That's a great film, thanks, Chris, but I think the analogy works better at a larger scale. I see the forum more as a bazaar for ideas and a place for meeting people rather than a ship, but Earth is a ship.
Who do you see as the captain - the George Bush admministration or a more global group?
How do you think the cabin boy could have got his message across better?
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
How clumsy of me. I meant to indict you, along with Hartmann’s Democratic handlers. Go play someone else. I am sure that when the corrupted assholes take over, Hartmann and you will be the head of the trumpet section.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
Watched part of the video. My son once had a play ship just like the one used in it. Now, he's old enough to think me a fool, unless he's remembering why he actually likes me. lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
The trouble with all you disingenuous white folks is that you are all confused about your own snobbishness as you trip over each other to claim membership in the pack. Unlike Hartmann and his band of giddy disciples, no one owns me.
Posts: 1110 | Location: Mountains | Registered: 28 November 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
... Hehehe, just cruisin' down some of the old back alleyways, as I came across this vitriolic little gem. It brought back a flood of memories of my very own first encounter with Chris' caustic -yet highly articulate- pen, even before I had become a fully registered member...
... I myself -like most other first time posters- spent more than a few hours 'lurking,' as it has come to be known, before eventually building up enough courage and chutzpah to brave the challenge of posting, and daring to go toe to toe with such a variety of highly intelligent, and very sharp minds...
... What you dread beyond any possible outcome, is to be greeted with your very first post with the flaming sarcasm of one not only as talented in the craft (of sarcasm :-) as is/was our own Mr. Chris de Getman, but one whose posts you have already come to admire in the short time you have already come to know these boards...
... That's how I was introduced to Thom's website, and I must say it was quite a shocking introduction simply because Chris' perspective was one that I had initially found so compelling...
... Part of me wanted to quietly slink away, and another part of me just simply wanted to dismiss him -and the ship he rode in on- outright, but another part of me still liked what it was that that he had to say, despite the poorly developed social skills he seemed to employ in saying it... ... One could imagine the phrase 'a love/hate relationship'...
... Not long ago, I had the opportunity to transfer to a new jobsite, and began to hear stories almost immediately about a soon to be coworker, who was very well known as a flaming die hard democrat, and one that I was surely going to get along swimingly with, due to ,my own well known political proclivities. I was very much looking forward to the long hours of discussion that we were certainly destined to share, but found myself bitterly disappointed with the venom and hatred towards all things republican and all things conservative, that spewed forth from the mouth of this bitter, angry man... ... The very few conversation that we did have, (before I was given the opportunity to transfer yet again ) were of me trying to suggest to him that his perspective was no more valid than his supposed protagonists simply because it was primarily based upon -and filled with- so much loath and hatred...
... It mattered little -I tried to share- what wisdom came out of that 'beautiful mind' of his, if it was all being processed through a most atrophied heart, indeed... I must say though, that I did tire of this particular individual rather quickly, and we soon became nothing more than two coworkers passing in the hallway...
... I cannot say that I have quite given up on Chris though, and can only guess that I am still intrigued by his own beautiful mind 'even more' than I am taken aback by his own hardened heart...
... Now then, being a longtime proponent of a certain healthy merging of a certain healthy 'head,' with a certain healthy 'heart' -I do however, recognize a certain existential 'imbalance' when I see one...
... And a beautiful mind cannot long stand alone without the equally beautiful heart to match... 'Tis the nature of the spiritual quest, or journey...
... Merry Christmas to all!...
... And 'here's to' the softening of hardened hearts the world over, for 2007, and beyond...
________________________ "... He who is swimming against the stream comes to the Source..." -Gottfried Muller
Posts: 901 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 17 June 2003
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
I remember meeting Chris, too, btw, er engaging with him. It was on the subject of scientology.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I hope that in this time you've been away from the drama of this Board you are processing more art. Among any efforts in that endeavor, conscious or otherwise, I hope that the "book" on the binary oppositions of left and right continues to evolve -- at least in your mind, if not in your own words somewhere.
