House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@spendius,

An excerpt from Spengler's The Decline of the West for your consideration Dave--

Quote:

As all the forms of Dynamic (whether pictorial, musical, physical, social or political) are concerned with the working-out of infinite relations and deal, not with the individual case and the sum of individual cases as the Classical physics had done, but with the typical course or process and its functional rule, "character" must be understood as that which remains in principle constant in the working-out of life; where there is no such constant we speak of "lack of character." It is character — the form in virtue of which a moving existence can combine the highest constancy in the essential with the maximum variability in the details — that makes telling biography (such as Goethe's " Wahrheit und Dichtung "), possible at all. Plutarch's truly Classical biographies are by comparison mere collections of anecdotes strung together chronologically and not ordered pictures of historical development, and it will hardly be disputed that only this second kind of biography is imaginable in connexion with Alcibiades or Pericles or, for that matter, any purely Apollinian figure. Their experiences lack, not mass, but relation; there is something atomic about them.
Similarly in the field of Science the Greek did not merely forget to look for
general laws in the sum of his experiential data; in his cosmos they were simply not there to be found.

It follows that the sciences of character-study, particularly physiognomy
and graphology, would not be able to glean much in the Classical field. Its
handwriting we do not know, but we do know that its ornament, as com-
pared with the Gothic, is of incredible simplicity and feebleness of character-
expression — think of the Meander and the Acanthus-shoot. On the other
hand, it has never been surpassed in timeless evenness.

It goes without saying that we, when we turn to look into the Classical
life-feeling, must find there some basic element of ethical values that is anti-
thetical to "character" in the same way as the statue is antithetical to the
fugue. Euclidean geometry to Analysis, and body to space. We find it in the
Gesture. It is this that provides the necessary foundation for a spiritual static.
The word that stands in the Classical vocabulary where "personality" stands
in our own is irpoffcbirovy "persona" — namely role or mask. In late Greek or Roman speech it means the public aspect and mien of a man, which for Classical man is tantamount to the essence and kernal of him.

A Greek vase depicting a naked David firing an automatic weapon would be an object for you to have made. There is a timeless evenness in such a gesture. It's just a pity that automatic weapons require sublimation of individuality in the working out of the infinite relations needed to both get, supply and operate them.

You're up a gum tree.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I am an anarchist compared to you; but it is because I realize that human freedom is the object of government, and not an impediment to government... For this reason, the true object of government is to control reality, that is, forces of nature to the extent they can be controlled, and that manor of individual who would prey upon the rest who make treason their stock and trade...The goals of government as stated in the preamble of the constitution do not include saddling people with layers of law and bureaucracy, but the people must be controlled if the ideal of free enterprise will be free... For property to have rights people must be denied rights... Goverment of private property exists to deny justice to citizens, and at the same time to force them to keep the peace... Self government which is minimal government is incompatible with private property and the state... There is no such thing as a little state, or a little law... To have it in any form is to have too much of it...

You are not an anarchist... You like what government does for you even when it does injustice to everyone else for your benefit... If we had democracy, everyone would be free in their conduct so long as their conduct injured no one... Now, no one can be free because so many are injured and so many suffer injustice that we are all on the edge of violence, caring not for whether it is offensive or defensive...

People suffer for the ideal... We think that capitalism and private property are good for the society, but in the face of the obvious failure of these to do good for society, for the people, the people hang on to the ideal because they have nothing what ever to replace it with... They judge themselves and their neighbors wrong and their failed ideal a right, and they are not so much foolish as blind... People are destroyed by failing societies, and it has often happened, and it is happening today....

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Individuals are helpless Dave. It's an affectation. If everybody acted on your talk you wouldn't have a country. Or a State. NYC would fall apart.

Individuals are not exactly helpless unless they conceive of themselves as individual... The most intelligent give up their individuality to government or to corporations in order to prey upon the so called individual... Only the individual with the sense to sacrifice a little of themselves to unite against exploitation and slavery have any kind of chance in this world... All natural forms of community have been broken up by law... If citizens will survive the slavery and destruction of the society we have at hand, it will be because they find some other means of combining for self defense... They are not helpless unless they choose to be controlled and destroyed one by one by one...

