbil on this 1984esque ball.
That was really what Carlin was/is mostly about--mocking the gerbil ball world Bernays created. The whole album is just that--mocking commercials and all. Its George Carlin, A Place For My Stuff.
All the way through listening to the album, I kept thinking of how the cd was some new stuff of ours, and I wondered how Much George Carlin had made in his life time mocking our consumer society by selling audio and books to us.
eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004
Note that "the case of RR" has its own history, but what you may perceive as "a problem" is probably something else. A factor that may not be obvious to anyone but those who might pay close attention to others' posting behaviors, is, I don't seek RR out to have discussions about anything on this board or elsewhere, I generally don't even respond. I'm trying to be less blunt about the why of it these days, or I'd explain again, but it's somewhere in the recorded history still on this board. I've suggested to him he might want to try to develop some fresh relationships with some of the new posters that are coming on the board, and if you have some interest in helping him in with that "problem," well... perhaps your clinician's skills might find a place.--ren
Well, I see from your post below this that you and RR have some contentions (if you will) that exceed my experience with either of you. For now, I'll leave it at that. It doesn't appear that it's 'me and RR' that this 'subtext' seems to revolve around--it's 'you and RR'. From the short time I've known either of you, I suspect that your type of probing, but debasing, 'introspection' prods in something of RR--whose appearance to me is, I guess, best described as a sort of 'comical introspection'. In my previous statement (of 'for those who think, life is a comedy, and, for those who feel, life is a tragedy'), you, ren, 'feel' your 'introspection'--RR 'thinks it'. Take that for what it's worth. Otherwise, I'll let both of you work that part out and I won't say much about your post below this except this part:
quote:
....but it is ever fascinating to me how these subtexts have a way of weaving through themes in oddly coincidental ways.
A 'Jungian synchronicity'?........
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
'for those who think, life is a comedy, and, for those who feel, life is a tragedy'
Ah yes, the ever present left fore brain with its categorization into duality tendencies.
I wonder if Jean de La Bruyère was a thinker or a feeler?
Perhaps this analysis gives a clue:
quote:
La Bruyère reminds the reader of Montaigne, but he aimed too much at sententiousness to attempt even the apparent continuity of the great essayist. (source)
Continuity is probably a feeling kind of effort.
Perhaps, after all, the trickster was laughing when Jean came up with it...
On the definition of "Gerbil" that goes with the thread title ...
I make a distinction between "Gerbil" and "Gerbil-lite" and the distinction is drawn based on whether the Gerbil is direct in Gerbil-speak, and acknowledges the presence of thought from non-Gerbils ("Gerbil-lite") and the Gerbil who is indirect and fails to acknowledge any speak beyond Gerbil speak ("Gerbil").
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
On the definition of "Gerbil" that goes with the thread title ...
I make a distinction between "Gerbil" and "Gerbil-lite" and the distinction is drawn based on whether the Gerbil is direct in Gerbil-speak, and acknowledges the presence of thought from non-Gerbils ("Gerbil-lite") and the Gerbil who is indirect and fails to acknowledge any speak beyond Gerbil speak ("Gerbil").
LOL
eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004
I think we all have a little 'trickster' element in us--and all of us should become aware of how 'tricksterism' works--but I believe the one profession that depends upon 'tricksterism' more than any other is lawyers.
Once several years ago, in a malpractice case against me, I was with the insurance company lawyer discussing the case (which was rather useless to discuss--because the lawyer was working at it for the terms of 'dollars and cents' and I thought I was working from it in the angle of 'what really happens') and I noticed on the wall that this particular lawyer had graduated from Baylor. Sizing him up that he was 'of the faith', I asked him if he wanted to read some verses from the New Testament with me. He readily said, 'Why, of course'--and he got out his Bible. I cited two verses in Luke, chapter 11, verses 46 and 52, which I think represent Jesus' condemnation on how lawyers use 'tricksterism' to their advantage (NIV versions below, respectively):
quote:
Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.--verse 46
"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."--verse 52
The insurance company settled the case out of court--but, for this little bit, the lawyer did not know what to say--and added, 'That's interesting, I'll have to study it....'
I loved it!..........sort of a 'trickster to the tricksters', but, sometimes, that's all you have.....
Posts: 841 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 May 2007
Originally posted by Kerry: I think we all have a little 'trickster' element in us--and all of us should become aware of how 'tricksterism' works--but I believe the one profession that depends upon 'tricksterism' more than any other is lawyers.
I'd say yes, of course we do, the trickster is a basic abstractness related to form/not-form and we all have it as part of our cognitive makeup, whether we want to use it or not. If it wasn't in us it wouldn't effect us.
Well, just look at what law is about. It's essentially about the attempt to take what we recognize intuitively, feel, or otherwise see as the a form of "truth" of how to treat our fellow human beings, and turning it into a code, with then the corresponding problem of interpretation, back and forth. Where better than in that transference of meanings for the trickster to ply his transformative wiles?
Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard on the question, why study law?:
quote:
Law is so multifaceted. It's almost like saying, "What does it take to be a college graduate?" Law is an advanced degree in thinking, and the practice of law can mean so many different things. There are lawyers who are transactional lawyers, they put deals together, they're energetic, they're creative, that's how they use what they've got. There are lawyers who are trial lawyers, they're argumentative and aggressive and quick, and that's how they use their talents and energies. There are lawyers who are detail oriented -- watch every last comma, every last period, and see how something fits into this slot and not that slot. There are lawyers who are just good counselors to other people. They understand law but they have that human part that lets them talk. There are lawyers who see the big policy and they want to think about how the laws should be changed or how rules should be changed, and law's the tool that lets them look in those directions. So, there's not only not one answer to that, I don't even think there are ten. Law is for people who want to make changes, at little, tiny levels or great big levels, and they're willing to use words and ideas to make those things happen.
Originally posted by --Kate: On the definition of "Gerbil" that goes with the thread title ...
I make a distinction between "Gerbil" and "Gerbil-lite" and the distinction is drawn based on whether the Gerbil is direct in Gerbil-speak, and acknowledges the presence of thought from non-Gerbils ("Gerbil-lite") and the Gerbil who is indirect and fails to acknowledge any speak beyond Gerbil speak ("Gerbil").
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
Heinz Insu Fenkl: This morning when I was thinking about good examples of transgression, Terri pointed out that I should look at my own experience. I realized, that instead of looking for examples of transgression in Korean folk tales which I specialize in, I could talk about my own life, which by definition was transgressive.
....