Oh, and I saw the '60s vintage movie, Ship of Fools a couple of days ago. A very young George Segal, some other fine acting personnas from that period, Simone Signoret was rich and compelling in her role as the middle aged Contessa headed for imprisonment in pre WWII Germany as Hitler takes power, having one last affair with the ship's German physician, a man with a real and metaphorically damaged heart. Well, the ship makes it to Germany, and we all know what happened after that. And the world to be united under Hitler has become a global society after all. Hmmm, as Kate might say.
... Scientology heh? Hmmm, I probably learned more about scientology from my short time on these boards than I ever learned in all the years prior. At the very least, the interest was generated, and the links were often provided -and sometimes followed- as my own curiosity beckoned... I don't recall Chris' take on the subject though, but if he was leading the discussion, I'm sure that it wasn't dull, and I'm also sure that it was uniquely informative... (hehehe, and probably a little caustic as well :-) I would also venture to guess that you yourself played at least a small part as a moderating influence in any such exchange...
... Ren-naisance Man, and fellow 'Norwesterner! Greetings and good cheer yourself!...
... Thank you for your salutations, and/or benedictions, and 'yes' I do continue to 'process' all the contemporary machinations that seem to play themselves out for all the world to see, feel, and experience...
... As for the 'drama' -it is no more dramatic here, than the drama that gets played out in (most of) our own respective families, during these hectic holiday times, which we all have come to know as the year-end Solstice... ... Although the folks on these boards can be a bit trying at times, they are still far more stimulating in conversation, and far more deeply engaged -in both real and imagined problems- than my own immediate biological lineage affords me -at 'any' time of the year...
... I may -like many others in this cyber community- go away from time to time, but it's always good to be welcomed back to the analogous fold during these holiday celebrations, with a hearty salute, a virtual mug of warm cider, and the promise of good company, and good conversation, that is at times so very hard to come by in our brick and mortar world, for all but a fortunate few...
quote:
Ren: Hmmm, as Kate might say.
... Yes indeed, there are more than enough 'Hmmms' to go around in this perplexing and parodoxical world of ours... And maybe it is my own labeling of these various anomalies as 'parodox' that 'parodoxically' keeps me from ever getting 'too' angry over these issues in the first place, where they might stand a chance of becoming 'transformed,' if only enough energy -anger or otherwise- can be directed accordingly... Parodoxical, no?...
... Maybe that's why I'm so enamored with Chris in the first place -and I've even suggested it to himself on more than one occasion previously. There is a large part of me that wonders almost daily if i just may not be angry enough, and therefore cannot dismiss Chris' caustic style outright, because it may just be the one thing missing from my own thrust into the cultural conflict that a 'book by Lawrence' would demand...
... Chris also seems to be engaging in a certain practice that the 'Integral Philosopher' Ken Wilber has been chided (by some) for engaging in -and even popularizing himself- which is the the severe and repeated chastizment of the liberal, progressive, mean green meme, democratic, baby-boomers...
... Ken Wilber's obsevations seem to have come to the conclusion that the only way forward, to the next level of human evolution, is through the path of the most highly evolved of the planets citizens -which is that of -to greatly simplify things- the 'liberal'...
... Ken Wilber believes that our cultural metaphor has come to a certain 'bottleneck' and will not 'break through' unless and until those damn liberals own up to their own cultural superiority to the masses around them, and claim their birthright which is to guide the rest of us dumbasses into the glorious and magnificent future (hehehe, 'look' I can be sarcastic too )... Ken also suggests that the reason this bottleneck continues is due to the liberals almost innate revulsion to all things 'hierarchical'. And if you have a certain distaste for all things hierarchical, Then it stands to reason that placing onesself at the very top of any hierarchy would be quite distasteful indeed!...
... Naturally, one or two contrarians have wondered on more than one or two occasion if humiliating our planetary saviors is not the best method to go about encouraging them to take up this so called mantle...
... Is this a fairly close approximation to what Ken Wilber is saying? If it is, it is only a very small portion of all that he writes and speaks of. But a very significant portion none the less. Is our friend Chris engaged in a similar exercise as Ken Wilber, and if so, am I gently disagreeing with Chris because I am not too sure about this particular methodology of Ken Wilbers? I don't know, but it sure promises to be an interesting time while I'm home here for the holidays!...
