Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Hey, I Look Familiar: Haven't We Met Before?

Arise you deadbeats and recall that "forgetting, sleep, and death are stages basically of the same process" (Tomberg). In contrast to them are remembering, awakening, and resurrection. Each of the latter is a reflection of the same process of "the return of what had been submerged in the darkness of the unconscious."

Memory is an everynow mystery that is easy to take for granted, since without it we could not be. In a way, it is everything; nothing can exist if it isn't somehow "remembered." In other words, to exist is to endure, and to endure is to be essentially remembered. What endures is the essence of the thing, through its various transformations.

Memory is also one of those things that the cold hand of scientism unwittingly disfigures as a result of the very manner with which it understands. For to reduce the magic of memory to a mechanistic process -- as if it were analogous to pulling up a file in one's hard drive -- is to do great violence to something quasi-sacred. With memory, one is ultimately touching on the mystery of time itself, which is the substance of our being.

Specifically, we are made of "lived time," which is nothing less than the extended or prolonged interior of the cosmos (the "moving image of eternity"); one might even say "word made flesh," to coin a money quote.

In order to be prolonged into the horizontal, this vertical interior must in some fashion be "remembered." True, we can continue to exist if we sever ourselves from this source, but only in the same way that the Alzheimer's patient goes on living despite being "outside" his personal memories.

I, for example -- and I'm sure you do too -- have certain memories that live inside me "in eternity." There is even some suggestion -- I've overheard Petey thinking about it -- that these moments stamped with eternity -- or is it the other way around? -- are what we "take with us when we go," so to speak. For when we have touched the eternal, the eternal has also in-formed us most deeply, which is what makes the moment eternal.

Of course, we always "live in eternity," for it could not be otherwise. But one might say that the point of life is to lend eternity the stamp of our personal essence -- or again, the reverse: to imbue our essence with the eternal. Not that many people bother to do this. But some do.

For example, I'm currently reading the wonderful Team of Rivals, and it is quite apparent that Lincoln was of this cast of mind, his apparently unorthodox religious views to the contrary notwithstanding. (In other words, he may have been outwardly unorthodox but was inwardly one hundred percent orthoparadoxical).

Interestingly, Schuon felt that Lincoln was a man of great spiritual attainment. There are numberless "false geniuses" whose works and ideas are worthless to man, but also "the true genius of which people are unaware: Lincoln is one such example, he who owes a large part of his popularity to the fact that people took him -- and still take him -- for the incarnation of the average American."

But in reality, his "intelligence, capacity and nobility of character went far beyond the level of the average." To think that just a couple of years ago people were comparing Obama -- who must strain his capacities just to be mediocre -- to Lincoln! It only demonstrates the absence of spiritual discernment in these inverted and O-ccluded times.

Interestingly, we usually don't know at the time it is happening that we are having an experience that partakes of the eternal, but we can call up these moments in hindsight. Often they are quite random. I know that for me, for example, there was a "golden time" between the ages of 9 and 12 that endures like a kind of touchstone of eternity inside of me.

Perhaps it is just the natural mysticism of childhood, but to look at it from the outside is to miss the point. It is impossible for me to put it into words, but perhaps a poet could do it.

In fact, that's why we revere and even tolerate poets, isn't it? -- because the less annoying ones conjure eternity within time, or reincarnate a hidden selfinus, or "take upon the mystery of things, as if they were God's spies" (Shakespeare).

Let us suppose that we have actually chosen to be here in this life and this incarnation. Who is the "we" that chooses? Yes, you could say it is our "soul," but what is that? It is not the same as the mind. In fact, the mind often interferes with the soul's project and mission, for if the soul has chosen to be here, it has done so for reasons of something it is impelled to accomplish, or experience, or learn.

What the soul ultimately wishes to learn about is itself, and the terrestrial condition of human embodiment is the only way -- perhaps -- to do this. Remember, we're just supposing, but let's further suppose that our soul thirsts for a lived experience of itself.

It is one thing to "have a self," but it doesn't really mean much -- that is, it is a rather dry and abstract thing, an "empty category" -- unless we are able to discover and articulate the unique "idiom" (as the psychoanalyst Bollas calls it) of our authentic self. (One is immediately reminded of the question of why God creates, which must be for analogous reasons.)

Now, just the fact that we are born with an unarticulated true self -- and essence -- is a great mystery to ponder. It is another reason why we reject the cosmically inverted ideology of leftism, for all forms of leftism are at war with the Self, which may only articulate itself under conditions of ordered liberty.

That is, the latent self specifically requires the existence of an open future, which is the necessary condition to live in the hope that we will eventually "re-member" ourselves and then truly use the time we are given as a medium for the self's joyful articulation. This is the "art of living": the exteriorization of the soul for the purposes of the interiorization of eternity. One might say that soul becomes person so that person might become soul.

Conversely, to indoctrinate people into identifying with their skin color, or their dopey culture, or their socioeconomic class, is to reverse the ontological order; ultimately it is to teach that the self is here to serve the collective, rather than vice versa.

This is the horror of liberal academia. The original meaning of "educate" is from the Latin educare, meaning to "draw out." But for our tenured radicals, it is the opposite: these are doctors who indoctrinate, or shove it in, big time.

This is why you will have noticed that radicals are always -- always -- such existential phonies and frauds. In fact, the more genuine they are, the more deeply phony. They are ontologically weightless, but weightless in such a way that it takes the form of a heavy, spiritually opaque darkness that pulls them and the luckless souls under their influence further into the abyss, 32 feet per second per second, to be exact. They incarnate the Fall of man.

We cannot pretend that this leftist brainwashing and soultarnishing don't do real harm. If I were a bitter man -- which a Coon never is -- I would be furious at what this indoctrination did to me -- specifically, the precious time it stole from my life, time that should have been spent discovering, "drawing out," and articulating my true self and its idiom.

My book and blog represent the culmination -- or let us say, the ongrowing fillfullment -- or maybe the detritus -- of this idiom, and it is truly a miracle of providence that I climbed off the bleak scaffolding of a spiritually empty academonic world which would have me be what I am not -- which no one truly is, as a matter of fact. For no person is actually a Darwinian machine, or a gender, or a race, or a talking monkey. But as always, Light is the best disinfuckedup, if you'll pardon the French, which I'll never do.

They say you never forget the face before you were born. Once the true self is remembered, one finds that it is generative, or "fruitful." It is as if it produces waves from a hidden but intelligent ocean that lap upon the distant shore of consciousness. Anything that denies the ocean and prevents our river from finding its shore is a priori satanic, whatever the context, for it is the foreclosure of the self and the end of our reason for being.

In the words of Bollas, "From the beginning of life one's idiom is rather like a vision-in-waiting, a preconception, as Bion would say, of things to come, which takes shape over time. Idiom seeks objects because they materialize form which realizes itself as it shapes these contents of a life. This is a deep pleasure [emphasis mine]. It is a manifestation of the drive to present the particularity of one's being, a form which suggests itself as a visionary movement through the object world."

In another book, Bollas characterizes the articulation of one's idiom as the "erotics of being," surely an accurate description. We live in strange times, for never before in human history have more people had the opportunity to enjoy the erotics of their being, and yet, they imagine they are deprived. They are deprived, because they are misusing their time and therefore abusing their self -- and punishing God. But really they're just cutting off the nous to spite the face before they were born.

When we find and live our authentic selves -- and therefore, God -- it is analogous to a highlight in one of the books in his vast liberatory: the famous Book of Life. It gives him great delight, for each human book is full of surprises. Sure, he "knows" us before we do, but so do we. That doesn't take away the fun. Rather, it just adds to it. For it is the first day of creation all over again.

Which is God's favorite rememberme, because it's the gift that keeps giving like One←→Two←→Three -- to oneself and to others and to the Creator. It's that feeling you get when you see your child growing up to become himself, someone good, true, beautiful, and unique.

The essential act of faith is the remembrance of God; “to remember,” in Latin, is recordare, that is re-cordare, which indicates a return to the heart, cor. --Frithjof Schuon

110 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

The essential act of faith is the remembrance of God

And of course, there's the other unofficial meaning of remember as being the opposite of dismember - such that to re-member God in one's life is to literally reassemble the soul, as:

Idiom seeks objects because they materialize form which realizes itself as it shapes these contents of a life.

