Saturday, June 28, 2008

Coonversations With Mysoph

Here it is, your weekly "best of" from two years past. This one was originally called Vertical Maturity vs. Terminal Adultolescence. In skimming it, I see that some RACCOON ERROR may have crept in, so I will take this opportunity to entertain second thoughts about it where necessary; these will appear in brackets.

As always, this weekly verticalisthenic exercise also gives me the opportunity to do some basic editing for the first time, not to mention a proper grammar- and spellcheck, in order to make sure that the puns are properly misspelled and the syntax is fully unigmatic and in the wrong locution.

That reminds me. One of Bill Evans' most famous recordings is called Conversations With Myself. Condescending jazz purist that I am, I've never actually heard it, since it sounded gimmicky to me. On this recording, he first played a piece, and then later overdubbed himself having another musical "conversation" with it, spontaneously weaving in, out, and around it, making for a sort "double creation," which in turn creates a "higher third," or a whole new whole. "Piano for Hegelians," so to speak....

*****

Most psychological studies are worthless, because they either confirm common sense or violate it so thoroughly that no sensible person would believe the study. In fact, once you even reduce the study of psychology to that which can be proven with a study, you are pretty much a lost soul. This is because if one conflates the realm of Truth with that which can be proven with reason alone, you have done a very irrational thing. [So far, so good.]

First, reason can only operate with the materials with which it has been provided, and there is no strictly logical operation that can tell you which materials to select. Secondly, it excludes all forms of Truth that are known directly [or "seen"] through the intellect as such, including religious truths. Therefore, you no longer care about Truth as such but only the small subset that can be proven with logic. Furthermore, you have excluded pure intelligence as such [which clearly transcends reason, reason being one of its tools]. Some people are just much smarter or deeper than others, so what they say carries much more weight. [As our trolls teach us, the matter of intellectual -- not to mention spiritual -- qualification is not something that can be reduced to reason.]

To cite just one example, every sensible person knows that men and women are fundamentally different. In fact, it is difficult not to know this unless you've spent too much time in college. I've heard Dennis Prager ask any number of academics about it, and most of them say words to the effect of, “I’m not saying it’s impossible, but without the data to back it up, we just can’t say.” It would be more accurate for them to say, “we’re not allowed to say” -- or, more precisely -- "we’re not allowed to think,” for “thinking” is not synonymous with “drawing conclusions from premises” or data. Rather, the latter is just one of many operations and faculties available to thinking as such, i.e., to the intellect proper.

The irrational reduction of thinking to reason is at the heart of the leftist project, which is precisely why it is so deeply illogical. Because I can assure you, if you have a particular conclusion in mind (we're speaking of the humanities here), you can almost always find the premises you need to support it. Furthermore, it is very easy to attack and belittle translogical Truth as illogical, for the very reason that it transcends -- but does not exclude -- mere logic.

For example, this week the New York Times logically concluded that it was critical to reveal state secrets and undermine our national security because of the “greater danger” posed by President Bush's “threat to civil liberties.” This test fails their own logic, because four years ago the Times opined that the Bush administration was not doing enough to track terrorists through their financial activities: “If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.” The difference, of course, is that the new stance is overwhelmingly driven by blind emotional hatred -- by the implicit premise that Bush is evil. Therefore, one is permitted to draw any pernicious conclusion one wishes from that fundamental -- but completely prelogical -- ”truth.”

[A critical point, for there is an essentially infinite difference between prelogical and translogical truth; the left -- not to mention the cretins at LGF -- habitually conflate the two; there is no difference in the crude manner in which the typical kos or LGF vulgarian confidently dismisses metaphysical truth.]

So I am always highly skeptical of psychological studies. I’m thinking of one in particular that wanted to prove that there is no difference between children raised by a mother and father vs. children raised by homosexual parents. In fact, said the study, there might even be a slight advantage to the latter, because the children of homosexual parents were more sexually adventurous. Hmm, “adventurous”.... That’s an interesting term for a scientific study. What does it mean? What it means for a person with common sense is that the children were more promiscuous and more confused about their sexual identities. Nuts & sluts, if you like.

