Sunday, September 27, 2009

Holy History, B'atman, We're Surrounded by Jokers!

Once again I dropped my line into the knowa's arkive, and the very first post arrested my attention. It seems to nonlocally relate to yesterday's post, plus I see some pneumatic interstices where I can toss in some pneumaterial. If possible, I would also like to find a way to work in some comments on the following observation by Magnus:

"At the time of Jesus and his apostles, deep time was a span of hundreds of years at best. Some of their words would take more than a thousand years to hit home. It is the same today, except that a thousand years passes in less than a generation. Human time is speeding up so that changes that would take a hundred years may take less than ten. And then it speeds up again.

"However, the future is still equally hard to predict. That means that if you, in the age of Emperor Augustus, had not been able to foresee the Middle Ages... then you are not able to foresee the world twenty years from now.

"A fascinating side effect of this is that we, in a certain sense, have regained the lifespan of the mythical ancestors from before the Flood, who would live to see nearly a thousand years pass. Even had this been literally true, they would hardly learn as much, or see as much change, in their 900 years as some of us have seen already."

You see, as soon as you try to define time, you understand that Magnus' comment is more than metaphorical, for if time is the measure of change, then what he says is literally true. I think about this all the time. In my wildest dreams, twenty years ago I could not imagine doing what I am doing at this very moment -- i.e., instantaneously communicating my deepest and most eccentric thoughts to a leading-fringe audience of oddballs and misfits spanning the entire world while sitting here in my childhood bedroom. Yes, I continue to grow up in the house I grew up in, but that's another story. Or storey.

"Energy" is one of those words, like "time," which everyone uses but no one can actually define. Physicists have no idea what energy is, only what it does. The dictionary doesn't help, defining it as "the capacity of being active" or "the capacity for doing work." Transferred to the human plane, this doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, think of all the liberal "activists" who do not actually "work." In fact, if they worked, they wouldn't have the time or energy to be activists, and we'd all be better off. Liberals -- not to mention government employees -- prove that work and activity can be diametrically opposed.

It seems that for humans, energy is value-neutral, in that it will only make the unredeemed man more of what he already is, so to speak. With the influx of energy, a deplorable rag such as the Enquirer or New York Times simply becomes more of one, if that is possible. Keith Olbermann only becomes more unglued. Chris Matthews only hurls more spittle at the back of your TV screen -- which is impossible to clean, by the way. The MSMistry of Truth only burrows further into the Messiah's asstank. In other words, the energy in no way "elevates" its recipient, although the person no doubt feels more alive when the energy is rushing along his keel and causing a tingle in his pasty and corpulent thigh.

I'm sure this is why so many people on the left are so addicted to anger and outrage, and the reason why I counsel my slavish clones not to get too caught up in the tempest of the day; or, at the very least, to do so with one eye on the Aion and another eye winking. What you do with your third eye is your business.

Our work is not political per se. For us, there can be no political solution. Rather, nothing short of a transformation of consciousness can alter the present course of history. History is not just a horizontal stream of time, being that it is composed of humans (and cultures) of differing developmental -- which is to say, vertical -- levels.

I often think about this as it pertains to my four and a-half year-old. I well remember that eternal, magical space that I lived in when I was his age -- the natural mysticism of childhood -- and about how he is in that identical space, despite all the historical differences. They are all obliterated in the mystery of his pure consciousness, which is atemporal being and bliss. When he's getting his way, that is. When he's not, he suddenly transmogrifies into an endlessly whining and entitled liberal beast whose demands are bottomless. Same conscious-energy. Different result.

History, like man himself, is just a middle term linking two ahistorical realities. Dude, that's called a fact. If we think of history as the residue of, or the tracks laid down by, the Adventure of Consciousness, what is most important for us is not its horizontal meandering but its vertical ascent. In other words, profane history is merely the "stage," so to speak, on which the Army of Man makes forays into the vertical and slowly colonizes it -- just as some 40,000 years ago, proto-humans slowly began colonizing the a priori space of humanness and all its various "mansions," both high and low.

To put it another way -- and this is a critical point -- the acquisition of humanness was not merely an evolutionary ascent. Rather, it simultaneously -- and necessarily -- involved opening up a space which was lower than the beasts. This is why man and only man can be higher or lower than an animal, depending upon the choices he makes. This is also why history is so simultaneously surreal and subreal. No mere animal could produce the Holocaust on the one hand or < fill in the blank > on the other.

