Is debate possible between ignoramuses?How is it possible

Lola:-

I think you will find yourself singing a more profound tune when you have wrestled with the Hughes.It wasn't a hippy,baby boomer thing at all.There's plenty of that bag of tricks that is flagged up with the "get laid" brigade in Shakespeare.And in Ovid.

The problem with "getting laid" is that women don't like it and as they get more economic power they dump it.We can't go basing a philosophy,for such it is,on skint,powerless women.I prefer to be chosen.
It is much less decorous.
Have you read the Malleus Malificarum?

spendius.

Sorry Lola:-

I gotta go.Pressure.

Hopes for a.m.

spendius.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=40339&start=170

Spendius, I got carried away on this thread. See what you think.

Nietzche asserted that being able to percieve all sides of the issue at the same time, being aware of all the facts, and taking a truly objective viewpoint, are beyond the scope of us. Prejudicies are our underpinnings.

I happen to agree with the man.

Objectivity is a goal to strive for, not a goal that can ever be achieved. However if we are striving toward an ideal or the best understanding we have of the ideal at the time, we're more likely to achieve something close enough to objectivity to do the job. Some of us are more able to know and understand about ambivalence than others. The more we know about all sides of ourselves, the better we can aim for objectivity. But none of us will ever achieve it. I agree.

response from other thread:



This is ok with me, spendius. I'm X-rated on religion. And I agree it's a big subject that requires a lot of work to write about. Distortions are so annoying for the person commiting them.



Any psychotherapist worth his or her salt not only knows this but uses it as a guiding principle. Everything we do or say reveals something about ourselves. The question is, of course what does it reveal? We would all be well advised to remember that what we think another means by what the other says or does is strongly influenced by our own idiocyncratic fantasies and assumptions.



Cats eat mice for dinner when they can find them. But once eaten, the cat has no more mouse to play with, until the cat finds another mouse, and not all mice are created equal. I don't believe it's wise to kill a good playmate. Dull ones can be eaten if the cat is hungry. But I like to keep my fun playmates around for more fun. Cat and mouse is only fun if turns are taken. Like, "you be the mouse today and I'll be the mouse tomorrow."



Yes, I think you should. It's good for a lot more than threading.......although, that's a fine use for it.



Maybe you might want to hide the stiletto, just a bit until you can determine if the playmate is worth keeping around, or if the mouse is afraid of sharp knives. It makes for more playmates. Stilettos can be revealed in time with more caution.



I was just telling everyone how much fun you are to play with. I advised them to not be so offended by the stabbing pain inflicted by your stiletto. You're a friendly sort of guy who just likes to play rough, I said.



Not everyone has the needs of Manhattan sophisticates. Some people like to live on farms and small towns. There are happy plumbers and street workers, for instance. Only if one is unhappy in what they are doing because their needs are inadequately met is there a problem. And that's a solvable problem.



If it's not guilt, (guilt inplies a preceived crime) then what does this mean?




What's the crime?

See you soon.

Allo Lola:-

Thanks for switching.I was tempted myself but felt that threaders might consider me arrogant.

I don't think you are "X rated on religion" at all.Most of your views derive from Christian cultural imperitives which,in themselves,derive from property relations.I have raised this before but threaders have chosen,for whatever reason,to ignore it.One oughtn't,on a philosophy thread,to be found debating the colour clashes of the curtains and carpet in a place dedicated to basic principles.
The Christian Kulaks have not only not been persecuted but have been given a fairly loose run at things.I read a book once,years ago,on the theme of Freud's attraction to Rome.

The general tendency of a psychiatrist to pick out certain parts of a patient's presentation would probably reveal the area of expertise of the former and the theory he/her is most familiar with.Why the psychiatrist has chosen that area is most likely to be something to do with his/her's self interest.That might explain why materialist theories of mind are not very popular.I used the cat metaphor to allude to the idea of "pouncing".

I'm not sure about these machines.I know a lot of people who have them and not much of use seems to accrue.Business use is another matter and so is threading.

You obviously take the "stiletto" point.The problem is that in real philosophy the stiletto is always a significant presence.I will say it again-philosophy is not for the faint of heart.

Back to your invidious feeding patterns.If you were defending me what was the attack about?Why do you say I play rough.This is nowhere near rough.It is true that I'm friendly.

Okay then on emulation of Manhattan sophisticates.I probably did exaggerate.Make it 200 million.That allows for the happy plumbers etc.
Ask the waiters and chefs which position they prefer-yours or theirs.In BNW the gammas were happy.I know that's fiction but still.

That's a trifle pedantic on "crime".Dylan was probably in a hurry and he couldn't make a good scan out of "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen".It is an error though.


spendius.
Did blathan not cue you on he "asp" compliment?

Can you tell me more about this? Not sure what you mean.

I can't get to the rest of this tonight. I have meetings all week and one very early in the morning so I may not make it here much this week. I'll check in if I can, if not I'll be around more next week.

I hope you're getting caught up......that the weather has improved there. It's very cold here. We had snow, but not much this morning. It's a very mild Winter so far. But it's going to be colder than it has been so far this week.

See you soon.

Lola:-

The Kulaks were,basically,the Russian peasants and yeomen who Stalin collectivised and more or less exterminated.It is a sad story but inevitable in a socialist utopia.Thanks to the Christian republicans your lucky country avoided such a nightmare.
One might say the lower middle class at a pinch.I'm sure other threaders will know more about it all than I do.
I wouldn't recommend underestimating Russia.

spendius.