12/22/2010 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

That is, the latent self specifically requires the existence of an open future, which is the necessary condition to live in the hope that we will eventually "re-member" ourselves and then truly use the time we are given as a medium for the self's joyful articulation.

Doh! You beat me to it.

12/22/2010 09:06:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

"...the point of life is to lend eternity the stamp of our personal essence -- or again, the reverse: to imbue our essence with the eternal."

May I make those words flesh!

About Lincoln -- I've not read about him for many years, but I recall that Yogananda claimed to have had long conversations with Lincoln during some of his "visions." He considered Lincoln to be nearly on the level of a Saint.

And speaking of "visions," Lincoln himself was known to at times spend days on end in apparent trances. If you ever find a copy of Lincoln the Unknown, you might enjoy it. Written by Dale Carnegie (yes, the same one).

12/22/2010 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"But in reality, his "intelligence, capacity and nobility of character went far beyond the level of the average." To think that just a couple of years ago people were comparing Obama -- who must strain his capacities just to be mediocre -- to Lincoln! It only demonstrates the absence of spiritual discernment in these inverted and O-ccluded times. "

Baffling. Even more so, I had a fleeting exchange with someone last night of the uber-libertarian variety ("Lincoln was a radical leftist, traitor, scheming tyrant, and the civil war had nothing to do with slavery! It was northern greed!")... and after pointing out just a few of the obvious idiocies... or reciting a couple words of Lincoln (a full sentence isn't necessarily needed, but doesn't hurt)... you just have to shake your head and turn away. You can palpably see the light being sucked into the black hole of their fury.

They're out there.

12/22/2010 09:10:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Conversely, to indoctrinate people into identifying with their skin color, or their dopey culture, or their socioeconomic class, is to reverse the ontological order; ultimately it is to teach that the self is here to serve the collective, rather than vice versa.

This is the horror of liberal academia. The original meaning of "educate" is from the Latin educare, meaning to "draw out." But for our tenured radicals, it is the opposite: these are doctors who indoctrinate, or shove it in, big time. "

It is horrifying. The next zombie movie, they ought to work in a scene where the hero has to pass through a crowd of people who are still human, but are shoving to get in and are preparing to feast on a meal that will transform them into zombies... and he is powerless to persuade or prevent them from digging in.

That would be chilling. Wish it were only a movie.

12/22/2010 09:35:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"This is why you will have noticed that radicals are always -- always -- such existential phonies and frauds. In fact, the more genuine they are, the more deeply phony. They are ontologically weightless, but weightless in such a way that it takes the form of a heavy, spiritually opaque darkness that pulls them and the luckless souls under their influence further into the abyss, 32 feet per second per second, to be exact. They incarnate the Fall of man."

Very true. And you'll find that they build their image upon some anti-alchemy of transforming gold into lead, in their rhetoric you find them putting great effort and significance into discarding and replacing principles and concepts with flattened facts. The anti-Lincolnian I ran in to last night, fancies himself a radical conservative, which he tries to make explicitly in your face by coming to formal(ish) events in dirty t-shirts (he's wealthy), sprinkling a liberal quantity of profanity, and chortling about how obnoxious he can be. He dramatically built his anti-lincoln rant upon the firing on fort Sumter, finally reducing it's meaning, and all of the Civil War, to 'no people were killed there, only a donkey. Would you fight a war over the loss of a donkey? A trillion dollars worth of destruction and 600,000 lives lost over the cost of a donkey, and you call this man a great president?!"

The more radical, the more you'll find that they hinge upon vast amounts of moral, spiritual and conceptual wealth being transformed into flattened and worthless particulars, which they then pass off with counterfeit meaning and significance.

Ugh.

12/22/2010 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"It turns out that human beings are to God what a library is for a human being. We are God's liberatory of freedom and surprise. "

I think I've thought that thought before, nice to meet me again... well, gita go, have a nice dei.

12/22/2010 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

these moments stamped with eternity -- or is it the other way around? -- are what we "take with us when we go," so to speak.

Along those lines, Neo has a post up about some who don't forget. These rare cases seem to be pretty normal people, but remembering that much detail about life seems like it would be overly burdensome to me.

It strikes me as the mental equivalent of hoarding, though maybe that's just because we've spent the morning breaking down boxes and trying to dump some of the accumulated detritus of crap that overtakes a house over time. If all memories take on equal importance, how do we know which ones touch on the eternal?

My grandmother was a hoarder. When we moved in with her, the house had stacks of papers piled here and there, all sorts of junk from over the years that she had attached meaning to - or somehow believed that meaning would spring from them, as though old used lottery tickets would be a key to a memory of something Good. She was bitterly angry that we unceremoniously cleared out most of her stuff, except for a couple of rooms that were off limits.

What a heavy load to have to carry around! She moved a few times, and we always helped, and it was always a nightmare because her stuff all had to go with her. Interestingly, though, memory-wise she was darn good at willfully "forgetting" a lot of things she'd rather not know about, particularly in the interest of "family solidarity."

In that sense, I think, by the end of her days all she had left to carry with her to the next stage were the good things. By that point, a lot of her stuff had been set aside, too...

12/22/2010 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

First, I'm connecting with every paragraph, every word really.

To think that just a couple of years ago people were comparing Obama -- who must strain his capacities just to be mediocre -- to Lincoln!

Yes, Obama is more Antilincoln than Antichrist -- or Lincoln turned inside out.

****

I've have heard people disparage human memory on the grounds that we don't remember things "precisely" and our memories are "colored" by the process of remembering.

But what good would a memory like a video camera be? It seems to me that a mere regurgitation of data points is far less useful than a remembrance with understanding.

As you point out, it's most often the memories beyond articulation than are transcendent.

12/22/2010 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Julie, your last post went up while I was typing mine (and answering pesky phone calls), but I think we have a bit of coonvergence.

12/22/2010 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Mushroom, indeed :)

12/22/2010 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

What's the point of clinging to memories in normal situations? With the books in God's library in mind, our memories seem as if they are simply steps in constructing meaning and understanding... and a life lived. Clinging to every memory would be like trying to imagine every muscle command, each inclination of the torso, lifting of the arms, contracting them around your loved one, loosening your grip, etc... instead of the hug.

Just as those movements were essential to your hug, it's the hug that was the point, not the twitches which made it possible. Remember the hug, not the twitches. Remember to ""re-member" ourselves and then truly use the time we are given as a medium for the self's joyful articulation."

12/22/2010 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

This is the horror of liberal academia.

Apropos

12/22/2010 11:45:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

The only thing more important than remembering the past is remembering the future.

Merry Christmas to all!

12/22/2010 11:56:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Merry Christmas Nomo!

12/22/2010 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Specifically, we are made of "lived time," which is nothing less than the extended or prolonged interior of the cosmos (the "moving image of eternity")

It struck me just now, looking at Lileks's grandma's photos and spotting an old train car labeled "cubic capy," that while the capacity of the container is certainly limited in the purely spatial sense, in lived time the capacity is virtually infinite, limited only by imagination, ability and a desire to fill and empty the enclosed space...

12/22/2010 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Van
Re: Lincoln

I come from a world that remembered the devestation and destruction of Lincoln. These were the sons and daughters of Confederate verterans. He was not viewed by them favorably. While you may see greatness in him, remember that half of his world viewed him as a tyrant. While he may have been a successful spiritual man on the horizontal metric he was responsible for enormous death and destruction. His matyrdom was used to inflict a humiliating and disfiguring colonial experiment (reconstruction) that created demons never seen before. It was this power to inflict one view on another that the Obama cheerleaders were citing when comparing their champion to Lincoln. Not his spirituality. Given the evidence of the last two years, it would seem the two share a great deal in common.

12/22/2010 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

He was not viewed by them favorably. While you may see greatness in him, remember that half of his world viewed him as a tyrant.

Be that as it may, those who view him so had plenty of opportunities to avert disaster. Had the Confederate states been willing to acknowledge the full humanity of the slaves in their midst - and thus to treat them accordingly, as fully human - it is quite likely the war would not have been necessary.

They may cry foul because he failed to acknowledge the rights of individual states in the matter, but far more foul was the dependence on slave labor.