Imagine an advancing army, only moving upward and inward; as Sri Aurobindo put it, it is like "a tide or mounding flux, the leading fringe of which touches the highest degrees of a cliff or hill while the rest is still below," or "an army advancing in columns which annexes new ground, while the main body is still behind in territory overrun but too large to be effectively occupied, so that there has to be a frequent halt and partial return to the traversed areas for consolidation and advance of the hold on the occupied country and assimilation of its people."

This is why it was so appallingly vomitaceous for Obama to actually abase himself -- and by extension, us -- before that hideous gang of murderers, thugs, and anti-Semites last week. Truly, this is like the Jews apologizing to Hitler, and Netanyahu has our eternal gratitude for speaking truth to the steaming pile of human turds in that World Toilet.

By way of contrast -- to put it mildly -- the "Reagan Revolution" was more importantly an evolution. Unfortunately, the evolution "didn't take," and we're almost back to where we started in Carterville. Why? First, because, as always, the evolution is embattled on all sides by the primitives and barbarians down below, who are animated by hostile cosmic forces they do not understand. But perhaps even more importantly, because we were not worthy of it. No one is more responsible for frittering away the progress of the Reagan Revolution than the Republican party, which simply gave the game away to the barbarian hordes. Our foundation was not secure enough.

I am reminded of another comment from yesterday, this one by xlbrl: "The socialist state cannot live without the conservative making it work for him. What Reagan accomplished was remarkable indeed, yet here we are at the precipice again, and quickly.... If we do not re-discover and remove all things in which all government extends itself and reduces citizens, we will acheive that end point of democracy for which Tocqueville elequently described but for which he could find no name."

There actually is a name: tyranny, except that it's the tyranny that occurs at the end rather than beginning of history, for "extremes meet." It is the tyranny of, in the formulation of James Kalb, "administered freedom, inquisitorial tolerance, and equality by command."

Thus we await another political "savior" to save us from saviors. Like the actual savior, this one will certainly have to possess a "mandate from heaven," which means to say that he or she will have to be a vibhuti, or man or woman with an evolutionary mission. Even the secular savior must first face the challenge of being strangled in their crib. They must face down Death itself as a preparation for what they will face later, which will be like Death fractured into a million images in a hall of TV monitors, cable stations, newspapers, elite universities, and know-nothing bloggers. One must be able to walk calmly through that vale of Death, because it is ultimately a maze of "pure" illusion.

It is quite literally a confrontation with Death, as described, for example, in the Tibetan Book of the Dead -- which is really a Book of Life and how to get out of it alive. There we are told that upon (ego) death we will be confronted with the apparitions of every wrathful demon and every seductive illusion -- and leftism is nothing if not a seductive illusion. "If the soul is able to perceive the identity between its innate luminosity and the great light of reality, then liberation is achieved" (Perry).

This is why the true conservative leader must be religious in the deepest sense, because only a religious person with the protection of grace will be able to walk calmly through this gauntlet. Could you do it? Face down the kind of hatred and viciousness we are seeing, while remaining in your Center?

Whoever it is will be sorely tested, not just by the left, but by the demonic energy they embody. You will note that their energy is chaotic, disorganized, hysterical, shrill, bullying, harassing, disorienting, intoxicated, "over the top." The only way to make one's way through this storm of insanity is with divine assistance. There is no other way. One must surrender to the higher in order to master the lower.

As always, it all comes back to Batman, doesn't it? Remember his training with the League of Shadows, when he had to walk through the gauntlet of the ninjas, all poised to attack at any moment? At the end is a treasure chest overflowing with -- his worst fear. Only then, by calmly facing the fear, is the fear transformed into a gift, and he become more than a man. Thus, his fear really is a kind of priceless treasure. The demons serve an evolutionary purpose -- up to a point.

Bruce Wayne takes the primordial fear and chaos of the underworld -- represented by the bats -- and internalizes them to his benefit. The fear still exists, only now he contains it, rather than vice versa. In so doing, he not only masters these demonic forces, but marshals them to his advantage. I have no idea why conservatives do not do the same thing with the hellbats represented by the liberal media. When is someone going to aggressively, relentlessly, and unapologetically shove it back in their hideous faces? When is someone going to take those projections, which are vomited from hell like so many bats, and use the material to assemble an ontological pneutron bomb, which disperses liberals like sunlight on a vampire but leaves our institutions standing?