________________________ "... He who is swimming against the stream comes to the Source..." -Gottfried Muller
Posts: 901 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 17 June 2003
One theory has it that we are of multi faceted temperaments by virtue of nature's challenge that organisms find a survival of the fit. That is, those who survive manage to find a way to fit, fit the complexity of the biosphere we never really understand in any way that makes us the caretakers. For one thing, it's always changing as a factor of an ongoing systemic process, so theoretically speaking, that presents us with quite a challenge. You add to that these fixated ideas our obsessive compulsives latch onto, like bringing democracy to the Middle East, and the like, and it's very likely that we need a mix of mind types to wrench our groups out of deadly behavior fixations.
So, since humans appear to be natural group makers, very likely as a survival strategy, we need to perhaps celebrate our internal group diverstity, for that may be one of the most important keys to our adaptive ability to find a fit. Of course, it may not be, I'm all for recognizing the limits to what I can know.
I'm not sure about this idea that one group is destined to lead us anywhere. I am sure I don't like the idea. But then, that's my temperament speaking, another degree of contrarian in the gene pool, I suppose. After all, I've suspected for some time I was born riding my horse backwards.
So, you've not been home much lately? Are you suggesting you look to the Boards for some, shall we say, entertainment over the holidays? I'll keep an eye out for your posts, if so. I've not been finding much to engage here in cyberspace recently. But I can take a break from my other engagements if something interesting comes along. I'm at least that flexible.
One theory has it that we are of multi faceted temperaments by virtue of nature's challenge that organisms find a survival of the fit.
… By ‘virtue of natures challenge’ or natures binary gift of ‘push and pull?’…
quote:
That is, those who survive manage to find a way to fit,
… Yes, however to use Abraham Maslows early ‘Hierarchy of Being’ pyramid -at the very least- those folks who are perceiving reality from that very primal ‘survival’ mentality do indeed seem to make things more than a little annoying when they try to paint social constructs with such a broad brush stroke, that does not much seem to consider ‘multi-faceted temperments’ that is yours, mine, Chris’ and anyone else who finds themselves incapable of divining life through such one-dimensional lenses…
quote:
to fit the complexity of the biosphere we never really understand in any way that makes us the caretakers.
… Oh, I think we understand plenty. Certainly enough to know better than to piss in our own drinking water, defecate in our own living rooms, rape the very land we depend upon, and exploit our own friends, neighbors, and relatives, all in the guise of our ‘fitting to survive’… We know better, but it is still a very strong and powerful cultural narrative that we have to push very hard against in order to finally make any headway…
quote:
For one thing, it's always changing as a factor of an ongoing systemic process, so theoretically speaking, that presents us with quite a challenge.
… Hehehe, and the more things change –the more they remain the same…
quote:
You add to that these fixated ideas our obsessive compulsives latch onto, like bringing democracy to the Middle East, and the like,
… and us bleeding hearts insisting that we all just get along…
quote:
and it's very likely that we need a mix of mind types to wrench our groups out of deadly behavior fixations.
… Sure… And whether we use the simplified model of the well known Enneagram with its own unique mix of mind types, starting with the ‘The Reformer, The Helper, The Achiever, The Individualist, The Investigator, The Loyalist, The Enthusiast, The Challenger, and finally The Peacemaker’ –which amongst this fine mix of minds would tout anger and venom as their preferred method as a teaching tool?… That’s all I’m pondering… That, and the still perplexing paradox that compels me to consider if my own ‘judging of judgment’ is no less a violation of the continuing ‘separation of us and them?’… I would not wish to deny Chris –or the millions like us- our unique personalities, and the many gifts that we bring to life for all to experience. I just question -hopefully, with at least a small sense of detachment- whether or not there is a real need to belittle your fellow man (or woman) in this experiential process we call life…
quote:
So, since humans appear to be natural group makers, very likely as a survival strategy, we need to perhaps celebrate our internal group diverstity,
… hehehe, no need to spell this out to a green meme…
quote:
for that may be one of the most important keys to our adaptive ability to find a fit.