Likewise, there have been studies proving that daycare is good for children, that molestation can be a positive experience, that mother love is toxic, that all homosexuality is genetic, that conservatives are mentally ill, that psychoanalysis is ineffective, that crime is caused by poverty or low self esteem, all agenda-driven nonsense.

Here is a study found on Pajamas Media, Immaturity Levels Rising. I would place it in the neutral category, for it contains some superficial truth that obscures much deeper truths that necessarily go unaddressed because they transcend anything that an academic psychological study can cope with.

The article notes that “new research is showing that grown-ups are more immature than ever.” This is a profoundly misleading statement, for the authors obviously have no idea how emotionally immature people were in the historical past, for example, in the Middle Ages, when most people were extremely immature and childlike, almost like children in adult bodies. Furthermore, most indigenous peoples and citizens of third world countries are extraordinarily immature, but those are generally not permissible thoughts in wackademia.

[Perhaps I need to re-emphasize that we are talking about the average mentality, e.g., not the few who were permitted to realize their potential. It seems that in all times and places, some people have been able to reach the "upper limit" of humanness; likewise, the frustrating thing about our day and age is that so few people even reach "basic humanness," especially if they have had too much of a secular brainwashing.]

To cite a contemporary example, the clash between Israel and her Arab neighbors is not a war over land but a war of psychoclasses, one side being markedly more mature than the other in every measurable way. In many respects, it is no mere hyperbole to say that our enemies in the war against Islamo-fascism are similar to Middle Age personalities: childlike, impulsive, illogical, illiterate, unworldly, and obviously prone to utter confusion between intensity of feeling and clarity of thought.

[I should point out that my opinion here was not produced from thin air, but has a lot of scholarly opinion to back it up. But again, this shouldn't be taken to suggest that we are superior to our forebears, for in no way do I believe, for example, that the typical academic philosopher is superior to, say, Aquinas, or the typical poet is superior to Dante! That would be absurd. It is just that certain conditions prevailed which prevented most people from achieving their potential, e.g., very short lifespan, ridiculously high infant mortality, widespread disease and famine, illiteracy, backbreaking labor, malnutrition, etc.]

The article goes on to say that “it seems a growing number of people are retaining the behaviors and attitudes associated with youth. As a consequence, many older people simply never achieve mental adulthood, according to a leading expert on evolutionary psychiatry.”

Now this is interesting, because it contains another implicit assumption that can either be illogical or translogical, but which can never be proven with reason. Specifically, what is the proper end of human development? What does it mean to be a fully developed human being? Is this something that can ever be proven by a study? Clearly, it is not synonymous with “average,” for the average person is probably an idiot, and the purpose of life cannot possibly be to become an idiot, the writers of dailykos and huffingtonpost to the contrary notwithstanding. [Academic studies also beg the question of whether it is possible to stably evolve beyond the ego, in the manner of the saint, sage, or mystic.]

The lead author of the study, an evolutionary psychologist, thinks he knows what is going on. He says that “humans have an inherent attraction to physical youth, since it can be a sign of fertility, health and vitality. In the mid-20th century, however, another force kicked in, due to increasing need for individuals to change jobs, learn new skills, move to new places and make new friends.”

Specifically, a “childlike flexibility of attitudes, behaviors and knowledge” is probably adaptive to the increased instability of the modern world.... Formal education now extends well past physical maturity, leaving students with minds that are ‘unfinished.’”

But here lies a deep confusion, for being “unfinished” is also a mark of psychological maturity. You see, there are two varieties of “unfinishedness,” one horizontal, the other vertical.

