[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

Scanning ahead, my first impression is, My!  That's a lot of words.  I
always feel sorta humbled by lengthy responses...I mean you can't seriously
take me that seriously....

I feel honored, kind sir.  I will try and respond perfectly in kind.  This
morning  it is raining.  First Rain!  The one that settles the summer dust
and puts that foliar glow on my garden.  Woo hoo!   I have some leisure time
to respond in detail.

Yay me.


Lucky you.



 Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Arlo wrote:

>
> Cogent criticisms... Okay, John, while I think I've laid that out, I'll
> simply
> remind you of a long history here in this forum of people, many people,
> taking
> very much time to lay out "cogent criticisms" of the kind of talk-radio
> nonsense Platt spews here.



No reminder necessary.  I've been reminded frequently since I joined of
Platt's egregious behaviour.  I've just never witnessed any.  It's all about
the grudges over his past postings.  Evidently his words contain so much
evil, that all he has to do is blip briefly on the radar screen and all his
immorality pops into your head and you can't help getting angry and
expressing it.

But understand that from my perspective, he hasn't said anything that
outrageous.

So... in the archives eh?


I suppose I could get up on my high chair of judgement, examine the evidence
and then bang my gavel down hard on whoever seems the most right to me but
I'm not.  I'm not going to look at the static evidence of the archives.  I'm
going to rely upon the dynamic instincts of my mind guided by my own
personal reality-creation model.

According to my model of community building, Platt exhibits all the
characteristics of a true leader.  He posts penetrating questions, he gives
the group feedback and most important of all, he allows himself to be
scapegoated.

Most true Community creating processes include the scapegoating of a leader.
 So my static patterns lead me to interpret Platt's posts in a completely
different way than you.  And if you understand what I mean by a "Sweetland
Bypass Effect" then you must also comprehend that my interpretation of Platt
isn't forced upon me by you or Platt or anyone, but is a conscious choice I
make because it leads to the highest quality.


And having seen that for years and years, and yet
> each month brings new squawkings as if no one has ever bothered to try
> before.
> I've said this before, I've gone that route, I have NO patience for it any
> longer. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada.



Hmmm... methinkest thou protesteth too much.  Four words meaning "none" is
three too many.

Sir, if what you say is true, the most eloquent response IS exactly none.
 Not the word, but the actual reality of nothing.  Just don't bother, its
easy to do.

The fact that you don't do nothing, that you do respond, tells me something
about how  you value a chance at dialectical combat.  And its not just
Platt.  I was amazed at how extensively you responded to Nick, in his brief
blow-through.  So much attention paid to so much drivel!  I was amazed and
also a bit envious.  Maybe if I say something stupid, somebody will pay more
attention to me.

An interesting phenomena, now that I think about it.  DMB worked along those
lines.  How much he had to say when somebody was wrong!  The point being,
dialectical combat then.




> Ron, for example, has tried the more patient,
> saintly approach, and I respect him for that. But me, I've been dragged
> through
> the mire of "commie, anti-liberty, freedom-hatin', acerdimic" so many times
> my
> eyes bleed every time I see yet another anti-intellectual squawk about
> "interllictials".



So what you're saying is, you have a sensitive spot.  Sorta like an achilles
heel.  Somebody pushes that button, and you go off like a clockwork
mechanism.  You just can't help it.

Ok.  But doesn't that seem kinda static?  There's a real feel of stuckness
there.




> The recent upping of the squawk volume about "death panels"
> and the idiotic response to the President's speech, has me annoyed (as well
> as
> embarrassed) at the depths to which rhetoric in this country has fallen.
>
>
yes, annoyed and embarrassed.  I have gotten that impression.

I agree rhetoric in the country has fallen.  I'm not sure it's Platt's fault
tho, I would examine a likely culprit in a monolithic educational system
that is teaching  yesterday's principles of factory industrialism to
tomorrow's children of info-evolution.




> Onward...
>
>
> [Arlo]
> Accurate? Sure, like saying "Drinking beer is the kind of thing we'd expect
> or
> see in Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia".



Right!  And they both glorify Normal Rockwell Art as well.