Per an article I linked at 11:45, just because many there had good and even noble intentions, does not excuse the ugly fact of what they fought for beneath the lofty veneer of freedom.

12/22/2010 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

The antebellum south was rotten to the core. Good riddance.

12/22/2010 01:08:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

States that permit, encourage, and enforce the ownership of human beings have no right to exist.

12/22/2010 01:11:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Julie
Re: "Had the Confederate states been willing to acknowledge the full humanity of the slaves in their midst - and thus to treat them accordingly, as fully human - it is quite likely the war would not have been necessary."

The same could be said of most of the Old Testament patriarchs. Should we defile them because of our more current views?

Gagdad's post concerned memory. I was pointing out memories are unique things shaped by many internal and external things. As far as Lincoln goes, I always thought of him a man tormented by his failure, not driven by a vision. He was elected President and half the country left the union. More would have left had he not occupied them and imprisoned them. (This doesn't comport well with your metric of recognizing ones full humanity.) Instead of turning the other cheek and offering concilatory terms to reunite the union he chose to entice a war. He got what he wanted. It took roughly 100 years for the South to recover from the war. That is five to six generations disfigured by one man. I don't intend to fight the war here, but merely point out that his remembered greatness (if that is what you call the destruction of half of a nation) was purchased by his assassination, not his horizontal deeds.

To you he is a saint, to me a mere mortal who spent his time trying to paste back the crystal bowl he broke. He never succeeded in undoing his trespass but rather made things much worse.

12/22/2010 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I know what you mean. Roosevelt was pretty rough on the Nazis, too.

12/22/2010 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Bob - thanks; I was at a loss for words for a minute there.

12/22/2010 01:34:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Gagdad
Re: "I know what you mean. Roosevelt was pretty rough on the Nazis, too."

Interesting point. Why in heaven would you want to preserve a union with Nazis? Especially those like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Madison....

Pardon the observation, but you are acting and reasoning like a liberal. You know, the ones that call you a racist when you offer honest insights? You are sounding awfully PC.

12/22/2010 01:40:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

That is five to six generations disfigured by one man.

Really? What, none of them had the testicular fortitude to take responsibility for their lives and their futures? Are they all pawns, living in the thrall of a dead man?

My heart bleeds, but only a little. My family was busy coming to the aid of those fortunate enough to escape, you see. In the ensuing years, shit happened, fortunes changed, hardships abounded, etc. - but we don't lay our troubles at the door of generations past.

12/22/2010 01:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Tigtog, you are an apologist for naked evil. There's nothing more to say.

12/22/2010 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

But as for why we had to preserve our union with the racist terrorists of the south, it is because if we hadn't conquered them in 1865, we would have been at perpetual war with them along our borders, as they endeavored to expand into the western territories. We could not tolerate such a death culture living with us side by side.

12/22/2010 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

To: Tigtog
Re: Lincoln


If it were anyone but you, I'd lowercase you, rename you, consign you to trolldom and let the flames loose. As it is, I'll restrain myself.



"I come from a world that remembered the devestation and destruction of Lincoln. "



No doubt that makes it easier to deal with the fact that your world proudly brought it all on themselves, because of your worlds boastful arrogance and demand that the states repulsed by slavery had no right to their 'opinion', your world, confident in their ability to get their way, again and again sought to expand their 'peculiar institution' into new territories, and dishonestly used chicanery to get around the clear purpose of the clause in the constitution ending the importation of slaves.



We come from a world which every day remembers what your world refused to limit, reduce or end, because your world valued profit and ease more than the rights and souls of other human beings.



We don't remember your world, or those who think fondly of it, with much regard.



"These were the sons and daughters of Confederate verterans."

I have ancestors who enjoyed the hospitality of Andersonville - to your fine folk, I say piss off.



"...remember that half of his world viewed him as a tyrant."

As do the criminals in prison view the justice system which served up the penalties they themselves brought about. Buy a harmonica, play the blues, rattle your tin cup on the bars to your hearts content. I don't care, I remember what your world was about, and your lack of recall is no more influential than the inmate who blames his victims for his woes.



"...he was responsible for enormous death and destruction."

He was no more responsible for enormous death and destruction, than Harry Truman was. As the proverb says "Take what you want, and pay for it."



Your world took what it wanted. Quit complaining about the bill.



"His matyrdom was used to inflict a humiliating and disfiguring colonial experiment (reconstruction) that created demons never seen before."

Reconstruction, however foul, was carried out by people who themselves, or through close relatives, recalled the destruction unleasehed to feed your worlds greed, and from people who had direct connections to Andersonville, and much else. Big friggin' surprise it didn't turn out well for your world.



"Given the evidence of the last two years, it would seem the two share a great deal in common."

That's pretty damn sick. Take a look around at your world. Start from within. Fix it. Then get back to us on it.

12/22/2010 02:08:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

His martyrdom was used to inflict a humiliating and disfiguring colonial experiment (reconstruction) that created demons never seen before.

We can agree that Reconstruction was a very bad era. Could we also agree that it's not really fair to hold Lincoln responsible for the use to which his death was put? You know, it's not like he did it on purpose.

From what I've heard of history, Lincoln would not have imposed the same punitive measures launched by the Radical Republicans to crush the South.

Both the assassination of Lincoln by the Southerns and Reconstruction under the (damn) Yankees are marked historical examples of the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences.

The atrocities of the Jim Crow South occurred to some extent as a reaction to the excesses of Reconstruction. Vigilantism arose out of the disorder; and it, in turn, gave birth to both the scourge of the KKK and lynchings.

It's like the Hockey Stick graph in the Global Warming fraud.

What you see really depends on where you want to start your chart.

12/22/2010 02:16:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

We're arguing about a major crisis war that none of us lived through.

I note that the memories we are dealing with here involve the memories that were created in the 20th century, not the 19th century (when the war and Reconstruction actually occured).

Just an interesting point I wanted to make.

Also, the South never again rebelled against the North, so it appears permanent integration was established with the successful conclustion of the war and subsequent Reconstruction. Compare and contrast this against the European wars that continued to be fought generation after generation. England, France, Germany, Italy, etc.

Back to our regularly scheduled One Cosmos argument that, although not started by me, bears little relation to the original post.

12/22/2010 02:23:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

Bob says:

"Let us suppose that we have actually chosen to be here in this life and this incarnation. Who is the "we" that chooses? Yes, you could say it is our "soul," but what is that? It is not the same as the mind. In fact, the mind often interferes with the soul's project and mission, for if the soul has chosen to be here, it has done so for reasons of something it is impelled to accomplish, or experience, or learn."

I'm pretty convinced that my life is waaaay off track.

Naturaly, I have no idea how to rememdy this situation, since I'm the one who got me into this in the first place.

12/22/2010 02:30:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Julie
Re: "That is five to six generations disfigured by one man."

I was speaking of things that never existed in the South until reconstruction. The three big ones: endemic poverty, endemic racism and total lack of economic opportunity.

I know to you and to many other trendy folks the South is the eternal whipping boy for all of America's sins.

To fix things, let me apologize for slavery. Although an institution older than prostitution and one experienced in every culture known to man, it was the Americans of southern heritage who are to blame. Further, I wish to apologize for the KKK. An organization that never existed until reconstruction (see disfiguration). Hopefully, you will not recall that at its membership zenith the states filling out its rolls came disproportionately from OH, IL, MI, IN, and PA. Regardless, again, I wish to apologize. Regarding America's inability to end slavery without mass killing (see British model) I again wish to apologize for my region's inability to submit to the demands of an Illinois politician. We all know now that Illinois produces Presidents of unique abilities. Again, I apologize. For the sin of segregation, I again apologize. Please pay no attention to ethic and racial ghettos in the northeast and west coast. They are different, somehow.

Is there any other sins I have left out? Oh yeah, I am sorry we were NAZIs before there were any NAZIs. I am sorry all those southern boys that died in Europe didn't know they were fighting themselves. Dittos the NAZIs that defeated Cornwallis and those nasty NAZIs in New Orleans. It is a shame we couldn't have sat out the revolution in NYC drinking claret with the British. But we all know southerners are uncouth and ill educated and not up to British standards (see George Washington). Again, I wish to apologize.