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

An excerpt from Spengler's The Decline of the West for your consideration Dave--

Quote:
As all the forms of Dynamic (whether pictorial, musical, physical, social or political) are concerned with the working-out of infinite relations and deal, not with the individual case and the sum of individual cases as the Classical physics had done, but with the typical course or process and its functional rule, "character" must be understood as that which remains in principle constant in the working-out of life; where there is no such constant we speak of "lack of character." It is character — the form in virtue of which a moving existence can combine the highest constancy in the essential with the maximum variability in the details — that makes telling biography (such as Goethe's " Wahrheit und Dichtung "), possible at all. Plutarch's truly Classical biographies are by comparison mere collections of anecdotes strung together chronologically and not ordered pictures of historical development, and it will hardly be disputed that only this second kind of biography is imaginable in connexion with Alcibiades or Pericles or, for that matter, any purely Apollinian figure. Their experiences lack, not mass, but relation; there is something atomic about them.
Similarly in the field of Science the Greek did not merely forget to look for
general laws in the sum of his experiential data; in his cosmos they were simply not there to be found.

It follows that the sciences of character-study, particularly physiognomy
and graphology, would not be able to glean much in the Classical field. Its
handwriting we do not know, but we do know that its ornament, as com-
pared with the Gothic, is of incredible simplicity and feebleness of character-
expression — think of the Meander and the Acanthus-shoot. On the other
hand, it has never been surpassed in timeless evenness.

It goes without saying that we, when we turn to look into the Classical
life-feeling, must find there some basic element of ethical values that is anti-
thetical to "character" in the same way as the statue is antithetical to the
fugue. Euclidean geometry to Analysis, and body to space. We find it in the
Gesture. It is this that provides the necessary foundation for a spiritual static.
The word that stands in the Classical vocabulary where "personality" stands
in our own is irpoffcbirovy "persona" — namely role or mask. In late Greek or Roman speech it means the public aspect and mien of a man, which for Classical man is tantamount to the essence and kernal of him.

A Greek vase depicting a naked David firing an automatic weapon would be an object for you to have made. There is a timeless evenness in such a gesture. It's just a pity that automatic weapons require sublimation of individuality in the working out of the infinite relations needed to both get, supply and operate them.

You're up a gum tree.

That Spengler was good at infinite complexification... The truth is much more simple and easier to express...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Those so-called one-by-one multiplies very quickly to whole communities and countries - unfortunately.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Quote:

The truth is much more simple and easier to express...

The reduction of complicated and complex truths to simple statements, whilst being popular, produces falsehoods.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

please explain WHAT responsibility attends my freedom
to ignore baseball games or to wear green hats !?

I dispute & deny that I have any responsibility whatsoever,
in regard to this freedom.
David

If your ignoring of baseball games impedes the ability of others to attend baseball games, then it would be part of your responsility not to do that. For example, you could not play golf in the baseball park while ignoring other people trying to play their scheduled baseball games there.
Similarly, you might not be allowed to wear a green hat as a participant in a school program as a high schooler, if green hats have been ruled by the teacher as not part of the acceptable dress code for that program. As an adult, you will probably not be told what color of hat to wear, so you are fairly correct in saying that there might not be much responsibility associated with green hats. However, you should not be able to expect others to pay for your green hats. The responsibility part of wearing green hats would be the expectation that you pay for them, not someone else.

To explain the point I am driving at here, people can be free to do all kinds of things, but they need to be responsible for those things rather than expecting others to subsidize or pay for their actions. For example, we should be free to make choices about our own health care, but in order to maintain that freedom, we should be prepared to be responsible for the cost of it ourselves. We now see the partial loss of that freedom because of Obamacare, and one of the reasons is because so many people have failed to adequately plan for and pay for their own insurance.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

make choices about our own health care, but in order to maintain that freedom, we should be prepared to be responsible for the cost of it ourselves. We now see the partial loss of that freedom because of Obamacare, and one of the reasons is because so many people have failed to adequately plan for and pay for their own insurance.