… I couldn’t agree more… However, there are many times in the course of my own personal interactions with others, that some of the first things that ‘pop’ into my head are really rather quite cheesy, tacky, stupid, or just plain malicious. If it were not for my own personal inclination to first ‘edit’ these seemingly spontaneous ‘free associations’ of the very first thoughts that popped into my own creative head, well, not only would many people I encountered be left in anger, hurt and confusion, but I would also be taken far less seriously than I would ever hope to be, if a certain ‘exchange of ideas’ just happened to be one of the many goals I would hope to aspire to…
quote:
Of course, it may not be, I'm all for recognizing the limits to what I can know.
… One of the few ‘limits’ that seems to crop up in our collective exchanges over and over again, is the seeming limitation we place upon ourselves and our fellow inhabitants, with our obvious inability –or unwillingness- to see our fellow creatures as ‘one another’ or ‘a part,’ rather than the way we currently see, or perceive, as ‘other’ and ‘apart’… Maybe this is where that ‘fake it ‘til you make it’ comes into play –at least with my own beliefs or perceptions. It seems to me that if we just simply started to avoid all those really bad habits of ours that continues to perpetuate such divisions –like anger and hatred, for example- it might not solve all of lives current problems and difficulties, but it sure seems like it would go a hell of a long way towards ‘easing the transition’ when we finally do start to gingerly move forward in that eventual, and inevitable direction…
quote:
I'm not sure about this idea that one group is destined to lead us anywhere. I am sure I don't like the idea. But then, that's my temperament speaking, another degree of contrarian in the gene pool, I suppose.
… Well, that’s that damn hierarchy thing now isn’t it?…
quote:
After all, I've suspected for some time I was born riding my horse backwards
… That definitely seems like a sure fired way of ‘swimming against the stream, to get to the Source!’…
quote:
So, you've not been home much lately? Are you suggesting you look to the Boards for some, shall we say, entertainment over the holidays?
… Entertainment?… No, it’s more than entertainment… More like ‘inspiration’… Unlike many of the fine minds around here, I am not one who believes that the world would be a rather dull place without the contrarian voices of the conservative mainstream to ‘balance’ our experiential equation we call life… If the conservative mindset could only recognize my own creative perspective as an equally valid and important ‘half,’ or portion of their own equally valid perceptions, than it would be quite difficult indeed to rally against such a magnificent polarity… However, as you well know, the current status quo –which is best personified by the conservative, conventional, subject/object duality- is not about polarities at all, but is much more about opposites… And as the current crop of conservative contrarians –who came to power in ’94- has shown us, there is ‘nothing’ of the ‘loyal opposition’ that conservative ideologues find ‘equal,’ or worthy of compromising to, with regards to their own myopic, one-dimensional version of reality… Likewise, how can I embrace a certain ‘half’ of a worldview that refuses itself, to embrace the worldview of –metaphorically speaking- the ‘other’ half of the planets integrity?…
… I am all for unifying polarities. But there can be no unifying when one aspect of the pole, only believes in the annihilation of the other… Therefore, I myself do not find much comfort, equanimity, or even ‘entertainment’ in this forum which is Thom’s, when seemingly ‘half’ of the posters are spewing conservative, conventional rants, that give off the illusion that these derisive diatribes are the all important Yin, and the missing link, of an all important Yang, that only needs its ‘other half’ to make it complete… It is not too difficult to see how this could easily be confused, as some sort of pseudo-redress of a certain real imbalance. However, it is also not too difficult to see it for what it truly is, as well…
… One of the reasons I spend less time @ Thom’s is that I find that I have grown tired of all the conventional wisdom that this place seems to attract. I see conventional wisdom every single day in the mainstream media, and don’t need to go elsewhere to seek out even more. I have a pretty good idea of just what all the conservative mantras are, and find no solace or wisdom, and certainly no hope for the future in their subject/object duality. I actually ‘do’ seek out various voices and perspectives that really do seem to be more closely matched with my own, and find as rich a variety in this realm as any other. We may have similar beliefs and perceptions, but with each and every human being a wholly unique mass of ideas all unto themselves –no two ‘can’ ever be the same- even if we tried… Anyway, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!… It is always good to hear from you, btw! (and many of these other fascinating 'unconventional' minds as well)…
quote:
I'll keep an eye out for your posts, if so. I've not been finding much to engage here in cyberspace recently.