Any other bits of collective guilt that the south most atone for? I am in a Holiday mood, so am willing to apologize for pretty much any sin conceivable. How about global warming?

12/22/2010 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

JP said "We're arguing about a major crisis war that none of us lived through."

Nah, I'm arguing about ideas and their affects in and around my life here and now.

12/22/2010 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Amazing how some southerners are still willfully distorting Lincoln's actual views. He wanted to preserve the union even if it meant that slavery would continue where it already existed. He did, however, oppose its expansion into the new states. He was hoping that slavery would simply die a natural death.

12/22/2010 02:44:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Van
Re: Andersonville

Read some history. Who decided not to allow POW swaps? I believe his name starts with an "L". While your ancestors may have starved at Andersonville due to lack of supplies caused by a successful invansion, why did Confederates starve in Chicago prisons where there were no shortagaes? It wasn't like Confederate armies were pillaging the country side surrounding Chicago. So why the starvation of POWs by the Union? Was this too another example of the northern humanity and goodness?

12/22/2010 02:46:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

And what the hell were we supposed to do about Dred Scott? For the South, it was an act of war if we didn't return their property when it escaped north to freedom. But no spiritually normal person could comply with such a demonic law, and live with himself.

12/22/2010 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I'm mildly blown away that people with Tigtog's views actually exist. But illiberal statism manifests in surprising ways...

12/22/2010 02:52:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

To: Julie
Re: "That is five to six generations disfigured by one man."

I know to you and to many other trendy folks the South is the eternal whipping boy for all of America's sins.


Wow, dude, project much? I don't recall ever blaming the South for much of anything, besides the actual practice of slavery when it happened.

For the sin of segregation, I again apologize.

Seriously? Bite me. If you can't limit yourself to the things that I actually said, then I have no reason to waste any further time talking to you.

12/22/2010 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger ge said...

Oh,
Lincoln, Lincoln bo Binkin
Bonana fanna fo Finkin
Fee fy mo Minkin, Lincoln!

12/22/2010 03:00:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

:D

Thanks, GE - I needed that just now.

Note to self - jagged metal Krusty-O's are probably best left to people with stronger gall bladders than mine...

12/22/2010 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Gagdad
Re: "Amazing how some southerners are still willfully distorting Lincoln's actual views."

I don't believe I have made reference to his views. I made reference to his memory and his deeds. I believe I stated that I see him as a man tormented by his failure to maintain the union upon election, which created in him a panic to fix what he broke. That is my estimate of the historical Lincoln.

I believe most of you are referencing the mythic Lincoln of American lore. Most of that is merely make believe. He was a man of obvious talents and obvious failings. His failure to avoid a blood bath had and has had a lasting effect on the American concious. We live it today. If you don't believe me, then read the posts.

The speedy and thoughtless condemnation that you all felt entitled to visit on me for being southern is clearly part of the bigotry entitled by those who view Lincoln as a demi-god. The bigotry is not enabled if you view Lincoln as a country bumpkin who got in over his head fast and then panicked and made things worse. Remember, bigotry begins with the illusion of perfection and righteousness. We all know there are very few perfect people. The only one I know talk of humility not righteouness.

Cosmic WV: couth

12/22/2010 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

And now for something completely different:

"I tried to put my dongle in it, but it doesn't fit..."

12/22/2010 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog said "Regarding America's inability to end slavery without mass killing (see British model)... "

You'd do better to see the southern model... but I guess you're dead set on turning a blind eye to that, come what may.

"I again wish to apologize for my region's inability to submit to the demands of an Illinois politician."
Are you sure you wouldn't rather argue that it was all on the account of one dead donkey? Any other principles, flawed principles, lack of principles you'd like to transfer to some physical cause so you can blame that for your woes?

"For the sin of segregation, I again apologize. Please pay no attention to ethic and racial ghettos in the northeast and west coast."
What an absolute load of crap, that and the rest of your 'apologies', which no doubt have much more to do with defense than regrets.

"Is there any other sins I have left out?"
Yes, the sin of seeking to evade the meaning of 'past' convictions, and of trying to play victim to their consequences. The Founder's recognized the implications of the philosophy they'd grown to understand. First and foremost, they fought for those principles and rights, and produced a nation capable of living up to them. Though they themselves couldn't see how to resolve the evil they all knew to be amongst them, they tried, even many of the Virginians and others from the southern states, but those (mostly southern, many northern) who wished to wish it all away held too much power, and they opted to cooperate rather than alienate them.

IMHO they shouldn't have, but them, I'll forgive. They did the best they could, they set things in place which they hoped would cause the disease to wither away. All in all, they did enough. Jefferson, Washington, Madison... rest in peace. Lee? Calhoun? Davis? May they find what rest they can in that place their principles lie... I hope the stench isn't too much for them.

"Any other bits of collective guilt that the south most atone for?"
Only your attempt to push your ever opened sore off onto others opinions of 'the south'. Stuff that straw man much? Though the followers of the ideas which led to the civil war had their political base in the south, they weren't confined there, they permeated the north too, but there they were too cowed by their more numerous neighbors who understood what America rested upon, to cause too much of a fuss.

Ideas have no borders, only varying degrees of popularity within them. I'm so sick and tired of those who happen to live in the south, latching onto the civil war as a way to live with and excuse their own sick notions, but you're not alone, you've got brothers and sisters all across the land who crave the cover of those same delusions.

Grow the hell up. The political system which excused, and sought to prolong slavery, and all it's many implications and ramifications, ran into the political system which could no longer stomach it. It was a God awful collision and it'll be another century before they can truly be said to live only in textbooks alone. Thank God the south lost. Too bad it's ideological partisans, north and south, couldn't have been killed along with it.

But that's 'the problem of Free Will', everyone has to make their own choices, and no physical actions can make them for them. Those who want to recall the confederacy fondly, pay the price. That much is too damn obvious. You could apologize for making the rest of us have to endure your morbidity.

12/22/2010 03:17:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Tigtog:

You are seriously warped. I will waste no more time arguing fact with a resentful fantasist.

12/22/2010 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"Who decided not to allow POW swaps? I believe his name starts with an "L"."

"It's her fault, she had it coming to her, sassing me like that, I just had to wallop her some, put things right."

"The speedy and thoughtless condemnation that you all felt entitled to visit on me for being southern is clearly part of the bigotry entitled by those who view Lincoln as a demi-god. "

How pathetic is that. I don't give a rats ass for your being southern, I care more about your giving sympathy to those who wished to perpetuate evil, I care more about your willingness to give aid and comfort to the ideas they stood for, and I am sickened by your cockroach like scurrying into the cover of 'demigod' and all the rest.

Mind blowing is right.

12/22/2010 03:32:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Man, I hate family arguments.

12/22/2010 03:32:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Mushroom said "Man, I hate family arguments."

What? It's the holidays.

12/22/2010 03:36:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

I know.

But possibly I'm conflicted on the issue of the Civil War.

I'm sure my ancestors were selling untaxed whiskey to both sides.

12/22/2010 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Gagdadad
Re: "And what the hell were we supposed to do about Dred Scott? For the South, it was an act of war if we didn't return their property when it escaped north to freedom. But no spiritually normal person could comply with such a demonic law, and live with himself."

Why don't you reference the Bible and do as its says.

Somehow, my southerness is immediately conflated to mean I support slavery. I do not. I also do not judge my or your ancestors actions by todays standards, I leave that to the current academics (you included).

I do not share you opinion that Lincoln was "transcendant" or "great". I simply think him shortsighted and clumsy. Thankfully for him he had vast materiel resources, an unending stream of starving immigrants to fill his armies, and a political vise grip through parity to hold his world together.

Clearly, the south should never have left the union. Only by doing so did it give Lincoln his hold on power. Had they remained in the union Lincoln would have become average and forgetable President.

12/22/2010 03:52:00 PM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

And now a message from the helpful voices in my head:

"The reality of consciousness can be seen from the number of drinks necessary to get rid of it."

Holy happidays all!

12/22/2010 03:56:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Same to you, Magnus :)

12/22/2010 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

IT, if you guys could think happy thoughts for me tonight, I'd appreciate it. If the gall bladder comes out, it will be a mercy...

12/22/2010 08:23:00 PM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

A Cherokee grandfather says to his grandson:

"Inside everyone two wolves fight.