The author of the study obviously [and necessarily, since this is an academic study] doesn’t know anything about the vertical, so he naturally conflates it with the horizontal. He goes on to say that “formal education requires a childlike stance of receptivity to new learning, and cognitive flexibility." Yes, that much is true. Growth of any kind, in any sphere, requires that the entity in question be an open system that exchanges energy or information with the environment. [But that is not the same as an empty center, i.e., one with no translogical, vertical center.]

But he then makes the claim that "When formal education continues into the early twenties, it probably, to an extent, counteracts the attainment of psychological maturity, which would otherwise occur at about this age.” True enough, in the absence of the vertical, human beings will simply be adrift in the horizontal. It is a merely a mental-emotional realm, and therefore cynical, adolescent, and rebellious. As a matter of fact, it is pretty much the terminal state of most of academia (at least in the humanities), which is why it produces so much absurcular foolishness and so little wisdom.

The author then makes a particularly outlandish claim, that “past physical environments were more stable and allowed for a state of psychological maturity. In hunter-gatherer societies, that maturity was probably achieved during a person’s late teens or early twenties.... By contrast, many modern adults fail to attain this maturity, and such failure is common and indeed characteristic of highly educated and, on the whole, effective and socially valuable people." Again, primitive people in hunter-gatherer societies were hardly “mature” just because they stopped growing. They were simply stunted and developmentally arrested because they prematurely became closed systems.

[In other words, the author is confusing primitive "maturity" with "nothing left to know" and "nowhere left to grow"; and he is confusing the absence of an intellectual center in modern man with "flexibility" or "open-mindedness," when in reality, the world of secular academia is generally highly parochial and closed-minded, in particular, to the translogical truth that makes man Man.]

But the following conclusion by the professor is surely accurate: "People such as academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature outside of their strictly specialist competence in the sense of being unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact.... The faults of youth are retained along with the virtues.... These include short attention span, sensation and novelty-seeking, short cycles of arbitrary fashion and a sense of cultural shallowness.”

Exactly. Why is this? Because in the absence of a definition of true human maturity, a telos, an OMega point, an O megapoint, an O, Me! gapoint, a proper end toward which our humanness is oriented, we truly are perpetual adolescents [or, alternatively, a kind of sclerotic and hardened pseudo-adult] adrift in the horizontal. As I emphasized in the Coonifesto, we have both a genetic blueprint and a vertical blueprint, as it were. There is a transcendent or archetypal (not in Jung’s confused sense) realm of universal human nature toward which we are drawn by maintaining ourselves as open systems in the vertical dimension. This is a realm of grace, aspiration, and primordial truth, and it contains the only end truly worthy of a human life. To be in conformity with this transcendent clueprint -- without losing our individuality -- is what it means to be a mature human qua human.

[Needless to say, this is a reality that Darwinism not only cannot disclose, but can only obscure.]

57 Comments:

Blogger QP said...

If the trolls don't get too dense here today and you're feeling feisty, from so much slackin' in the Light, perhaps you'll want to mosey over here and see if qp ["racehorse"], empowered with some Gagdad wisdom, could use some back-up, as she's going to take some time-off from the fray today.

6/28/2008 08:07:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Musical alert for Vanophiles: please note in the sidebar the two remastered live albums being reissued next Tuesday, 1984's Live in Belfast and 1994's 2CD A Night in San Francisco. Both are OUTSTANDING, possibly my favorite records of his. Both are full of spiritual force.

6/28/2008 08:46:00 AM  
Blogger Robin Starfish said...

Being a jazz non-purist, Conversations is my favorite Bill Evans disc! Having noodled around with music for years on a far lower plane, I marvel at how he could have split himself in two to create a "higher third." But he was a bit fractured by then so it could have been his own self-therapy.

Maybe that's why I dig it. ;-)

I'm interested in what you'll think of the remastered Van discs. Those are indeed transcendent albums; I just hope they aren't overmastered like Keep It Simple. Apart from 2 fine tunes, the others are too clean and sonically separated, sucking the life out of the mix. IMHO. I would think that would be next to impossible with a live remix though.