When you tell parents that their children will need to die because of lack of the funds for proper medical care do not be surprise if they kill you and take the money off you dead body.

Kind of similar when the French people was told that they needed to starve to death if they did not have the funds to buy foods for their family.

There are limits beyond which the society will be destroy and it start when the have parts of the population tell the have not parts of the population that they just need to die.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

okie is not aware of the many middle class families who had to pay medical bills for their child health care that broke their bank, and are now living in poverty.

They are always sensitive to Americans suffering in this country for the lack of a universal health care (before ObamaCare).

0 Replies

@okie,

The reason I found it sad that you thought there were intellectuals is because you do not see yourself as one, "when you yourself are one in my opinion!

We all seem to be intellectuals in our own field of interest or study, "whether it be football or some kind sick ideological practice!

There are many others, that you may think are frigid but they are also intellectuals in their own field of expertise!

I am sure there are things that you understand more intellectually than I do because it may be what you do for a living or that you have a greater interest in them, "the same may be true for me.

The biggest problem I see is that we have a breakdown in communication!

Not all of us frigid people mean to be frigid we are just acting out emotionally because we know no better way as of yet, "but maybe you can help to break this cycle by not contributing to this cycle as most of us do!

There is nothing wrong with being a simple Okie farmer! Just ask any one that you think is intellectual to explain why there would be!

I am a simple RL farmer I have cattle, hogs, chickens and I grow my own fruits and vegetables as a hobby! Does this make me a unintellectual?

Now what I do find very odd are those who have studied way less than you in your field of study speaking in absolutes about your field of study and not thinking that anything you say as important!
Kind of like when one speaks about evolution and their greatest knowledge is in anti evolution because they never studied molecular biology and have no interest in organic chemistry neither!

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The reduction of complicated and complex truths to simple statements, whilst being popular, produces falsehoods.

Interesting. There is an internet dating site that worked a system of determining certain beliefs and personality factors through indirect questioning. To discover whether someone is liberal or conservative, you ask whether they prefer simple people or complex people. Liberals prefer complex people and conservatives the opposite.

3 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
The reduction of complicated and complex truths to simple statements, whilst being popular, produces falsehoods
Interesting. There is an internet dating site that worked a system of determining certain beliefs and personality factors through indirect questioning. To discover whether someone is liberal or conservative, you ask whether they prefer simple people or complex people. Liberals prefer complex people and conservatives the opposite.

I like Ronald Reagan's quote, wherein he said: "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” If I understand the philosophy of Reagan on this, I believe it is human to want to make something more complicated than it is, in order to justify ones own actions, rather than simply facing the simple truth of a matter.[/quote]

4 Replies

@plainoldme,

When I was in college, it was often remarked that it is impossible to teach chemistry and religion to high school students because in simplifying it enough to make it comprehensible, it was made wrong. I don't believe that.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, If you believe that, why are you against universal health care?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

The reason I found it sad that you thought there were intellectuals is because you do not see yourself as one, "when you yourself are one in my opinion!

I can agree to a point, because being intellectual in one sense is simply using one's intellect or reasoning power to identify and solve problems, and to accomplish tasks and goals.

Quote:

We all seem to be intellectuals in our own field of interest or study, "whether it be football or some kind sick ideological practice!

Maybe, but some people can think they are smarter than they are, to the point of outsmarting themselves. In other words, the simplest answers can often be the best answers.

Quote:

There are many others, that you may think are frigid but they are also intellectuals in their own field of expertise!

You are using a term that I am not used to, that being "frigid." Taking it at face value, it would not appear to be very complimentary of anyone to be cold and unfeeling.