One wolf is generous, kind, and brave.

The other wolf is gluttonous, lustful, and selfish."

The grandson asks "Which will win?"

The Grandfather replies, "The one you feed."

Then mounted bluecoats sweep into camp and start killing everyone.

The year is 1863.

12/22/2010 08:49:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

grunt maker said "Tig Tog, you've gotten in deep. You're past the point of redemption with this crowd.."

I'm ticked off and vehemently disagree with Tigtog's view of Lincoln - disagreements, even major ones, happen, go figure. But he'd have to fall 32 feet per second, per second, for years to reach the level of the lowercased and renamed.

Just sayin'

12/22/2010 09:22:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Now, just the fact that we are born with an unarticulated true self -- and essence -- is a great mystery to ponder. It is another reason why we reject the cosmically inverted ideology of leftism, for all forms of leftism are at war with the Self, which may only articulate itself under conditions of ordered liberty.

That is, the latent self specifically requires the existence of an open future, which is the necessary condition to live in the hope that we will eventually "re-member" ourselves and then truly use the time we are given as a medium for the self's joyful articulation. This is the "art of living": the exteriorization of the soul for the purposes of the interiorization of eternity. One might say that soul becomes person so that person might become soul."


Man, that's some tasty soul food right there, Bob!
The entire post is chOck full O gourmet soul food.

BTW, I'm happy to know you ain't pardoning the French. :^)

12/23/2010 12:18:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Prayers on the way, Julie. Are you having gall bladder surgery or the possibility of? I might've missed somethin' but I did get the part there's a problem.

I hope you feel better soon, regardless. Hang in there.

12/23/2010 12:21:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tigtog-

This is so unlike you, man. I sincerely hope you study more about Lincoln and the Civil War from more objective sources.

BTW, many Raccoons are from the south and happen to believe Lincoln was a great President.

Also, the fact that you are from the south has nothin' to do with the reaction you got.
It's what you said and how you said it. Just. Plain. Wrong.

And no, I don't think Lincoln was a demigod, and yes, I know he was human and made mistakes, as did other great Presidents like Reagan, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc..

But seriously? You blame Lincoln for all that and compare him to ObaMao?
I implore you to do more research and dig deeper for the truth.

12/23/2010 12:38:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hi Magnus-

Thanks and same to you!
BTW, Skully is glad to hear your words off wisdom.
I don't think it means what he thinks it means though. :^)

NoMo: Thanks! Merry Christmas!
Good to see ya! :^)

12/23/2010 12:43:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Magnus:

Um, I meant "of", not "off". Sorry. :^)
Preview is my friend...preview is my friend...

12/23/2010 12:46:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Thanks, Ben. So far, it's acute pancreatitis, probably caused by a gall stone. Gall bladder may have to come out; I'll know more tomorrow. For now I'm fine, so long as I don't keep bending my elbow and setting off the IV alarm :)

12/23/2010 12:57:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tigtog said-
"Clearly, the south should never have left the union. Only by doing so did it give Lincoln his hold on power. Had they remained in the union Lincoln would have become average and forgetable President."

Okay, right there, if it is clear to you that those in power of the south (obviously not everyone in the south felt the same way) were wrong to leave the union (and slavery) then again, why are you blaming Lincoln for the consequences?

And how do you know that Lincoln would be average and forgettable had the south remained in the union?

I mean, just based on stuff Lincoln said, wrote and did before the Civil War indicates to me he was far above the "average" and "forgettable" you seem to think he would've been.

In any sense, I challenge you to challenge your own views on these subjects.

Also, carefully read your replies and how you replied.
Did you really write that?

12/23/2010 01:05:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks for the update Julie.

Oh man, that sounds painful. I hope they got you on some good pain meds, and I really hope and pray you are healed soon, whether they hafta take out your gallbladder or not.

God bless you.

12/23/2010 01:09:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

It doesn't hurt much at all now. They gave me a little something when I came in, but I haven't needed anything since. It was pretty bad earlier, though. Yeesh!

12/23/2010 01:17:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Glad yer feeling a bit better.
I didn't know gall bladders could cause pancreaitis. A few years ago I found out that even some drugs can cause it so I'm always on the lookout for that.
The gall of it all is galling!

I hope ya get to go home for Christmas. Hospital food sucks.

12/23/2010 01:33:00 AM  
Blogger phil g said...

My ancestors are all Midwestern (Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota) by birth and cultural temperament but I was raised and lived in the south my entire life, Virginia, Tennessee and Georgia from the early 60's.

The romantic notions of the antebellum south as expressed by Tigtog are alive and fairly widely accepted by multi-generational southerners and sympathetic paleo-cons like Buchanan and his ilk.

They ignore the evidence of the Confederate strategy and desire for a western and southern expansion into Mexico to create a slave based agricultural empire. The wasting affect of cotton farming technology on soil at that time required ever new soil to farm and ultimately waste.

Yes the majority of Southerners did not own slaves, but they participated and defended the right to maintain and participate in the fantasy culture that arose around the subjugation and exploitation of other humans or sub humans as they believed.

Yes the Confederacy was a fantasy culture that could ultimately only end badly. Their economy was 90+% dependent on cotton based agriculture, they had an extremely bifurcated society where a lucky few lived like 'European royalty' with everyone else in near abject poverty. The elite fancied themselves as inheritors of Greco/Roman high culture without of course the education or true cultural sophistication to justify it...it was all a grand facade created off their human beasts of burden. The elite practiced barbaric human breeding practices of their human subjects that the Nazis would have been praised.

I refuse to argue with these romantics of a fantasized south such as Tigtog.

12/23/2010 05:15:00 AM  
Blogger phil g said...

On a much brighter note, Merry Christmas everyone!

Thanks so much Bob for providing this little space of light and all you do to keep Truth alive and relevant.

May God bless you and everyone.

Cheers!

12/23/2010 05:19:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Dang Julie, I thought you were just saying the conversation galled you... hope you're up and out of there soon (that dang IV in the elbow was the bane of my existence)!

Best wishes & prayers zooming out in your direction.

12/23/2010 05:23:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: All
Ref: Wikipedia

"In all versions, Cain is a crop farmer and his younger brother Abel is a shepherd.[7] Cain is portrayed as sinful, committing the first murder by killing his brother,[8] after God[9] has rejected his offerings of produce but accepted the animal sacrifices brought by Abel.[10]

The oldest known copy of the Biblical narration is from the 1st century Dead Sea Scrolls.[11][12] Cain and Abel also appear in a number of other texts,[13] and the story is the subject of various interpretations.[14] Abel, the first murder victim, is sometimes seen as the first martyr;[15] while Cain, the first murderer, is sometimes seen as an ancestor of evil.[16] A few scholars suggest the pericope may have been based on a Sumerian story representing the conflict between nomadic shepherds and settled farmers.[17] Others think that it may refer to the days in which agriculture began to replace the ways of the hunter-gatherer.[18] [19]

Allusions to Cain and Abel as an archetype of fratricide persist in numerous references and retellings, through medieval art and Shakespearean works up to present day fiction."

Since we were or are talking of myths and archetypes, I present this as a more accurate reading of the American myth of Lincoln. Our Moses figure is George Washington. I would imagine all can agree to that. You may debate, or not (as evidenced by the posts) who represents Caine and Abel. But I doubt seriously you can avoid the obvious parrallel.

You could also imagine Lincoln as the new Joshua, that too is a possibility. But somewhere you need to define the Biblical proscription against slavery. I cannot find it. That is why I find the Cain and Abel story so much more fitting to describe the conflict and its lasting reverberations than say Moses or Joshua.

There was a family that won a great victory only to soon consume itself. Family fueds go deep.

12/23/2010 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Good point. We all know that Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Except for negroes. Do whatever you want to them."

12/23/2010 07:19:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

You are correct in your attribution of the Golden Rule. And yet He never spoke of the institution of slavery. I guess he was talking to people's soul rather than their horizontal titles. Who knew?

12/23/2010 07:42:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"I guess he was talking to people's soul rather than their horizontal titles."

Actually, both. Kinda impossible to treat someone's soul like you would want your soul treated while at the same time enslaving them.
Just doesn't have that goldeen rule ring to it.