6/28/2008 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I only have the Belfast album on vinyl, so I can't say. I listened to that baby over and over again back when it came out, and it truly was instrumental (no pun intended) at the time in opening me up to the transcendent.

I have the original San Franiciso release on CD, and it sounds fine to my ears. But digital technology has come a long way in the past 14 years, so the new one should sound better. But much depends upon the person doing the remastering, not the technology per se. It is definitely more of an art than a science, so there is no guarantee that the new one will be better, in the sense of feeling more "alive." We shall see...

6/28/2008 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

And I'm not so sure that the problem with Keep it Simple would be "overmastering." Rather, the problem is modern recording techniques, which just sound so clinical and unnatural, and squeeze the life out of the music. These recording techniques are very "spiritually uninvolving," in that you will notice that the record might sound superficially good, but that something vital, a life force, is simply missing from them. In other words, they don't sound as good as they sound.

6/28/2008 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

This is to note only a small part of a fine overall post:
"...if one conflates the realm of Truth with that which can be proven with reason alone, you have done a very irrational thing . . . . reason can only operate with the materials with which it has been provided . . . . Therefore, you no longer care about Truth as such but only the small subset that can be proven with logic."

Like most products of my demographic, I was educated under the assumption that logic and reason were the highest standards. And even in trying to penetrate the vertical dimension, my mind has basically "operated with the materials with which it has been provided," i.e. reason and logic, as much as I could apply.

Now I see this as Big E-r-r-o-r, and realize that I live surrounded by a culture that celebrates that error. It takes a bit of doing to even get clear about this, and realize what we're doing to ourselves.

Much less, explain it to others, which you work at.

Good post, Bob!

6/28/2008 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Walt:

It's very tricky in the iron age in which we live, with frauds like Deepak running around and elevating the pre-rational to the post-rational.

6/28/2008 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Tricky, yes -- but I am lucky to also have found fine teachers, and resources.

Plus, we enjoy a good mystery, right?

6/28/2008 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

"Like most products of my demographic, I was educated under the assumption that logic and reason were the highest standards."

I think this is superficially true of my demographic as well. Superficial, because while a lot of people in schools I attended took classes on basic logic, very few seemed to actually understand it or be able to apply it in the real world (hence, perhaps, the rarity of common sense).

But back to the music, does vinyl wear out after repeated listenings, or is it fairly impervious to the scratch of the needle?

6/28/2008 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

If you have a good stylus that is properly aligned, it shouldn't be a problem. You just can't believe the "life" that is present in good vinyl properly reproduced. It is positively eery. Yes, you can "hear" it, but even more, you can "sense" it with something like a third ear.

6/28/2008 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Wizard said...

Well, he's not Deepak...but there's nothing quite like a Ram Charan presentation for the modern corporatist....

He's as horizontal as Deekpak is vertical...

He can "elevate" everything, pre-rational, post-rational, or simply irrational, to the question of "cash flow".

He's one of the few, uh, motivational speakers who will tell you that if you were actually rich, you would not be here listening to him speak to you.

I do not think that I will ever have the opportunity to attend a presentation like that one again.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/79/ram.html

"What Charan loves to do--what he has concluded is his life's purpose--is to solve business problems. With his plainspoken, Socratic approach, he helps demolish organizational silos or persuade entrenched executives to change their points of view.... "He is an Indian guru who found that consulting was his life's calling," says Noel Tichy, a professor of organizational behavior at the University of Michigan who has worked with Charan for more than 20 years.

This almost religious devotion to the altar of commerce has brought him much earthly prominence."

6/28/2008 12:05:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I think I get what you mean - it's like the difference between an original painting (complete with brush strokes, possibly fingerprints, traces of underpainting peeking out here and there that reveal tantalizing hints of the creative process, etc.) and a photographed copy. Even if it's a really good giclee print (printed on canvas, looks almost like the original) the colors will never be quite the same and something is bound to be lost in translation.