It is no coincidence that Batman operates out of the subterranean cave beneath civilization, symbolized by Wayne Manor. Not only is he comfortable down in hell, but the very foundations of the mansion are plunged deep into the cavern below. This is a key point: your own evolution will continue to slide back down if you do not have your spiritual foundation planted deep beneath your "southeast corner." I don't care how beautiful your mansion, if it doesn't have a kind of continuity with the darkness below, it won't survive the coming birthquake. Not for nothing does Holy Saturday precede Easter Sunday.

Remember the image of the advancing army: you had better have the space below occupied by your troops before you try to advance above. Furthermore, you had better maintain a continuous line of communication. The last thing you want to happen is for your luxpeditionary force to get stranded above, cut off from the supply line. Your growth must be organic, which is to say, internally related on all levels, with no gaps. Most of all it must be embodied and lived.

Hmm, just received a delightfully over-the-top email from a curious reader. I think you know by now that your Dear Leader is not only unsusceptible to flattery, but even offended by it, so you will forgive its extravagant praise of the almighty B'ob. It's just the reader's own energy externalized, anyway. Or, he is just sharing a joke at his expense. Either way, the real superhero is in the heart:

"What in the holy name of Creation are you doing, my good sir? I am sincerely perplexed at the nature of your blog, the complexity of your mind, and the tenacity of your wit, all of which far exceed my abilities of comprehension -- most of the time, anyway.

"Your book and blog have served me a great deal in letting go of my identification with the insanity of unadulterated liberalism, and, more importantly, helped me recognize the impersonal nature of all thought forms as they arise in the vast expanse of my awareness. Nonetheless, I can't seem to grasp from a larger perspective the purpose you serve by playing the role of 'Gagdad Bob,' which I can only assume leaves you with more hate mail than the Vatican after that glorious run of molestation charges earlier this decade.

"Please, let me in on the secret! What is it in my psyche that draws me back to a blog that is such a severe combination of consciousness-tones that it can only remind one of Rachmaninoff orchestrating a piece while under the influence of LSD after spending three months locked in a cell with J. Edgar Hoover, Molly Ringwald, Pat Buchanan, and Mother Theresa? The blog is funny, frightening, poetic, genius, and above all, ballsy. What drives it?"

Easy. I'm the B'atman. And so are you, or you wouldn't be here.

63 Comments:

Anonymous slackosopher said...

"That means that if you, in the age of Emperor Augustus, had not been able to foresee the Middle Ages... then you are not able to foresee the world twenty years from now."

I've longed wonder what the various Raccoon views might be on the near future. What with people like Ray Kurzweil talking about the exponential curve of technology and the effects it could have in the very near future.

I guess my question is what is the fate of "man as such" in the face of the prospect of radical alteration through technology?

9/27/2009 08:23:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Methinks your email fan is just another troll, with a new tactic!

Either way, it gave impetus to such an excellent post that I am grateful for it.

9/27/2009 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, sycophancy has its limits... or at least it did until the MSM met Obama.

9/27/2009 08:29:00 AM  
Anonymous slackosopher said...

Confession: Last night I somewhat lost my cool when faced with the leftist idiocy that our government perpetrated 9/11. Also, that we let Pearl Harbor "happen" so we could enter the war.

I live in one of *the* most idiotically lefty places in America...not Berkeley (but it begins with a "B" though). I haven't yet found a happy medium between keeping my mouth shut and slightly losing it because I've been keeping my mouth shut.

*sigh*

9/27/2009 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"In my wildest dreams, twenty years ago I could not imagine doing what I am doing at this very moment -- i.e., instantaneously communicating my deepest and most eccentric thoughts to a leading-fringe audience of oddballs and misfits spanning the entire world while sitting here in my childhood bedroom. Yes, I continue to grow up in the house I grew up in, but that's another story. Or storey."

To blend the two, there is something wildly implausible, even unimaginable to most Americans, that someone could possibly live, as an adult, in the same house they grew up in as a child. Even ten years is a wildly outrageous expanse of time to spend in one house.

My Grandpa built a house in Van Nuys Ca, in the 1920's, and it was his intention that it become 'the family home'. My Mom grew up in it, we moved into it when I was...8, but left the state when I was 12.

Permanence, tradition, of any sort, as with ritual in general, has become... unthinkable to most people. 'New', 'change' trumps worthiness and consistency, and time, unmoored, burns rubber down the track.