Quote:

I am sure there are things that you understand more intellectually than I do because it may be what you do for a living or that you have a greater interest in them, "the same may be true for me.
The biggest problem I see is that we have a breakdown in communication!

simple open honesty is the best solution to the problem. If we are open and honest about our beliefs, then we can have an atmosphere of trust. That has been one of my greatest problems with the current president and administration. From the very beginning, I have never found Obama to be an open and honest personality, and therefore not a person I would trust a great deal. I have found this trait in many liberal personalities.

Quote:

Not all of us frigid people mean to be frigid we are just acting out emotionally because we know no better way as of yet, "but maybe you can help to break this cycle by not contributing to this cycle as most of us do!

There is nothing wrong with being a simple Okie farmer! Just ask any one that you think is intellectual to explain why there would be!

I am a simple RL farmer I have cattle, hogs, chickens and I grow my own fruits and vegetables as a hobby! Does this make me a unintellectual?

No, not at all, but being a simple farmer does not qualify you as intellectual in the eyes of the intellectual world, such as the academic world. It takes reason and logic to do those things you speak of. Some of the smartest people I know are simple farmers or people in the trades that have no college education. We had a neighbor once that signed his checks with an "X", but he was quite successful as a farmer all of his life, and quite trustworthy as well. He could also balance his checkbook, which is more than our current government is doing.

Quote:

Now what I do find very odd are those who have studied way less than you in your field of study speaking in absolutes about your field of study and not thinking that anything you say as important!
Kind of like when one speaks about evolution and their greatest knowledge is in anti evolution because they never studied molecular biology and have no interest in organic chemistry neither!

Perhaps you are correct, however, there are some fields of study that are not necessarily rocket science, if you get my drift. For example, economics boils down to some pretty simple principles. In my own experience, I never studied business in college, but I ran a successful business for more than 25 years. The principles involved are simple, do not spend more than you make, provide good service to your customers, and be honest. Meanwhile, I did business with companies much larger that went bankrupt, those being run by MBA's.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, If you believe that, why are you against universal health care?

Because I believe Obama saw our health care system as something with more complicated problems than it had, so he instead came up with a bundle of complications to replace what we had. I believe it will end up being a bureaucratic and economic disaster.

An analogy could be a car, which he might judge to have so many problems that it needed replacing with a completely new and unfunded automobile that had never been tested at all, maybe an Edsel, when in reality it needed a few simple reforms, such as a tuneup, oil change and lube, and perhaps a wheel alignment and tire rotation.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

If I understand the philosophy of Reagan on this, I believe it is human to want to make something more complicated than it is, in order to justify ones own actions, rather than simply facing the simple truth of a matter.

That is not what he was saying.

Look again at his statement:

Quote:

"There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”

I would not call this a philosophy. It is more a call to act but not to think. What the first sentence has to do with the second, is anyone's guess. The whole thing belongs to the category of run-away rhetoric. It was part of the standard Reagan speech he had been giving for years but first came to national attention when he spoke on behalf the presidential ambitions of Barry Goldwater.

The meaning is closer to an endorsement of the notion that people chose o the basis of emotions rather than intellect. He is saying go ahead with the emotions. Don't think.

I have been saying for years that ethics are superior to morals. Morality is accepting a teaching without questioning, without looking for the reasons underlying the teaching or belief. It is "teacher said" or "my old man can beat up your old man."

But, hey, believe what you want. They are your emotions pulling at you.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Maybe, but some people can think they are smarter than they are, to the point of outsmarting themselves.

Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

0 Replies

@okie,

Obama bought what the insurance lobbyists were selling.

0 Replies

@okie,

The primary reason I am against universal health care is that I believe in the true and simple principle that in America, the role of government should be to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. I believe people can do a better job of making their own health care decisions than government can do it for them, and for the very small minority of people that are not capable of doing that, we already have a safety net to do that for them. There is no need to compromise the entire health care industry or the best interests of the majority of people just because the president wants the dictatorial power to do it for them.

1 Reply

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know