Or for that matter, it's the difference between working in real life and working with Photoshop or painter to produce art; you can do all kinds of slick things, but it almost always does end up looking, well, a bit too slick.

6/28/2008 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, unfortunately, I don't listen to too much vinyl these days, mainly because CDs are so darn convenient. But the last time I did, I compared the new Beatles CD of Rubber Soul with my audiophile vinyl, and also the Waterboys' new deluxe edition of Fisherman's Blues with the vinyl, and it was like night and day. And these are very good sounding CDs, I might add....

6/28/2008 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Robin said-
"But he was a bit fractured by then so it could have been his own self-therapy."

Speaking of fractured, I was reading about dumb criminals recently, and this psychiatrist, who was seeing this lady with multiple personalities, had each "personality" doing something for him.

One he was having sex with, one was cleaning his house, and one was paying his bills and buying him stuff.

Apparently, he failed to account for a fourth personality, which eventually caught on to the scam, and he was arrested.

Then the psychiatrist claimed that each seperate personality had doctor/patient confidentiality, like seperate patients.
That's the first time I heard that one.

6/28/2008 01:19:00 PM  
Anonymous christopher said...

Logic is no error. It is a most powerful tool of mind process, and it not so strangely mimics many, if not most natural processes. That is its place, as a tool in the tool kit. The error is to exalt a most powerful tool to THE most powerful tool, or to assert it is a precise match to nature, or to otherwise commit an idolatry concerning it.

Spiritual teachers speak in parables and poesy when approaching the limits of reason.

Logic won't go past certain limits and these limits are there. People who get that will often say "then you can't prove God" which will mean really that you can't use logic to prove God, because God is transrational. Indeed.

But the reverse, oh the reverse...
God proves me. At this moment, at this very moment, God propositions that I exist, checks that through transrational process of infinite and instantaneous nature, and here I am, not only here but infinitely proved to be here. Otherwise, I am not here.

Logic applied to the world mostly works. But logic will kill the music. I am most grateful that some of you all seem to know music better than me and perhaps even play better - that wouldn't be hard. I am grateful though that I have my Yamaha Motif ES6 and three guitars. Sometimes I "say" stuff better that way. And I keep my voice in with a local post-collegiate choir where I baritone with them on our specialty, Estonian choral music.

6/28/2008 04:58:00 PM  
Anonymous bulletproof monk said...

Christopher, very good comment. Thank you.

I like your statement, "God proves me."

Or as B'ob often says, "It's not true because it's logical, it's logical because it's true."

Just so, both epistemo-logically and more importantly onto-logically. Without God I am literally nothing (and no-thing), He is my alpha and my omega, my creator, who saves me from error and death. Lord have mercy.

Let the music play...

6/28/2008 07:42:00 PM  
Anonymous rabid racoonified said...

"Without God I am literally nothing (and no-thing), "

Oh no! Wait a minute! This implies that God is some-thing? I thought he is no-thing...I mean, nothing...nothing...nothing...

!?Hey, an echo...echo...echo...

Well, there must be something...something...something..

But what...what...what!?

Hmmm...hmmm...hmmm???...??...?

:)

Ommmm....Ommmm...Ommmm...

Rock On!

...

...I might just stay confused forever.
Not knowing whereth the wind is blowing.
Such tired eyes that ponder the stars--undeaneath a dismal glimmer glowing...Glowing!?
Agni just might, with enough speed, catch the celetrial spiral to eternity...eternity...eternity. What...what...what...!?

Insertia cannot hold tight too long this unspoken celetrialight delight.

For all music was meant to be growing...growing..growing...

And all minds are unmade for gnowing...gnowing...gnowing...

(silence)

What unsay ye Petey the wise!?

(And have a bloody damn good Sonday!)

6/28/2008 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I don't know.... Where the hell was Biggles when we needed him last Saturday?

6/28/2008 10:24:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

resting down in Cornwall

6/29/2008 12:33:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

slacking up in Coquille

6/29/2008 01:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Brave Helios, wake up your steeds...