9/27/2009 08:33:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"There actually is a name: tyranny, except that it's the tyranny that occurs at the end rather than beginning of history, for "extremes meet." It is the tyranny of, in the formulation of James Kalb, "administered freedom. inquisitorial tolerance, and equality by command." "

Or as RueSow said "...that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. "

9/27/2009 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Vanderleun slaps Queeg hard with a verbal pneutron bomb.

9/27/2009 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Speaking of warped energies, some complete idiot came up with this. I notice that the designer is British, but the description is aimed at wasteful Americans.

What bothers me more about it, though, is the idea of introducing a blood sacrifice to create a rather creepy-looking light. Talk about your pagan and demonic elements; I'm sure he'll be lauded for his "creativity" and "environmental consciousness." We live in an age of wonders, and so often those wonders are used to try and force us back to the dark ages.

Slackosopher, I would say right now that the fate of "man as such" right now is precarious, indeed. All the more reason to keep the Omfires burning.

9/27/2009 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Looks like Spengler is surfing the cosmic timewave today, too.

9/27/2009 09:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Nice vertical recollection by a bona fide shabb'atman.

9/27/2009 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger QP said...

@ NoQuarter, best photoshop job to date!

9/27/2009 10:49:00 AM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

"Energy" is one of those words, like "time," which everyone uses but no one can actually define. Physicists have no idea what energy is, only what it does. The dictionary doesn't help, defining it as "the capacity of being active" or "the capacity for doing work."

This statement is imprecise. Physics is a hierarchy of definitions, where, over time, the definitions are refined and modified in an effort to make them more precise. Take, for example, “Energy” – it has a very precise definition. That is not to say that the definition of “Energy” is timeless, it can, and will be modified as physical knowledge accumulates, just as the definition of “Energy” and “mass” has changed with the advent of Einstein’s work.

Getting back to “Energy”…what is energy? Starting with the simplest system, an isolated discrete object, in the realm of non-relativistic classical mechanics, the energy is the sum of its kinetic energy and potential energy, E = K + Σ U . In the previous sentence, there are libraries filled with texts that define “isolated”, “discrete”, “object”, “non-relativistic”, “classical”, “mechanics”, “kinetic energy”, and “potential energy”. Thus we’re swerving rather quickly into a realm of complexity that goes beyond this short reply, but suffice to say; your comment “Physicists have no idea what energy is” is inaccurate.

What is interesting, and may be the crux of confusion for many, is that “energy” cannot be measured, but a “difference in energy” can be measured. This is a revelation for many. Why can’t “Energy” be measured? Although the kinetic energy K can be measured at a certain point in space, the potential energy Σ U is not uniquely defined, it has an arbitrary constant C, i.e. U = f(x,y,z) +C . For those who remember their calculus from high-school, the arbitrary constant C is the result of doing the indefinite line integrals for the conservative forces experienced by our isolated object.

9/27/2009 11:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

That only begs the question, because if you don't know what a physicist is, you can't know what energy is.

9/27/2009 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

That only begs the question, because if you don't know what a physicist is, you can't know what energy is.

To borrow from Spartacus, or Kirk Douglas, "I am physicist!"

Although I'm a physicist, I'm also human, and therefore fallible.

9/27/2009 11:36:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Bob said,
"When is someone going to aggressively, relentlessly, and unapologetically shove it back in their hideous faces? "

Back during the campaign, various Repub organizations would send me e-mails whining for money. I would respond by telling them that they wouldn't get a dime until they grew a pair and started to fight. I explained that they were dealing with radical, cut-throat street marxists and until they met them force for force, they would be steamrolled as they continue to be with their (Bush) "new tone" attitudes. Apparently the initial e-mails were getting through because it took several months before the mails began being returned as undeliverable. Didn't like the message I guess.

9/27/2009 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Indeed. "Compassionate conservatism" is neither compassionate nor conservative.

9/27/2009 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Anonymous 1,
the energy is the sum of its kinetic energy and potential energy

While that is demonstrably true, it still doesn't define the isness of energy. It quantifies, but does not qualify. If I were to say "the apples are the sum of the apples on the tree and the apples falling to the ground," that doesn't tell me anything about what they are. It only gives a means to count them.