I reckon I shouldn't be surprised at this point that you would even attempt to make this silly argument.

12/23/2010 07:56:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

In the absence of liberty, the soul is gravely damaged. Thus, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. (2 Cor 3:17). (This passage is a Raccoon touchstone.)

I suppose we shouldn't really be surprised that we have a non-leftist reader who justifies racism. I fully cooncur with Phil G about the paleocons, eg. Pat Buchanan and his anti-Semitism.

BTW, still working on today's post. Be about another 30 min...

12/23/2010 08:05:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gagdad Bob said...
In the absence of liberty, the soul is gravely damaged. Thus, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. (2 Cor 3:17). (This passage is a Raccoon touchstone.)"

Aye! Goes without sayin' I would think. Except for that someone lookin' for that loophole that doesn't exist.

12/23/2010 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I never liked Pat Buchanan either. Besides his anti-semitism, he's also a partial Nazi apologist.

Even dementia couldn't explain his "Britain and the US could've prevented WW2" bs.

Yeah, if we had surrendered.

Similarly: Lincoln could've prevented the civil war if he had allowed slavery to expand.

12/23/2010 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Ben
Re: "Actually, both. Kinda impossible to treat someone's soul like you would want your soul treated while at the same time enslaving them.
Just doesn't have that goldeen rule ring to it."

While I agree with you that the revealed wisdom we know today is rightly anti-slavery, I do not condemn those that traveled the path to that realization. Nor will I condemn those who where consumed by the impatient "know it alls". The Puritan streak in America is alive a well and actively seeks prey today. Like a blind hog, it finds an acorn now and again, but generally does more damage than good in its eternal rooting.

Christ lived among slaves, yet never spoke out against slavery. The reason was simply that it did not matter to Him what your earthly condition was, He was interested only in your spiritual condition. Thus his message is quite clear, whether a slave or slave holder, you can be redeemed. (It is hoped that some here would recognized this point).

In earlier posts I surfaced the absence of continuing prophecy within the faith. You hold the position that slave holding is a sin, yet cannot point to its Biblical enunciation. At best, you can make the argument, as I did, that it was a revealed truth outside of the Bible. Maybe what is needed is a Bible that grows with time? How about the Book of John Brown? Unfortunately, it would have to endorse indiscriminate killing to advance the Faith. Think we all know that doesn't work too well.

The best the Bible offers on the subject is the story of Caine and Abel. Should anyone like to reference a different more revealing parable I am all ears.

12/23/2010 08:32:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

"Even dementia couldn't explain his "Britain and the US could've prevented WW2" bs."

Huh? Seems dementia also includes bizarre attribution. Don't know what you are referencing. Good luck finding your dentures.

12/23/2010 08:37:00 AM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

Tig Tog presents an interesting viewpoint of slavery as sort of a job description.

Your "earthly condition" is your means of production, I guess.

I'm guessing one objectionable part of slavery would be a failure to avoid the deadly sin of greed.

You don't need slaves, you only want them so you can make a lot of money. And that's not Christian.

It is obvious nobody wants to be a slave. No one studies up and applies for that position. Slavery hurts slaves.

The slave-holder must use the deadly sin of anger to enforce it. Stike two.

Slavery may not be covered in the Bible but did get coverage by the early Christian philosophers.

Slavery is rife with putrid sin. There is no coverage for it anywhere, not even under a fig leaf.

TKO. Down and out.

12/23/2010 08:51:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tigtog-

Obviously you didn't read Bucahanan's ravings at Townhall with excerpts from his last book a few years back.

Oh, he also mentioned how cruel it was for the US and GB to bomb Dresden.

You can attempt to parse his own words if you want and I assure you I'm not taking his intent out of context. Buchanan believes GB and the US simply did the wrong things diplomatically speaking and if only we did it differently we could've prevented Hitler from starting the war, then he goes into this diatribe of what we could've done specifically.

Of course, he never mentions what Hiler was doing to the Jews even before the war, or what he would've done had war been averted with his ridiculous "if only we did this" scenerios.

Be that as it may, his blatant anti-semitism is more than enough to turn my stomach, so his nazi-sympathizing came as no surprise.

12/23/2010 09:02:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tigtog-

BTW, I think it's apparent you're being obtuse. If you seriously believe that Jesus was providing a loophole for slavery simply because he didn't say verbatim "slavery is bad" and refuse to see how the Golden Rule applies, as well as everything He said about liberty...well, nothin' I or anyone else could say (including Jesus Himself) will convince you otherwise so I'm done wasting my time.

12/23/2010 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Grant
Re: "TKO. Down and out."

Oy Vey!

It has become clear to me that the disciples of verticalness have taken a decidely horizontal u-turn on the subject of slavery. A subject they picked in defense of Lincoln's violence. I can only conclude that my original diagnosis, that Lincoln is viewed as a modern prophet within the Christian pantheon, to be correct. Being a protestant, I don't assign sainthood and have no need of a pantheon of demi-Gods. I don't worship Icon's either.

For the apostacy of doubting Lincoln's celestial goodness I have been defined a racist, a pro-slaver, and lunatic. None are true. It is as if I am talking to Al Sharpton. Such behavior is beneath your claimed serenity and balance. Rather than speak to me, you have chosen to speak around me. It is okay with me that you worship Lincoln, I won't kill you, I just wonder if you are aware that you do worship him?

12/23/2010 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Ben
Re: Buchanan

I don't read him. Sorry about the confusion concerning attribution, I thought you were speaking of my posts.

I am sure you have a full set of teeth. My apologies.

12/23/2010 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

I see your point, Tig Tog. You're topic was the elevation of Lincoln to a saint in the eyes of many.

Yes, my attitude towards Lincoln may be biased. I did put in an obtuse comment about Lincoln era indian fighters to help balance things, which is my way of saying, also, that all aspects need to be considered.

It would help if you would denounce slavery yourself, directly, then we wouldn't infer you were defending it. The inference was quite naturally made that you were.

So what's the scoop, Tig Tog? Lay it out.

12/23/2010 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Grant
Re: "It would help if you would denounce slavery yourself, directly, then we wouldn't infer you were defending it."

I believe I have made that point repeatedly. To satisfy you, I steadfastly renounce slavery. I will also state for the record that at no time have I owned nor abetted the ownership of another person. The question of sin with regard to slavery as a revelation I find more interesting. If you are to worship the abolitionists, why not pick the British Empire, with her Army and Navy. It was the British that got the ball moving and did a remarkable job in extinguishing the slave trade. I believe that it started with a Methodist PM who convinced his fellow Parlimentarians to move against slavery world wide. Interestingly, their achievement was without great blood shed and assignment of multigenerational collective guilt. Further, their current politics are free of claims of collective guilt. They do get beat up for colonialism.

As you may surmise, I don't take well to the assignment of collective guilt. Methinks it is a sin of moral and mental sloth. Further, a read of these posts will show how powerful the story of Caine and Abel are to the America pysche.

12/23/2010 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog said "You hold the position that slave holding is a sin"

You can argue theology with whoever you'd like, I see no reason to go to the highest court, the one right around the corner is clear enough on the matter. I hold the position that slave holding is, in it's fundamentals, anti-American. I don't need the Bible, or Jesus, or anyone else to tell me anything further on the matter at all, it's evil.

Period.

It was also the unremarked upon, never thought twice against, normal as normal could be, way of the world since the world began. Just as leaving unwanted infants exposed on a hillside to die or be eaten had been.

If I were to time travel back and meet Cicero on the road, if it came up in conversation, I'd tell him so. But I wouldn't condemn him for it, neither he, nor his culture or time, knew it to be. That it was normal and accepted changes nothing about the nature of the matter, it was still evil, but they weren't consciously aware of it, and so could not be condemned for it.

What does, and did, change was people’s awareness of it and realization that what had been the forever norm, was and is, not ok.

At that point there comes a time of very uncomfortable realization, not only of your own complicity in evil, but the realization that so much of your life and society is tied up in it, that there is no easy extrication from the matter, and no action that can be taken that would also not cause further harm.

Because of the ideals the Founders embraced, they realized, or began to realize, the nature of the problem and the enormity of the difficulty it posed for them and their new nation. They tried to just agree to end it - that wasn't going to work. They settled on a path they hoped would enable it to peter out and fade away, but most of them knew it was a long shot, as in Jefferson's "I tremble for my country when I contemplate that God is just".