> Yeah. You'd expect to find it
> there, but the rhetorical association is "evil". It attempts to subvert
> intellect to social anger (an anger pandering to misinformed people).
>
>
The inherent hierarchical nature of morality is an ongoing problem for me.
 Especially when you are talking society and intellect.  Some intellectual
ideas are bad and NEED to be suppressed by the "lower" orders of social
repression.  It seems to me you wouldn't have nearly the problem with the
same phenomena if the anger of the people was directed at Dick Cheney.

And hey, I'm with you!  I'd like to see the guy waterboarded too.  But what
it seems you are doing is mainly vilifying the "other" side.



> As I said, when Russell made the comment, he was FULLY aware of both Bush's
> similar 1991 address, and conservative support for it. But instead of
> mentioning this, he chose to take a route that deliberately distorted via
> omission with the INTENT of inciting.
>
>
But... but... but... Arlo.  THAT  is politics.  That is the way it's always
done, and will always be done.  It's a long standing pattern of social
manipulation and it's the intellect's role to see it, describe it and let
people choose.



> That to me, John, is an example of something Pirsig would unequivocally
> call
> "morally evil".
>
>
I can't agree with that assertion.



> Now. I expect to hear that sort of stuff on Limbaugh's show, but when I see
> it
> HERE, it really, really, really pisses me off.
>
>
Right.  I get that.  Take off thy shoes and tip-toe around, thou art on
sacred ground.




> [John]
> I mean, the leader of the country addressing the country's school children
> is
> most likely done everywhere, so a politician blathering about North Korea
> and
> Iraq doing it is pandering to his constituancy with maddeningly
> inflammatory
> rhetoric and logically defensible accuracy.
>
> [Arlo]
> Its not "accurate". Its a false association. It uses deliberate omission to
> incite. Accurate? We use that word differently, apparently.
>


You don't think speechifying to school kids is something Kim Jong or Saddam
did do or would do?  The association wouldn't carry any weight at all if it
wasn't associating an accurate statement with the point the speaker is
trying to get across.   And then it wouldn't really, really, really, really
piss you off.

Not at all, nada, zilch, zero.




> Its many things, but certainly not "stupid".
>
> [Arlo]
> THAT was my point. Russell was deliberate in his attempt to subvert
> intellect
> in order to incite mob anger. That is calculated. And it is "evil". Plain
> and
> simple.
>
>
Ok then.  Here's a tip. It may reveal to you something about my definition
of "accurate" also.  A two-fer!    If your point is something is not stupid,
then don't write "that's stupid" about that something.  Unless you are being
overtly ironic, in which case you gotta sell it.  I've learned that one.

Actually, I remember dmb tutoring  me on online irony.

How ironic is that!



> And THAT is why its embarrassing to me to see it here.
>
> [John]
> Just angrily denouncing doesn't do that much good.
>
> [Arlo]
> Fair enough. But, like I said, please search the archives. I've put in
> enough
> time trying to deal intellectually with Platt's talk-radio nonsense.
>
>
Ok Arlo.  Is this irony?  Cuz if its not, it really oughta be.  "I've put in
enough time dealing with Platt.   So.... I'm gonna respond the hell out of
him every time he pops up with this nonsense."

And don't take it that I'm saying you SHOULD ignore him.  Au contraire.  I'm
saying your claim that you dislike the engagement is contradicted by the
facts of what you actually do.


[Arlo]
> Yeah, I know this. Again, I've been there, John. I get angry, and I should
> not.
> I take it personally, and I should not. But "facts" and "logic" just
> accomplish
> nothing, believe me, I am not the only one who has tried.
>
>
You know, your self-awareness makes this interesting.  I feel like I should
be settling you into a couch now and making notes and asking you, "tell me
about your relationship with your mother."

John Carl Jung



> Arlo]



>
> But here I'd ask, how would you argue, intellectually and logically, with
> Russell. He KNOWS he is being deceitful. He KNOWS he is distorting the
> facts.
> Do you really think any intellectual argument would do anything? Hell no.
> He'd
> call you a liberal swine, perhaps, maybe a socialist, duped by the
> fascist-liberal media, make some inane comments about "acerdimics" and your
> love of "Obozo".
>
>
Ok then.  You see the pendulum problem then.  The effect of drawing up sides
and villifying the enemy and just going back and forth.