Furthermore, there are types of energy that cannot possibly be measured in terms of kinetic and potential. For instance, Bob spent x amount of time and burned y calories this morning writing this post. In reading it, new neuronal connections were made in the brains of z number of readers, who spent a calories and b time reading it. And yet there was no transfer of matter nor electrons nor anything else physical from Bob to the readers. The cause and effect would presumably have been the same if he had written it on paper, plunked it in a bottle, and tossed it in the ocean for us to fish out. The physical energies involved have nothing to do with the mental energies that are transferred, but undeniably there is a material response. Some kind of energy moved from O to him to us. But what it is, though it may be quantified, will never be qualified.

That is what is meant - we may quantify energy, but it defies qualification.

9/27/2009 02:34:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

Julie,
Thanks for your reply. I would agree with your assessment that The Scientific Method does not explain the “isness of energy”, this, I believe, is the realm of mysticism. The Scientific Method is a peculiar beast that has been misinterpreted by many. It actually has very little to say about many of the questions that our species is interested in. In that sense, it’s very limited.

But, one must be vigilant and cautious when wading into the pool of extrapolation. Erroneous application, or extrapolation, of The Scientific Method, in realms unsuitable, has resulted in devastating consequences for society -- the most notorious being dialectical materialism. Marxism pretends to apply The Scientific Method to political philosophy, in an effort to bolster its validity using an appeal to authority, the authority of Science. Unfortunately, The Scientific Method is merely an algorithm, albeit a powerful algorithm when properly applied. Since the application of this algorithm is dependent upon humans, the inevitable opportunity for fraud and incompetence are legitimate concerns.

Although I enjoy Bob’s circuitous observations, when I see him swerve into inappropriate extrapolation, onto the playing field of Physics, I will, if I’ve had a cup of tea or coffee, raise the caution flag.

9/27/2009 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

While I agree that erroneous extrapolation can have devastating consequences, I guess I fail to see how that is true in this case.

The extrapolated point was simply that quantity of energy (whether the energy of "work" or the energy of "activity") does not affect its intrinsic or essential quality. I don't see how this could not be true, either scientifically, mystically, or just in general human terms. For the quality of the energy to change, other forces must come into play, no?

Perhaps I'm missing something, though.

9/27/2009 03:10:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

In the realm of physics, there’s no such thing as “energy of work” or “energy of activity”. The definition of energy, in non-relativistic classical mechanics, is the definition I provided earlier, while the definition of “work” is the line integral of the applied force over the path followed by the isolated object.

Bob’s statement, at face value, “Physicists have no idea what energy is, only what it does” is erroneous. If you’re saying this statement should read ““Physicists have no idea what the isness of energy is”, then I would agree with that statement.

The definition of “energy” has a 350 year history in physics. Its current definition, based upon our current knowledge set, is quite precise.

9/27/2009 03:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

It almost sounds as if you are confusing what something is with its definition.

9/27/2009 03:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

To put it another way, Raccoons prefer the meal to the menu.

9/27/2009 03:55:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

It almost sounds as if you are confusing what something is with its definition.

I do admit that this sort of mysticism is beyond my scope. I hope this discussion doesn't devolve into one that depends on what the definition of is is.

9/27/2009 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Yes, exactly, Petey.

I'm sorry, A1, but you seem to be arguing that "what it is" is somehow different from its "isness," when really they're the same thing.

9/27/2009 04:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

All metaphysical discussions depend upon what is is and whether being is prior to knowledge or vice versa.

9/27/2009 04:19:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

To put it another way, Raccoons prefer the meal to the menu.

True, but one needs a menu that defines the entrees properly, otherwise when you order Salmon, the waiter might bring you a plate of Snails.

9/27/2009 04:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Indeed. This is why we have the tenured servants to work in the kitchen and to wait on us.

9/27/2009 04:21:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

Petey and Julie,

I apologize. I have no idea what either of you are saying or mean. I think I will leave this discussion to the philosophers.

9/27/2009 04:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Never mind. I'll have the orange chicken.

9/27/2009 04:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Sauteed in a particle collider, if you don't mind.

9/27/2009 04:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

I'll have the Schrodinger's cat in black bean sauce.

9/27/2009 04:29:00 PM  
Anonymous LaFayette said...

Question -- is your fish caught nonlocally?

9/27/2009 04:29:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Don't apologize, A 1. There's nothing wrong with seeking clarity.