The Founder's had some claim to that of innocents awaking to their complicity in a heinous crime, the pre-civil war South had no such claim, they knowing chose their course.

The Founder's situation was 170 degrees different from that of the early to mid-1800's South. They decided - decided - to prevent the institution from dying out, and not only that, sought, actively and deliberately sought to expand and spread their ideals across the country.

That is what doomed and damned them to destruction at the hands of their brothers who would not be drug further into their chosen pathology.

You can twist the matter any which way you'd like, but that is the essential core of the matter, and your seeking to paint it as a 'puritan thing' or a 'southern' thing, or any shade of poor pitiful me victim hood, 'we were just innocent and good masters', or 'Jesus never spoke against slavery' line, is a transparently clear load of crap.

I refuse to agree that your shit don't stink.

You can claim we're the blinded ones all you want, but our noses work just fine, and your britches are looking pretty lumpy right now.

wv:coontis
huh.

12/23/2010 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

Van, I believe I have been consistent. Slavery as an institution has been with us since the beginning of agriculture. Prior to that it made more sense to slaughter all persons of a conquered tribe rather than capture them. Again, prior to agriculture we roamed the fields and forests for our sustenance, adding more mouths to the equation made no sense.

Slavery has only been defined as a sin relatively recently. The earliest position taken by the Catholic church regarding slavery was circa 1480 with the admonition against trading in Christian slaves. This was directed at Portugal. Roughly a century later the Church stated it was wrong to enslave native peoples in the new world. You will note they had no proscription regarding african or non-Christian slaves. At no time during the first 700 to 800 years of the Church did they declare it a sin to hold or trade slaves. For me to notice this fact, does not make me a NAZI, racist, or apologist, it makes me an objective observer. For my ancestors to inherit this view does not make them satanists. It makes them human.

If the Catholic Church cannot find the prohibition against slavery in the Bible, why am I found wanting when I can't find it?

As regards to the concept of sin and the assignment of collective guilt, I find your arguments flacid, but indicative of the larger archetypal story of Lincoln. That is Caine and Abel and the original fractricide.

Was it a sin to murder your brother? Who is assigned the guilt for this sin is the question. Who is Caine and who is Abel in the Lincoln myth? Until this is resolved, I doubt seriously much could be learned from our fraticide.

Methinks folks have learned the wrong lessons from Lincoln. That any contract between brothers is worthy of breaking and any sin is excused if one side can claim righteousness as his motive. Do you think Caine saw righteousness in his actions? Given this template, what would a wise leader have done?

12/23/2010 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog said “For the apostacy of doubting Lincoln's celestial goodness I have been defined a racist, a pro-slaver, and lunatic”

Don’t you wish.

You’ve been branded a self deceptive apologist for a culture (of the mid 1800’s, not yours, though for some strange reason you attempt to cling to their sullied coat tails) which WAS pro-slavery, WAS racist and which in refusing to see sense or abide by past agreements, sought to expand their slavery based society, even to the point of war, which, IMHO, was certifiable lunacy.

That you can even contemplate that THEY were in the right, and Lincoln, the North, or any other target you’d like to pin it on, were in the wrong, is quite literally, incomprehensible.

And your attempt to stuff Lincoln full of straw in order to see us as deifying him in our eyes, is really… weird. Lincoln, as I’ve said often, was a man, one who gains admirably as you watch him realize what he’s facing, and step by step, after initially attempting to turn away, still rights himself as he goes, and ultimately refuses to turn away or back down on the issue. It was in that very human sense and ability to face his fears and still choose to do what he knew he must, that is where his greatness lays, and I for one won’t reduce it by ascribing celestial strengths or bloodlines.

“Interestingly, their achievement was without great blood shed and assignment of multigenerational collective guilt.”

Yeah, ya know why? Because a large geographical block of their people didn’t refuse to see reason and threaten to break up the empire over their fondness for owning their fellow men. Would that our situation had been the same.

And btw, the British government were Johnny come lately’s to the abolition of slavery. Parts of Rhode Island abolished the practice in the mid 1600’s, followed slowly by several other colonies throughout the 1700’s and early 1800’s.

And does it at all concern you that you are having your most ‘reasoned’ conversation on this matter with grunt, the dandified troll?

12/23/2010 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

So I and all of history are guilty. Got it. That is one hell of a collective to assign guilt to.

From a effeciency point of view assigning cosmic guilt to the world is a pretty quick way of doing things. It is especially easy given most of them are dead and not likely to sass you. It does beg the question, why bother changing if you are guilty to start and end with?

What is it that you wish me to change in myself to avoid this collective guilt? Would singing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" do it? Would supporting Affirmative Action cleanse my soul? From a practical point of view, what will calm the ravenous wolves that demand fealty to Lincoln?

12/23/2010 12:30:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog said “ I believe I have been consistent. Slavery as an institution has b…”

I believe that I've been consistent, this is a matter of this worldly questions of secular good and evil, political philosophy and real politics and finally war. That you, or anyone else wants to try to justify or denounce slavery on the basis of their religious beliefs, is of no concern or relevance to me or the issue I brought up.

“Methinks folks have learned the wrong lessons from Lincoln. That any contract between brothers is worthy of breaking and any sin is excused if one side can claim righteousness as his motive. Do you think Caine saw righteousness in his actions? Given this template, what would a wise leader have done? “

If you want to try and entwine yourself with Cain & Able, that's your own concern, and I suspect, your own little shrine of unappreciated self-worth, but I really don't give a damn about that, there's no need to take the case to the supreme court when the local circuit court judge can give you a definitive ruling on the matter just fine.

Of course there are contexts where we can discuss certain spiritual realities, comparisons and mythic implications, but this issue isn't over that, and your continued attempts to elevate it to that, are silly.

I brought this up in relating a very here and now discussion with an uber-libertarian, and his attempt to dispense with principles by sweeping them aside in favor of a reduced to the ridiculous flat land 'argument' of " no people were killed there, only a donkey. Would you fight a war over the loss of a donkey? A trillion dollars worth of destruction and 600,000 lives lost over the cost of a donkey, and you call this man a great president?!"

You chimed in support of that, of how awful Lincoln was to invade the innocent south and destroy all their stuff.

I won't go into the implications of that again, I've already listed enough of them above. You have spent the last many comments attempting to hide behind this and that excuse, even running back to Cain & Able for cover (and accusation at the same time).

I'm having none of that.

If you support the 'cause of the south', if you paint Lincoln THE MAN, and the North as the aggressors, you are explicitly defending this worldly, secular Evil, while trying to ignore it and drape yourself in it's petticoats of culture, religion and persecution.

You are the one who needs to open their eyes. Please. I’m sure this is getting tiresome for everyone else, just stop the evasions, stop painting yourself in your best martyr profile, and deal with the actual issue.

12/23/2010 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog said "So I and all of history are guilty. Got it. That is one hell of a collective to assign guilt to. From a effeciency point of view assigning cosmic gu..."

What in the hell are you talking about?

" It does beg the question, why bother changing if you are guilty to start and end with?"

Let the hell go of your obsession with the South, will ya? I don't give a rats ass for any notion you have of 'the south', I'm talking to you, and your statements in support of actions taken in the mid 1800's.

Quit trying to deify yourself.

"What is it that you wish me to change in myself to avoid this collective guilt?"

How about you first stop trying to hide in collective guilt, and have the courage to stand up for your own statements?

"Would supporting Affirmative Action cleanse my soul?"

Oh... shut the fuck up.

Enough. I've got a number of friends where, dear to me though they be, we could argue till the stars fell from the sky, and never agree to speak the same language.

Drop it. Done.

12/23/2010 12:48:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

"If you support the 'cause of the south', if you paint Lincoln THE MAN, and the North as the aggressors, you are explicitly defending this worldly, secular Evil, while trying to ignore it and drape yourself in it's petticoats of culture, religion and persecution."

Utter non-sense. You seem unable to understand my discussion on collective guilt and its moral and mental dead end. I do not accept nor recognize your admonition simply because I had nothing to do with it. Neither did you.