… See, that’s what I’m talkin’ about!…
quote:
But I can take a break from my other engagements if something interesting comes along. I'm at least that flexible.
… Well, ‘interesting’ is a relative term…
________________________ "... He who is swimming against the stream comes to the Source..." -Gottfried Muller
Posts: 901 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 17 June 2003
You've raised some issues that invoke a complex set of images for me, they are all intertwined in a way that does not lend itself to a linear unraveling, but I'll do my best, since that's all I have to work with here in this word venue.
Howard and I just had an extensive discussion about the limits to our ability to "know" (and I can only defer any questions about what "know" means to several thousand years worth of philosophical discussion with recorded roots back to Buddha and the Greeks, among others). Of course, to be clear, that was my notion of what we were discussing, I'll let Howard explain his, in his own way, if ever he should be asked about it. The discussion began here where I intruded in a discussion he was having with Don (Sawdust).
Anyway, that's a part of this "whole" that is in my mind after reading through your comments, and I see no point in reiterating it here. So if you are interested you can review some of my comments there. I was investigating what Howard might mean by his often stated challenge to pay attention to "what is" in life, and especially in dialog. One of the key phrases is Alfred Korzbski's famous principle: "The map is not the territory." We developed in that conversation some agreed upon "maps" of what maps are. Essentially all this that we share with one another with language is mapping. All the concepts, all the ideas, everything is a reinterpretation of something more basic, some sense of what lies beyond the "Palm at the end of the mind" as Wallace Stevens put it in his poem Of Mere Being, and what we translate that into through our own sensory perceptions, which are themselves not the territory external to us but only a sensory impression which we must translate in some way.
Let me clarify what I meant in reference to nature's challenge. The "binary gift of 'push and pull?'..." is only one aspect of it, to me. And note that you set up a binary opposition that I did not intend, thus framing it as such for yourself. You may if you wish, but I'm not buying into it. I just recognize that it is a part of a dialogue possibility, such as the Socratic dialectic technique, or the black and white thinking that's passed off for politics on Hate Radio or some such.
Notice too that Maslov's hierarchical "pyramid" is a thought construct (a "map") of its own derived out of a cultural conditioning of thought, and that it may have a peculiar "male" context in Western thought to its conditioning for Maslov. As you said in your last statement about "interesting," Maslov's idealization of hierarchy itself is relative. That's where the notion of context comes into our historical analytical paradigm of the limits to "knowledge." Some of us have come face to face with the problem of notions of "absolute." And with this comes the recognition of the fallacies of binary oppositions as a feature of human thought, and how it leads to a debate of right/wrong and other issues that become problematic in a relativistic context.
After Maslov and his hierachy of needs comes a very enlightening period of feminist intrusion into the sacred male bastions of knowledge. Among those new "challengers" was Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice. She brought insights that broke down the rigidity of the need hierarchy -- and potentially all hierarchy of that nature. In the process she opens up the amazing plasticity and creative potential of the human mind to the analytical process. Once again, relativity becomes a challenging issue that the "traditional" forces find not just uncomfortable, but downright terrifying. Thus we have this now long and violating effort to put the Pandora of creativity that began to escape, back into the harsh and dogmatic return to the basic teachings of the constraining box of the three R's, all of which have to meet a National Standard to which all teachers must now conform.
Interestingly the challenge itself came as a kind of binary opposition -- Male/Female, but once it had made it's mark, and the facade of this difference began to get more attention, the "feminist" argument begins to melt away as these differences diverge into the variations of temperament that have no necessary bearing on sex differences, but rather on cognitive development differences that can occur no matter the sex of the individual.
Related to that is the ancient Enneagram concept, brought back to popularity by Gurdjieff with his Fourth Way teaching tradition. Just looking at the Enneagram, it's extremely difficult to set up a binary opposition view of society of a complex of individuals with the temperament features it represents:
By "simplified" version of the Enneagram, are you also referring to the psychology "parlor" version of Jungian typology where you have essentially sixteen personality types derived from a core of eight elements (I,E,N,S,F,T,P,J)?