9/27/2009 04:35:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

But while we're talking menu items, I'll have a Klein bottle of Gatorade. (It's got electrolytes.)

9/27/2009 04:37:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

I always have to open half a dozen new tabs and read before I can comment! I know anylink y'all post is worth the read.

9/27/2009 04:38:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Anonymous_1 said "I hope this discussion doesn't devolve into one that depends on what the definition of is is"

Heh... I like this One Anonymous.

9/27/2009 04:40:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

I think what the problem is, is that the meaning of Is, is beyond the definition of what the meaning of is is, it is what it is, and science only works with what the IS is doing... it is just that since science separated from Metaphysics, the Is it is describing, is only a descriptive shadow of what the Is really IS.

Whereas we are concerned more with what the IS Is, rather than descriptions of what it is doing.

Clear?

I recommend Scotch.

9/27/2009 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

oh, good lord. Quantity does not equal quality.

But more of the same will most certainly turn our kids' brains to mush.

9/27/2009 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

Van said, "I think what the problem is, is..."

That is helpful, thanks. That's what I needed, The Philosopher's Cliff Notes, and I'll take a single Malt.

9/27/2009 05:11:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Julie, quantity in that case means a *decline* in quality (and most likely an increase in property taxes). Geesh...let my people go!!

9/27/2009 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Not to mention that in the name of doing parents a favor, they've got kids in their clutches for more of both the day and the year.

9/27/2009 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Duh - I already made that point.
What I meant is, the state gets to take over more of the care and feeding of children, since parents are overworked and can't be relied on to take care of their kids. Times are tough, after all - better to let momma state step in and handle the tough job of making sure your kids love the right things...

9/27/2009 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Search of the day:

troll spray doesn't work on me

9/27/2009 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "oh, good lord. Quantity does not equal quality. But more of the same will most certainly turn our kids' brains to mush. "

When the educationista's have figured out how to teach their city slicker college grads, on their accelerated schedule, to pass what 8th graders from Salina Kansas routinely passed on their agrarian schedules in 1895... maybe I'll pay attention.

In the mean time nObama and his miseducationista's can kiss my grits.

9/27/2009 06:59:00 PM  
Anonymous katzxy said...

A1, here's another take on this. In Feynman's lectures he introduces conservation of energy by using an analogy to indestructible blocks. As the analogy deepens it turns out that there are ways to infer the presence of the blocks (e.g. the dirty bath water is higher, or the the weight of the toy chest is greater). Conservations says that the number of blocks, visible and inferred stays the same.

We've got ways of measuring but in some sense we do not know the essence of the blocks.

9/27/2009 07:19:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Susannah & Julie -
It's not about the kiddies, Obummer want more payola for his unionized teachers.

9/27/2009 07:38:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

And babysitters...

9/27/2009 08:22:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Susannah said,

"let my people go!!"

That was the theme of my protest sign for the two tea parties I attended back in April.
It's ironic how the first black President is slapping the chains of economic servitude to the State onto untold generations to come. Didn't we already pay a high enough price for slavery?

9/27/2009 09:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Godwin wrote about living in his childhood house, and also about the magic period of childhood especially up to the age of four.

While meditating on how to eradicate leftism, the sentence "send the lemon (car) back to the factory."

What was the significance? On reflection, it was this: Leftists are not born, but made. This can be assumed because leftism cannot be programmed genetically.

Leftism is fear, and the only type of fear strong enough to produce the whole gamut of leftism aggression and denial is only earned one way--in the crucible of childhood.

Therefore, to eradicate leftism, it must be pulled up by the roots. To do that, the exact types of defective parenting which give rise to it must be identified.

Once identified, they must be countered, which means to replace them with parenting styles which do not produce fear, and consequently, leftism.

Once countered, we should see a slow decline in leftism, and a rise in spirit based culture manifested in government, service sector, manufacturing, and technology.

Warfare should decrease globally, if the change can be effected globally.

So, the 64 dollar question at this point is, does this theory hold water?

If it does, what is the next step?

I ask readers to weight in, and to please include pertinent information from their own childhoods.

Godwin, I would particularly like to hear from you. Tell us more about your parents and your experiences from ages 1-4.

Thank you, respectfully, A9:23

9/27/2009 09:27:00 PM  
Anonymous katzxy said...

Anonymous at 9:27

"On reflection, it was this: Leftists are not born, but made."

I think this is backwards. My experience is that the impulses to the left are inborn. It is liberalism, in its classical sense, that must be learned.