6/29/2008 06:37:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hmmm...after a restless night, should I continue to attempt to sleep (or perhaps doze is a better word for it) or should I say "hell with it" and make some java?

Cast yer votes now! Get involved! Start your own PAC...'cause despite what many politicksions say, special interests are Constitutional!

6/29/2008 07:16:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Particularly when your special interest coonincides with mine.

Remember, there's a reaon most of us drink coffee. :^)

6/29/2008 07:18:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Of course, I like tea also, so don't be distracted by the details.

Does this make sense or am I just whistlin' Dixie?

6/29/2008 07:20:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative

6/29/2008 07:26:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks, Bob! Good link!
This stod out immediately:
"We're so terrified that someone might call us a theocrat. I've got news for conservatives: They'll call us that no matter what we do. If we don't talk about faith, they'll just say we're crypto-theocrats."

Now, back to readin'!

6/29/2008 07:30:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Two points stand out for me:

Glazov: Can there be a coherent political conservatism without God?

Klinghoffer: Not really. Russell Kirk lays this out in The Conservative Mind, where he identifies the very first principle of a conservative worldview as "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems."

and

Glazov: What philosophical question, if any, underlies the range of differences between conservatives and liberals on the hottest political issues of the day?

Klinghoffer: Precisely this question of moral responsibility. On issue after issue, conservatism follows the Bible in assuming that people can be held responsible for their actions.

6/29/2008 07:33:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Ultimately, the antinomy is not between Democrat/Republican or liberal/leftist. Rather, the deep structure of the "culture war" comes down to the eternal battle between the forces of materialism and idealism, or humanism and animalism. Again: leftism reduces man to an animal, and is profoundly anti-human. Deep reflection on this can lead to no other conclusion.

Secular liberalism reduces man to an animal, while conservative liberalism elevates man to a divine co-creator, thus making it the ultimate humanism. Conservatism is clearly rooted in our nation's founding document: All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

The operative words are "created" (as opposed to being mere replicating machines) and "rights," which the founders never dreamed could be separated from responsibilities. This is why the ACLU is so satanic, as they not only drive a wedge between our God-given rights and responsibilities, but deny that our rights are derived from the Creator and not the government.

6/29/2008 07:35:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I will add, before reading further, there was a time when every school had a Bible. Not to impose Religion but to teach students things that science could never teach.

And yet, we never became a theocracy then, even with (gasp!) prayer!

So, IMO, this great fear that secular humanist, atheistic, RD conservatives have of a theocracy forming in the US, is based on unfounded paranoia.

6/29/2008 07:36:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"The idea that spiritual values have a legitimate role to play in shaping political values is a basic American assumption, not a theocratic one."

I like this guy! Not just because he agrees with me (or vice versa).

6/29/2008 07:44:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Klinghoffer:
"Jews and Christians alike tend to undersell or dumb down our faiths. We're content to think the Bible is just a book of stories, ethical rules for personal observance, or abstract theological dogma. On its own terms, however, Scripture is much more than that. Something I found incredibly exciting about Judaism, my own inherited religion, when I was getting to know it as an adult, is that it addresses every conceivable kind of question a person or a society could have. Based on Proverbs 8:30, Biblical tradition depicts Scripture as nothing less than a blueprint of moral reality. I can't think of any reason a wise person would not want to know what the Bible can teach us about immigration, climate change, war, Islamic terror, or any of the other issues I cover."

I think Mr. Klighoffer has been readin' One Cosmos! :^)

6/29/2008 07:46:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I do think he makes a mistake irt race and affirmative action.
Well, no one is perfect.

I just don't see where the Bible encourages affirmative action (when he mentions the Jews and Egypt I believe that was a different thing alltogether), not an example for every race that ever experienced a grievance (which is everyone in the world)..

6/29/2008 07:54:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I do think Klinghoffer raises a lot of good points.
It's too bad that most RD'ers will simply write him and his ideas off as a "creationist kook."