Rather than focus on any one of them, and find the obvious rich potential for criticism in the details, I suggest just noticing that they each recognize something we seem to all agree upon, at least intuitively, and that's the rich diversity of possible personality types each person presents, and that we do recognize something along the line of "types" when we start to pay attention.
By Nature's gift, what I mean is to look at this mixture itself as one of the gifts, however one might want to argue that these differences of type emerge in the individual -- and there's the animated binary opposition of nature/nurture that raises it's black and white head here to further confuse, or make interesting (depending on your temperament proclivity, perhaps), the matter.
So, that's not so much an effort to explain, but to point to the problems of complexity, and to suggest a move towards a mental process that recognizes complexity, as well as our own urge to simplify complexity into something conceptual and manageably so. I think that process itself is important to realize about the "what is" that's going on in our discussions. First we see that we are understandably trying to make a mysterious set of sensory experiences comprehendable and manageable. In the process we undo the reality of our experience, reshape it perhaps, and make what we conclude it to be a questionable truth. And from there we go about blowing up the "evil" Middle East, because we are "good" and righteous, and so forth and so on.
The symmetry, or maybe uniformity, about kaleidoscopes, and personality profies, sort of bugs me.
When I select visuals for digital music, I usually select "random" visuals. Even then, there's a certain sameness about the pairing of two light leaders to create the images.
So, too, with the average kaleidoscope. Just now, I did find an image that suggests random placement of light particles, and I'm wondering if the randomness, itself, is an optical illusion.
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
You've raised some issues that invoke a complex set of images for me, they are all intertwined in a way that does not lend itself to a linear unraveling, but I'll do my best, since that's all I have to work with here in this word venue.
Howard and I just had an extensive discussion about the limits to our ability to "know" (and I can only defer any questions about what "know" means to several thousand years worth of philosophical discussion with recorded roots back to Buddha and the Greeks, among others). Of course, to be clear, that was my notion of what we were discussing, I'll let Howard explain his, in his own way, if ever he should be asked about it. The discussion began here where I intruded in a discussion he was having with Don (Sawdust).
Anyway, that's a part of this "whole" that is in my mind after reading through your comments, and I see no point in reiterating it here.. So if you are interested you can review some of my comments there.
... Yes, after spending several days reviewing those dialogues, I can see where it would be rather cumbersome in reiterating those words yet again… I can sympathize in your efforts with Howard. I’ve had similar go-arounds myself on a few occasions with Howard as well… … Just like I do with Chris, I recognize a kindred spirit with the thoughts and ideas that flow from Howards heart and mind (I’ll downplay the ‘heart and mind’ analogy so you will not feel as though I am trying to coerce you into a certain ‘duality’ that you are not inclined to ‘buy into’… ) However, just as it is –to me- ‘as obvious as the nose on our face’ from whence Howards ‘unbiased’ political, social, or objective proclivities tends to lean towards, it is equally just as obvious to those Howard would profess to educate as well –it seems to me… ) … When Howard says things like;
“that the way people 'think/interpret' is what is leading humans to destroy the ecosystem,” I know he’s referring to conservatives, and not a bunch of liberal environmentalists. Or, when he says things like;
“When you have a culture that evaluates everything in 'economic' terms,” I know he’s not talking about liberal democrats. Or, when he says things like;
“if some sort of crash occurs in the upcoming years with Global Warming, Peak Oil, or the Economy, one thing should be clear. And that's that insufficient 'attention' was paid to reality,” that the ‘insufficient attention to reality’ that Howard is referring to, is a very obvious indictment of the conservative mindset. And when Howard makes comments like;
“the difficulty is getting people who are infatuated with the ping pong game to see the stupity of defending a confused belief in the face of contrary evidence,” I know exactly who he is referring to –and so do the supposedly stupid people he is referring to. So, naturally, when I’ve seen Howard on more than a few occasions refer to this exercise of his in this manner;
“I've suggested several times that cooperative dialogue, which is the approach I always use, isn't about 'convincing' others of one's opinions,” –as ‘cooperative dialogue, well, it just makes me chuckle…
I am engaged in a dualistic ping pong game of black and white, but Howard is engaged in cooperative dialogue when he says things like;
“most humans don't want to be stupid,” which is simultaneously suggesting that they/we are in fact stupid…
… Anyway, enough about Howard. I know what side of the bread he spreads his dialectical butter upon –as do his non-cooperative protagonists- he spreads it on the same side I do, even though he would prefer to see otherwise… A friend recently described a similar phenomenon as a certain “intolerance towards intolerance which –naturally- makes one intolerant… … She finished the thought by musing; “Who hasn’t burned a few tires in that ditch?”