I can readily read history and record Lincoln's actions linearly. There were no offers of reapproachment or cooling off. He went directly to the war option.

It would be more accurate to see Lincoln as the abusive spouse who beat his wife to death for seeking a divorce. Oh yeah, and he was kind to dogs.

12/23/2010 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I want to apologize for telling TigTog to bite me yesterday. It sets a bad tone, and my point was made well-enough, I think, without that.

I stand behind the rest, though. To be told that I somehow belive the South should be held accountable for all of America's sins - in other words, to be made some sort of screen for your projections about tyranncal trendy hipster Yankees - is both laughable and insulting. I don't appreciate it.

12/23/2010 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Why did Cain murder Abel?

Not out of any sense of righteousness but out of envy, bitterness, pride and greed.

Why did southern slaveowners wanna keep slavery legal and expand it to other states?
Why did they enslave fellow human beings to begin with?

Yeah, it's glaringly obvious who Cain is in this scenerio just as it's clear who wanted liberty for "all men are created equal."

12/23/2010 01:13:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog said "You seem unable to understand my discussion on collective guilt..."

Damn straight. And you seem unable to appreciate the fact that I, and I believe most of us here, don't give a shit about your collective guilt.

To us it's a simple issue of right and wrong. You want it to be something else, we've no interest in it, and see zero value in it.

Having read on the matter, and that leading up to it, from both sides, I'll just say your 'facts' are selective at best, leaving heavily towards lies by omission.

There is obviously going to be no conversation between us on the matter, I don't even feel like digging up my old posts on the matter, let's drop it.

12/23/2010 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Ben
Re: "Why did southern slaveowners wanna keep slavery legal and expand it to other states?"

Equally perplexing is why would the Federal Government be entitled to pre-empt the free will of new states as a term of joining the union?

Likewise, why do unions wish to enact card check nationally? It is what they know. It is how they live. It is what they belive. Just ask anyone from CA, MI, IL, NY, et. al.

There was once an understanding that the States themselves were the employer of the Fed. I know this too is old hat, but for those that read the agreement, the process was very clear.

12/23/2010 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Well, at least Tigtog is demonstrating why it was necessary to conquer the traitors. Unfortunately, his kind of density responds to nothing less. You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.

12/23/2010 01:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

"You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

Cryptic, but not very illuminating.

12/23/2010 01:34:00 PM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

Not so fast, pardner. Collective guilt still has great force in our culture. It drives policy. You can igonore it, but there it is.

Affirmative action is an attempt to salve guilt.

Nobody is comfy yet with our history. Counterpart to guilt, collective anger, is there too.

This thing is in noways healed. It will take another 300 years to forget the effects of slavery.

We're not talking about the war. Just the slavery.

Every Caucasian has to deal with that twinge of guilt when they read the history books. My people did what?

Every black has to deal with anger when they read the history books. They did what to my people?

And some may want to put it back the way it was. Its good to be one-up, eh?

12/23/2010 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Ben
Re: "Not out of any sense of righteousness but out of envy, bitterness, pride and greed."

While I will agree to pride, and maybe the bitterness, I doubt seriously my forebears left the union due to envy and greed. They just felt that they were not going to remain in an abusive relationship. I do not see how recognizing the futility of reasoning with Puritans full of dictates for their future was anything that could be construed as envy and greed? I do, however, believe a great deal of envy and greed was directed at them. As a matter of fact I believe it was this envy and greed that drove the first years of the war.

Gagdad is a pyschologist, does he recommend that people remain in abusive relationships? Just an honest question.

Maybe a restraining order was required? But then, who would enforce it?

12/23/2010 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

This is too rich -- a culture that systematically brutalizes a third of its population poses as the abused!

12/23/2010 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

"This is too rich -- a culture that systematically brutalizes a third of its population poses as the abused!"

Simple question. Had a period of 8 to 10 years been allowed to elapse as a cooling off/time out between the regions would 600K people been murdered in this interval?

Ultimately slavery was outlawed by the advent of industrialization and the laws of economics not by divine intervention or the personality of Lincoln.

Absent Lincoln, this course would probably have been the best for all concerned.

So what drove Lincoln to the apocolypse? To preserve a union that did not exist? Doubtful. To realize his "Manifest Destiny"? More likely. To free slaves, very unlikely.

He is your angel. I see him differently. But then I count the corpses.

12/23/2010 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog, the only thing you see is what you want to see, and what you refuse to see is that you are giving support to the oldest and brutalist institution known to man... and you make it all better by blaming Lincoln, or whoever, for not allowing the disease to spread as it will.

You won't even see it as that, but only as something the south did, and so should be excused for.

Really... there isn't....

There is literally no Reason to pursue this, please drop it.

12/23/2010 02:29:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Ironically, Tigtog is articulating Lincoln's stated view precisely. His preference was to absolutely not interfere with slavery where it existed (which, ironically, is why modern day leftist revisionists give him such a hard time). But the traitors first seceded, fired the first shot, stole federal property, and killed the first American soldier, so there was little Lincoln could do after that.

I can only imagine the sort of egregious crackpot "scholarship" Tigtog has exposed himself to. Must be like what the Palestinians learn about Jews in their textbooks.

12/23/2010 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

And why shouldn't Puritans lead anyway? Just look at the name! Can anyone else do better? Not likely.

12/23/2010 02:50:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

"And why shouldn't Puritans lead anyway? Just look at the name! Can anyone else do better? Not likely."

Because zealots make the most efficient killers.

12/23/2010 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Because this thread hasn't gone on long enough, here's my 2 cents.

Does the Bible refer to the 'institution of slavery'? Or slaves and masters. I mean, I've struggled with the thought a bit with regard to it in the Bible and with Jesus. Certainly.
I don't know, but it seems when the Book uses the terms 'slave' and 'master' is it more a kin to how we use the term employee today.
Bob talks about how you were a goner if you didn't have a tribe way back when. Was it almost a type of compassion to, in a sense, employ some people who were not capable of self-sufficiency. Or it is just simply how some ended up - as attached helpers in a way.
I don't recall Jesus saying you should exploit your slaves or beat them.
If you were a merchant, you didn't call your son a slave. If you had non-family workers, what did you call them?
I also recall reading that General Washington kept his slaves after the war, until his death because he was worried they couldn't survive without the property, shelter management, etc they were used to.

I also remember Adams and his wife Abigale commenting on how many slaves it took to do something, and the management effort, as opposed to free workers. Something like 10 to 1. That's not a racist comment. That's a comment on where a person gets his motivation.

12/24/2010 08:05:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Oh, Jesus says nothing about video games.

He doesn't need to. When you take everything He says to-gather, you know how he feels about this or that. As Bob says, the rest takes care of itself. Does Jesus have to say everything!?

Oh, and "slave-master" is a way to express a hierarchical relationship.

12/24/2010 08:11:00 AM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12/24/2010 08:42:00 AM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

Well I understand Tig Tog. He's been steeped in anti-Lincoln sentiment. How many times as a child did he hear grown men opine about it? How about his own father?

He's been conditioned.

We are all a product of our environment.

One requirement, among many, for being a "racoon" is that one must admire Lincoln.

So Tig Tog, my man, you must make a decision about who you are and where you want to hang out.

On my part, I do not abhor or denounce GW or Green technology. Therefore, I cannot be a raccoon.

I hang around here anyway as a disssenter, and you can to, my good man.

We shall find many topics to dissent upon and these shall be hashed out. Forward!

12/24/2010 08:47:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To: Van, Gagdad and others
Re: Mortal versus Economic Sins

I will not curse or feed my ancestors into the pyre of modern economic sainthood. There is a difference between mortal sins (i.e., fratricide) and economic sins. To conflate them is to suggest the limit of Biblical instruction (i.e., Alpha to Omega) or the flawed reasoning of the modern saint. While the modern crusade continues, we heretics will remain true to the truth. In the final analysis, for me, blood is thicker than water. Abel was murdered for his offering of faith. The faith was misplaced, his brother killed out of envy. Such was done to those that left their brother rather than slay him. Fratricide is a mortal sin and will bring with it great and lasting retribution.

12/26/2010 08:55:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

You are an appallingly ignorant and grotesquely misguided nut. Please depart and do not return.

12/26/2010 09:11:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home