I got an idea out of a book I read once for a new way of looking at an old
approach.  I can't remember where, probably science fiction but it was about
this  brilliant military commander who was sad.  He was sad because he was
so successful.  Whenever he had an enemy, he'd learn everything he could
about his enemy.  He'd try and imagine his enemy's shoes and how they fit.
 He had tremendous empathy and thus came to know his enemy so perfectly that
he came to feel great love for his enemy, and when he reached the moment of
this feeling of love, he'd destroy his enemy.  Because that was his role.

It was interesting to me because I'd heard the Platt-itude many times "Love
your enemies" and I thought it meant something different.  I thought it
meant conceding defeat.  Pirsig's MoQ sheds light in that caring IS power.
 If you care enough to pay attention, you'll find a way.



> And that is where I am at here. You and I can talk about this, and I am
> glad we
> are, because I know you are coming from a place of reason. But people like
> Russell? How do you respond to that? Ignore it? I do, when its on the
> Limbaugh
> program. But HERE?
>
> [John]
> Would you honestly prefer an all-liberal forum?
>
> [Arlo]
> Don't fall into this trap. This is NOT about "conservative views". As I
> said, a
> conservative making the above principled remark about Obama's speech, I'd
> likely not even glance twice at. Craig makes many points supporting
> conservative views, and have you seen any time where I have responded to
> him
> angrily, or denouncingly? I have not. This is NOT about conservative views,
> its
> about rhetoric that is deliberately dishonest, deliberately distortive, and
> designed to subvert intellect by pandering instead to fear and anger.
> Liberal
> politicians do that too, by the way. Its just that the level of vitriol has
> increased a thousand fold in America recently.
>

Ok.  Good point.  (except in the interest of "accuracy" thousand-fold is an
exaggeration)  And so your passionate response to a problem in the world.  I
think the MoQ is a great place to work out the world's problems.  You've got
a quality north star by which to guide your ship.  So what is the best way
to combat the vitriol?  Responding in kind doesn't seem to work.  Logic and
reason don't seem to work.  Typing words of any kind, doesn't seem to work.

And yet, here we are, using logic, reason, vitriol in typing.  Hmmm... We
must like doing what doesn't work!



> [John]
> Platt's giving you a chance here to really debate and present your case.
>  An
> important task.  Use it, don't just abuse it.
>
> [Arlo]
> Sorry. I've been there, John. Many times. There is no debate, its a
> constant
> end-around, topic changes, Pee Wee's, distortions, and usually ends with
> Platt
> crying about how the evil academic is soooooo mean.
>
> But I think you've missed some posts if you don't think I've presented my
> case.
> "Death panels" was handled very thoroughly by several people.



I think you've missed this one right here.  You confirm that you have
presented your case on the death panels, which you would not have done if
Platt hadn't been there to exercise your dialectical opposition muscles.
 That was my point.


> So whatever. Take me to the shed.


Sorry.  Hope your butt ain't too sore.  Personally I'd prefer Lu's beer
cellar too.

Sigh.  I  miss beer.



> I probably deserve it for my impatience and
> anger-embarrassment induced condemnations. If YOU think that seeing "death
> panels" or this other crap appear here is not embarrassing, then I stand
> corrected, but to be honest, John, it should embarrass you.


Hey.  It takes a lot to embarrass me.  I started out early on this forum
talking about peeing on my hands to wash off  the chainsaw grease.  Works as
good as a beer can shim!  And it's sterile.  Heck, maybe what I should do is
bottle the stuff and sell it as Herr Krupp's secret formula chainsaw grease
remover.



> And if no one here
> is willing to stand up that distortive and deceptive rhetoric, then maybe
> this
> is likewise not worth my time either.


Yeah.  Right.  Go away Arlo.  You do and I'll call you a metaphysical
 sissy.

John Carl Jung Fat Chew