See for instance Hayek, especially chapter 3 for more.

9/27/2009 09:43:00 PM  
Anonymous katzxy said...

Oops. I meant chapter 4.

9/27/2009 09:48:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Katzky, I think you're correct.

This particular anonymous has been around a long time; really, he just has a prurient interest and an ever present hope that we'll divulge all kinds of personal information. As if the things we do say here aren't enough.

At least tonight he's not advocating taking on disciples and abusing the position of authority.

9/27/2009 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger katzxy said...

Julie,

"As if the things we do say here aren't enough."

Ain't that the truth!

9/27/2009 10:04:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Remember the image of the advancing army: you had better have the space below occupied by your troops before you try to advance above. Furthermore, you had better maintain a continuous line of communication. The last thing you want to happen is for your luxpeditionary force to get stranded above, cut off from the supply line. Your growth must be organic, which is to say, internally related on all levels, with no gaps. Most of all it must be embodied and lived."

Ah yes, lOgistics. No major war nor battle is won without the unimpeded flow of lOgistics.
Or perhaps HOgistics is a better word?

Skully seems to prefer it, but he has a thing for...no. I will not say it. Remember the last time someone slipped up and said it?

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's fun to see him go hobalistic around moonbats, but not...

9/27/2009 10:38:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Julie, how do you tell the anonymouses apart? I'm finding it easier just to skip over 'em.

9/27/2009 10:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

Did someone say physics and menu?

I'll have the black HO HO's!

9/27/2009 10:57:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Nooo! I don't wanna gooo (that's go not goo with an extra o)!

9/27/2009 10:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Johan said...

Another European country moves to the right since the voters of Germany are saying “no thank you” to leftism. Is this an Obama effect?
American Thinker had a good one about it here.
Personally I will celebrate this by visiting Berlin for the first time this weekend.


/Johan

9/28/2009 04:05:00 AM  
Blogger sehoy said...

The Obama Effect indeed! I was happy about the Merkel win too, Johan.

Even Sakozy took a whack at Obama this week for his lack of missiles.

*****

That particular perv anonymous troll is reconizable because it also refers to to Dr. Bob/B'ob/Gagdad Bob as "Godwin," which I find somehow rude. Butters did it too. I didn't like it.

9/28/2009 07:35:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Sehoy - I think it has to do with the use of a last name without an honorific; it comes across as simultaneously overly familiar and overly distant, almost belittling. Maybe because one is called only by surname in certain specific contexts - private schools, the military, some types of sports team settings. In those contexts, it's normal, though I have to wonder if it came about as a way of clamping down on individualization in order to maintain a certain type of order. Being referred to by family name only is a way of marking you as a member of a group, not an individual. Since this isn't that type of setting, the usage comes across as rude.

That's not what tips me off, though. It's that he almost always makes the same types of suggestions, couched in different terms.

I'd skip the anonymous comments, except that every now and then a legitimate one comes through.

9/28/2009 08:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Julie and Suzanne:

Yes, Julie knows me well. I am prurient at times. And you are not?

The use of the term "Godwin" was so Bob could connect with a younger self.

Most of the "action" in life is determined by how you were treated between the ages of 0-4.

Getting into this area and thoroughly understanding it is essential to getting a clear picture of your situation.

Bob wants the leftist gone and to this effort I say you must find out why they come into being in the first place.

Is this not a legitimate line of inquiry on this blog?

9/28/2009 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I don't know about "legitimate," but it's completely goofy.

9/28/2009 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger sehoy said...

Hi Julie,

You are exactly right.

I was trying to figure out why the use of "Godwin" pissed me off so much. That and the request for personal information about Dr. Bob's first four years.

Around here and all through my life (the South, the military and Germany), all people are referred to as Mr. So-and-so or Miz So-and-so or by their professional title.

A number of the band parents at my kids' school refer to the Band Director by his last name only. I know for a fact they don't like him, and every time I hear them doing that it feels like a slap in the face. It feels the same from this particular anonymous and Butters.

I'm not buying anonymous's explanation for why he/she is asking the intrusive questions. He/she has not earned the right to ask such questions, in my opinion. It's rude and presumptious. And if you didn't know it before, anonymous, you know it now.

This isn't an AA meeting or a psychotherapy session and we are all guests in Dr. Bob's living room.

9/29/2009 06:10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home