[MD] Whose Freedom?

[MarshaV]

Greeting,

The desire for freedom seems so basic.  Politics is the cage I 
inhabit to avoid freedom.  I think this cage is strengthened by 
confusion, which leads to fear, which leads to 
emotions.  Trapped!  To _hate_ George Bush is totally 
ridiculous.  This dilemma makes me laugh just to think of it.  The 
Lakoff's book may directly, or indirectly, stir into the pot some 
clarity.  Of course, if my political cage is destroyed, I will 
probably quickly build myself one of a different flavor.

Strange how the mind works.  This painting I'm working on is of an 
odd looking female creature within a turbulent atmosphere.  I cannot 
look at this painting without imagining in the background a dark cage 
with its door open.

Marsha


At 11:39 PM 8/31/2006, Ian posted:
>Marsha, Arlo,
>
>I've watched the talk. In some ways it's disappointing his focus is a
>Bush speech, since it puts him squarely on a political platform, which
>of course he is these days. In fact although his subject is freedom,
>and party political differences of interpretation, he's using his
>metaphors argument for the kind mental model evolved in people's
>brains for the contested versions of freedom, even though the core
>aspect is emotionally felt, directly sensed, visceral as he puts it.
>
>I love the idea he stresses that stupidity and meanness are not to be
>associated with the competing views of freedom. "George Bush is not
>incompetent." (Skilled incompetetence is a well practiced management
>technique.)
>
>Marsha, you said of the distinction between "clear" conservative
>definition and "unclear" liberal (or progressive) defintion of freedom
>...
>[Quote]
>I can imagine how difficult this makes the political discussion.
>[Unquote]
>
>This problem, the lack of simple direct causal logic, to support
>progressive arguments is a Catch-22 in the cause of progress.
>Conservativism is by definition regressive, but has the blunt tool of
>simple logic on its side. I think this is the downward cultural spiral
>we seem to see.
>
>As I say it's a pity he uses the competitive political position (a
>binary argument) as his subject matter (I guess it draws the crowds
>and the media), because he says a lot of good stuff on the core
>problem we face. That damn Catch-22 again.
>
>Regards
>Ian
>
>On 8/29/06, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> > [Marsha]
> > I'm looking forward to reading what Mr. Lakoff adds to the pot of freedom.
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > George Lakoff's work should be (and is) greatly appreciated. His 
> dominant, or
> > most well-know, ideas revolve around cultural metaphor. That is, 
> it's not just
> > that we use metaphor is our language, but our language is structured by
> > underlying cultural metaphors. These guide not only word choice, 
> but also how
> > we conceptualize various activities. His most well-known example 
> is probably
> > "argument is a war". In English, our thinking, our describing, our very
> > understanding of what an argument "is" is structured by the idea that it is
> > metaphorically "war". Examples, "I won that argument", "He was 
> doing well until
> > I brought out the big guns", "I demolished his position", etc. In contrast,
> > several latino cultures view argument not as a "war", but as a 
> "dance". As such
> > "victory" is absent from discussions about arguments, with 
> successful arguments
> > being one where BOTH "partners" achieve fluidity and eloquence. 
> Blocking your
> > partners steps in this "dance" does not "win" but rather "interrupts" a
> > successful argument.
> >
> > "Freedom", of course, works the same way. I had a Swedish friend 
> tell me once
> > that he considers his people MORE free (than us) because while we 
> are forced to
> > spend so much time and effort worrying about and securing health 
> care, working
> > long hours to pay enormous medical bills, spouses taking second 
> jobs just to
> > cover the months insurance costs, etc., they can pursue more personally
> > stimulating activities (painting, reading, skiing, etc.) "free" 
> from the worry
> > that if they become sick they will have no way to get treatment. The Native
> > American and Aborignals (at the risk of overgeneralizing) would 
> view our lives
> > today as anything BUT free. Most of our land is "private", we 
> can't go wherever
> > we want. We would be seen as slaves to property, not free men.
> >
> > At any rate, Lakoff is certainly worth the time to read. His 
> work, both academic
> > and popular, is well thought and well articulated.
> >
> >
> >