When it comes to metaphysics we just can't have an honest discussion with RD paranoids anymore.

They see a threat that isn't there while ignoring the very real threat of militant secularism that seeks to eradicate any talk of our Creator or Absolute Truth, or our God-given rights in public school classrooms.

6/29/2008 08:04:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, Klinghoffer is clearly not an esoterist, more of an "allegorist" in the rabbinical tradition. Only esoterism can plumb the depth of scripture in a completely consistent manner.

Having said that, although I believe Klinghoffer comes to the wrong conclusion about race, his premise may be correct, i.e., that racial differences are providential and not to be casually discarded as meaningless effects of genetic selection. (This was Schuon's belief, which is one of the reasons why he cherished the diverse revelations of different peoples, and felt they were complementary and not antagonistic.)

The problem is, for most of human history, these differences have been used as an excuse for persecution and subordination, so people won't touch the idea with a barge pole.

But when I say, for example, that I love black music, I do so with the recognition that, for whatever reason, this music only could have been "discovered" and developed by African Americans. Ironically, the belief in absolute racial equivalence ends up having a leveling effect, in that we cannot appreciate the unique contribution of this or that racial group. Or, if we do, we have to politicize it in the manner of the dreaded multiculturalists. Absolute equivalence always has a leveling effect, and ends up being an attack on transcendence.

6/29/2008 08:09:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Ben:

Yes, I can hear Charles now: Shill!!! Hoax!!!

6/29/2008 08:09:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Yes, I agree with what schuon and you say about race, Bob. Just not the implication of reparations that have already been paid, IMO, in the US, with the lives of hundreds of thousands of white and black folks.

Also, the RD'ers take the "WAll" between Church and State literally, and vehemently oppose any mention of Religion and all the Good it has to offer, IAW the Constitution and place the State ABOVE Religion as if it knows best.

It's actually the same blueprint that Communism operates with, and it's necessary to place full power and authority with the State alone in order to brainwash young minds.

Communist Manifesto 101.

6/29/2008 08:22:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Mornin' Bob-n'-Ben!

You guys sure do sleep in late!

6/29/2008 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Mornin' Walt!
Actually, I haven't slept much, last night, but not for lack of tryin'.

I may try again before it gets hot. Maybe these pork chops will make me groggy. :^)

6/29/2008 08:37:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Mmmm-m-m pork chops!

I sympathize! I got in 4 good hours before the Catz-Rampage began at midnite!

So peaceful in the wee hours!

6/29/2008 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Awe, man! I have to cut the grass…good thread.
Speaking of things to do, I think there’s a garage sale at Walt’s. No need to rush though, because if I read the sign right as I drove by earlier, there’s one going on in every Raccoon’s melon all the time. Or they're not Raccoons.

6/29/2008 09:15:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Security and Freedom

The Margaret Thatcher lecture delivered to the Heritage Foundation, June 3rd, 2008.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/
hanson062708.html

6/29/2008 10:53:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

There's an interesting (but very long) article in the Times today about declining population. I'm reading America Alone right now, so it's useful to see the issue from a slightly different perspective.

This rather chilling observation comes toward the end (bottom of page 9):

"This notion — embrace shrinkage in order to revitalize your economy, rather than trying to coax women to have more babies — is, according to more than a few observers of the European scene, the right tack. Or better said, it is one part of the best overall strategy — one that embraces population decline. For there are those who argue that low birthrate in itself is not a problem at all." (emphasis mine)

The world really is turning upside down...

6/29/2008 01:23:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks Ximeze!
That speech by Margaret Thatcher is right on!

God, it's refreshing to hear a former leader like Thatcher who knows what shwe is talking about and better yet, knows how to deal with the current threats (both outside and within) Western Civilization faces.