Why have news commentators mentioned how many times Mr Bush used certain words in his big speech and all the ones I have seen have got it wrong.

Taking "freedom" and "liberty" and negative references to "tyranny" as being equivalents Mr Bush made reference to the concept 59 times.There were 8 for "justice" and 7 for "progress" and 2 for "humanity".

What these words mean is of no consequence to politics.Politics is solely concerned with getting,keeping and exercising power.These words are "sacramental" which is quite apt as they were delivered from the high altar.The masses have neither the critical energy nor the detachment to test them.They remain stuck in the realm of academic dissertation and public debate where everyone is always right and opponents always wrong while those seriously interested in politics are getting on with the problem of power and haven't the slightest interest in right and wrong.All they have to do is convince and render all the processes of brouhaha amenable to their influence.
All programs blow away in the breeze and the real political organisation works for its own sake.
Mr Bush is the leader of the bourgeoise party.He was challenged by the leader of a faction of the same party.Both factions represent intellect and money and are pitted against blood and tradition.Seen simply,too simply I suppose,it is between city and country and the city has its hands on all means of persuasion.A difference between the organised and the organic."Party" is an urban concept.The "aims" of a party are defined rather than felt.Nobility and priesthood decline under the onslaught of machine parties.

Politics,as the cliche goes,is the art of the possible.
Mr Bush is the gardener tending the loam.He knows its limits and its possibilities.If that is not the case the process of selection is awry.

Political noise is made within party factions and not on threads which are really just safety valves for the frustrated who like to remain in denial of the fact that they are out of the loop.

Spendius has worked within both mainstream parties in England.He is an even-handed chap.It is a fairly gruelling experience.The females wore him out.The policies are worked out on the "bums on seats" principle.For sure it is cynical but by gum it works pretty good.Anyone who wishes to meet some eager beavers should join a party and get real action underway.All the rest come into Lenin's category of "the ones to whom it is done."
(Patronising sardonic smile).

spendius.

sardonius

Tragic universes don't have a holiday destination, north, south, east or west. But being the only game in town...

Shakespeare and the Godess just arrived. You can pick 'em. This will be an extraordinary book.

Right off the bat...

"The Greeks, a certain scholar has told me, considered that myths are the activities of the Daimons, and that the Daimons shape our characters and our lives. I have often had the fancy that there is some one myth for every man, which, if we but knew it, would make us understand all he did and thought." (Yeats)

Isn't that something? Let me give you another understanding of 'myth' from Richard Hofstadter, American historian...

"By myth I do not mean an idea that is simply false, but rather one that effectively embodies mens' values that it profoundly influences their way of perceiving reality and hence their behavior" (from The Age of Reform, 1955).

And another bit Hughes tucked into the front pages...

"One of these men is Genius to the other;
And so of these: which is the natural man,
And which the spirit?" (comedy of errors)

Now here's the dichotomy I find so interesting...agape on the one side and our animal nature on the other.

Thanks for the tip on this book, friend.

MG:-

Don't mention it.

You have a hair raising read ahead which you will not understand if you have any interest in the puerile"whores" thread.

"Either I'm too sensitive
Or else I'm getting soft."

I was surprised to find no comment from you on my "asp" follow up.

spendius.

MG:-

I presume agape as love-feast.Is that right?

spendius.

...laughing here... I've concluded after these many years of kneeling before barge-mistresses, that the lethality of a single asp is more than sufficient to get the task done.

And, no, you don't have it right.

MG:-

OK.I'm used to it.

What is "agape" then.Not like "aswoon" I hope.As in "he stood "agape".Surely not the "Jeeze,I can't find my knees."

spendius.

Cordelia is agape, Goneril and Regan the other.

Fealty to father and crown, and christian charity - the spiritual - on the one hand. Animal lust (the devil has hooves and horns) and selfishness on the other.

MG:-

It might go like this-

The divine is manifested in the living and not in the dead.Which is to say in the "becoming" or the changing and not in the "become" or fixed.Thus reason strives for the divine through the becoming.
The reason uses the become and fixed simply as a method or,one might say,a tool.

It has been said that Goethe and Plato are philosophers of the becoming and Aristotle and Kant the philosophers of the dead become.Intuitive feeling over against analysis.

Dead man,dead man,
When will you arise,
Cobwebs in your mind,Dust upon your eyes.

Best seen on 1981 Bootleg vids.

spendius.

sp

I've got to run and get various tasks done...but quickly adding...

I see this dichotomy as fundamental in western thought, predating Augustine but with a huge boost from that stupid bastard. I see it as the bones under Lear (along with the most exquisite understanding of the depth of human suffering that christianity attempts to at least acknowledge but which stoicism, represented in Glouchester, cannot approach). I'll stop, I don't want to get too sad this morning.

MG:-

I can't go with your last post.There's too much patriarchal propaganda in it.One might see Cordelia as deviant.And the other two as "the real thing".I said it is hair raising.
Don't forget Shakespeare's PC in a world where the gallows loomed large.He was on the cusp of a major shift.And they played for keeps.

spendius.

sp

It was a patriarchal time. It was a patriarchal church. And the dichotomy I note was fundamental to the theology of the period. And understood re the dangers of, say, putting a crucifix at the centre of the rec room dartboard. We agree on cusp, but I think the fellow of sufficient genius and familiarity with the literature and ideas moving about europe at the time, that he might have been reaching for things otherwise far ahead. But wade into the book I shall. I've (we've) picked up "Will in the World" as well.

ps...my fave goil in letters is the Wife of Bath, and the things that came out of her mouth!