… And here is yet another statement of Howards many, many statements that I whole-heartedly agree with;
“I agree, we know so very little. But it's not that difficult to observe how our thinking affects our behavior.”
-which is one of the primary reasons why I pay so much attention to ‘dualistic ping pong games’ of linear linguistics… How and Why our thinking –and perceptions- affect our collective behavior…
… Your interesting essay leaves many avenues of exploration, but this latest response of mine was taking far too long to emerge, and was only promising to grow even longer if I didn’t hurry up and say ‘something’ before the new year began… :-)
________________________ "... He who is swimming against the stream comes to the Source..." -Gottfried Muller
Posts: 901 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 17 June 2003
Wish you the best for the New Year, I guess that's worth doing, noting that we do have an annual cycle we can observe, this being only about ten days from the winter solstice, in conjunction with this event we call the New Year.
Well, I didn't intend to call attention to Howard so much as my own efforts to describe the limits to what we know, how we decide what it is we know, and all the limitations that implies.
The ping pong game is just one of the repetitive cycles we can watch ourselves doing. Does the game of whacking opinions back and forth affect our "collective" behavior? And what would that mean, anyhow, "affect our "collective" behavior/" How could an individual with the phenomenological limitations of "mapping not being the territory" know? What is the nature of that so called "knowledge"? Why do you pay attention? -- and I ask that in the context of an imagined relationship of the notion we call "knowledge" to those kinds of exploratory grammatical revisions of dogmatic assertions.
Essentially I'm adopting an attitude of what I would call skepticism. When Howard asks his dialog partners to pay attention to "what is," I immediately ask myself what "what is" is to Howard, and I ask what "what "what is" is" is to me. And I think you can see how that sort of thing can go on imbedding itself. So having had to pull the plug on the old Windows 98 program a number of times because it gets itself into these binary calculation loops, I also ask how this logical exploration that Howard tends to propose can be solved without appealing to its own self referencing feedback loops. So far Howard hasn't been much help for me on that one either.
That's one of the problems I'm interested in. It implies to me an exploration into the place of what we call "thinking" in our own being. Which of course involves questions of what thinking could possibly be, how we think, what we do in the process, and so on. Is there an essential difference, for instance, between a thinking process that demands an conclusion, which satisfies the sense of "answer" and a process that is able to be with a sense of openendedness? For instance, a rhetorical question is often one that is asked with a specific, already determined answer as a goal. Very useful in a programmed population, perhaps (and a nod here to the new "Cracking the Code" forum). The issue of closed or open endedness in logical pursuit is just one question that can lead to a kind of logical probing. People that want closed endedness may not make good theoretical physicists, but they can work well in laboratories as excellent technicians. That's one "understanding" of the way it works. Buddhist thinking is also about a spiritual non closure of thought. Essentially this is a spiritual issue as I see spirituality. I see Western science as a spiritual quest in that sense, but more in the nature of some of the spiritual quests of Eastern mysticism than Western monotheistic, authoritarian deity based religions that have a sense of the "word of god" as their basis. Hence the deep philosophical chasm and the infernal reoccurring debate, now in the form of Intelligent Design.
And perhaps the probing leads to a kind of "gestalt" about itself that transcends conclusionary implications, but itself can't be turned into a logical explanation because the explanation is no longer the gestalt (the territory) and it becomes the infernal map making that is trapped in logic without insight. Or something like that, maybe a sculpture or a painting could present the whole of gestalt experience where words can't, but that's another explora
Discussion Community 