"The Western military tradition assures Western states that they could, if they so wish, become almost immune from foreign attack. Consensual governments can, in extremis, craft security legislation consistent with constitutional principles that will protect citizens without eroding their rights. But government has no remedy once citizens voluntarily begin to abandon freedom of expression out of fear, guilt — or misguided ideologies designed to deny the singularity of their civilization."

Margaret Thatcher for President!
Well, I can dream can't I?

6/29/2008 05:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taint nothing wrong with Deepak. I've read Bob, and I've read the afore mentoioned, and I don't parse much difference.

Where do the two philosophies diverge exactly?


Both espouse a belief in depth of consciousness, vertical evoloution, God, etc.

So Bob carps at Deepak mainly because Deepak is popular and makes money? Like those two things are a sin?

C'mon Bob. Show us the lack of wounded ego, por favor. That is too small for you.

6/29/2008 11:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course I am soooooo much more of a pathetic loser than either Deepak or Bob. I try and sound intelligent but realize I haven't the faculties.
The pain of my failing is so great that I need to come here and strike out at others over things my pride will keep me from ever understanding.
I loathe myself and so project that loathing to the world.

6/30/2008 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I need help.

6/30/2008 12:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pathetic Looooozer that I AM.

6/30/2008 12:45:00 AM  
Blogger dogriver said...

Greetings vanonymous burros!

HEEE HAAWWW! HEE HAAWW!

6/30/2008 01:53:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Because in the absence of a definition of true human maturity, a telos, an OMega point, an O megapoint, an O, Me! gapoint, a proper end toward which our humanness is oriented, we truly are perpetual adolescents [or, alternatively, a kind of sclerotic and hardened pseudo-adult] adrift in the horizontal. As I emphasized in the Coonifesto, we have both a genetic blueprint and a vertical blueprint, as it were. There is a transcendent or archetypal (not in Jung’s confused sense) realm of universal human nature toward which we are drawn by maintaining ourselves as open systems in the vertical dimension. This is a realm of grace, aspiration, and primordial truth, and it contains the only end truly worthy of a human life. To be in conformity with this transcendent clueprint -- without losing our individuality -- is what it means to be a mature human qua human."

Nothing to add, just wanted to see again.

6/30/2008 05:22:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "Again: leftism reduces man to an animal, and is profoundly anti-human."

Yes, and for all their shouts of "Celebrate yourself!", they are most deeply anti-self.

6/30/2008 05:31:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

dogaver said "Greetings vanonymous burros!"

Ok. Gotta admit, that's a good one.

And still laughing.

6/30/2008 05:44:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Ben, I totally agree on "Thatcher for President!", but the speech is VDH's, given at the 5th annual Margaret Thatcher Freedom Memorial.

The Heritage event details are here for In Defense of Liberty: The Relationship between Security and Freedom, which has Victor Davis Hanson giving the speech
a In defense of Liberty (streaming video - takes a bit to buffer), it also has mp3 download options.

6/30/2008 05:55:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

So Bob carps at Deepak mainly because Deepak is popular and makes money? Like those two things are a sin?

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Words to consider. Bob's critique is 'ironic', because usually the sign of a false teacher is that he speaks smooth words and is immensely popular and rich. The greatest sages were either poor (on purpose) or servants.

Still, it's nice to have some extra money. Any of us would be a liar if we said that wasn't so. In that sense, it's an act of humility, even.

But don't tell Bob!

6/30/2008 06:34:00 AM  
Anonymous jackass said...

Van said,
"Ok. Gotta admit, that's a good one."

Heh, Heh, I'm glad you liked it. Do you like...... me?

6/30/2008 08:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Hoarhey said...

What a jackass. Next time read more carfully.

7/01/2008 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Jackass,

When you highjacked my name you spelled carefully wrong. It's C_A_R_E_F_U_L_L_Y.

7/01/2008 09:03:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey jacked said...

Original Jackass(hoarhey),

What's in a name? A petulant saviour by any other name would bray just as loud. Riiiighht Coooonn? Hee Haww!

I didn't misspell anything.

7/02/2008 05:00:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home